THE EFFECT OF PROGES TERONE-ESTROGEN IMPLANTS AND BIETHYLSTILBESTROL FEEDING ON FSEDLOT PERFORMANCE AMD CARCASS CHARACTERISTICS OF STEERS By Robert Jack Deans A THESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILO SOPHY Department of Animal Husbandry 1956 ProQuest Number: 10008292 All rights reserved INFORM ATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest. ProQuest 10008292 Published by ProQuest LLC (2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 - 1346 Robert Jack Deans candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Final examination, November 9, 1956, 10:00 A.M., room 101 Anthony Hall Dissertation: The Effect of Progesterone-Estrogen Implants and Diethylstilbestrol Feeding on Feedlot Performance and Carcass Characteristics of Steers Outline of Studies: Major Subject: Minor Subjects: Animal Husbandry— Meats Physiology and Bacteriology Biographical Items: Born, December 4, 1927, Fort Wayne, Indiana Undergraduate Studies, Ohio State University, 1945-1949 Graduate Studies, Ohio State University, 1949-1950 Michigan State University, 1952-1956 Experience: Member: Graduate Assistant, Ohio State University, 1949-1950 Instructor— supervision of institutional meat supply— Ohio State University, 1950-1952 Instructor, Michigan State University, 1952-1956 American Society of Animal Production, and The Society of the Sigma Xi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express his very sincere appreciation to Professor L. J. Bratzler of the Department of Animal Husbandry whose thoughtful guidance, counsel and constructive criticism has contri­ buted so much to the accomplishment of this study. To his foresight must be accredited much of the practical significance of this project. The author is also deeply indebted to Dr. E. P. Reineke of the Depart­ ment of Physiology and Pharmacology who generously provided willing and thoughtful guidance in the physiological aspects of this project. Much credit must be extended to Drs. W. J. VanArsdell and G. A. Branaman of the Department of Animal Husbandry who provided counsel and advice in the development and manipulation of the various phases of the feeding program* To Dr. R. H. Nelson, Head of the Department of Animal Husbandry, and to Dr. W. L». Mailman, Professor of Micro­ biology and Public Health, sire extended deepest personal appreciation for their helpful guidance in the author’s graduate program. Dr. A. M. Pearson and Dr. K. T. Magee, both of the Department of Animal Husbandry, were especially helpful in the collection and interpretation of data* Sincere appreciation is extended to the late Dr. Frank Thorpe, Jr. of the Department of Animal Pathology for his contribution in the preparation and examination of the various tissues. Grateful acknow­ ledgment is hereby expressed to Dr. Erwin Benne of the Department of Agricultural Chemistry for the numerous chemical analyses which were made under his supervision. The author is grateful to Mr. Fred Howe for his help and cooperation in the management and supervision of the feeding program. The author is especially grateful to Dr* J. 0. Reed of the Foundation Laboratories for technical advice and monetary support of the project. The very willing and patient assistance of Mrs. Bea Eichelberger in the preparation and typing of the manuscript is gratefully acknowledged. The warm understanding and encouragement of his wife, Joycelyn, has made this thesis possible and to her the author extends his deepest ap­ preciation. THE EFFECT OF PROGESTERONE-ESTRQGEN IMPLANT S AND DIGTHYLSTILB^STROL FEEDING ON FEEDLOT PERFORMANCE AND CARCASS CHARACTERISTICS OF STEERS By Robert Jack Deans AN ABSTRACT Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Animal Husbandry 1956 Approved c ABSTRACT Livestock feeders and producers have long sought a tool which would reduce costs of production, increase gains, and improve the economic value of the animal product# The administration of estrogens alone to steers has increased the rate of gain but has also resulted in a lowered carcass grade. This study was designed to test the effectiveness of a combination progesterone and estrogen implant as a gain stimulator# The effects of subcutaneous implantation of 1.5 g# progesterone - 50 mg# estradiol combination pellets was compared with the feeding of 10 mg. diethylstilbestrol and no hormone treatment on 800 pound steers on a fattening ration. Implanted cattle gained an average of 3.03 pounds per day as compared to 2.64 pounds per day for the diethylstilbestrol fed lot and 2.30 pounds per day for the control cattle. Implantation resulted in less feed per 100 pounds of gain than oral diethylstilbestrol treatment and oral diethylstilbestrol treated cattle required less feed per 100 pounds gain than controls. Neither hormone treatment had any effect on shrink in transit, dressing percentage, visceral weight, or hide weight. There were no significant differences in carcass grade but implantation resulted in an increase in muscle mass and a reduction in separable carcass fat. Neither moisture content of fat or lean nor ether extract of Longissimus dorsi was affected by treatment. There were no differences in cooking shrink or tenderness of steaks from the treatments. Both hormone treatments resulted in an enlargement of the pro static portion of the urogenital tract indicating a systemic effect by oral diethylstilbestrol admin­ istration. There was no evidence of desquamation or keratinization of epithelium and no evidence of carcinogenesis in any of the tissue examined from the prostatic region. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION...................................................... 1 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Mode of A c t i o n .............. • • • •• .................. . . 3 Effect of Hormone Treatment on Feedlot Performance. . . . . Slaughter Performance ............ 7 15 Physiological Effects • • ................... . . . . . . 16 Carcass Characteristics * • » . • • . • • • • • • * • • • 19 Carcass Hormone Residual Content 23 • • • • • • • • • • * • EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE Trial I ..................................................... 25 Trial I I ...................................................28 Trial I I I ...................................................30 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Trial I . . . • • • • • • . . . . . . . . . ........ • • 35 Trial I I ...................................................43 Trial I I I ................................................... 50 SUMJIARY AND C O N C L U S I O N S ............................. APPENDIX TRIAL I 65 ............................................... 69 TRIAL I I ............................................... 79 TRIAL I I I ............................................. 86 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................. 112 LIST OF TABLES Page 1. PASTURE PERFORMANCE OF STEERS - TRIAL I ............. 36 2* PELLET IMPLANT ABSORPTION - TRIAL I .................. 37 3. SLAUGHTER DATA - TRIAL I 38 4. SLAUGHTER GFFAL DATA - TRIAL I ...................... 38 5. CARCASS GRADE - TRIAL I .............................. 39 6* PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CARCASS CHARACTERISTICS- TRIAL 7. FEEDLOT PERFORMANCE - TRIAL I I ...................... 44 8. PELLET ABSORPTION - TRIAL I I ........................ 45 9. SLAUGHTER PERFORMANCE AND OFFAL YIELDS - TRIAL II . • . . ............................ I * 10. CARCASS GRADE - TRIAL I I ............ . ............. 11. PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CARCASS COMPOSITION - TRIAL II 12. FEEDLOT PERFORMANCE OF EXPERIMENTAL STEERS - TRIAL III 13. SLAUGHTER DATA - TRIAL I I I .......................... 14. CARCASS GRADE AND PELVIC MEASUREMENTS - TRIAL III . . . 15. CORRELATIONS BETWEEN GAIN AND VARIOUS CARCASSCOMPONENTS 41 46 47 . . 49 . 53 55 . 56 - TRIAL I I I ......................................... 58 16. PHYSICAL CARCASS COMPOSITION - TRIAL I I I ........... 59 17. CHEMICAL CARCASS COMPOSITION - TRIAL I I I ........... 60 18. SHEAR VALUES AND COOKING SHRINK - TRIAL I I I ......... 61 LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES Page I. II. III. IV. STEER HEIGHTS - BOTH PASTURE LOTS - TRIALI . . . . . . . LIVE SHRINK - TRIAL I .................................. 70 STOMACH FILL - TRIAL I ............................... .. CAUL FAT (GREATER OEMNTUM) - TRIAL I DRESSING PERCENT (COLD) - TRIAL I ..................... 73 VI. SPLEEN, HEART AND HIDE DATA - TRIAL I ................. 74 LIVER DATA - TRIAL I .................................. 75 VIII. CHILLING SHRINK - TRIAL I ................... ... IX. MEASUREMENTS - CONJUGATE PELVIC DIAMETER - TRIALI X. XI. XII. XIII. 71 ................. 72 V. VII. 69 PHYSICAL CARCASS COMPOSITION - TRIAL I 76 ... 77 ............... 78 STEER HEIGHTS - TRIAL I I .............................. 79 SLAUGHTER AND CARCASS YIELDS - TRIAL II . . ............ 80 SLAUGHTER PERFORMANCE - TRIAL I I ..................... 81 XIV. SLAUGHTER OFFAL DATA - TRIAL I I ...................... .. XV. PHYSICAL SEPARATION 9-10-11 RIB CUT AND ESTIMATEDCARCASS 82 COMPOSITION - TRIAL I I ............................. .. . 83 XVI. CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL CARCASS COMPOSITION - TRIAL II 84 XVII. LONGISSIMUS DGRSI AREA AND EXTERNAL FAT THICKNESS TRIAL II XVIII. XIX. XX. XXI. • • • . . . ........................................ 85 STEER WEIGHTS-CONTROL STEERS - TRIAL I I I ............. 86 STEER WEIGHTS-DIETHYLSTILBESTRQL FED LOT - TRIAL III . • 87 STEER WEIGHTS-IMPLANTED LOT - TRIAL I I I ............... 88 LIVE SLAUGHTER STEER GRADE SCORES - TRIAL III ........... 89 DRESSING PERCENTAGE AND CHILLING SHRINK - TRIAL III • • 90 (continued) DRESSING PERCENTAGE AND CHILLING SHRINK TRIAL III .............................................. 91 FULL AND EMPTY STOMACH WEIGHTS - TRIAL I I I ........... 92 (continued) FULL AND EMPTY STOMACH WEIGHTS - TRIAL III 93 HIDE AND LIVER DATA - TRIAL I I I ....................... 94 SPLEEN AND HEART DATA - TRIAL I I I ..................... 95 CARCASS GRADES - TRIAL I I I ........................... 96 PELVIC DIAMETER - TRIAL III ........................... 97 (continued) PELVIC DIAMETER - TRIAL III ............... 98 PHYSICAL SEPARATION 9-10-11 RIB CUT AND ESTIMATED CARCASS COMPOSITION - TRIAL I I I . . 99 (continued) PHYSICAL SEPARATION 9-10-11 RIB CUT AND ESTIMATED CARCASS COMPOSITION - TRIAL III ............. 100 101 FAT THICKNESS - RIB EYE AREA - TRIAL III EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL FAT - MOISTURE - TRIAL III . . . 102 (continued) EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL FAT - MOISTURE TRIAL III * . .......................................... 103 LONGISSIMUS DORSI - MOISTURE, ETHER EXTRACT - TRIAL III 104 (continued) LONGISSIMUS DORSI - MOISTURE, ETHER EXTRACT - TRIAL I I I ......................................... . 105 COMBINED FAT AND LEAN 9-10-11 RIB CUT MOISTURE AND ETHER EXTRACT - TRIAL I I I .......................... * . 106 Page XXXIII* CALCULATED MOISTURE AND ETHER EXTRACT IN 9-10-11 RIB CUT - TRIAL I I I ........................................ 108 XXXIV. CALCULATED MOISTURE AND ETHER EXTRACT IN 9-10-11 RIB CUT DIETHYLSTILBESTROL XXXV. . 109 CALCULATED MOISTURE AND ETHER EXTRACT IN 9-10-11 RIB CUT IMPLANTED STEERS XXXVI. FEDSTEERS - TRIAL III . . . - TRIALIII ........... 110 WARNER-BRATZLER SHEAR READINGS - COOKING SHRINK TRIAL I I I .............................................. Ill LIST OF FIGURES 1. Trial II Rate of Gain Entire Period - 229 Days • • • • 43a 2. Total Lot Weights Per Weigh Day - Trial III . . . . . . 50a 3. Seminal Vesicle Glands from a Control Steer (Left), A Diethylstilbestrol Fed Steer (Center) and An Implanted Steer (Right) 4. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • » • • • • • • 62a Bulbo-urethral Glands from A Control Steer (Left), A Diethylstilbestrol Fed Steer (Center) and an Implanted Steer (Right) 5. . • • • • . . . . . . . • • • « • ............ ... 63a Cross Section of the Prostatic Region of the Urethra of A Diethylstilbestrol Fed Steer • • • • • • • • • • • • • 7. 62b Cross Section of the Prostatic Region of the Urethra of A Control Steer 6. ................. 63b Cross Section of the Pro static Region of the Urethra of An Implanted Steer ........ • • • • • • .............. . 63c INTRODUCTION Producers and feeders of livestock have long sought tools which would enable them to reduce their costs of production, increase the rap­ idity of the cattle gains and produce a livestock product for which pro­ cessors would pay the highest price. The processor or packer must realize a high carcass yield and a product which is closely related to the appearance of the live animal in order to pay the highest possible price.® The consumer must find the edible portion satisfactory not only in appearance but in tenderness, juiciness and flavor. The meat must be free from any toxic or harmful substances. Meites ^t al. (1952) implanted progesterone-estrogen pellets in heifers for the purpose of effecting lactation. These workers noticed that there was a marked increase in weight in cattle so treated. Other workers, Clegg and Cole (1954) and Andrews et al. (1954), reported that the administration of estrogens alone resulted in an increase in rate of gain but at the same time lowered the carcass grade. Burroughs et al, (1954) reported that the feeding of diethylstil­ bestrol to steers resulted in an increase in rate of gain. This sub­ stance has since been incorporated with supplements for use in commer­ cial cattle feeding operations. However, there have been claims made by various segments of industry that carcasses from diethylstilbestrol fed cattle were lacking in quality and that there was excessive carcass shrink. There have also been reports of an increase in moisture of the - 1 - lean and a decrease in the intramuscular fa.t, or marbling. Henneman et al. (1953) and Jordan et al. (1955) reported that when progesterone was combined with estrogen and implanted into lambs there were increased gains without lowering carcass quality. This experiment was designed to investigate the overall effective­ ness of the combination progesterone and estrogen implant 011 both feedlot and carcass characteristics of steers and to coiapare the effects of this combination implant with the oral administration of diethylstilbestrol. REVIEW In a study of bred and non-pregnant heifers, Snapp and Bull (1944) reported that bred yearling heifers produced materially better finished carcasses than open heifers although there was no signifi­ cant difference in rate of gain. These carcasses contained 20% more fat than open heifers but there was no significant difference in carcass grade, which indicated perhaps, that the affect of pregnancy did not appreciably effect indications of quality in the muscling itself and may have resulted in undesirable side effects on the con­ formation* Meites, et al, (1952) administered progesterone-estradiol pellets to heifers for the purpose of effecting lactation, but also noticed a marked increase in weight in these treated cattle* MODE OF ACTION The physiological action of exogenous estrogenic substances in the animal is not clear, Clegg and Cole (1954) concluded from blood eosinophil studies that diethylstilbestrol causes an increased release of ACTH from the ruminant pituitary which, in turn, brings about adrenal cortical stimulation. Contrasting evidence is seen in observations on anterior pituitary growth hormone content of heifers and steers, as reported by Clegg and Cole (1954), The amount of growth hormone in the glands of diethyl­ stilbestrol implanted heifers was approximately twice that of untreated control heifers where but little difference was noted in rate of gain. The steers, on the other hand, showed little difference in anterior pitui tary growth hormone content while having a markedly increased rate of - 3 - gain. These workers noted, however, that in all cases the pituitary glands of the treated steers were significantly larger than the con­ trols and that gland size, or hormone content, was not necessarily indicative of secretion rate, Ellison and Birch (1936) noted that atrophy of the adrenals and thyroid occurring as a result of long time castration can be repaired by the injection of estrogens. Since the atrophy of these glands resulting from hypophysectomy cannot be similarly repaired, these workers assumed that the effect of estrins on the adrenals in the castrate is due to a release of the stored hypophyseal secretion. Thus, estrogen stimulates the pituitary in some manner. It appears evident that the adrenal plays some role (at least is affected) in the endocrine effect of exogenous estrogenic sub­ stance in livestock. According to Dorfman (1955), progesterone is important as an intermediate in corticoid biosynthesis. Corticoster­ one and desoxycorticosterone are derived by biosynthetic hydroxylating reactions from progesterone, Ellison and Birch (1936) noted that in rats receiving large estrogenic dosages there was a widening of the adrenal cortex l-y to 2 times the width of the cortex in glands of castrate animals, and in many instances it was wider than the cortex in noncastrate controls. The fascicularis and reticularis were markedly increased in width and contained hypertrophied cellular elements. There were relatively numerous mitoses in hormone treated animals. Support for the theory of Clegg might be substantiated by the observation of Ellison and Birch (1936) that there were no adrenal effects noted in estrogenic hormone treated animals which had been hypophysectoraized prior to treatment. Further endorsement of adre­ nal effect was shown by Cahill et al. (1954) who reported that the gross weight of the adrenals increased in steers implanted with 105 mg. diethylstilbestrol. They also noted an increased pituitary weight in both steers and bulls. Similar responses have been noted in sheep by Clegg et al. (1955) who observed significantly larger adrenal and pituitary weights in lambs implanted with diethylstilbestrol. The enlargement of the cowpers, seminal vesicles and prostate glands in estrogen treated wethers as observed by Clegg et al. (1955) is suggestive of androgenic activity* The presence of both androgenic and estrogenic substances in normal males has been demonstrated by Emmens and Parkes (1947) who stated that there is an excretion of estrogen in normal males although in less degree than in females* They noted that estrogen is also pro­ duced by the adrenal in the form of estrone. In many respects, the biological actions of progesterone resemble those of androgens accor­ ding to Burrows (1949). He stated that androgens caused progestational changes in the uterus, prolongation of gestation and a prevention of abortion after spaying. Similarly, progesterone caused a notable in­ crease in weights of the prostate and seminal vesicles and in the height of the epithelial cells. - 5 - The estrogens and androgens share with many other steroids the property of reducing the excretion of sodium and of causing water re­ tention, according to Gaunt et al. (1949). They concluded that probably all steroid hormones affect salt and water metabolism in some way. Winter (1952) stated that a relationship exists between adrenal cortical hormones and water balance in the body. Gaunt et al. (1949) stated that the hormones of the adrenal cortex may cause either a water re­ tention or an acceleration of water excretion. These workers also noted that after chronic administration, progesterone enhanced water exchange in both normal and hypophysectomized rats. Estrogens have been shown to be specific in modifying the water content of the uterus, but not that of the liver nor skeletal muscle of the rat, according to Weisberg (1953). The route of administration of steroid substances to an animal to obtain a desired response is of importance. Emmens (1950) stated that natural estrogens are readily absorbed in the intestine, but when in­ gested they exert relatively little estrogenic activity, owing to oxidation and conjugation in the liver. He stated that the liver can reversibly oxidize estradiol to estrone and to other products and it secretes estrone into the bile. When suspended and injected, estro­ gens are rapidly absorbed and the administration of excessively large doses effects little prolongation of this transient action, according to Ernmens (1950). As will be noted later, the implantation of pellets composed of estrogenic substances has resulted in prolonged levels of estrogenic activity in both sheep and cattle. Emmens (1950) stated that certain synthetic estrogenic-like substances, namely: diethylstilbestrol, hexestrol and dienestrol do exert an effect when administered orally. He postulated that these synthetic estrogens are not themselves es­ trogenic but exert their effects after metabolic transformation in the body. EFFECT OF HORMONE TREATMENT ON FEEDLOT PERFORMANCE Many reports have substantiated the capacity of exogenous estrogen treatment to stimulate rate of gain in slaughter cattle. In experiments with implantation of diethylstilbestrol in steers, Clegg and Cole (1954) (60 and 120 milligrams), O'Mary et al. (1956) (36 milligrams), Clegg and Carroll (1956) (60 milligrams), Cahill et al. (1954) 105 milligrams implanted twice) have shown significant increases in rate of gain over control steers. It is also interesting to note the range in dosage used by these workers which produced gain stimulus. The implantation of 80 milligram pellets of dienestrol im­ proved gains in steers according to Andrews et al. (1954). The effect of diethylstilbestrol implants (60 milligrams) in heifers was reported by Clegg et al. (1954) to cause relatively less response in rate of gain than was shown in steers. It required a second 60 milligram implant 66 days after the original implant to cause a significant increase in rate of gain. They concluded that heifers require more than 60 milligrams of estrogen implant to produce a dis­ tinct response. However, Clegg and Carroll (1956) reported a significant increase in the rate of gain of yearling crossbred heifers which had been implanted with 60 milligrams of diethylstilbestrol. They also noted that spaying of heifers had little effect on their response to diethylstilbestrol implantation when compared with intact implanted heifers* Dinusson et_ al. (1950) concluded that the rate of gain was proportional to the amount of estrogen present when they compared 500 pound heifers which were spayed, intact, and implanted with 42 milli­ grams diethylstilbestrol. It is of interest to note that the spayed heifers gained significantly less than the intact control heifers* The effect of estrogens alone in stimulating rate of gain is clear but their use has resulted in lowered carcass quality in cattle and lambs. However, recent work.', with lambs, Henneman et al. (1953), Jordan et al. (1955), have shown that when estrogens are combined with progesterone, a greater stimulation of gain was noted than with estrogens alone. Pincus and Zahl (1937) noted that when progesterone was combined with estrogen there was an increase in recoverable urinary estrogen as compared to estrogen administration alone and they theorized that progesterone gives estrogen partial protection against destruction. Combination implants in lambs showed marked stimulation in gain over non-treated animals according to Andrews et al. (1956). In contrast with these results, Jordan (1953) reported that lambs implanted with diethylstilbestrol alone gained more than those treated with a com­ bination of progesterone-diethylstilbestrol when on a fattening ration. The application of this combination treatment to cattle was perhaps first suggested by the observation of Keites et al. (1952) that heifers im­ planted with progesterone-estrogen to induce lactation, also showed marked - 8 - increases in weight and finish. It has been reported by Luther et al. (1954) that the combinations of 1500 milligrams progesterone and 50 milligrams estradiol; 300 milligrams testosterone and 50 milligrams estradiol; 1500 milligrams progesterone and 50 milligrams diethylstil­ bestrol; implanted subcutaneously in 800 pound Hereford steers resulted in a 42-48/6 increase in rate of gain over controls. A combination implantation of 60 milligrams diethylstilbestrol and 200 milligrams progesterone resulted in a significant increase in gain over control steers according to Andrews et al. (1954). These workers also illus­ trated the importance of the route of administration as shown when 120 milligrams dienestrol and 300 milligrams progesterone administered intramuscularly as a semi-solid injectable base produced no overall stimulus in gain. However, there was a stimulation during the first two months which indicated a lack of prolonged effect by this treat­ ment . That the oral administration of synthetic estrogens will stimulate rate of gain was shown by the reports of Andrews et al. (1955), with 10 milligrams diethylstilbestrol per day to 450 pound calves and Burroughs et al. (1955), with 5-10 milligrams diethylstilbestrol per day to yearling steers and heifers. Burroughs et al. (1955) reported that heifers did not show as great a degree of response as steers when the same dosage of diethylstilbestrol was fed. These workers claimed that the response to oral diethylstilbestrol is equally as effective the last half of the feeding period as it was the first half (from five experiments ranging from 112 to 168 days in length). This was not shewn to be the case, - 9 - however, in experiments with oral diethylstilbestrol by Perry et al* (1955) who noted the greatest response the first 28 days and Beeson et al. (1956) who noted that increase in growth rate was greatest on 750 pound cattle during the first 98 days of the 179 day test* Dien­ estrol and hexestrol, when fed at the same rate as diethylstilbestrol (10 milligrams per day), did not produce as rapid gains as diethyl­ stilbestrol but produced as efficient a gain response, according to Andrews et al. (1955). The oral administration of diethylstilbestrol to lambs has shown somewhat less striking effects as reported by Jordan et al* (1955). The substance was fed at the rate of 0.1 milligrams, 0.5 milligrams and 1.5 milligrams per head per day and showed no sig­ nificant stimulus. When Henneman (1955) fed diethylstilbestrol to lambs at the rate of 3 milligrams per head per day, he observed that there was a significant increase in gain. It is often assumed that cattle making more rapid gains are more efficient in the utilization of feed. Greater feed efficiency has usually accompanied hormone administration according to Andrews et al* (1955) and Burroughs et al. (1955) with oral synthetic hormone ad­ ministration; Luther et al. (1954) with combination estrogen proges­ terone implants; and Dinusson jet al, (1950) with 42 milligrams diethyl­ stilbestrol implants. But as reported by these workers, hormone treatment also resulted in increased appetite and feed consumption, which led to the speculation as to whether these treatments were solely a principle of increased feed intake. Dinusson et al. (1950) converted feed con­ sumption to a TDN basis and then corrected to a constant level by 10 - means of covariance analysis. They reported that, although differences in gains of treated and control groups were significant at the 1/? level, when TDN w'as corrected to a constant level the differences in gain were not significant. feed consumption. Thus, the increased gains were due mainly to greater However, B eeson et al. (1956) observed that feed consumption was ”virtually the same for all lots, therefore, indicating an obvious increase in efficiency” in the lot receiving 10 milligrams diethylstilbestrol per day, in the lot receiving 5 milligrams diethyl­ stilbestrol plus 50 milligrams testosterone, and in the lot receiving 175 milligrams testosterone per day. Whitehair et al. (1953) reported that the implantation of 24 milligrams of diethylstilbestrol into lambs had no apparent effect on the digestibility of major nutrients of the ration other than a slight increase in the digestibility of the crude fiber. Perry et al. (1955) found that faster gains vere made with di- ethylstilbestrcl feeding without an increase in feed consumption. These results indicated an increased efficiency in utilization of feed consumed. However, Richardson et al. (1955) noted that there was a significant lowering of digestibility when 10 milligrams of diethyl­ stilbestrol was fed daily to 450 pound steer calves, although there were increased gains. The stability of synthetic estrogen in the rumen was studied by Cheng and Burroughs (1954), who reported that when diethylstilbestrol was incubated aerobically with rumen fluid for 24 hours at 40°C, a considerable loss was observed. They concluded that since the rumen 11 - is primarily anaerobin, no appreciable amount of diethylstilbestrol is lost in the forestomach when fed to cattle or sheep* The adaptation of hormone treatment to broad types of feeding programs is of considerable economic and practical significance* Klosterman et al. (1955) reported that with diethylstilbestrol treat­ ment, reduction in the amount of protein fed resulted in a lower rate of gain. Burroughs et al. (1955) reported that steers receiving oral diethylstilbestrol (5 milligrams per day) on a high roughage ration plus 2.5 pounds corn and 1 pound supplement responded almost as well as cattle on a high grain fattening ration. Similarity of response on pasture without supplemental feeding was obtained by 0 1Mary and Cullison (1956), who reported that 24 milligrams diethylstilbestrol implants in 600-650 pound steers resulted in a significant increase in gains. Conversely, Clegg and Cole (1954) found that steers and heifers implanted with 60 and 120 milligrams diethylstilbestrol and grazed on irrigated pasture without supplementary feeding did not make a significant increase in gain over controls. However, when they supplemented 2 year old steers on pasture with 5 pounds of rolled barley per head per day, noticeably better gains were made over non-implanted controls. They concluded that sufficiently high energy nourishment must be supplied if growth response is to be recognized. While some major differences in response have occurred between the species, it is of interest to note that Wilkinson et al. (1954) reported that hormone treatment appeared to be as effective for lambs on pasture as it was for those on a high concentrate ration. - 12 - This was also observed in lambs by Clegg et al. (1955). Light et al. (1956) investigated the use of urea as a source of nitrogen for lambs and found that the feeding of diethylstilbestrol produced significantly greater gains when urea provided up to 41% of the protein equivalent of the ration. They found no interaction between the type of protein and diethyl­ stilbestrol. Luther £t al. (1954) reported that improvement of rate of gain of lambs implanted with 250 milligrams progesterone and 10 milligrams estradiol was independent of ration, sex, implant time, weight of animal and initial live grade. Richardson et al, (1955) studied the effects of feeding diethylstilbestrol to 450 pound steer calves during a wintering period and noted no significant differences in gain and that many diethylstilbestrol treated animals developed high tail heads and weak backs. However, when Andrews et al. (1955) fed 10 milligrams diethylstilbestrol per dajr to heifer and steer calves on a fattening ration, they produced per day. .47 pound more gain per animal ¥ith heavier cattle, Burroughs et al. (1955) reported in­ creases in gain from 1000 pound cattle which were fed diethylstilbestrol. The administration of so-called female hormonal substances to steers has resulted in the development of some undesirable side effects, as re­ ported by C'Hary et al. (1956), who noted that there was a significant de­ pression of the topline, as estimated by scoring in steers implanted with 36 milligrams of diethylstilbestrol. Bell et al. (1954) noted an increase in teat length in diethylstilbestrol fed steers which was 2 to 4 times that of the control steers. Oral diethylstilbestrol treatment of cat­ tle produced no undesirable side effects, such as, mammary development, - 13 - high tail heads, or relaxation of the muscles in the sacral lumbar region according to Burroughs et al. (1955). These results were not substantiated by Richardson et al* (1955) who noted that many 450 pound steer calves fed 10 milligrams diethylstilbestrol per day developed high tail heads and weak backs. Andrews et al. (1955) reported that steer and heifer calves receiving oral diethylstilbestrol, dienestrol, and hexestrol exhibited mammary development, and enlargement of the vulva was observed in the heifers* In lambs, certain undesirable conditions have followed adminis­ tration of estrogenic substances* The most common effects were prolapse of the rectum, Jordan et al. (1955), and stimulation of mammary development, Andrews et al. (1956). Bell, et al* (1955) investigated the effects of Synovex pellets (progesterone-estradiol implants) and diethylstilbestrol pellet implante.tion on lambs. They noted that all lambs receiving hormones and particularly the lambs receiving the progesterone-estradiol implant carried their tails higher and showed swelling in the rectal region. There is little agreement in the results of hormone treatment on shrink in transit. Beeson et al. (1956) noted that diethylstilbestrol fed steers had slightly less transit shrink than controls. However, Andrew’s jet al. (1956) reported that in lambs shipped the same distance as reported by Beeson et al. (1956), the diethylstilbestrol fed and dienestrol fed lambs had a higher transit shrink than controls. 14 - SLAUGHTER PERFORMANCE Clegg and Cole (1954) reported no differences in dressing percentage as a result of implantation of diethylstilbestrol at both 50 and 120 milligram levels in cattle. They also reported no differences in dressing percentages of lambs receiving either 12 or 24 milligram pellets of diethylstilbestrol. O'Mary et al. (1956) also reported no effect on dressing percentage with 36 milligram diethylstilbestrol implants. However, a decrease in dressing percentage was noted by Clegg and Carroll (1956) of heifers treated with 60 milligram pellets of diethylstilbestrol. A decrease in hot dressing percentage was noted in lambs which were implanted with 12 milligrams diethylstil­ bestrol and in lambs which were fed diethylstilbestrol by Jordan et al. (1955). The lot of lambs treated with Synovex pellets (250 milligrams progesterone - 10 milligrams estradiol) did not show any difference in dressing percentage from the nontreated control lambs according to Jordan et al. (1955). But the same dosage of progesterone- estradiol lowered dressing Dercentage 2% in lambs as reported by Luther et al. (1954). Bell et al. (1955) reported that hormone treated lambs implanted with either diethylstilbestrol or diethylstilbestrol-progesterone yielded between 3.5 and 4.0^ less than control lambs. The cooler shrink (hot to cold carcass) of carcasses from cattle implanted with 60 milligrams diethylstilbestrol was not different from that of control carcasses according to Clegg and Cole (1954). They reported that the implantation of 60 milligrams diethylstilbestrol - 15 - resulted in a greater percentage of lean, a greater eye muscle (L. dorsi) area, and a smaller proportion of fat. in the ^moisture of the leah’,?. ether extract* However, there was no difference There was also a smaller percentage of They observed that fecal nitrogen remained unchanged, whereas urinary nitrogen decreased, thus indicating a true nitrogen storage* Treatment doubled nitrogen storage - probably in the form of protein* Similarly, Hhitehair et al* (1953) noted a 38% increase in nitrogen retention in lambs implanted with 24 milligrams diethylstil­ bestrol* This was accompanied by a marked decrease in urinary nitrogen excretion indicating increased efficiency of utilization of absorbed nitrogen. Heifers implanted with 60 milligrams diethylstilbestrol produced carcasses which had larger eye muscle, containing less ether extract and more moisture, according to Clegg and Carroll (1956). PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS Observations on blood composition in estrogen treated animals showed that treated lambs had the ability to maintain plasma protein levels and, with decreased plasma non protein nitrogen, indicated a more efficient utilization of absorbed nitrogen according to Kilkinson et al* (1954). Blood phosphorus did not show as rapid a decline in hormone treated beef heifers as in control, intact, or spayed heifers as reported by Binusson £t al. (1950). These workers stated that with increasing age there is normal decline in blood phosphorus. Dinusson et al. (1950) also noted that blood lipids were highest in the spayed heifers - the slowest gaining group. No significant differences in blood serum Ca were noted by these workers. Whitehair et al. (1953) noted a marked decrease in the amount of calcium excreted in both the feces and urine of lambs implanted with 24 milligrams diethyl­ stilbestrol. Treated lambs retained nearly 60% more calcium. These workers also noted a 30% increase in phosphorus retention in treated lambs, which was in agreement with the results of hinusson et al, (1950) with beef heifers, ¥ilkinson et al, (1954) noted a significant increase in total liver dry matter in implanted lambs except when molasses was added to the basal ration. "This was probably due to hypertrophy which resulted from the extra work of detoxification of the implanted diethyl­ stilbestrol". Increased liver weights were noted in both diethylstil­ bestrol implanted lambs and lambs receiving combination diethylstilbestro1-progesterone implants according to Bell ^t al. (1955). They also noted larger kidney£ and hearts in treated lambs, but these workers also reported the administration of estrogens caused hypertrophy of the accessory sex glands. According to Smmens and Parkes (1947), daily injections of one milligram of estrone caused extensive growth of the smooth muscle of the prostate and seminal vesicles and a de­ crease in glandular tissue. "No growth of the vesicular lumen occurred." According to Burrows (1949) androgens cause enlargement and secretory activity of the prostatic epithelium. In cattle, C^egg and Cole (1854) noted that the implantation of 60 milligrams of diethylstilbestrol for 104 days resulted in an increase in the seminal vesicle weights of treated animals. Histological examination of the treated cattle showed that there were columnar epithelial cells as contrasted to somewhat low 17 cuboidal type epithelial cells in the untreated group. The adminis­ tration of male sex hormones to the castrate rat increased the height of the epithelial cells according to Turner (1955), Observations by- Clegg and Carroll (1956) on secondary sex glands of steers which had been implanted with 60 milligrams diethylstilbestrol showed a stimu­ lation of epithelial cells as well as an increase in fibrous tissue, thus, indicating a presence of both male and female activity resulting from diethylstilbestrol treatment alone, Emmens and Parkes (1947) stated that estrogens (estradiol) promoted the development of smooth muscle in the seminal vesicles of young castrated rats. They also noted that daily injections of 1 milligram or more of estrone caused extensive growth of the smooth muscle of the prostate and a decrease in glandular tissue. No growth of the vesicular lumen occurred. Ruliffson et al. (1954) noted that, with the implantation of lambs, male tissue may be enlarged to such an extent as to cause death due to the prevention of urination. They concluded that this enlargement may be caused by the direct action of diethylstilbestrol but that it is more likely caused by male-like hormones (neutral 17ketosteroids) probably secreted by the adrenal glands under the influ­ ence of ACTH. This conclusion was strengthened by the fact that they observed a marked increase in the 17-ketosteroids in the urine of treated lambs. This accessory sex gland enlargement has been noted by others, namely Wilkinson _et al. (1954) and Clegg ejt al. (1955). Bell et al. (1955) reported that the increase in size of accessory sex organs in wether lambs implanted with orogesterone-estrogen combination was generally associated with the size of the dosage. - 18 - CARCASS CHARACTERISTICS Carcass grade was reduced by implantation of 60 or 120 milligrams diethylstilbestrol in steers according to Andrews et al. (1954). It should be noted that these workers removed cattle from test at two different times, marketing the heavier cattle first and that all highest grading cattle were in the group marketed last. Clegg and Carroll (1956) noted somewhat lower carcass grade in steers implanted with 60 milligrams diethylstilbestrol and an even more apparent grade reduction in carcasses from yearling heifers which had been implanted with the same dosage. However, when lower level diethyl­ stilbestrol implants (36 milligrams) were used, 0*Mary £t al. (1956) obtained no significant differences in carcass grades. Clegg and Cole (1954) noted that a greater percentage of the higher grades was consistently found in the untreated animals in both steers, heifers and ewe lambs when compared with the implanted animals. Treated and control animals were fed the same length of time. One of the advantages claimed by Burroughs et al. (1955) for the use of oral diethylstilbestrol is that it does not lower carcass grade. However, Perry et al. (1955) noted that diethylstilbestrol fed steers produced carcasses that were slightly inferior to those from either dienestrol or hexestrol fed lots and especially from the control lot. Kastelic et al. (1956) studied carcass characteristics from cattle fed varying levels of diethylstilbestrol* They noted that correlations of carcass characteristics of animals within lots with rate of gain were higher than those for carcass characteristics with levels of diethylstilbestrol fed. Regardless of the amount of diethylstilbestrol fed, - 19 - they reported that there was larger variation in carcass characteristics among animals within lots than there was between lots. They noted that the average daily gain was positively correlated with the fat content of the 9-10-11 rib cut and with carcass grade. There was a significant positive correlation in one trial between rate of gain and carcass grade. Studies by Henneman et al. (1953) with lambs given a combination pro­ gesterone-estradiol implant showed that the carcasses produced were not significantly different from controls. A highly significant corre­ lation was obtained by Henneman (1954) between days on feed and carcass grade. This statistic would indicate that the increased growth rate of the hormone treated lambs coupled with a lower carcass grade was due to an increase in scale without an increased rate of feeding. At this point, it may be noteworthy to review the theory set forth by Hammond (1932) that different anatomical regions and tissues grow differently and in a definite order of development in the sheep. The dressed carcass as a whole was found to be later maturing than the visceral organs and parts. The major tissues of the carcass exhibited a marked differential rate of growth with increasing age. The order of de­ creasing growth (fastest to slowest) followed an outward trend from the central nervous system to bone tendon, muscle, intermuscular fat, and finally, subcutaneous fat. In reference to this theory, Wilkinson et al. (1955) concluded that diethylstilbestrol hastened the development of the earlier maturing tissue and retarded the development of the later maturing tissue. They stated that the retardation of the late maturing tissue may be brought about by the increasing utilization of nutrients by the earlier maturing tissue. The priority of earlier maturing tissue for available nutrients appears to be enhanced by estrogen. - 20 - The effect of limited feeding on lambs treated with diethylstil­ bestrol pellets offers considerable insight into the mechanism of action which takes place when an animal is treated with estrogens. As reported by kilkinson et al. (1955), limited fed treated lambs did not show the increase in carcass development which was shown by the full fed treated lambs. The visceral development was greater in the limited fed treated lambs which lent support to the concept or theory of priority of nutrients for earlier maturing tissue. Limited fed treated lambs showed greater eye muscle cross sections after 49 days on feed but not after 84 days on feed. Tull fed treated lambs did not show this decreased development effect. Thus, these workers concluded that in limited fed lambs, the stimulus for muscular growth brought about by the hormone was apparently limited by the nutritional adequacy of the ration. The stimulus was great enough in the early stages of the experiment to produce muscular development at the expense of the adipose tissues, particularly sub cutaneous fat. It was noted tha.t limited fed treated lambs showed less subcutaneous fat at both 49 and 84 day intervals whereas full fed treated lambs showed less sub­ cutaneous fat at only the 49 day period. Thus, the possibility existed that the subcutaneous fat deposition was not delayed as long in the full fed lambs when sufficient nutrients were available for the demanded muscular development. Jordan et al* (1955) found that there was very little difference in carcass grade between Synovex treated lambs and controls even though the Synovex lambs gained significantly faster. - 21 - However, those lambs which received diethylstilbestrol implants produced lower grading car­ casses. Clegg and Cole (1954) observed the following reasons for lower grades in the treated carcasses: (1) The muscle fibers were larger and had a more coarse appear­ ance. The color of the meat was a darker red than the characteristic pink appearing meat of the controls. (2) The extent of fat infiltration between the muscle fibers, known as marbling, was distinctly less. (3) The amount of both internal and external fat deposition was considerably reduced. (4) The shoulders and rounds were heavier but the loins were lighter than the controls. (5) The conformation was atypical. Carcasses appeared similar to that of stags, being softer In the flank, and lacked outside covering and showed less fat. Henneman et al. (1953) reported that lambs treated with a combination progesterone-estradiol implant had a two percent higher moisture content in the external fat than non treated lambs. Bell et al. (19 55) reported quite different results on carcass grade with the progesterone-estradiol implant as compared with oral diethylstilbestrol treated lambs and with lambs implanted with diethylstilbestrol. They noted in one test that all hormone treated lambs produced carcasses grading nearly a full grade less than untreated lamb carcasses. In another test, lambs re­ ceiving a progesterone-estradiol implant and lambs receiving diethyl­ stilbestrol orally produced lower grading carcasses than untreated lambs and lambs receiving 15 milligram diethylstilbestrol implants. Bell et al. (19 55) investigated the tenderness, juiciness, palatability and cooking loss of legs from implanted and control lamb carcasses. They found no consistent differences between lots in these factors. CARCASS HORMONE liESIDUAL CONTENT Turner (1956) utilized the ovarectomized mouse uterine weight response technique to detect any estrogenic activity in various tissues of animals fed diethylstilbestrol. No detectable residual estrogen i*as found in edible red meat, rib-eye, neck trimmings, tongue, liver, heart, spleen and brain. However, the kidneys showed evidence of 4 parts per billion of residual estrogen, and lungs indicated 10-12 parts per billion* Turner also reported that dairy cattle fed 10 milligrams diethylstilbestrol showed as much estrogenic activity in the dried feces as was present in the feed. Preston £t al. (1956) used the uterine weight response of intact immature mice to estiirate residual estrogenic actiyity in carcasses from cattle fed diethylstilbestrol. They con­ cluded that no detectable estrogenic residues were found in lean, fat, liver, heart, kidney or pooled offal organs. Twombly (1951) found that C ^ labelled diethylstilbestrol was not found to be significantly concentrated after 10 and 21 hours the uterus, adrenals, in the mammary gland, mammary cancer, or pituitary of the dog, rabbit or mouse. Livers were found to contain 1% to 5% of the radioactivity and the kidney con­ tained 1.7% of the administered radioisotope. Residual estrogens were found by Stob ^t al. (1954) in the meat of carcasses of steers, lambs, and chickens which had been implanted with synthetic estrogens. They noted estrogenic activity in muscle and liver of steers but only in muscle of lambs. They presented a series of con­ clusions which are included in the following paragraph. - 23 - First, there was no demonstrable effect of site of hormone im­ plantation on the amount of hormone retained in the edible tissue. Secondly, species differences in amount of hormone present were pro­ bably a function of time lapse after treatment of animals. Poultry tissue residues were markedly reduced with time, whereas in lamb tissue the loss was slight. Third, the greater the amount of hormone used, the greater the residual retained. Fourth, the type of hormone used had no effect on the residual amount in muscle tissue. Fifth, heat per se (150°C for two hours), had no effect on the hormone. - 24 - PROCEDURE The development of the project encompassed three separate feeding trials* TRIAL I Sixteen Hereford steers averaging about 600 pounds were selected from a previous alfalfa brome vs* grass hay experiment and divided as equally as possible into two lots according to previous gain, weight, grade (finish) and type* Each let contained equal numbers of animals from each previous treatment group* One lot remained as a control and on May 22, 1952, each steer in the second lot was implanted subcutaneously in the neck with 10 pellets containing 1GOO milligrams progesterone and 100 milligrams of diethylstilbestrol. Implantation was accomplished in a squeeze chute by malting an incision in the hide posterior to the ear with a scalpel, and inserting under the hide a small trocar-type instrument which contained one dosage. The incision was sutured. Each pellet dosage was weighed prior to its implantation in order to obtain an estimation of absorption. Four steers from each lot were placed on alfalfa brome pasture and the remaining 8 steers (4 from each lot) were put on bluegrass pasture* On August 13th, all pellet residues from the original im­ plantation were removed and then these previously treated cattle were reimplanted with a similar pellet dosage. A supplemental feeding of 12 pounds of corn and 1.5 pounds of soybean oil meal was started in both lots and continued through December 11, 1952. It was necessary to drive all cattle from pas lure lots to the experimental b a m for - 25 - weighing (approximately 1 mile)* Cattle were weighed individually off test at 3:00 P.M. December 11, 1952, and then trucked to a local slaughter plant and slaughtered on December 12, 1952. weights were taken at 6:00 A.M. prior to slaughter. based on the difference between these two weights* Individual Live shrink was Attempts were made to recover pellet residues from all cattle at the time of slaughter. The recovered pellets were washed, dried and weighed. The weight of the full and was obtained. weighed. empty digestive tract of The greater and lesser omentum were first each animal removedand The rumen, reticulum and abomasum were weighed full, emptied and reweighed. The omasum was not emptied. The entire intestinal tract was weighed intact with the mesentary attached. Carcass weights were taken immediately after dressing before shrouding and again 48 hours later. Dressing percentage was based on Michigan State Univer­ sity weights off test December 11 and chilled carcass weights. Carcass grades to the nearest one-third were based on the ribbed carcasses with the characteristics of the rib-eye being taken into consideration in designation of grade. All carcasses were graded by a Federal grader. Reports of elevation of the tail head in hormone treated cattle prompted the measurement of the conjugate diameter of the pelvic inlet. One measurement was made at the dorsal surface of the anterior portion of the acetabular branch of the pubis on a line perpendicular to the ventral surface of the sacrum. A second measurement was made at the dorsal surface of the posterior segment of the pubic symphysis on a - 26 - line perpendicular to the ventral surface of the sacrum. Both sides of each carcass were measured* A wholesale 7-rib cut was removed from each carcass at the packing plant according to the method of Hankins and Howe (1946)* These were returned to the Meats Laboratory where the 9-11 rib cut was removed according to the procedure of Hankins and Howe (1946) and frozen for later division into separable fat, separable bone and separable lean* The 9-10-11 rib cut has been shown to be a reliable estimate of entire carcass fat, lean and bone by Hankins and Howe (lb>46). The following regression equations established by these workers were applied to con­ vert the 9-10-11 rib components to a carcass basis: Lean Y * 16*08 + *80 x Fat Y = 3.54 + .80 x Bone Y 88 5*52 + *57 x All chemical analyses of percent moisture, percent ether extract, iodine number and protein were conducted according to the modifica­ tions by Benne (1955) of Association of Official Agricultural Chemists1 methods. External fat was removed from the rib section, then tigntly packed in bottles and stored at 0°F for moisture determination* Another ex­ ternal fat sample from each animal was ground twice through a 3/32” plate and then heated in a water bath to render fat from the non-fat material* This rendered fat was poured into bottles, sealed and held at 0°F prior to the determination of the iodine number. Composite samples of lean from all the carcasses in each treatment group were - 27 - prepared by combining the Longissimus dorsi and separable lean from the rib sections from all carcasses in each group and then grinding this lean three times through a 3/32n plate* Two samples were ob­ tained from this material, sealed in glass jars and stored at 0°F prior to laboratory analysis. Determinations for moisture, ether extract and protein were made on these composite samples* TRIM, II On February 6, 1953, a group of 16 Shorthorn steers from a pre­ vious silage feeding experiment were paired as to previous rate of gain, weight, grade (finish), and general type, and placed in two lots* Each lot contained two animals from each of four previous treat­ ment groups* The cattle were weighed individually on February 10 for the initial test weights* All cattle in one lot were implanted subcu- taneously in the neck with pellets containing a total of 3 grams progesterone and 100 milligrams diethylstilbestrol on February 13, 1953* There was no subsequent implantation during the 76 day treatment period* Implantation was performed as described in Trial I* Pellets in four of the eight implanted steers also contained 30 milligrams of compound F (17-hydroxy-corticosterone) in order to study the effectiveness of i this substance in minimizing the development of connective tissue around the pellets* Weights of each pellet dosage recovered were obtained for absorption information. The dry-lot feeding program included soybean oil meal at a constant rate, ground shelled corn, corn silage and trace mineral salt* The corn ration was started at the rate of four pounds per day and was gradually increased until the cattle were thought to be - 28 - at their maximum daily corn consumption# All cattle were initially fed corn silage at the rate of 37 pounds per day ana then the silage fed was gradually reduced as the amount of corn in the ration was in­ creased* In the event either lot left large quantities of feed in the bunk by the subsequent feeaing time, this feed was removed, weighed and entered into the overall feed consumption records* On April 3, the supplement was reduced to 2.4 pounds per day in the control lot and to 2.7 pounds per day in the implanted lot# At this time, the control steers were averaging 26.2 pounds of silage per day and 13.2 pounds of corn, whereas the implanted steers were averaging 26.2 pounds of silage per day and 15.0 pounds of corn per day. Both lots remained on these respective rations for the remainder of the feeding trial. Individual weights were taken on April 26, 27 and 28 and the average of these three day weights used as a final weight in calculating feedlot performance. During the experiment, one of the steers in the implanted lot developed a swollen area in the neck around the site of implantation and the steer eventually became lame and unthrifty which necessitated its removal from the experiment. Feed consumption data were tnen adjusted for the entire period to account sumption of this animal during the period A il for the estimated feed con­ itwas on test. cattle were weighed early on the morning of April 29 and then trucked to a local packer for slaughter on this date. taken just prior to slaughter. - 29 - Weights were Pellets were removed from the neck region of implanted cattle following removal of the head and opening of the hide over the neck* Pellets were then returned to Michigan State University where they were washed, dried and weighed* Slaughter data were obtained exactly as described in Trial I* Hot carcass weights were taken on the slaughter floor and cold carcass weights were taken approximately 60 hour's later. Dressing percentage was calculated by using live cattle weights immediately prior to slaughter (slaughter weights) and chilled carcass weights* Carcasses were graded ribbed by a Federal grader, with rib eye (Longissimus dorsi) characteristics considered in the designation of grade. The rib samples were taken and prepared for physical and chemical analysis as described in Trial I with the iollowing modification* Composite samples of lean were prepared from all choice carcasses and all prime carcasses within each treatment group and analyzed separately according to this classification* TRIAL III In this trial., yearling Hereford steers from a previous feeding trial were divided on December 3, 1954, into 3 lots of 14 steers each on the basis of previous gain, weight, type and grade. For a period of 140 days, starting on December 3, 1954, all lots were fed 1.5 pounds of protein supplement and 20 pounds of corn silage per steer per day. Ground shelled corn was fed according to appetite. ment was made up of the following: The protein supple­ soybean oil meal, *50 pound; urea, .087 pound; limestone, .20 pound; trace mineral salt, *05 pound; and - 30 ground shelled corn, .663 pound. ment and served as a control lot. One lot received no hormone treat­ A second lot received 10 milligrams diethylstiloestrol in the supplement. The drug-containing supplement was prepared by dissolving diethyl­ stilbestrol crystals in ether and mixing this substance in corn oil at the rate of 760 milligrams of diethylstilbestrol per 100 milliliters corn oil. The ether was removed by the moderate application of heat. This corn oil solution was mixed into the supplement by progressive dilution in which the oil was added to 2 pounds of supplement by means of ra : small rotary mixer j and then mixed with 8 pounds of supplement to form a total of 10 pounds of pre-mix. The pre-mix was incorporated into 90 pounds of supplement in a cone type feed mixer which produced 100 pounds of supplement that contained 670 milligrams of diethyl­ stilbestrol. When fed at the rate of 1.5 pounds per day, a total of 10 milligrams of diethylstilbestrol was supplied per steer. The sup­ plement, corn and silage were thoroughly mixed when put into the feed bunks . All cattle in the third lot were confined in a squeeze chute and implanted subcutaneously medial to the maxilla. plished as described in Trial I. Implanting was accom­ Each steer received 10 pellets which contained a total of 1.5 grams progesterone, 50 milligrams estradiol, 75 milligrams carbowax and 5 milligrams of magnesium stearate. In order to compensate for the stress incurred during the implan­ tation process, all animals in the other two lots were subjected to the same procedure excepting actual implantation. - 31 - The treatment was started on January 31, 1955. However, a short circuit in one of the electric water heaters caused two lots of steers to refuse feed on the regular treatment weigh day of January 28. Therefore, weights of the previous regular weigh day, January 14, were used in calculation of feedlot performance. All weighing was done at approximately the same time of the day. The cattle were weighed off test on three consecutive days - the average of the three weights was used as the off test weight. All steers were taken off feed April 23 and trucked to Detroit early the following morning. Detroit. Individual weights were recorded after arrival in The cattle were graded by two graders in the Detroit stock­ yards and the average of the two scores were used as live slaughter grade. All cattle were killed on April 25 at which time carcass data were collected in the same manner as reported in Trial I. There was a chilling period (hot to cold carcass) of approximately 40 hours. Dressing percentage was based on live weights at Detroit and chilled carcass weights. Carcasses were graded ribbed by a Federal grader and rib-eye characteristics considered in designation of grade. Measure­ ments of the conjugate diameter of the pelvic inlet were also made as described in Trial I. Wholesale rib cuts were removed according to the method of Hankins and Howe (1956) and returned to Michigan State University. A tracing of the 12th rib surface cut at right angles to the plane of the halved vertebrae was obtained from each carcass. The area of Longissimus dorsi was determined by means of a compensating polar planimeter. Fat thickness was measured according to the procedure of - 32 - Naumann (1951)* The 9-11 rib section was removed according to procedure of Hankins and Howe (1946) and separated immediately into fat, lean and bone* All chemical determinations were performed according to a modifi­ cation of the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists1 methods as outlined by Benne (1956), Samples of internal fat (kidney knob) and external fat (wholesale rib cut) were obtained from each carcass, ground, and analyzed for moisture. Samples of the Longissimus dorsi were ground three times and then the percent moisture and the percent ether extract were determined. Tne combxned separable fat and separ­ able lean excxuding the Longissimus dorsi were ground together three times and then samples obtained for measurement of the percent ether extract and the percent moisture present. After preparation, all samples were tightly packed in jars and frozen. By applying the percentages of moisture ana fat as determined by chemical analysis of the separable rib constituents, it was possible to calculate the theoretical amount of water and ether extract in the 9-10-11 rib cut. No correction could oe made for either moisture or fat content of the bone. Longissimus dorsi steaks from 12th rib area cut 1" thicx from each carcass were weighed before and after cooking to an internal temperature of 63°C in deep fat maintained at 147°C. For an estimate of relative tenderness, 1/2 inch cores were ob­ tained from the cooked steaks parallel to the muscle fibers for use - 33 with the Warner-Bratzler shear* Eight readings were taken from each steak, two from each of four cores* Portions of the urogenital tract including the bladder, ureter, urethral muscle, body of prostate, seminal vesical and bulbourethral gland were removed at the time of slaughter. from 4 steers in each lot were also obtained. Thyroid and adrenal glands Tissues for microscopic examination were removed from animals as soon after killing as possible and placed in 10 percent neutral formal-saline solution. After proper fixation, the tissues were processed, embedded in paraffin, sectioned and stained with hematoxylin and eosin* Calculation of analysis of variance, correlation coefficient and covariance analysis were performed exactly as described in Snedecor (1946)* - 34 - TRIAL I - RESULTS Pasture performance data are presented in Table 1. For the overall feeding period, the implanted cattle in both pastures showed somewhat higher gains (2.14 pounds/steer/day) than the control steers (1.94 pounds/steer/day) • There was an inci’ease in gain in both pasture lots in both control and implanted cattle during the last 121 days during which period corn and supplement were supplied. This relative­ ly small overall effect of hormone treatment on pasture cattle is in agreement with the results of Clegg and Cole (1954). However, the greatest spread in gains appeared during the initial imolant period, although both hormone treated and control steers had relatively higher rates of gain when corn and supplement were fed. The implanted steers had noticeably higher tail heads, lower backs, and showed an increase in teat length. There was considerable evidence of restlessness and riding in the implanted cattle. Table 1 Pasture Performance of Steers - Trial I Control Alfalfa Brome Bluegrass lb. lb. Implant Alfalfa Brome Bluejgrass lb. lb. Initial average weight 615 595 112 603 Average weight after first 31 days 759 720 774 746 1C 20 974 1068 1013 Average weight after 202 days Average daily gain/steer (81 days) 1.45 First Implant (81 days) Average both pastures 1.50 1.48 - 35 1 .33 1.99 1.94 Table 1 Pasture Performance of Steers - Trial I (continued) C ontro1 Alfalfa Brome Bluegrass lb* lb* Average daily gain (l2l days) 2.37 2.10 Second implant (121 days) Average both pastures Average daily gain entire period 202 days Implant Alfalfa Brome Bluegrass lb. lb. 2*32 2.43 2.24 2.00 Average daily gain - entire period - both pasture lots 2.38 1.88 1*94 2*25 2*03 2.14 A n average of i64.7 percent of the original pellet implant was apparently absorbed as estimated by the amount of pellet residue re­ maining in the treated cattle after the first 81 days on test* 2) (Table However, during the second implant period of 121 days with supple­ mental feeding, there was an average pellet absorption of 4?6„23 percent* Thus, assuming all previous pellet residue was recovered, there appeared to have been a reduction in the rate of absorption during the second implantation period* It appeared that gain stimulation was greatest during the period of greatest absorption, although a slightly differ­ ent feeding program was introduced during the second implant period* Dinusson et al* (1950) theorized that, in heifers, the rate of gain is proportional to the amount of estrogen present* Although control cattle appeared to have had a somewhat higher live shrink, there was considerable variation in percent live shrink - 36 within lots* There was little difference between lots in the percent fill (paunch contents) expressed as percent slaughter weight* Table 2 Pellet Implant Absorption - Trial I ' First Implant 81 days Second Implant 121 days Cattle Amount Amount Percent Amount Amount Percent Total No* Recovered Absorbed Absorption Recovered Absorbed Absorption Absorption T % g* g» g. g. g. “ ........ 701 .4782 .6218 56.5 .6262 .4738 43.1 .9956 709 .4398 .6602 60.0 .6437 .4563 41.5 1.0165 704 .3020 .7980 72.5 .6390 .4610 41.9 1.1590 .5548 .5452 49.6 None Recovered 707 705 .2562 .8438 76.7 .5965 .5035 45.8 1.2473 708 .4483 .6517 59.2 .5495 .5505 50.0 1.1022 .6798 .4202 38.2 .4425 .6575 59.8 None Recovered 703 702 .4060 .6940 63.1 64.7 x 1.2510 46*2 x The control steers had slightly higher percentages of caul fat (greater omentum) as shown in Table 3 when expressed as percent of slaughter weight. In view of the higher grades of the control car­ casses, this slight increase in percent caul fat was further evidence of an increased fat deposition* Cattle from both lots had similar dressing percentages with considerable variation within each lot. - 37 - Table 3 Slaughter Data - Trial I Control Implant Average Live Shrink 2.98 i 2.59 Average Fill (stomach)-*- 6.67 6.78 Average Caul Fat'*' 1.27 .93 Average Dressing Percent (cold) 59.2 58.7 Average Chilling Shrink 3.2 2.9 Expressed as percent slaughter weight. There was no significant effect on chilling shrink due to treat­ ment. Livers from the implanted cattle were significantly heavier than those from the controls (Table 4). The relative increase in liver mass in this trial is in agreement with the findings of Wilkinson £t al. (1954) and Bell et al. (1955) with implanted lambs. Wil­ kinson et al. (1954) concluded that this was due to hypertrophy which resulted from the extra work of detoxification by the liver of im­ planted diethylstilbestrol. There were little differences between treatments in spleen, heart or hide expressed as percent of slaughter weight minus stomach fill as shown in Table 4. Table 4 Slaughter Offal Data - Trial I Control ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- j Liver j . 1.26 Spleen .21 38 Implant 1.38# .21 Table 4 Slaughter Offal Data - Trial I (continued) Control Implant .50 .52 9.05 8.69 Heart (cap on) Hide £ Expressed as percent slaughter weight minus fill. Significant 05 According to Table 5, the implanted lot produced two choice and six good grade carcasses, whereas the control lot yielded six choice and two good grade carcasses. This indicated a lowered carcass grade as a result of the 900 milligrams progesterone - 100 milligrams diethyl' stilbestrol pellet dosage in this trial. This lowering of carcass grade was similar to the observations of Andrews et al. (1954) and Clegg and Carroll (1956) with the implantation of diethylstilhestrol in steers* Table 5 Carcass Grade - Trial I Control_________________________ Implant_____________ Carcass U S D A Carcass U S D A No*__________ Grade_____________ No*__________ Grade 694 Choice 701 Good 697 Choice - 709 Choice 696 Choice 704 Good 698 Good 707 Choice - 39 - ■ « Table 5 Carcass Grade - Trial I (continued) Control Carcass No. Implant USBA Grade Carcass No. USDA Grade 695 Good 705 Good + 699 Choice - 708 Good - 692 Choice - 703 Good 693 Choice - 702 Good + As shown in Table 6, carcasses from the implanted lot showed a significantly greater conjugate diameter of the pelvic inlet than the controls, which was supported by the evidences Gf tail head elevation in the live animals* Studies of separable carcass lean as estimated by 9-10-11 rib cut showed that carcasses from implanted cattle had significantly higher proportions of carcass lean than carcasses from control cattle (Table 6), This increase in muscle mass was also noted by Clegg et al* (1954) with 60 mg* diethylstilbestrol implantation. There was a lower proportion of separable fat in the carcasses from the implanted cattle although the differences were not significant. Very little difference was found in percent carcass bone from either group. Analysis of composite lean samples showed no significant difference between lots in percent moisture or percent protein (Table 6). However, percent ether extract in the lean samples from the control carcasses - 40 was higher than in lean samples from the implanted group* As ether extract is an estimate of marbling, the higher grading carcasses from the control lot would be expected to show a greater ether extract content in the lean* The higher percent of ether extract in the Longissimus dorsi of the control cattle supported evidence of more marbling in this muscle and is directly proportional to carcass grade* In view of the significant increase in separable lean, it would appear that implantation stimulated the development of slightly more muscle mass but that this muscle did not have the intramuscular fat development of the non-hormone treated animals, a factor which resulted in a lowered carcass grade* There were no significant differences found between the carcass groups in percent moisture in raw fat or iodine number of raw fat, (Table 6), Table 6 Physical and Chemical Carcass Characteristics - Trial I Control Implant Anterior pelvic measurement (mm) 137,5 162.7 Posterior pelvic measurement (ram) 137.9 180.9 * Average separable carcass lean 56*84 58.42* Average separable carcass fat (%) 29.66 27.80 Average separable carcass bene 14.21 14.57 Moisture - lean meat (%) 72.1 72.7 4.2 2.8 23.3 23.7 Ether extract - lean meat {%) Protein - lean meat {%) - 41 - Table 6 Physical and Chemical Carcass Characteristics - Trial I (continued) Moisture - raw tallow {%) Iodine number - rendered tallow (gms)^ Control Implant 6.6 5.7 48.9 50.8 * Significant P *05 As estimated from 9-10-11 rib cut (Hankins - 1946) 2 Grams of iodine absorbed by 100 grams fat. - 42 - TRIAL II - RESULTS Implantation of 3 grams progesterone and 100 milligrams diethylstilbestrol resulted in average daily gains of 2*61 pounds as compared to an average daily gain of 2,15 pounds for the non-treated steers as shown in Table 7, Although this was an increase in average rate of gain of *53 pounds per clay, there was considerable variation in rate of gain within each lot and this difference in gain was not statistically significant. As can be seen in Appendix Table XI, there was considerable variation in the weights of these cattle at the beginning of the trial. A graphic Illustration of response to hormone treatment is shown in Figure 1. There appeared to be a gradual decline in rate of gain during the pre-treatment period even though there was no effect of high temperatures during the cool fall and winter months. There was a lowering in rate of gain in the treated lot after implantation which was then followed by a sharp rise in gain. It seemed quite possible that this was due to disturbances from the actual mechanics of implan­ tation and also to an adjustment or alteration in the systemic functions of the steers. There was a definite change in the behavior of the implanted steers following implantation which was characterized by riding and general restlessness. This atypical activity disappeared approximately one week after treatment. Appetite stimulation was noted in the steers of the hormone treated lots. As all cattle were fed according to appetite, the implanted cattle showed an increased feed consumption. As shown in Table 7, the implanted cattle consumed 1163.5 pounds of silage, 578.2 pounds of corn and 138.4 - 43 cn> co CM O'. CM CM CM 4-> O0 h -t ■JT rO t o CO 00• CM pounds of supplement per 100 pounds of gain as compared with 1246.9 pounds of silage, 548.9 pounds of corn and 204 pounds of supplement required per hundred pounds of gain for the control lot. Thus, the implanted lot required a total of 1880.1 pounds of feed and the control cattle a total of 1926.4 pounds of feed to gain 100 pounds. Table 7 - Trial II Feedlot Performance Control lb* Implant lb. Initial average weight 1071 1078 Final average weight 1232 1282 Average total gain per steer 161 204 Average daily gain per steer 2.16 2.64 Average silage consumed per 100 lb. gain .1 1246.9 1163.5 Average corn consumed per 100 lb. gain 548.9 578.2 Average supplement consumed per 100 lb. gain 130.6 138,4 Total feed consumed per 100 lb. gain 1926.4 1880.1 During the test period of 76 days, the implanted steers absorbed an average of 33.3/? of the pellet, as estimated by weight differences, assuming that all residual pellet material was recovered. absorption data are shown in Table 8. Pellet It was apparent that the in­ clusion of compound F (17-hydroxy corticosterone) in the pellet increased - 44 - absorption as there was an average absorption of 38.4% of the pellets containing compound F as compared to an average absorption of 28.2% of the pellets not containing compound F, This 33% absorption would indicate that hormonal effects by implantation could be extended over longer periods of feeding, although no information was provided in this trial as to the qualitative nature of the residual material. Table 8 - Trial II Pellet Absorption Initial pellet weights ga Weight recovered pellets g» Absorption g» 3.1000 1.9760 1.124 36.3 533 3.1003 2.2253 .875 28.2 537 3.1000 1.5310 1.569 50.6 Mo compound F 3.0996 531 2.2976 .802 25.9 534 3.1002 2.3482 .752 24.3 535 3.1003 1.9453 1.155 37.3 536 3.1009 2.3209 .780 25.2 Cattle No. Compound F 532 Absorption % It can be seen in Table 9 that, during the 18 hour live shrink period, the implanted cattle averaged 3.8% shrink as compared to 2.7% shrink for the control lot. Thus, it appeared that the greater feed consumption of the implanted cattle had filled the stomach and intestines to a greater degree and proportionately more was lost during the immediate - 45 - pre-slaughter period. This hypothesis was substantiated to some degree by the greater proportion of fill and slightly higher full stomach and intestine weights as shown in Table 9. The implanted cattle dressed one percent lower, 62.4% as compared to 63*4% for the control cattle but this was accounted for by heavier hides, more fill, and a slightly higher percentage of caul fat as shown in Table 9. The control carcass had an average chilling shrink of 2.8% which is slightly higher than the 2.3% shrink of the implanted carcasses. Table 9 - Trial II Slaughter Performance and Offal Yields Control i* Implant /o Live shrink (18 hr.) 2.7 3.8 Dressing % (cold) 63,4 62.4 Chilling shrink 2.8 2.3 Fill1 4.7 5.1 Full stomach and intestine1 14.4 14.6 Liver1 1.2 1.1 *36 Heart1 .36 Caul fat1 2.0 2.2 Hide1 5.9 6.3 1 Expressed as percent slaughter weight. In contrast to the results of Trial I, the carcass grades were practically equal for 1h e two lots as shown in Table 10. This was in disagreement with the reduction in carcass grade from the implantation of 60 or 120 milligrams of diethylstilbestrol in steers as reported by - 46 - Andrews jet al, (1954), and with the implantation of 60 milligrams of diethylstilbestrol in steers as reported by Clegg and Carroll (1956). However, the results of carcass grade in this trial were in agreement with the results of Henneman ei: al. (1953) with a combination progesterone-estradiol implant in lambs and Jordan jet al. (1955). It was of interest to note that when 0*Mary et al. (1956) used a lower level of (36 milligrams) diethylstilbestrol implants, no differences in carcass grade were obtained. Table 10 - Trial II Carcass Grade Control Cattle No. Implant Grade Cattle No. Grade 601 Prime 531 Prime - 602 Choice + 532 Choice + 603 Choice + 533 Prime - 604 Choice + 534 Choice + 605 Prime - 535 Choice + 606 Prime - 536 Choice + 607 Choice + 537 Prime 608 Prime - The similarity in carcass grade between lots in this trial was reflected in the similar proportions between lots in separable carcass lean, fat and bone as shown in Table 11. There was little difference in area of Longissimus dorsi and in fat thickness at the 12th rib. - 47 - Results of an investigation of the qualitative nature of the carcass components as illustrated in Table 11 showed that there was little effect on moisture of the carcass fat. In neither trial II nor trial I was there any statistically significant difference between treated and control groups in the degree of saturation of carcass fat as estimated by iodine absorption number. When lean samples were grouped by carcass grade, it was noted that in either group, the lean from choice carcasses had more moisture and less ether extract than the lean from prime carcasses. This was to be expected in view of the higher requirement for marbling in prime than in the choice car­ casses. Marbling (as estimated by ether extract) and moisture would be expected to have an inverse relationship in the same sample of lean. There was an inverse relationship shown between ether extract in the Longissimus dorsi and percent moisture in the Longissimus dorsi in all three trials. There was little difference in percent protein between groups, although choice lean samples from implanted carcasses had slightly more protein than choice lean samples from control carcasses. The choice lean samples from the implanted lot also had a slightly lower percent ether extract* - 48 - Table 11 - Trial II Physical and Chemical Carcass Composition Control_______ Implant Average separable carcass lean-*- (%) 51.10 50.28 Average separable carcass f at-*- (%) 38.43 38.29 Average separable carcass bone^- m 12.38 12.84 Moisture raw tallow (%) Iodine number raw tallow 5.7* 2 5.4 52.23 52.42 Longissimus dorsi area (sq.in.) 12.30 11.97 Fat thickness^ (mm.) 20.6 21.6 (g.) Composite Lean Heat Samples Control Choice Prime Carcasses Carcasses % T Moisture Sther extract Protein Implant Choice Prime Carcasses Carcasses — -yr~ ■■ ‘ JO T""' 68.4 65.5 68.4 65.9 9.5 12.6 9.1 12.2 21.4 ' 21.1 22.5 21.0 Estimated from 9-10-11 rib cut (Hankins 1946). 2 Gram of iodine absorbed by 100 grams of fat. 3 Measured at 12th rib cut. * Average with sample #601 removed - See Appendix Table. - 49 - TRIAL III - RESULTS The implanted steers made an average daily gain of 3.03 pounds compared to 2.64 and 2.30 pounds for diethylstilbestrol fed and control steers, respectively, as shoto in table 12. Pretrial average daily gains of 2*1, 2.2, and 2.1 pounds for control, diethylstilbestrol fed and implanted lots respectively, indicated relative uniformity of the three lots and supported the stimulating effect of both treatments on rate cf gain. The gains of both the implanted and diethylstil- bestrol fed steers were significantly greater than the controls at the 1% level. In addition, the rate of gain of implanted cattle was significantly greater at the 1% level than of diethylstilbestrol fed cattle. Implantation with 1.5 grams of progesterone and 50 milligrams of estradiol (30:1 ratio) resulted in a 31.7% increase in rate of gain over controls and a 14.8% increase in rate of gain over the diethyl­ stilbestrol fed cattle. The diethylstilbestrol fed cattle showed a 14*1% increase in rate of gain over controls. Graphic illustration of stimulus in rate of gain is shown in Figure 2. This increased rate of gain of diethylstilbestrol fed cattle when compared to steers receiving no hormone treatment was in agreement with the results of Burroughs et al. (1955), Perry et al. (1955) and Beeson at al. (1956), The relatively greater response to combination implantation in rate of gain of cattle as compared to treatments with estrogen alone was similar to the results of lenneman et al. (1953) and Jordan et al. (1955) with lambs. In Trial I, with the 900 milligrams progesterone - 100 milligrams diethylstilbestrol dosage on pasture and on pasture - 50 - Total Pounds Per Lot Figure 2 Total Lot Weights Per Weigh Day - Trial CO c_> CO o o o o o in o o o - 50a CO CO CM CM H CO — r-« 00 o o CM CO CM O O '-'v. CO O CM III supplemented with corn and a protein supplement, there was a rela­ tively small increase in rate of gain# A considerably higher average rate of gain in Trial II resulted from the implantation of 3 grams of progesterone with the same estrogen diethylstilbestrol) dosage of 100 milligrams# However, in Trial II there was considerable variation in the initial weight and type of cattle in each lot and the variation in feedlot gain was quite large in each lot (see Appendix Table II). In the three trials, the greatest stimulus in gain resulted from the implantation of 1.5 grams of progesterone and 50 milligrams of estra­ diol in the Trial III cattle on a fattening ration# Hormone treatment produced a stimulation in appetite in both lots but at different stages in the feeding program and to different degrees# Implanted cattle showed a marked increase in appetite one week after implantation #iich was maintained for the duration of the feeding period. There was no appreciable increase in appetite in the diethylstilbestrol fed lot until approximately 30 days after treatment# Stimulation in gain was first noted in the implanted lot 30 days after treatment and in the diethyl­ stilbestrol fed lot 60 days after treatment. The reason for the delay in response of the diethylstilbestrol fed lot to treatment is not clear and was in disagreement with the results of Perry et al. (1955), who noted that the greatest response to oral diethylstilbestrol treatment occurred during the first 28 days of treatment# There was some evidence of restlessness in the implanted cattle during the week following implantation but after this time there was no further evidence of erratic behavior. There was no unusual behavior in any of the steers of the oral diethylstilbestrol lot. - 51 - As a consequence of increased appetite in this test, feed consump­ tion increased in both hormone treated lots* Inasmuch as ground shelled corn was fed according to appetite, actual corn consumption may be used as a measure of appetite. At the end of the treatment period, the implanted steers were eating an average of 17,0 pounds of corn per day as compared to 3.5• 5 and 14.0 pounds respectively for the diethyl­ stilbestrol fed and control lots. Corn consumption for the entire treatment period averaged 16.0 pounds per day for implanted cattle and 15.3 pounds for diethylstilbestrol fed and 14*5 pounds for control cattle. Apparently, this increased feed consumption in the hormone treated lots was more than offset by the increase in rate of gain which resulted in an increased feed efficiency. As shown in Table 12, the implanted lot required 658 pounds of silage, 529 pounds of corn and 50 pounds of supplement per 100 pounds of gain compared to 754 pounds of silage, 579 pounds of corn, 57 pounds of supplement per 100 pounds of gain and 865 pounds of silage, 643 pounds of c o m and 65 pounds of supplement per 100 pounds of gain for the diethylstilbestrol fed and control lots, respectively. This increased feed efficiency was in agreement with the reports of Andrews et al. (1955), Burroughs et al. (1955), Luther et al. (1954) and Dinusson et al. (1950). The observations of Beeson et al. (1956) and Perry et al. (1955) that oral diethylstilbestrol administration did not cause increased feed consumption do not support a hypothesis of estrogen stimulation from increased feed intake but suggested an increase in utilization of feed consumed. However, when Dinusson corrected feed consumption by - 52 covariance analysis to a constant level in individually fed cattle, the differences in gain were no longer significant. Thus, increased gain in that trial was a function of increased feed consumption. The little effect in rumen digestion in lambs following estrogen implanta­ tion as reported by Whitehair et al, (1953) would lend support to the results of Dinusson et al. (1950)* As shown in Table 12, the implanted cattle were graded higher on a live basis than either the diethylstilbestrol fed or control cattle. Cattle from the control lot received the lowest live grade. Table 12 - Trial III Feed Lot Performance of Experimental Steers Control Diethylstilbestrol LSD& fed Implanted (V/o) Initial average weight (12/4/54) (beginning of trial) (lb.) 808 805 808 Initial average treatment weight (1/14/55) (lb.) 903 899 896 Final average weight 1156 1192 Average pre-treatment daily gain/ steer (lb.) 2.1 2.2 2.1 Average daily treatment gain/ steer (lb.) 2.30 2.64 3.03 Feed consumed/100 lb. gain: Silage (lb.) Corn (lb.) Supplement (lb.) 865 643 65 754 579 57 658 529 50 Live slaughter grade score^ 5.9 5*5 5.2 Ij j U * LlCdS I (lb.) 1122 UliiClbilvCt b Based on numerical range of 1 (Prime-high) to 9 (Good-low) - 53 - .31 Because of considerable damage to the pellets during their removal from the steers at the time of slaughter, it was not possible to deter­ mine pellet absorption in this trial. A study of the dressing per­ centage of the three lots (Table 13) showed that there were no signifi­ cant differences in dressing percentage due to hormone treatment. The slightly higher dressing percentage of the implanted lot was different from the results of Trial II. Clegg and Cole (1954) and C^Mary et al. (1956) reported that there was no effect on dressing percentage due to estrogen implantation in cattle. There were other reports, however, Clegg and Carroll (1956) with cattle and Jordan et al. (1955) with lambs in which estrogen treatment lowered dressing percentage. Dressing percentage is subject to the effects of many variables. Neither treatment had any effect on the relative size of the visceral organs, namely, heart, liver, or spleen as shown in Table 13. Although results with lambs have shown heavier pelts, Bell et al. (195 5), Wilkinson et al. (19 55), there were no signifi­ cant differences in hide weights in this trial. There was no effect of hormone treatment on chilling shrink in any of the trials. Similar observations of no hormone treatment effect on chilling shrink have been reported by Clegg and Cole (1954) with cattle. These results are of particular interest in view of the reports by commercial packers that carcasses from hormone treated cattle (fed diethj^ls tilbestrol) shrunk more during the initial chilling period (hot to cold carcass) than cattle which had supposedly received no hormone treatment. - 54 - Table 13 - Trial III Slaughter Bata Diethylstilbestrol Control______ Fed______ Implanted ----" - 'W--- " /° "■■■■ T Cold dressing percent 61.9 Cooler shrink Stomach fill weight) 62.0 62.3 1.51 1.41 1.27 3.4 3.2 3.4 live slaughter Heart hot carcass weight) Liver hot carcass weight) .65 16.0 .26 Spleen (% hot carcass weight) 8.0 Hide {% slaughter weight) .70 .67 16.5 16.3 .26 8.2 .26 7.9 CARCASS CHARACTERISTICS Differences in carcass grades between lots as shown in fable 14 vrere not significant. There was considerable variation in carcass grades within each lot as shown in Table 14. This was in agreement with the work of Kastelic et al. (1956) who reported that there was considerable variation within treatment groups of cattle which had received diethylstilbestrol orally and that no consistent affect on carcass grade could be noted which was due to hormone treatment. One of the advantages claimed by Burroughs et al. (1954) with the use of oral diethylstilbestrol was tnat it did not lower carcass grade. However, Perrjr et al. (1955) stated that oral diethylstilbestrol treat ment resulted in inferior carcasses. - 55 - It is of particular significance that in Trials II and III, with the higher ratio of progesterone to estrogen and with steers on a higher energy ration, there was no evidence of the marked reduction in the carcass grade of hormone treated cattle shown in Trial I. Carcasses from the implanted cattle and from the diethylstilbestrol fed cattle had a significantly greater spread between the posterior end of the aitch bene and sacral vertebrae as shown in Table 14. Re­ latively greater effect was shown on posterior measurements than on the anterior pelvic diameter. This was suggestive of elevation of the tail head in both the treated lots. Upon visual observations, cattle buyers reported that the characteristic was not particularly noticeable. Subcutaneous fat accumulation may have minimized the appearance of tail head elevation* Table 14 - Trial III Carcass Grade and Pelvic Measurements Diethylstilbestrol fed Implanted Choice + 1 3 0 Choice 1 3 3 Choice - 7 5 3 Good + 3 3 7 Good 2 0 1 Good - 0 0 0 6.3 5.6 Average coded value^ Anterior pelvic diameter (mm.) 151.4- 155.5 180.1 Posterior pelvic diameter (mm.)154.7 f Based on numerical range of 1 (Prime +) to 9 (Good -) - 56 - « CO Control 162.4 200.6 A study of the physical carcass composition as estimated by the 9-10-11 rib cut showed that implantation significantly increased the muscle mass or separable carcass lean* After adjusting by covariance analysis for differences in carcass weights 011 a within lot basis, the differences in grams of separable lean were not significant. The relationship between percent lean and carcass weight appeared to be different between lots from what it was within lots. As carcass weight increased in each treatment group, there was a lower percent carcass lean. However, implantation resulted in a higher overall proportion of separable lean in which the preceding relationship existed. Corre­ lation coefficients within lots between carcass grade and gain as shown in Table 15, were low but all indicated a negative trend. Kastelic et al* (1S56) reported that a significant positive correlation within treatment lots between gain and carcass grade was obtained in one experi­ ment. The control and diethylstilbestrol fed groups of Trial III had r values of -.28 and -.32 between gain and separable carcass fat, whereas the implanted group showed a positive r value of +.15 as shown in Table 15* Correlation coefficients of +.20, -.18 and +.28 were obtained between gain and fat thickness at the 12th rib for control, diethylstilbestrol fed and implanted groups respectively. There appeared to be little relationship in this trial between gain and ether extract in the Longissimus dorsi. Values of r were +.06, -.14, and +.07 respectively for control, diethylstilbestrol fed and implanted groups. As bone remained relatively constant, the significantly lower percentage of separable fat obtained was to be expected. - 57 - Table 15 - Trial III Correlations Between Gain and Various Carcass Components Control r Diethylstilbestrol f ed Implant r r Gain (lb.) vs. percent carcass fat -.28 -.32 +.15 Gain (lb.) vs. percent carcass lean +.37 + .28 -.16 Gain (lb.) vs. carcass grade -.05 -.16 -.02 Gain (lb.) vs. ether extract (L. dorsi) +.06 -.14 +.07 Gain (lb.) vs. fat thickness +.20 -.18 +.28 Although there were no significant differences in Longissimus dorsi area, there was considerable variation within lots and the implanted group carcasses had an average area of 10*52 square inches compared to 9*90 square inches for the carcasses from the oral diethylstilbestrol lot and 9*79 for the carcasses from the control lot as shown in Table 16. This increased muscle mass was suggestive of a protein anabolic effect on the animal which has been reported by Clegg et al* (1954) with the im­ plantation of 60 milligrams of diethylstilbestrol in cattle. Although differences in fat thickness at the 12th rib were not significant, the tendency toward less external fat thickness in im­ planted carcasses was in agreement with the smaller proportion of separable fat in the 9-10-11 rib section as determined by physical separation. This was in agreement with the results of Clegg et al. (1954) who reported that the amount of both internal and external fat - 58- deposition was considerably reduced in steers implanted with 60 milli­ grams of diethylstilbestrol. Table 16 - Trial III Physical Carcass Composition Control Diethylstilbestrol fed Implant LSD Carcass lean^ (%) 53.3 53.4 56.4 2.26 Carcass fat^ (%) 34.7 34.2 31.3 2.77 Carcass bone-*- (%) 13.2 13.5 13.4 9.90 10.52 Longissimus dorsi area (sq.in.) 9.79 Fat thickness-12th rib (in.) .96 .92 .77 As estimated from 9-11 rib cut (Hankins 1946) By applying the percentages of moisture and fat as determined in chemical analysis of the separable rib constituents, it was possible to calculate the theoretical amount of water and ether extract in the 9-10-11 rib cut. However, no corrections were made for either moisture or fat content of the bone. Moisture content of the entire 9-10-11 rib was highest in the implanted carcasses and lowest in the control carcasses. Conversely, ether extract was highest in control carcasses and lowest in the implanted carcasses. This was particularly interesting inasmuch as carcasses from the diethylstilbestrol fed lot had the highest ether extract content in the Longissimus dor si. The external fat of carcasses from the diethylstilbestrol fed lot had a higher average moisture content as shown in Table 17, but when analysis of variance was applied, these differences were not significant. There was little difference between lots in moisture in the internal fat. - 59 - Neither hormone treatment resulted in any significant effect on the moisture content or percent ether extract in the Longissimus dorsi. The slight differences in average values showed the expected inverse relationship between ether extract and moisture. Likewise there were no significant differences in the percent moisture or ether extract in the combined fat and lean (excluding the Longissimus dorsi). Again, the implanted group carcasses having the slightly higher percent moisture in the combined fat and lean had a somewhat lower percentage ether extract. Although the diethylstilbestrol fed group showed the highest proportion of ether extract and lowest amount of moisture in Longissi*nus dor si, it was interesting to note that the control group had the highest proportion of ether extract and lowest moisture content in the combined fat and lean. Although the progesterone, estrogen and adrenal cortical hormones have the property of affecting body water metabolism according to Gaunt et al. (1949), the administration of progesterone and estrogen apparently had no effect on carcass moisture in these trials. Weisberg (1953) stated that while estrogens may affect the water content of the uterus of the rat, they do not affect that of the liver nor of the skeletal muscle. Table 17 - Trial III Chemical Carcass Composition Control 9.15 7.89 3.50 3.62 3.70 71.65 71.05 71.78 5.68 6.65 5.11 External fat f^O (%) Internal fat 1^0 (%) Longissimus dorsi H?0 (%) Longissimus dorsi Ether Extract C/^7 Diethylstilbestrol Implant fed 60 - Table 17 (continued) Trial III Chemical Carcass Composition Control Diethylstilbestrol Implant fed Combined fat and lean (excl. L. dorsi) Ho0 (%) 34.37 35.63 37.00 Combined fat and lean (excl. L. dorsi) ether extract (%) 54.93 53.31 51.35 Entire 9-10-11 rib cut H 2 O {%) 41.5 42.1 44.1 Entire 9-10-11 rib cut ether extract (%) 45.5 44* & 41*9 As shown in Table 18, hormone treatment did not increase the cooking shrink of Longissimus dorsi steaks. Hormone treatment did not affect the relative tenderness of steaks cooked by the deep fat method. This was in agreement with the report of Bell et al. (1955) on the tenderness and cooking shrink of lamb legs from hormone treated and control lambs. Table 18 Trial III Shear Values and Cooking Shrink Diethylstilbestrol ________________________Control_________ fed________ Implant Cooking shrink (%) 19.3 19.3 13,9 -5.7 6.7 5.9 Warner-L'ratzler shear readings, (lb.) Physiological effects The adrenal glands of all groups appeared normal upon gioss e ination. i- Microscopic examination also revealed nc abnormal characteristics - 61 - in the adrenal glands from either treated or control animals. However, an increase in adrenal weight has been reported by Cahill ot al. (1954) with the implantation of 105 milligrams of diethylstilbestrol in steers, and by Clegg et al. (1955) with the implantation of diethylstilbestrol in lambs. The reason for the disagreement between the results of this triad, and those of Cahill and Clegg on adrenal effects may have been due to differences in hormone treatment. There were no clear cut differences in the thyroid tissue from any of the cattle* Upon gross examination, the prostatic portion of the urogenital tract appeared normal in the cattle of the control lot. There was an increase in the diameter of the prostatic portion from steers of the oral diethylstilbestrol group and a further increase in the diameter in this region in steers of the implanted lot. Illustration of this effect on seminal vesicle and bulbo urethral glands is shown in figures 3 and 4 and this enlargement of accessory sex glands was similar to that reported by Bell et al. (1955), Clegg et al* (1954), Wilkinson et al. (1954) and Clegg et al. (1955). An enlargement of secondary sex glands in lambs as reported by Ruliffson et al. (1954) occasionally resulted in death due to the inhibition of normal urination resulting from closure of the urethral lumen. None of the cattle of either treat­ ment groups in this project gave appearance of experiencing difficulty in urination. In neither group was there any evidence of restriction on the size of the urethral lumen. Microscopic examination revealed that in both the diethylstilbestrol fed lot and implanted lot there was some hyperplasia of the urethral - 62 - Figure 3 Seminal vesicle glands from a control steer (left), a diethylstilbestrol fed steer (center) and an implanted steer (right). - 62a - Figure 4 Bulbo-urethral glands fro<: a control steer (left, a diethylstilbestrol fed steer (center) and an implanted steer (right)0 - 62b - mucoaa of the prostatic area. The epithelial layers adjacent to the lumen were flattened and there was no evidence of desquamation or keratinization in either group. The prostatic glands from both oral diethylstilbestrol and implanted groups were hyperplastic and the lumina of some showed evidence of secretory activity. Burrows (1949) stated that androgens cause enlargement and secretory activity of the pro static epithelium. An appearance of secretory activity of the columnar epethelial cells was observed by Cole et al, (1954) in the seminal vesicles of cattle implanted with 60 milligrams of diethylstilbestrol for 104 days. There was considerable enlargement of the urethral muscle in glands from both treated groups as shown in Figures 6 and 7 when compared to control lot as shown in Figure 5, The pars disseminata was enlarged in the glands from both diethylstilbestrol fed and implanted cattle. As shown in figure 7, the pars disseminata portion of the implanted glands showed increased glandular development. Emmens and Parkes (1947) reported that the injection of estrone in control rats caused extensive growth of the smooth muscle of the prostate and a decrease in glandular tissue. This enlargement of the urethral muscle and increased glandular development is suggestive of the presence of both estrogenic and androgenic activity in both hormone treated groups. This is similar to the effects of diethylstilbestrol implants in cattle as reported by Clegg and Carroll (1956). There was no evidence of desquamation or keratinization of the epithelium of the prostate glands from any of the cattle. The lumina of the bulbo-urethral glands of both hormone treated groups showed some evidence of secretory activity. - 63 - There was no evidence of lumen of urethra r stratum cavernosum Dars disseminata Figure 5. Cross section of the prostatic region of the urethra of a control steer (X 5,3) - 63a lumen of urethra Figure 6. stratum caveraosiun Cross section of the prostatic region of the urethra of a diethylstilbestrol fed steer (X 5.3) - 63b - urethral muscle Figure 7. lumen of urethra stratum cavernosum Cross section of the prostatic region of the urethra of an implanted steer (X 5.3) - 63c - desquamation or keratinization of the epithelium of the bulbo-urethral glands of either hormone treated group* None of the tissues examined from control, hormone fed, or implanted groups had any evidence of carcinogenesis* - 64 - SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS It is clear that the implantation of* progesterone and estrogen has stimulated the rate of gain in steers* Steers on pasture im­ planted with 900 milligrams progesterone and 100 milligrams diethyl— stilbestrol showed slightly greater gains than non-treated control steers, however, the stimulus was not of* the magnitude noted in the subsequent trials with steers on a fattening ration and implanted with a higher ratio of progesterone to estrogen. This relatively poorer response to hormone treatment by cattle on pasture confirmed the previous reports of Clegg and Cole (1954) and Burroughs et al. (1955). The heavier steers in trials II and III showed considerable response to hormone treatment, thus indicating the practicability of implantation in heavier feedlot cattle. The combination of progesterone and estrogen resulted in a significantly greater rate of gain than was obtained with oral diethylstilbestrol treatment. Hormone treatment resulted in appetite stimulation as measured by feed consumption. The pattern of increased feed consumption in the three lots of Trial III paralleled somewhat the relative rates of gain. This was suggestive that, at least in part, the effect of hormone treatment on rate of gain resulted from an increase in total feed consumption. The increased feed consumption and increased feed efficiency observed in this experiment was similar to the reports of Andrews et al. (1955), Burroughs et al. (1955), Luther et al, (1954) and Dinusson et al. (1950) on the use of estrogen and combina­ tion progesterone and estrogen implants and oral diethylstilbestrol in cattle. - 65 - Xt was evident in Trials IX and III that the implanted cattle did not suffer the pronounced ill effects of behavior and the atypical appearance shown in the steers in Trial I, This may have been due in part to the higher ratio of progesterone to estrogen in the implant dosage. Reduction in the total hormone pellet dosage in the implanted cattle in Trial III as compared to the pellet dosage of the Trial II steers did not result in any diminished stimulus in rate of gain in the Trial III cattle* Although, no information was provided in this experiment as to the maximum effective duration of such treatment, there was no suggestion of a decreased treatment effect in the Trial III steers treated for 98 days* There was no information obtained in this trial as to the mode of action of progesterone in the combination treatment nor on the relative degree of absorption of progesterone and estrogen in the pellets. Implantation in Trial I produced a lowered carcass grade. In subsequent trials with a different implant dosage and with cattle on a fattening ration, there was no treatment effect on carcass grade* That estrogenic treatment may lower carcass grade in cattle has been shown by Clegg and Carroll (1956), Andrews et al. (1954) and Clegg et al. (1954). Hormone dosage itself may play an important role in carcass grade as shown by Hennetnan et al* (1953) and Jordan et al. (1955) who reported that a combination progesterone-estradiol implant did not lower carcass grade in lambs, whereas lambs receiving diethylstilbestrol implants produced lower grading carcasses. There was considerable varia­ tion within lots in carcass grade in Trials II and III which was similar - 66 - to the reports of Kastelic et al. (1956) with oral diethylstilbestrol treatment. There were no effects of treatment on chilling shrink in any of the trials. (1954). This was in agreement with the results of Clegg et al. There were no significant differences in dressing percentages between groups in any of the trials* Lean samples from the implanted group in Trial I had a lower percent ether extract which paralleled the lack of marbling in the lower grading carcasses. There were no significant differences in ether extract of lean between groups in Trials II and III. This suggested similarities in the degree of marbling in the control and treated group carcasses in these trials. One of the causes of the reduction of carcass grade as reported by Clegg et al. (1954) was the lesser amount of intra-muscular fat in the lean. Implantation in Trial II did not result in any significant differ­ ences in separable carcass lean, fat or bone, nor in Longissimus dorsi area nor in fat thickness. However, in Trials I and III, implantation resulted in a significant increase in muscle mass but in Trial III when the effect of carcass weight within lots on this separable lean was removed, the differences in lean were not significant. There was rela­ tively little relationship in Trial III between rate of gain and carcass fat, carcass lean, carcass grade, ether extract in the Longissimus dorsi and fat thickness cf carcasses. In Trial III, the pro static portion of the urogenital tract was definitely enlarged in steers of the stilbestrol fed lot and enlarged still further in steers of the implanted lot. - 67 - Neither implantation nor diethylstilbestrol feeding appeared to result in any restriction in the size of the lumen of the urethra. The enlargement of the accessory sex glands in the steroid hormone treated steers indicated that it could possibly serve as an indication of this type of hormone administration. It indicated further that oral diethylstilbestrol was absorbed from the digestive tract and produced a systemic effect. - 68 APPENDIX - Table I Trial I Steer Weights - Both Pasture Lots Control Initial Reimplant Final Steer wt. wt. wt. No* 5/21/52 8/13/52 12/11/52 lb. lb. lb. Implant Initial Reimplant Final Steer wt. wt* wt. Mo. 5/21/52 8/13/52 12/11/52 lb. lb. lb. Alfalfa Brome 699 570 658 923 701 565 737 1064 694 575 716 1022 705 570 781 1072 696 675 767 1049 709 695 861 1167 695 640 790 1086 708 618 715 967 Bluegrass 698 560 687 973 704 575 715 969 692 655 769 998 702 553 750 1074 693 575 701 978 707 618 722 952 697 590 724 948 703 665 795 1057 - 69 - APPENDIX - Table II Trial I Live Shrink Cattle M5U No. wt. lb. Control Slaughter Cattle MSU wt. Shrink Shrink No. wt. lb. lb. lb. i Implant Slaughter wt. Shrink Shrink lb. lb. 697 948 925 23 2.4 701 1004 1020 44 4.1 674 1022 990 32 3.1 709 1167 1135 32 2.7 696 1049 1020 29 2.8 704 969 950 19 2.0 698 973 945 28 2.9 707 952 915 37 3.9 695 1086 1040 46 4.2 705 1072 1050 22 2.0 699 923 850 73 7.9 708 967 955 12 1.2 692 998 1010 +12. +1.2 703 1057 1038 22 2.1 693 978 960 18 1.8 702 1074 1045 29 2.7 - 70 - APPENDIX - Table III Trial I Stomach Fill Control Cattle No. -i Fill lb. Implant Fill Cattle No. Fill lb. Fill 694 64 6.5 701 78 7.6 6S7 70 7.6 709 71 6.3 696 67 6.6 704 78 8.2 698 63 6.7 707 47 5.1 695 76 7.3 705 74 7.0 699 38 4.5 708 58 6.1 692 63 6.2 703 78 7.5 693 77 8.0 702 70 6.7 Expressed as percent of slaughter weight# 71 - APPENDIX - Table IV Trial I Caul Fat (Greater Omentum) Control Implant Cattle No. Caul fat lb* Caul fat 694 12 1.21 701 9 697 10 1.08 709 13 1.14 696 14 1.37 704 9 .95 698 11 1.16 707 9 o CO 00 Cattle No. 695 14 1.35 705 11 1.05 699 11 1.29 708 9 .94 692 13 1.29 703 8 ,77 693 14 1.45 702 9 .86 ^ Expressed as percent slaughter weight* - 72 - Caul fat 00 00 Caul fat lb. * f* 1 APPENDIX - Table V Trial I Dressing Percent (Cold) Cattle No. Control Dressing percent Cattle No. Implant Dressing percent i 694 58.6 701 59.8 697 57.9 709 58.8 696 61*4 704 57.7 698 59.0 707 57.3 695 59*4 705 59.1 699 57.6 708 59.9 692 61.6 703 58.3 693 56.9 702 58.8 - 73 o r O HI CO M4 • oo tH t> • X X X • 05 M4 • 05 X X a CD *a rQ •H H m o 9 CO o o • X t- o O o o • CM 05 9 CM t> o X X X p p' H x—I co X 9 05 CO LO • X X X CM 05 M4 • tH 05 M4 « Tj* X X • X tH X 9 tH • X X • • ^ j t M4 • M4 X o M4 X X o X tH X • w crf p CD w p 3 • o O) CO • p e r f »P CD tH 33 • CO 00 X o X X • • 9 CM t— • X o 9 • o M* X t• CO m tH tS < CM 9 ro CM • M4 X tH • X M4 CM • 05 o * " r f 4 X CM 9 CO • tH E> • CM tH • CM 00 X o tH CM • CM o 9 tH CM tH • CM tH 05 O t- -tr o t— t> o t- X O t> CO X o c- CM O c- CM CO • 05 00 co • 05 0H* • t> X M4 • 05 X X X X o o o O O o • M4 X 9 o t- 00 « CM O • tb- • o X X 9 t~ X * CO cX • X "cr • H4 X M4 • I> X " C i 4 • tt —I X o 05 H1 X 9 t> X M4 9 CM • M4 05 • M4 CO m o t> • M4 CM • ^t4 X X H4 05 X CM 00 tt—1 • • CM • p pH A CO CO CM • CO • 9 P CD • XI •H tH 03 o • X 05 P S h ’H c r f CD £rj CO X P (=5 0) T3 •H P p P Crf • P e r f X CD H 33 o o VI - Table tH • X 9 05 O • H4 * X 9 H4 P H crf as P cd APPENDIX X • u p I Trial H O • CD O CM a O tH tH * CM X X 05 X 05 « H •O C LO 03 CO CM P« ceJ Pi «SCm 0 to O CO • CU Sh «J P i 0 (Si 0 0 LO to o 05 Pj 00 ■M4 H4 in in * 05 tH o tH 00 tH • CO CO •M4 03 rl tH • 00 00 • C- o • 05 LO tH • tr• oo CM CO oo • CO tH 00 05 « tH M4 o • co CO CD t- tH tH * CO tr • CO CM c CM CM oo CM CM O co oo CO io 05 CO t—( 05 • 05 o> * tr­ • 00 io in CO 05 * CO 05 05 ■s* co • CM 05 • 00 05 05 05 • oo to rH O • tH 05 • Tt4 tH in tH * 05 05 • LO • tr­ 00 00 • 05 05 • 05 co • tr­ io CM • 05 00 05 05 05 OO ’ci4 CO tH 05 CO 00 trco m CO 05 H4 05 CO tr- 00 o tH H4 CO tm H4 tH CO CM H4 05 05 in rJ4 OO o trm 05 CM 05 tr00 • CO 05 OO CO 05 00 05 00 O uo O c• LO in in tH tH rH tH tH tH o> CM o tr­ io tr- CO CM CO tr- co o 00 00 in tr­ 00 CM rH CO CM CM O CM CM CM tH CM 05 00 00 O in rH tr­ 00 CO CD 05 LO O ■M4 t- OO o • t— t o CM CO • X H p tH rO tH E- • 05 05 05 0 tH 'M4 CM • 05 tr­ io • oo CO o 03 CO • o CO o • LO CM c LO oo CM ’M4 tro LO 00 • • t- 05 CM o 05 in • 'M4 tH O 00 • CM » oo CM LO t- 05 * 05 CM • in CM CM O in CO CO CO • 05 in CM 0 U Dj ^^ O • *H Ch fl> U) 00 lO • tH 05 ° rf © H +* fl H j: O O I *H H ^ O) ^ tH 05 H • O■+•» pp 0 03 t> 05 CD * in •M4 LO LO • CM tH tH tCM • tr- 00 « tH • CO tH 05 in • a M4 rH CO tH co 05 • "St4 tH rH tr­ ee co tro tr- 00 in CO o in 00 ^J4 CO m CM O CM o CM CM 00 o CO Ctr- CM t- O CO t■M4 crco CD CO CO O co tr- o CM OO CO co • trtH • o CO CM CM o oo CM trc• CM OO 00 CM o • 1— t oo t> 05 00 LO tH tH o o m tH tH OO 05 • • io in in 03 • t- a o •H X ■H 0 O §• o o 1—t •H u 0 CO C5S o p. ctf o 0 rH fl tH X X O I *H JS pq 05 Pi O ■+■*t—t cci tH X (*« I -H a> Pj co S3 O tH ■+■* tH X -H cci I -H SS En 05 P» O b.0 tH X d Eh CCt 0 •H CO I? PM 0 I -H X CO Sh o SJ tH aj tH X •^jt CO ^jt M 4 t—t or X I -h ps CxO 05 ►J 05 u O LO CO 00 00 in • in oo trH4 co co trCM 00 • CO CO in CO tH tH t— I trCO tH CM tH tH G 00 • trCM LO trCO in tH 05 03 o 05 05 C5 05 o in o in in t- c- oo 00 00 00 'Cf 00 to CM o o 05 tH 03 03 03 H4 CM CO H4 05 tH in • t- • CM CM CM CO c- 05 LO 05 05 05 CO CO CO CO o • CM in tH o CO CM •"tf 05 CM tH • O LO CO CO 05 tH 05 t- 00 CM CM CD OO CO tH CO tH tS4 tH 05 tH C- O * OO • CO in m CO rH in CO CM 00 -et4 CM CO • 05 o CO CM CO CM in CM tH o CM •M1 tH 00 in tH 00 CO CM in Tj4 LO CM in CO in OO « tH in 00 05 CO CO CM in CM tH CM CM in CO CM CM CO -M4 tH o 05 • CM in • o 05 CO CM CM • O trtH • tH LO 00 CO CM 05 CM X o X Z 03 o 'H 0 O S E rs x S3 0 £ tH 0 5! 05 "Ct4 CO tH 00 H £ CO 05 S3 rH aj tH X 0 X CO CO CO rH *! 0 00 in CM 05 "S CO CO 00 05 CD O o - 78 - 05 05 co ro tH tH O r CM o tr- co o tr- H4 O tr- LO o tr- to tr­ ee O t- 05 o t- tci t0 •tH X 00 +■» • CM CO I o> +* tH E-t • • £ CM 4-* fQ I tH £ tH • c o tvJ tH CO CM tH > cm e *H M4 Ch O o tH tH 00 CM 05 CM 05 CM tH CO CM tH tH tH H4 tH CM tH CO OO CM tH OO CD CM t— 1 tH ID CM tH 05 CD CO x— 1 CM 00 CO rH tH CM tH tH CM CO CM tH CD tH CO tH <15 • CM .O tH CO tH CM tH 00 O tH tH CM 05 CM tH O O CO tH 05 CO CM tH tH CM CM tH M4 00 CO tH 00 CD CM rH 05 H4 CM tH CM H 4 CO tH ■M4 05 CO tH 00 CM tH tH tH oo rH rH CM tH 00 CD tH • fD tH CM LO CM tH O O tH tH tH 05 CM rH 00 tH CM tH 00 tH CM tH LO CO tH tH 05 O CM tH CO 00 CM tH LO CD CM tH CO LO CM rH CO CO CO tH tH 00 CO tH CO CM tH rH LO CM CM tH 00 CD CO W 05 LO CM rH tH 05 O tH CO 05 CM tH O O CO t— 1 05 M4 LO tH tH Ch CM tH CM tH t— ! 05 CM rH tH tH CM tH rH LO CM tH tH H 4 CO rH tH tH CO rH OO CM tH tH 05 CM CM tH CO tH CO tH EH CO CM tH 05 O tH CM 00 CM tH CO 00 CM tH 00 CM rH CO CO tH tH tH tH CM tH 05 CD CM tH CD LO CM rH O LO CM t—I 05 rH CO rH OO C— CO tH CM CM rH rH CO tH CM tH CD CO tH LO CM CM t—! tH EH CM tH CD LO LO o CM t— I CM tH rH tH CD O CM rH O CD CM rH CM CM CM tH CM CM CM tH 05 05 CM tH 05 LO CO tH CM tH tH tH 00 O CM tH O M 4 CO rH tH CO CM tH CO LO LO CM tH tH LO CM tH CM LO CM tH EH CO 00 tH H CM tH M4 CO CM tH CD CO CO tH CD 00 tH O CM CM tH 00 H CD CO CM ID 05 tH tH 00 CM CO tH to o CO CM CM rH O tH CM tH 00 tH CM tH CD CM tH tH tH EH tH tH O 05 tH tH 05 CD tH tH LO O CM t— 1 LO CM rH M 4 O CO tH OO ID O x— 1 05 ID t— i rH CO 05 CM tH IH CO CM CO CM tH to o 05 rH rH O CO CM tH EH tH tH tH tH tH CD CD tH tH rH EH tH tH H 4 CD tH x— 1 05 CM CM rH 05 00 CM rH CO CO O tH rCD rH tH t— 1 00 CM rH O CO rH tH tH H4 0 CM CO oo o 05 <*' tH tH CM O CM tH O LO rH tH ^l4 CM tH tH 05 tH tH x— 1 O tH CM rH CM CO CM tH LO tH O t— 1 -cf O H rH tH ■M' CM tH IH 05 tH o o 00 CM O LO 00 o tH CO 05 o tH CO O i— I tH CO CD tH tH 00 05 tH CD O tH 05 O CM tH 05 CM O EH O tH 05 LO oo M 4 tH tH CO O tH tH CD !H 05 tH CD H4 rH tH tH M 4 O tH 00 CD tH tH c CO to CD tCM O tH tH tH tH rH ID CM 00 M4 H 4 • fO tH • .O tH • rH 9 tH • fO t— 1 lO 05 tH tH CM tH t— t tH 9 tH 9 f C 5 rH 9 00 .a tH 9 i-s 6 » <0 ML, C ft* <11 tH CO rH tH O O 05 CO LO tH 05 o JO t— < tH rO O tt- -H H M4 o tH ■M4 05 9 •H H tH tH C15 +» JQS JJ OO tH tH o JO CO CM tH H aj LO 01 O & CO u S3 O O O CO CO 05 05 LO CO CO CO LO tH tH rH tH LO LO tH o LO 00 tH O4 CO tH tH o O t- 05 o CM tH o tH O'. o r—1 CD CO tH tH LO CO tH o o 00 LO tH CO O OO CD LO CD CD LO tH 00 tH tH 0,00 CO CO ID tH CO ID CO ID CD CO LD CM CO ID H 4 CD LD o o tH tH 05 o ■+"* tH O <1) • o o O S3 tH o co o CD LO o CD CD O CD 00 O CO CM o CD - 79 CO O CD tH O CD <3 E LO LD APPENDIX - Table XII Trial II Slaughter and Carcass Yields Percent Wt. Live Live Hot Cold cooler Steer MSU Slaughter 18 hr. 18 hr* carcass carcass s h r i n k ^ Carcass No* 4/28 wt* shrink shrink' wt* wt* 48 hr* Dressing grade , . ... Xbl lbt lb^ fc lb. lb. * .... . Control 601 1284 1250 34 2.6 830 804 3.1 64.4 Prime 602 1143 1120 23 2.0 742 728 1.9 65.0 Choice* 603 1269 1250 19 1.5 811 783 3.5 62.6 Choice* 604 1108 1075 33 3*0 693 675 2.6 62.8 Choice* 605 1292 1260 32 2.5 824 800 2*9 63.5 Prime- 606 1300 1255 45 3.5 805 786 2.4 62.6 Prime- 607 1273 1220 53 4.2 803 773 3.1 63.8 Choice* 608 1227 1200 27 2.2 775 756 2.5 63.0 Prime- Implant 531 1342 1280 62 4.6 830 809 2.5 63.2 Prime- 532 1241 1195 46 3.7 775 758 2.2 63.4 Prime* 533 1249 1205 44 3.5 764 748 2.1 62.1 Prime- 534 1388 1345 43 3.1 845 826 2.2 61.4 Choice* 535 1384 1325 69 4.9 827 808 2.3 S1.0 Choic e* 536 1128 1100 28 2.5 717 700 2.4 63.6 Choice* 537 1268 1215 53 4.2 777 759 2.3 62.5 Pr ime Expressed as percent slaughter weight. ^ Expressed as percent MSU weight 4/29 1:00 P.M. ^ Expressed as percent hot carcass weight. APPENDIX - Table XIII Trial II Slaughter Performance Percent^Full full stomach stomach Steer Stomach Stomach Percent-^& & No. full empty Fill fill Intestine intestine intestine lb. lb. lb. 'J0 " lb. lb. % Control 601 103 51.5 51.5 4.12 60 163.0 13.0 602 92 43.5 48.5 4.33 60 152.0 13.6 603 119.5 62 57.5 4.60 69 188.5 15.1 604 107 53.5 53.5 4.98 59 166.0 15.4 605 129 57 72 5.71 66 195.0 15.5 606 121 57.5 63.5 5.06 68 189.0 15.1 607 96 47 49 4.02 61 157.0 12.9 608 109 54.5 54.5 4.54 66.5 175.5 14.6 531 108 55.5 52.5 4.10 68.5 176.5 oo • CO r"! 532 99 56.5 42.5 3.56 69.5 168.5 14.1 533 130 55 75 6.22 69 199.0 16.5 534 119 53 66 4.91 71 190.0 14.1 535 154.5 66.5 88 6.64 59.5 214.0 16.2 536 85.5 44 41.5 3.77 52 137.5 12.5 44*5 79.5 6.54 62.5 186.5 15.3 Implant 537 124 ^ Expressed as percent slaughter weight* - 81 - APPENDIX - Table XIV Trial II Slaughter Offal Data Steer No. Liver lb. Liver 601 16.0 1.3 88.0 602 11.3 1.0 603 13.5 604 Hide Hide Caul Fat Heart lb. Heart fX 7.0 21.0 1.7 4.4 .35 60.0 5.4 19.0 1.7 4.6 .41 1.1 72.0 5.8 25.5 2.0 4.5 .36 13.2 1.2 63.0 5.9 21.5 2.0 4.0 .37 605 15.6 1*2 70.0 5.6 18.0 1.4 4.0 .32 606 15.5 1.2 72.0 5.7 31.0 2.5 4.4 .35 607 12.9 1.1 83.0 6.8 27.5 2.3 4.5 .36 608 14.7 1.2 63.0 5.3 26.0 2.2 4.5 .38 531 15.3 1.2 74.0 5.8 25 1.9 4.3 .34 532 14.0 1.2 73.0 6.1 16.5 1.5 4.5 .38 533 13.3 1.1 74.0 6.1 20.5 1.7 4.5 .37 534 14.7 1.1 85.0 6.3 44.0 3.3 5.2 .38 535 16.2 1.2 87.0 6.6 20.0 1.2 5.1 .38 536 10.4 .9 73.0 6.0 32.0 2.9 3.6 .33 537 15.5 1.3 80.0 6.6 36.0 3.0 4.4 .36 « La H 1 Caul Fat lb. fX fX ■ fX Control Implant Expressed as percent slaughter weight. mm 82 3 o •H +* ■H CQ O 2^ o o CO CO cd o 5-. cd o • >-< o -• O H +* ^ cd cd cd 0 ! h 5i 03 CD » o * P CD w ® O Pi cd u .>* -t -> r* o M M tH cd •H Pi 6-i C O *H H cd Sh -d P CD in 05 tH m P o d> -H 5-, ■+■* • X3 o cd * *H P P, GO + * 5h 4) cd >SK P P 45 10 Ch O o Eh * P. CD 00 O GO CD S3 o aO Si * Cg H 1 cd cd 0 0 Ch CO ' c h 03 03 • 04 rH 05 • fH r-l CD 05 M' • 05 CO 00 rH • iH co 'O’ 'O’ ’n ’ CO oc CD • 00 CO rH 00 04 rH « 03 ’sf CD a rH o rH • rH rH • CO LO O H' • CO rH CO CO m m CO in OO • 04 tH 03 t- o in o in 05 CD 00 00 CO rH 03 CM CO "d1 CM tH in 04 CD o o tH CM 05 a CD CD CD • CD O CO LO LO o CO O t— ' CM CD 04 LO 00 CO LO CO r—t in o tH tH CD tH 05 IH 05 • • tH tCD tH CD tH 05 'd' • o 03 6 O CD rH CD 00 rH o 05 * in o in rH CM CD CO 04 co H" CM OO 0 CO LO in CM rH CD CO t- CD in CO • •sf LO o co CO 00 • 00 o CD 04 o ttH rH o CO 03 CD CO 03 CD 04 O b- tH O co co rH CO rID ’sf rH OO LO o t- CO • 04 05 05 05 t~ 05 rH CO 05 05 T31 03 04 CO 05 05 CO 00 CM co CO 03 05 rH 03 CO in 05 05 tH rH CD CD 05 rH tH 00 03 tH o CD tH 03 LO • CM rH t- co • 03 tr- OO tH 03 tH Q CD 05 in T-I 04 00 • • in CM LO • 05 rH • CM T —1 tH 03 CO • CD 03 in o O 05 05 CD m tH CM 04 04 tH in 00 • rH CD IH • 03 cT—( 04 CO OO CO O CD CM CO c — ’d* m 05 rH CD CD rH • CO 03 H’ CD CD tn oo CD CD rH •O’ 05 rH CO CD rH tH ’sr in m tH 05 IH 00 CM CD • r—1 T —* CM 05 03 05 Q r—I CO CO LO • 05 03 05 05 Cj in in * 05 05 m 03 in CO • CD ’H in • tco rH • CO 03 * o CO CD • 04 rH OO CO 00 CO CD bO in o tH • P +» O cd oO ^ CO CD 03 t- rH & in r —! in GO CD O CD o jQ 04 CD a CO • CD 05 CD CD +» rt 05 05 o 03 • 04 rH CD 04 « CD 05 05 M< rH 04 CO • CO ’d’ • 05 05 CD P O CQ rH cd .Q •H t—< t—t tH 1 O r—I 1 05 * rH tH cd 4-> o EH -H CO s 00 03 Ci cd p, CD CD h a , TO a> +j cd £ TO G cd rH • • O o rH CD T-J rH CD • o CD CD tH 04 tH tH 00 OO CM 05 • CO 'd* 03 LO in rH 03 03 tH 00 CD 03 in OO in tH 00 05 03 CD 03 tH 00 CM CO CM r—1 CO t— CO CM -dJ CO in 05 03 o 03 CO rH 'd* •M' CM 'Cf CD O IH HH tH CD tH M' CD ’d 1 tH 03 IH O 00 03 LO 04 CO 04 OC CD CO CM 04 rH -d* tH CM CC CD LO H CM CO CO 03 tH 00 CM 00 CM 04 04 m CD 03 CO CO CO Ht in in CD CO m CO in CO LO in CO CD cc■ rH CO • 03 T j * 05 • 'sf "M1 • 04 'tf' in o O CM • O in 03 00 r— I CM co 00 M1 in 04 03 yy P 3- X rH cd CJ CD rH rO cd 6-1 1 H o « Eh p Pj -H CO >5 • P CD C/5 P cd CD rH • Pi CD 05 P cd CD rH • ’sT1 si P-t to O • 00 CO 00 in Tf CO CM o CO CO LO 05 CM in CM • • • 0 • • CM in • CD oo a M1 tH CD rH • -P O -H 5 5 cd o o Pi rH -H O £ CD CM o CD CO o CD O CD o o CH o CO o o 83 co o CD § n CCi tH in GO *H APPENDIX - Table XVI Trial II Chemical and Physical Carcass Composition Control Implant i Iodine number of rendered tallow g- 601 10. 3* 51.8 531 6.3 52.5 602 4.8 52.6 532 5.6 55.2 603 6.6 54.9 533 4.3 49.1 604 4.6 54.0 534 5.4 53.3 605 6.9 52.1 535 4.5 52.2 606 7.4 54.3 536 6.8 53.0 607 4.3 48.8 537 4.9 51.7 608 5.3 49.4 Cattle No. Moisture in raw tallow Cattle No. Moisture in raw tallow ^ ,0 Iodine number of rendered tallow g* Averages of results from 2 or more determinations# 2 Grams of iodine absorbed by 100 grams of fat. Sample jar broken upon removal from frozen storage. - 84 APPENDIX - Table XVII Trial II Longissimus dorsi Area and External Fat Thickness Control Cattle No. I. dorsi sq. m . Implant Fat thickness mm. __ Cattle No. L„ dorsi sq. m . Fat thickness mm, 601 13.33 25 531 13.14 16 602 11.77 26 532 13*60 23 603 11.57 22 533 10.02 25 604 12.43 17 534 12.99 15 605 11.85 23 535 12.24 22 606 11.39 20 536 10.12 30 607 14.08 16 537 11.72 20 608 11.98 16 - 85 APPENDIX - Table XVIII Trial III Steer Weights - Control Steers Cattle 12/3 1/14 No, 1954 12/17 12/31 1955 l/28 2/14 2/28 3/l4 3/28 4/ll 4/21 4/22 4/23 lb. lb. lb. lb. lb. lb. lb. lb. lb. lb. lb. lb. lb. 4 698 750 781 762 797 835 862 915 932 953 980 982 986 8 684 728 750 763 796 840 860 916 936 945 944 988 974 17 746 790 838 848 860 898 950 990 1034 1038 1064 1084 1066 22 850 897 930 963 980 1037 1076 1124 1134 1158 1153 1188 1178 23 800 847 866 893 920 996 1030 1080 1090 1120 1129 1155 1146 24 740 781 803 830 850 906 30 960 972 1016 31 788 840 881 902 950 1022 1062 1104 1132 1142 1126 1184 1168 32 832 880 904 928 955 1010 1070 1098 1135 1148 1162 1186 1194 33 830 898 931 961 975 1057 1090 1136 1184 1188 1205 1226 1212 36 932 934 958 978 1002 1082 1110 1138 1178 1162 1174 1194 1188 37 780 828 855 878 910 958 994 1015 1052 1062 1076 1094 1096 39 868 886 888 900 930 958 982 1030 1056 1057 1080 1100 1084 42 802 860 886 897 929 987 1013 1050 1062 1096 1105 1116 1106 948 980 1022 1033 1035 1064 1044 1052 1068 1138 1178 1238 1242 1264 1275 1310 1300 - 86 - APPENDIX - Table XIX Trial III Steer Weights - Diethylstilbestrol Fed Lot • .Q H Cattle I 2 / 3 l/l4 No, 1954 12/17 12/31 1955 l/28 2/l4 2/28 3/l4 3/28 4/ll 4/21 4/22 4/23 lb. lb. lb. lb. lb. lb. lb. lb. lb. lb. lb. lb. 1 680 740 768 770 825 2 830 895 890 920 980 1026 1076 1102 1138 1142 1172 1170 1186 3 772 816 863 892 938 7 838 887 911 945 998 1040 1084 1154 1200 1222 1246 1250 1240 10 7S5 811 845 885 933 11 880 913 950 955 998 1014 1033 1065 1126 1118 1152 1160 1160 14 788 840 880 910 968 990 1014 1058 1060 1120 1174 1176 1176 20 814 857 888 908 951 988 1024 1070 1122 1146 1178 1176 1160 25 695 746 785 820 878 912 28 920 968 988 1007 1065 1108 1154 1198 1240 1266 1288 1290 1284 29 952 968 986 1020 1060 1108 1140 1165 1222 1236 1278 1268 1254 38 770 774 807 810 862 88 8 924 40 800 842 842 884 925 954 998 1020 1068 1062 1106 1114 1108 41 738 795 834 860 905 945 1G10 1042 1096 1110 1140 1138 1120 - 87 855 890 942 954 988 1035 1050 1030 976 1033 1088 1134 1156 1185 1192 1180 960 1000 1062 1090 1122 1166 1172 1144 940 983 1008 1025 1052 1066 1064 967 1000 1020 1040 1046 1036 APPENDIX - Table XX Trial III Steer Weights - Implanted Lot Cat'tie 12/3 TJlA No. 1954 12/17 12/31 1955 l/28 2/l4 2/28 3/14 3/28 4/11 4/21 4/24 4/23 lb. lb. lb. lb. lb. lb. lb. lb. lb. lb. lb. lb. lb. 5 902 955 980 1000 1060 1064 1126 1152 1178 1198 1228 1228 1226 6 854 900 90S 940 1012 1040 1092 1147 1174 1188 1228 1234 1244 9 828 858 897 914 950 12 770 831 880 932 984 1052 1122 1193 1258 1278 1318 1322 1304 13 874 920 950 952 1016 1034 1084 1126 1172 1185 1228 1228 1196 15 862 900 926 933 998 1024 1098 1132 1166 1194 1232 1234 1224 16 795 820 829 865 925 956 1008 1058 1110 1112 1129 1136 1114 18 720 793 776 805 870 902 19 810 869 903 910 986 1022 1058 1102 1136 1160 1188 1196 1188 21 947 970 993 26 774 830 850 861 924 980 1018 1074 1114 1126 1164 1182 1166 27 662 690 740 770 832 880 34 835 859 889 915 977 1020 1078 1145 1198 1188 1235 1248 1226 35 678 690 702 738 775 992 1048 1117 1148 1182 1236 1230 1210 942 995 1020 1054 1114 1126 1108 1008 1078 1100 1160 1190 1248 1270 1312 1310 1304 820 - 88 - 922 857 995 1036 1074 1112 1108 1096 898 952 960 994 994 984 0) bO cd Sh o > "=3 to • o O LO ID uo CO LO to • * o• LO LO • M 4 O * to to LO LO CD ft CO o to a LO LO 0 to • H4 IO • H4 to » to IO o • CD LO • CD u 0 T3 ■P 33 S3 U CO CO t- OO 03 cd O tH I & 13 13 13 h I a> *3^ p. c? 0 rH LO LO LO io LO CO a> CM * H-» O LO CO rH +* S5 cd to rH CO ■'d* LO CO rH Oi it4 CM CO CM o o o o o o M 4 co CO o t- M4 LO H 4 LO CD CM CO o c? CO o o &H rH O S> to 0 CD LO O LO LO « CD to LO CO » • O LO • CO CO o ft M4 to o to ft ID CD M 4 CO to LO • o O • CO to ID « H4 • H 4 O • co to LO CO H O TJ 0 0 0 O O 0 *H *iH *H J&43 O O 43 O O O rH CM 00 0 :_!> I i& 0 tH to a> rH 00 3 a4 o ft oo LO « l> LO • LO LO ft -d1 to a I O oft CO oft to o 0 tr­ io » o0 CO D- O 0 to LO 0 LO O 0 M4 IO * to CO a> > •ri 0 cd o •H U 0 4-* 43 W) rs cd S3 0 tH § o O in (—I © 13 cd S3 UJ CO LO M4 ID CO LO LO CO 'd4 LO tH O Ch & S3 0 rH « 13 O +■> O -+■* J3 cd 00 CM CM CO CM ■'sj4 CM O CO 00 CM CO CO CO CO CO t00 o CO CM H 4 0 Vi cd 125 o - 89 - Cto X—V G •H ra W rH c n ^ O 0 U IO • o CO 05 a O CO CO « CO CO LO 03 • rH g rH CO rH CO CO • CO O • CO rH CO • 03 CD O a 00 rH • rH CD CO LO CO LO • CO CO C5 • 03 CD LO • • rH CO CO t> CO rH o • 03 CD a JW co g •H • rH £ • rH o t- rH • rH o 03 ee 05 CO CO oo co o co O t- 05 CO 03 03 a rH • rH 03 • rH 03 o rH • rH * rH CO G 05 o G H-> 00 a> 'a flj 03 O CO o G cd o CO rH 05 fc- O rH LO C- tr­ 9■^r 00 LO CO rH t- 05 05 rH CO CO CO OO LO t- 03 CO CO o CO 03 t- 03 CO rH 00 o LD CSJ 03 tH o rH o rH rH rH rH rH o 00 t> f> 03 00 CO CO CO 00 CO CO ■'tf* tr­ ee 00 CO CO (0 +CD » WO o G H CCS o a X 00 j3 co CO • rH CCS H-> • £ rH +■* o • g £ H-> rH 0 a •rH !> 3 0 * -G O 03 CO o LO c05 IO CO rH rH rH 03 t- tr- t- o t- t05 CO O LO CO rH rH LO CO rH rH o rH O rH rH rf IO 03 03 05 03 OO CO O rH rH O 03 00 rH rH • 03 LO • O CO 03 a CO CO a rH CO a 03 co 03 rH a CO O a 03 CO rH CO CO O a 03 CO a rH 05 a T—1 ^3* a rH ta rH 03 in a rH LO a rH a rH O O O o rH o rH rH 03 CO tr­ LO 03 o oo rH rH 9 LO rH rH o H rH 03 03 t- CO 03 rH o 03 o oo O o a* *rt co *0 rH rH a rH CO^. O 0 O •rl u X G tuO t« -a G •c •rl rH CO • O CO ee • CO CO • rH t- rH a rH a rH 05 • o CD '— Q C/1 CO CO rH CO Oa 00 CO CO a rH CO tra rH a rH CO 05 « CO LO rH •H M M M <3 e-t !—i H 0 rH •Q O ”0 G a> rH o$ G XJ 4-* rH G O H-> G 0 O G O Ox tu) G •H CO CO « H Q Ox O 42 rH t- rH O rH flS * a O ■+-* 42 G £ rH O 00 LO O tr­ io rH o o 00 C/1 co w O O cti O O 03 CO O 03 CO O rH rH rH 03 05 CO 03 CO CO CO o 00 CO CO CO 03 rH t- c- Tf CO co rH OO 05 CO 05 O t- CO rH rH rH rH O CO C- rH rH rH rH O t- 03 t> 03 LO CO CD CO CO CO tr­ ee co o t- 05 03 C- 03 CO CO CO tr­ ee CO CO CO ID 03 rH rH LO LO rH rH in 05 rH rH LO rH rH LO CO LO LO LO 00 03 CO CO CO co CO CO O H-» O 04 CO CO ocS O • • H-» 42 g > rH cd c_> 0 U a G •rH G H-» •H 0 * 0 a > +» g 42 *H £ -G rH -1 0 a 05 LO O LO 05 ID 00 03 CO LO o 05 o CO o rH 00 tr- 03 03 O LO rH o tr— rH 03 rH o rH LO 03 rH O O O O rH rH rH tr- 05 CO 03 0 rH -g •g ctS • o Sz: rH CO 03 03 o - 90 O co CO 00 ^f1 bO G •H W CQ 0 c, Q x-v 73 rH O O CO a w ■a 0 J* G •rH 42 G rH r-i G •a -d 44 e/3 bO G •rl rH rH •H 44 O t-H M hH *s rH bo cd cd •H G E-< H M H 0 42 rH td Eh cd 0 G G 0 u G 0 Pk a CO CD 00 a CM CD rH a LO CD ta CM CD CM a 7J* CD 05 a O CD 05 a CM CD CO a rH CD CM a rH CD O a rH CD CO a CO CD OO a rH CD CO a rH 05 a CO a rH O a rH CM a rH CM • rH O a rH CM a LO a rH LO a rH O T—1 o rH LO a rH a rH rH a rH O — t1 t> O rH oo 05 05 CM rH OO rH rH CM rH t- C5 rH rH rH t> O CD LO LO t- CD t> Tj* t> O 00 ID CD r- 05 rt* t- O O C- 00 IO CO CO t- ID 00 CO 05 CD CO LO CD 05 CD t- 05 O CD O cc— CM CD t- CD LO t- TCM —1 00 LO t- CM rH t > CD CD CO '7f< 05 t- in o CO CD CD O tc- oo CD rH CD O 00 • 3 O O O CD *H b c/3 73 a CM CD CO 03 T3 0 CQ -G CQ G 73 cd • • cd rH O G 42 rH O G J3 rH CkO cd S O CO t> M g O ® CQ CQ cd a a o G 42 G I* rH cd OO t- t- c- o -G •H a 0 * 0 > G G 43 •H G rH t-3 0 o o to o o rH rH LO CD rH rH LO o rH rH rH rH rH CM rH CD rH oo rH 05 rH rH CM CO CM t> CM CO CM rH CO rH rH 00 CM rH rH rH LD 05 rH rH O 05 CM rH LO CD 05 CM rH CO rH LO rH LO o LO t> o t> CM O c- o o LO 00 05 a 0 rH G G cd • O S O bO 3 •H CQ CQ 0 G Q H a ew » o ^ •H P o3 O p a LO rH CD co £ O 03 tH tH CO 04 o t- 04 LO LO 04 CO tH 05 O 04 fa LO 0 oO ■— tH fa CO •tH CO fa 0 LO 0 0 tH tH LO 0 0 CO 10 10 LO LO tH CD CD 0- 04 04 LO CO 04 OS 00 o fa fa OS IH OS o OO 0 CO H1 CO LO 10 LO co 04 LO CO CO 03 0 LO CO CO 0 0 0 0 0 C4 CO 04 03 as 0 fa 10 to ID 0 0 Eh ca fa P X! *H tH X cd Eh "S a tH tH P >5 fa 00 "*■ 0 0 0 CO CO 04 O 04 fa LO fa OS 00 CO O CO LO 0 fa CO OS CO 10 LO LO CO fa X! CD fa fa fa LO 10 O 0 LO 04 O 04 04 04 CO LO LO o P cd fa a a o a p 0 10 CO LO 2 (0 (D cd fa S o 'X O cn LO 0 CO to Xi x: IH IH 0 0 04 04 0 fa LO fa tH 10 0 00 as LO 03 CD LO tH tH cs 04 o 04 jy x o a o p X fa OS LO CD CD OS fa CO 'Tf c— & 04 04 03 tH 00 LO o tH CO CO CD CO LO fa 03 04 O CO LO O CD 10 o 00 H tH a3 P •4_> «S O 00 co - 92 - fa CO 04 CO CO - Detroit CD P P cd O IO lO CD live weight LO 0 CO tH CO as percent XI €3 fa cd fa 0 a 3 X Q Ch fa P CO ^ Expressed P eg X5 rH a. s (I) s* ■S -P S3 o o CO -P jC toO 'H O X! o H eg •H S-t E-t M M M LO 05 00 CO rH IO to co • 00 to • 05 LO to CO • rH CO to 9 00 05 LO co • 03 LO LO rH CO CO CO CO IO rH • • CO rH CO rH LO rH rH 05 05 05 co rH T 03 00 O 03 OO 03 tt- 00 00 00 05 -set* CO CO 03 CD 03 03 CO rH s x: ^ ^ Q* S a> Xl a S O ftl H I 01 ' to lO eg > » O X i rH -P eg O rH t-H X o • 05 rH rH CO CO rH -yr* 00 00 CO LO co IO LO CO CO rH LO rH CO rH CO 05 03 05 CO —I LO to LO eg t> CO £ CO LO to 05 03 0) o -p CO rH • -P -P eg O O & Q) i—I X eg rH • CO LO rH rH H E-» rH • CO O a> p s3 O H H M CO • OO 3 CH H wX{ < PH "=3 - 93 - to CO live weight - Detroit Pm to • 03 as percent P=4 •H • CO CO rH •H Expressed I—I T—f 5h > m CO to H4 • tH to •ri LO tH tH IO tH u •H vJJ tH ^k (H • t—I IO H4 co t* c- CM 00 co CO 05 CO C- o o CO H 4 • rH CM P tH p CO tH 05 to 05 CO "'t CM P P CM P CO p o 05 • tH • • LO CM to 00 CM CM P CO LO CO p tH p oo CO o CO OO CO t- CM P CM P CO CM CM CM O M 4 * « 00 * o CO CM H4 P CD TO 33 O *H LO LO 05 05 05 05 CO CO o LO CO 05 CM P CO LO P 05 H 4 OO 05 CO 00 05 P CM CO CM tH CM CD • M4 • to P to • H4 P p • LO P H4 a LO P • tH CM • P P 'M* • 05 CM • CM P CM P to • tH 05 05 OO tH o H 4 CO IO CO p p a CO 05 05 CD tH • P P O 53 P o a CH p -o H3 CD CD 10 LO 33 ■H •H CO P * £S P J? P CD CD ik *3 CD TJ x> •H p m Ph 5j P P P a CM P CM • CM P 00 • CM P CM • CM P H4 * l> • CM 00 05 05 00 05 05 05 00 o> p CM CO e- CO a CO 1 —t tH o to 05 • to P P 00 • CO p 00 0 05 tH a 05 o 05 • CM tH a CM P P co tH tH p 05 • CO p CM O LO CD • 04 tH rH M4 • CO p CM P • P P 05 P 00 05 t- LO o • O V P P p p CM • P P 05 • 05 a IO • p CD * CM P LO p CO p 05 OO to 00 05 oo P 05 a H P LO a CD P P LO P • CO H4 CO p tH 05 *H >H a> *o • CM P P CM 14 «s p cci £3 U a> > *H mJ T—I JD CM • P P p • IH expressed & H P H4 11 «S •H £ p CM • to *H 40 tH rH *— i H M4 Cd 9 00 CO CM « CM CM • • CO CM * 00 CM * o CO • CM 00 CM CO CM • rH CM a 05 CM 05 CM rH CO • 05 • rH CO 05 CM rH M4 t» 05 co « t• M4 • M 4 LO M 4 CO * rH rH * CM o . CM o . CM o * CM rH IO CM 00 • rH rH rH CM CM rH CO LO • 05 00 • 05 CO • 05 co • O t* 00 • to CO * CO CO o 00 t• CO CO O CO 00 • CM rH 9 rH • CM » T— 1 eCO CO CO CO CO • CO « 05 • rH . CO • 40 00 CM * LO 27 M4 o » 26 is cd IO • M4 ■9 21 p * 19 p o • 18 o t—t . 16 U • 0> rH w 15 & ss I—i 13 a rH CM o P P OO R flS Eh g i—i • p p cd O o is • ,Q tH LO 03 • rH I t * CM CO t> r* CO rH CO CM M4 # LO CM CM 00 CM o o • CM 00 LO 00 o • 00 . o * o • rH rH rH rH rH rH 05 co 05 CO CM CO tCO 00 CO CO LO 00 CO • O CO co « t- a . • • 0 • • rH o 05 OO M4 M1 CO M4 oo • • • LO # • . • CM • » • . M4 . M4 - 95 - • • rH CM CO CM CM CM • • OO CO rH rH « . CO • M4 • * ■'d4 • CO rH • . M4 • to 22 ik CM M4 • M4 ■ 17 <3 d n P 00 # M4 flj o M M M CO 00 lO • • • M4 Xi4 M4 00 CO O CM CO CM a 05 CM o LO 05 • rH 05 • rl 05 LO CO CO M4 • M4 CO LO LO rv t> CM * CM « C• * • • • rH CO M4 05 « M4 oo CM * * 00 05 rH rH t> CO CO . c. co • cc # M4 to * M4 • c» * . . LO . M4 as $ hot carcass weight n o !—I LO CM t- * 11 05 05 CO 10 S-. • cd XI o rH W • • Expressed rH CO * rH • tH • 41 CO « o » 42 co CO * • CM * 39 LO t- • o Cd 37 CM t- p r 3" ! j i p H « CM • • 29 r rH » • 33 CO CM • CO m 32 P CM e o 20 fa ik CD tn o rH * 31 p H rH 05 a 14 rH tH < * 30 g • O *Q POO o u p W <1) X> • 24 eg • 36 . 23 0 'H rH APPENDIX - Table XXVI Trial III Carcass Grades Control Cattle No. Grade Grade Code1 Diethylstilbestrol Fed Implant Cattle Grade Cattle No. Grade Code No. Grade Grade Code1 4 Gd 8 1 Gd + 7 5 Ch 5 8 Gd + 7 2 Ch - 6 6 Ch 5 17 Ch - 6 3 Ch ■+ 4 9 Gd + 7 22 Gd + 7 7 Gd + 7 12 Gd + 7 23 Ch - 6 10 Ch 5 13 Gd + 7 24 Ch - 6 11 Ch - 6 15 Gd + 7 30 Ch - 6 14 Ch - 6 16 Gd + 7 31 Gd 8 20 Ch + 4 18 Ch 5 32 Ch 5 25 Gd + 7 19 Gd * 7 33 Ch - 6 28 Ch + 4 21 Gd + 7 36 Ch - 6 29 Ch 5 26 Ch - 6 37 Ch + 4 38 Ch - 6 27 Ch - 6 39 Gd ■+ 7 40 Ch 5 34 Ch - 6 42 Ch - 6 41 Ch - 6 35 Gd 8 1 Based on following numerical equivalents: Prime + Prime Prime - 1 2 3 Choice + Choice Choice - 4 5 6 - 96 - Good + Good Good - 7 8 9 fcitf 00 rH CO LO t— 1 LO LO H LO rH CM LO rH LO CO o rH tH LO CD O LO LO CO LO rH o 00 ID rH rH O CO O CO tH tH LO ID ID CD CD CD CO 'St 00 ID rH rH CM CC O ID CO ID tH rH rH rH 165 45 0 o fa s Pi 45 R fa fa •a 45 fa P rH O P X! • O L0 g Pi "H R LO T—1 O LO LO LO LO CO LO tH tH O LO rH rH o rH rH O CD rH LO LO LO LO LO LO tH rH CO LO LO CD t —1 rH rH rH rH rH LO O CO 05 rH CO 00 iH CM 00 H rH rH CO c- 00 CO i—1 rH tH tH o CO O 05 O CO LO 00 CO rH rH rH rH tH tH O LO LO LO O CD rH tH CO CO LD tH tH rH CO ID CD to 165 a p 165 P P W 45 X! rH CO rH i? P u p n • t- lO IH rH O 05 tH fa fa U d p x; • L0 s •H g LO o 05 rH LO c- rH o 05 rH 00 00 tH 05 00 C- O t> t> tH tH ID ID O CD tH tH tH O ID 00 ID CD rH tH 00 CO O 'St o CO LO 1 —1 t> t> rH 05 rH IO 00 rH CO oo rH rH LO CO rH 00 rH rH tH rH f> tH rH CM CO D“ O rH rH rH O CM LO CM CD CM 05 rH CO 'vF LO LO O CD CO LO LO ID 05 05 Tt CD rH rH rH rH rH tH O fa Pi LO 05 O CO CO CO 05 O 00 CO CD rH 182 c«S • Pi S a> § > P 177 LO •H 180 45 45 P • o CM 41 rH O > g P • P o fa E E Pi 45 fa fa p M 1— i t-H •rl fa LO LO rH P x: • o LO j3 E Pi IH LO LO 1— I fa O LO rH O LO rH O LO LO rH LO r— 1 LO LO rH CO CO T-1 LO LO rH CO to O LO LO rH rH rH rH O LO LO O LO LO LO LO CO LO LO LO O LO t— rH rH ■M* rH rH rH rH rH rH tH LO ^t LO LO LO CD CO LO ID LO tH "st O ID C CD rH tH tH CM ID tH tH tH rH 'st Tl* LO LO rH rH O rH rH CD rH CO LO tH 140 05 145 ttS * Pi B 143 45 UQ d •H Pi 45 P 05 HH M > B E cvj o •>c1 Ed-t Pi 1 H 0 a. fa <3h •H o 0) rH XI 45 P Pi O rH 45 Pi P (4 fa 45 45 fa fa * P XI • LO § 45 • H s fa fa Pi 05 tH P P d O LO rH CO rH • O !25 CO rH 03 CM 97 - O CD CO O 00 CO rH CD rH rH O ID O CD CO CD ID 'St tH tH rH rH CO CO CD t00 05 rH crH LO CO CO 157 Eh rH O 170 P. 164 rH "8 s Pm IO OO 05 in CO 00 rH CD rH 00 LD rH CD rH CO rH LO in in rH trH in rH rH CO rH O t-H rH rH rH in t- to O in m O CO rH O CO rH in in O CO O LO rH M* rH O CO rH 00 rH in in rH rH in in in in rH CO rH in in rH in in rH rH 05 05 rH in OO 05 rH CM o CM CM 05 rH O O rH 00 rH in O in rH CrH in O CO rH CO rH O C- O rH 00 CO CD rH O CO rH H-» H-» C5 xi O III Trial ?H CD CO 05 rH CM CM +-> in <1> 05 x— 1 CM CM o 05 rH CM CM rH LO to <0 cd > ■=$ & CD 04 +* ^ X! cd U) CD -rH 04 04 0 00 in O CO rH OO CO rH o CM o 05 rH 05 rH in t- O O 00 in o O in rH CO rH LO rH M4 05 rH O in o CM o CM LO rH CM CM 05 rH O O in O O 00 CM rH CM 05 rH CO in o o CM in o CM CM CM O 05 rH 05 t— 1 00 o CM 05 rH CM to t- M4 00 in O CM in O CM o CM 05 rH rH CM £05 rH o CM 05 rH o CM CM 00 m CO co O O in in CM CM O LO CO rH CM O CM O O CM CD rH H-> c H-> 2 cd o rH o •H Q) CM APPENDIX - Table XXVII CO rH rH f !h a H-* O § O rH +* S3 cd ra a> § •H •s o o in &Q| - 98 - rH CM CM 00 X! Jh rH ft ft cS •rH U ft M ft > a tH X ci CD Eh X I —l ft f t <35 1 05 0 *H ft 01 in (3 ft © CO rH CCS o ■tH CO >5 X! ft 13.0 14.9 16.5 CO • rH 29.2 33.2 37,5 rH 37.1 03 • CO 03 03 . 50.1 CO t* CO rH 13.2 OO Tt* LO CO CO * © CO . co 50.6 • CO LO CO -• 53.0 0 46.2 03 CO 42.5 CO . CO 0 CO 01 05 CO 'd 4 0 CO 0 03 - 99 13.7 . CO CO 14.4 T—1 CO t—1 » CO 05 • 05 CO a 1 0 CO 13.0 13.2 13.1 13.5 38.4 40.7 53.4 LO • rH O • OO ft H CM CO CO CO CO co • H w • CO CO CO CO ft 05 LO LO 00 tco CO CO 0 13.5 03 CT> 05 44.2 0 CO ft 0 0 ft . 0 * CO 41.7 46.0 00 38.6 00 43.8 51.4 10 05 49.1 13.1 39.8 52.9 "C)' 41.3 13.0 13.9 40.4 00• 0 . 12.7 13.1 14,2 35.9 47.0 48.1 0 42.0 ft . CD ft 37,1 CO 36.5 rH LO 12.6 13.6 11.6 41.1 35.7 03 01 * . 10 45.6 0 54.6 co 05 . rH ft 48.2 . CO ft 14.2 iH • CM H 48.7 14,5 32.1 51.4 44.1 rH 0 • CO 1— 1 45.0 13.5 14.0 ao a 46.6 11,8 11.1 53.6 46.9 rH rH CO CO 12.2 35.1 39.5 'd4 rH ♦ CQ CO 54.1 . CO • 47.5 CO LO 00 35.8 03 LO 55.3 51.4 O H « 49.0 14.2 15,3 33.1 10 • 12,8 LO CO 12.7 13.6 14,1 35.9 40.5 00 56.8 0 . CO CO 39.4 0 13.0 15.7 29.9 05 . CO CO • t— CO 13.2 14,5 14.1 33.7 0 0 32.0 13.6 13.8 35.8 CO . 10 35.6 12.4 rH . CO rH 12.1 13.0 15,8 24.1 c* CO 0 50.4 Carcass Bone rH « O CO 00 44.1 C- 33.1 CO 36.9 Bone 9-11 Rib rH • CO rH rH 42.9 Lean 9-11 Rib CVJ 55.2 S-i rH f t ft ft ,Q S3 Otf 1 *rj O HH CJ> f t O 05 • CO rH 6*09 E-t I O rH I 47.4 *H 0 17 3 o 53,0 ft 46.1 C CtJ 61.7 CD 57.0 TJ Cattle No. 03 rH Carcass Bone ft 05 . 05 IO Bone 9-11 Rib •rH 0 Carcass Fat CD Carcas Lean o Si G$ o T? Lean 9-11 Rib CO Cattl No, to Diethyls tilbest:rol Fed Fat 1Carcass Carcass 9-11 Lean Fat Rib O ft •H CO O & o o >1 •H LO CO LO H 0 H 0 ft rH . 05 X3 Pi XJ a cd +-> 3 O X> •H a t—I t—I w tH I O tH I 05 c o ■a o cd a cd -H a cd c_> t— 1 cd tH +» rH X! pw C d 1•H 05 PeJ CO CO cd a o cd D a C cd o a tH cd tH 0 I •H 05 oi CD tH si •H U a o •H 4-> (d to tH CO lO CO CM CO CM CO rH tH tH CO t— 1 tH tH tH tH • * • o O 0 tH 0 H4 CO 0 M4 CM tH tH 0 co tH tH tH H 4 tH LO H 4 LO CO tH tH tH tH 0 CM CM CO CD CO tH CM ■M4 CO CO tH CM O 0 H4 tH tH O 0 to H 1 CO tH tH tH tH tH CM tH O tH CD CO to • O CM IO CO CO CO CO CD CO CM CO H4 • 05 OO • o M4 tH • tH « tH CO H 4 o tH c o • CO CO • t o to • to • H4 CO CD LO ^J4 LO CM lO o 0 CO H4 IH • CD H4 to m o to o• 00 H4 H4 0 to CD 05 • rH * • • • tH 0 0 M4 0 0 CM t0 tH CO 0 CO CM 0 LO 0 CO 0 0 5 0 M4 tH 'd4 0 CD tH tH CO TD CD -a •H -H W CD o • rH •H m o a2; cd o • CO 05 • CM to - • • • H4 0 LO H4 0 LO CO 0 t CM lO 0 05 CM H1 0 tH CO CM CO CM CM CO tH O CO CD CO CM CM CM LO LO O tH CO 05 CM 05 CM t-I CO tH CO tH H4 o H " : CM CO CM CO IO CO 0 0 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M4 0 0 0 H4 00 c c 0 ■M4 tH co 0 LO 00 LO IH LO cLO CD LO CD LO IO LO LO 0 o CD t> 05 CO tH LO CD tH LO LO LO CM LO LO OO H4 00 LO CO c — H4 CO ID CO CM 0 co 0 05 CM LO CM CO to rH tH tH u CL 0> C/5 tH cd O •H CO I-t” P 100 - 0 tH 0 O 00 t— 1 0 0 05 tH 0 0 tH 0 LO CM LO tH CO CM CM 0 0 o CM o0 0 O 0 CO CD 0 APPENDIX - Table XXIX Trial III Fat Thickness - iiib-eye Area Control JDiethylstilbestrol Fed Implant Cattle Fat Rib eye Cattle Fat Rib eye Cattle Rib eye Fat No. Thickness area No. Thickness area No. Thickne ss area 50th in. sq. in. 50th in. sq. in. 50th in. sq. in. 4 31 8.12 1 49 9.22 5 43 7.24 3 11 11.87 2 56 9.62 6 50 9.93 17 34 8.30 3 41 11.64 9 38 9.95 22 50 9.97 7 34 11.84 12 41 11.65 23 61 10.71 10 36 10.24 13 38 10.70 24 45 9.50 11 46 10.39 15 36 10.25 30 47 9.53 14 23 9.22 16 26 11.31 31 44 9.79 20 79 9.51 18 39 10.66 32 52 10.65 25 40 9.91 19 36 12.19 33 50 9.20 28 54 8.90 21 39 11.49 36 63 10.43 29 48 11.22 26 53 10.63 37 53 10.27 38 48 8.90 27 38 9.73 39 52 7.97 40 57 8.90 34 37 11.76 42 49 10.77 41 56 9.14 35 23 9.84 - 101 - fa | H rH C/5 S3 4) is rl H CD H Qt g CO CO * o rH XJ * • o rH LO Cd ■ * O rH r> E'­ en 00 rH o O • M4 Cd • E~- CD O • 05 M4 00 00 * t> • CO CD • o CO t- rH in • E- Cd rH • O rH M* O • CO 00 • « 00 in CO CO ■M4 CO • O o rH CO 0 • * 05 o Cd • 00 CD m • o M4 O • CO o LO m o rH rH CO o c- 00 M4 • 05 CO CO • 00 in t> 'Cf • CO • CO tCO CO • o • CO CO CO * CO CO LO • CO CO Cd • CO Cd rH • CO 05 05 • CO 05 LO • CO oo CO * LO o o CO 00 • CO CO co • CO CO rH o o o H4 CO co CO CO m • CO rH Cd CO E- Cd M4 • 00 rH 05 • CO Cd rH CO • OO rH O • E'­ E'­ en • 00 CO Cd • 05 o o tH en 05 • 05 E• OO o tH en H4 LO • CO CO • 05 o o • E— • CO Od CD o CO CO Cd CO CO H4 • CO H4 00 CO CO CM « CO LO H4 • o T— 1 Cd LO 0 o rH M4 • M4 o O rH t> E~ Cd '05 CO CO CO 00 • CO 05 CO • CO IE00 • CO 05 CO • CO E'­ en • LO CO * CO o • CO 05 E— • CO CO CO • CO TJ4 Cd E- CO CO ■ rH 20 E- 00 Mi rH CO "sf4 14 CO o CO • • 05 11 CO in • ■M4 10 LO CO co rH rH rH CO LO 05 CO • CO m 15.11 E- rH t- a> • 15.10 0) ■P rH « f t H o in Cd 15.12 > CO 3.12 fci ^ CD 05 3.11 4> 00 id tH M 4 co CO 05 • E— E'­ en • CO rH CO • E'­ H4 05 • Cd CO en 9 co 3.13 41 « CO 6.46 • E'­ CO 40 * Cd CO 0 38 +■» o CO 0 29 5? oo • CO • 28 OO CD • 25 CD 0 CO 00 o H4 • 00 IE00 • CC LO 05 • CD S3 rH •H SH Eh Cd o rc S3 rf rH Cd Cd 0 CO co CO H4 ID LO 0 CQ CO • rH fr• rH o CD CH • t— fr- CO 00 fr• t- rH O'. • t- CM fr• 00 ID CH CO • fr- o oo • fr- CD CD • CO • 00 05 CO • CO CD CO CO LO cc « 00 CO CD • fr- cfr- • t- CH fr- to 1— f oo 00 00 rH rH • CD • t— CH • o 05 fr- fr- 00 CO CM • fr­ 00 ee rH O • 05 o 05 CM • CO CD rH o O • • 0 CO fr• r- 6.34 Q> tuQ] «S d cn d 0) d rH a> PH ; Q) 3 VH t •H ■+-» & Hfe^ sS cn ■+■* +-> d o d fr­ ee frrH * 00 U0 CD • f- 05 CD « fr- O O CM CM • 00 o 'CT* e­ es CM CM * CO ■M* CO • CO ID O ee CO CO rH CM 00 CM CO CD • t- 00 0 e- a fr­ • fr­ a> tyj «J d te*. o a > <3 g 1 (D d d w •H O o CO ■H ccS (!) P- M £ M ccS c/> o * 05 CM • t- * • CO CO 00 CO • CO rH CO CM LO • ID . ID * CO CO CO CO CO 00 CO CO 05 CO o "M* CD CO CM CD CO CD LO o i— ! O frCM CO CO CO CO CO CO CO LO CD 05 CM rH CO rH ID rH CD rH CO • • » o 0 0 05 • CO 0 fr- « 00 0 00 00 rH ■ o 0 CD 0 00 t> CO CO 0 LD CM ■M* UO rH • CO O CM trH CM CD OO rH * • CD ID CO • 00 • 0 CO 0 0 ■M1 6.39 «s £ M 4. 9 0 fc« 4.95 ccS O . M 6, 2 9 CD H** l— f +n «S M rH M d d HH rH a •H 9d-i (!) E T—1 a> Cl, h-> & M d M d • * « • « * • 0 rH rH 0 CM rH 0 CD rH CO • • tCM CO ID CO CO CO & (!) rH • +-> O CD +-> 0 4 ,84 3 ■ s * o •o d «s rH CCS d d w H K P-< -s; - 103 - OO rH 05 rH rH CM CO CM 0> tioj S-i CO • d4 CO d4 00 • d4 P tr• p LO tr- 05 CM • CO CM ft cc • d i d4 CO d 4 CO p co ft d 4 CO 00 05 d 4 o s oo o d4 ft LO o CO tr05 d 4 LO CO LO CO O CO CO CO tr­ LO CO 00 io o LO 05 05 00 LO LO ■*=5 LO +* O C <1? U -*3 H-» CO CJ X -I H -P CO P H-> CD H a LO • d1 +-» CM S3 CD O O CM Jn 33 CD LO CO • CM t> rH LO • CM t- +» o CD fciQ cd cS Sh CD X 3 H-> U CD > M rH CM O 05 LO rH LO CO 00 CO O co d 1 CM oo rH OO CM cc t- d 4 p P P oo ft 05 CM • d4 CO t> • tr- * CO CM a CD d4 CO O 05 CO t- CM CM ce CM CM P LO OO CO tr­ 05 ft 05 cc P P tr- d 4 LO o ee d ! t> o CM tr- tr­ CM • LO CO • io ft LO CO ft oo tr— P * P oo CO CM ee LO • rH 1T- tr- CM ft io • CM tr­ p 00 p • ft t> d 4 CD 05 d4 O 00 x—I CO CM tr- rH CO tTco 05 oo CM CO d 4 t- O 00 CM OO t> CO tT- CO d 4 P O CM CM io 00 ce 05 P tr- CO o X— [ p p CO ce • LO p ft LO tr­ 00 « • • CM rH CM o> 00 to tr- CM oo • 00 LO CM LO LO C5 LO 05 CM CO LO CO IO CM O t- 00 05 CO CO 05 ft CM d 4 05 CM O CD 05 CD 05 CO t- CM rH 00 ce o d 4 05 CM tTp d 4 P ed P LO c- d4 CO tr• d4 00 d4 • d4 CO CO tr05 ee d4 LO d 4 LO 05 CO • d4 LO CO f t rH ft tr- trtr9- d4 d4 • d4 ft o • o 00 «» d4 tr• O ■ d 4 00 ce * CO IO • CO LO • 05 d 4 LO • LO t> tr- lO d 4 d 4 05 ce ce 05 CO ft 05 "=*! W rH cd •rH P E-t O 00 ■ t> • o -H t-H H M » d4 • rH tr­ CM CD P O tr00 -P P a 0) CM feS. '— ' s-t o CD cd O X P P P U — ' (DH X H Cm m CD bO ctS P '<3 o p p S3 O o 05 CD « CM t<£> CM P S3 CD O O tr« CM t> CM P 33 CD Qm CD P O P IS cd o ft CO d4 05 • CM CM tr­ 00 p CM tr- tr- tr- CM o d4 CO CO ft CM tr­ tr- d4 ee CO • CM CM CO • LO ee tr• CM tr­ P ft tr- LO d 4 t- P tr- P LO d4 d 4 CM p ft o 05 tr­ ee LO d4 d 4 05 oft ft o • • ce P d 4 • • O • LO tr­ CO 05 d 4 ee ce 05 05 d 4 • d 4 ce 05 d 4 CO LO CO f t CM o p LO f t CD CO • CO co • CO CO ce « CM 00 00 P tr­ tr - LO CM • P t- • • • CD « 05 05 ft LO LO ce too p tr- CM tr- p tr- 05 « CM t> LO t-• P tr- CM CO ft CM tr­ t05 • P tr­ io d4 » CM tr­ ee tr• o tr- d4 d4 • p tr­ io O « P tr­ p d4 • 00 cc f t CD CM tr- ee CM ft p tr­ d4 CM • CM o io d4 ee CM • CM tr­ ft T—1 tr- ee O • P tr­ ee 05 • o d4 LO ft 00 r — ee tr• P tr­ o o tr— d4 • X—1 tr- 05 CO ft CM tr­ ee P • P tr- tr- CM CM CO CM d 4 O CO CM CO CO CO co tr­ 05 CO CM CO tr— • 00 • p tr­ ee CO • P p ee o ft - 10* - ft • CM tr— CM ft • o O• P £- tr- CO d- « 00 CO CO ee c — CM • t —i tr- d ! a> 110 «3 Pi g <5 03 --- P Pt cd X! Pi P P * < H VX Ph W — p Pi O Pi O O 03 (h w <1> H APPENDIX - Table XXXI (continued) CQ •H O •H CQ Pt o Oi CO w c- CO tH to o ce to • CO CO • CO oo ■'Ch • ce to ce LO 00 CD ce to 00 00 • o 00 • Ol l> tr- ce oo • tH C- • 03 o 00 OO ct • tr- 03 00 • tr- • ©a o <3J si o p. 3 p oo tH tr- 03 00 • tr• oo c• ce ee • CO CD oo rH 00 ee CO CO CO CD CO CD • 03 tH ir- tr- oc o o tr­ • o » CO CD • 03 tH tr- tr- trlO 03 tr- ee 03 t- i— ! • 03 • 03 • 03 CD tr- 03 • tH to co 03 03 tH ee |D tH ee tH • 03 tr- • 00 tr- tH tr­ ’ TJ CQ 9 e •H CQ CQ •H OO PS - 105 - • CD CO tr­ CO CO 03 CO —t • 03 tr- 03 a o ^ tr­ • t- tr- • CO 03 tr­ tH CO o • tr­ • tH CD • O t0 3 • 03 O • ID 03 03 m LD CD « tr- tH tr­ ID * ee CD • o tr- tr- CO CO CD • ID o CD • CD oo t* ce 03 CD LD • LD • CD CD CD t- tH• ID c- 03• 'CF • O 00 • 03 tr03 • 03• o tro o m ID CO © ■ CO tr- CO 03 . '• 03 CO CO 03 CD ID ce LO ID • O 03 03 03 03 00 tr- * tr- • 03 • • t> ce • 03 • tH • ce tr00 CO • CO tH tr­ tH tr­ o tr- ee tr- ee 03 tr- • 03 t- O 03 CD • O 03 03 • 03 CD 03 tr- H' io 03 CD • tH 00 H 03 rH t— 1 03 • ID o • 03 c- CD • O tr- tH m tr- tr- trtro• tr- ce tr­ ee tr­ ce cci o _g h P +* -p CD W W ^ OKj rH 05 ’sT1 • pH H* O CM CD t- m H* 05 ■ trm pH o p pH T3 in oo • tiCfl cci P p p (0 O cvS u +-> X w ? <=3 o 5 H-> CO rH p S3 CD O T3 CM p rH • CM 00 o • CO H* in oo p 05 H* H* CM • in in in 00 • ’vf in pH in CO • H1 O a> CO in CD •vf CM in pH o oo 00 O • 05 H* 00 • CO CO trin # o oo CO 05 p CO CM p m o CO p rH • rH in ■vt* p 05 in "3* CO # CM OO CO rH • o CM CO p o O 00 p oo 00 CO oo 05 05 rH o oo 00 p 05 00 t> p CO CO p H* co o t- o pH 00 CO pH CM CO p pH O p pH H* H* CM • CM CO 05 t- in in 05 • CM in o tr05 p in in o o CO rH rH LO in CM • CM CO CO in O in oo CM 00 oo t> o o rH • o CO CM • H* in 00 CO in • in in 00 CM o• o• 00 t>• in CM o CM CO m • CO rH o t> p rH in 00 ■vp • ■<4* in t- oo # 05 in t J* 00 00 • V? CO 05 Pn in CO oo • CM in CO CM p w CD P a> •p H o t- ■M* o p 00 M* CO oo 00 p rH in 05 in • in • CO oo o• o• 05 05 • CM in « CO • 05 CM • CO CO to CM 00 oo CO p CO 00 05 p CO CM pH p o 00 tr- v* CO in CO in p in 00 00 t> oo CO 9 o in o in • in p oo Dp cin 00 in p tlO 00 05 p oin h* 00 CO CO p CM CO o CO • rH p 00 00 oo p CM oo 05 00 p tco CM 00 oo p CO CO rH p 05 CM p CO CO pH rH pH o CM in CM 00 CM 05 CM 00 CO o rH H* tH* 9 pH LO rH O p CO in CD CO p ■vj* in rH 05 p trm pH in p 05 "M* CO CM p H* in in O p CO in t— o p ao in CO tp pH CO in rH CM p CO in CM CO p ■M* in ■vt* CO 9 tr­ io O OO p 05 H* 05 00 9 <4* LO CO rH p CD in in t> 9 tr­ io •CjP pH o tp ■M* in t> rH p OO in pH CO pH 9 •vj* CO 05 9 in in oo CO 9 00 in CM eo CM in p CO pH 9 CM CO CO CM pH OO CO H* CO CO a CO CO CO 05 9 pH CO CO pH p 05 CM 05 CM 9 CM CO tr­ ee 9 OO CO trco 9 ■Vi* CO ■o* CM p CO CO LO CM 9 CM CO o CD CO 05 p pH CO m •M* 9 OO CO o pH 00 CO 9 CO CO rH CD 9 pH CO in tr9 cc CM (M 00 CO CO o 05 CM CO H* OO p p in CO P CM CO S3 a 4) pH * P O P ^ <3 3 o rQ •H P S3 P P cm O —' 0) CD cci o x: p p I hH rH 05 p o in t05 p in in 05 ■vi* o in in 05 CD p CO in CO 00 OO in tc— p o in in in t~ CD P in in CO 00 p CO in pH in o CO p 00 in CO O 9 pH in 05 in • CO in pH CM in p CO in 00 t> 9 rH in pH o CO o oo ■ vi* p H CM 9 CO CO t> o p tr­ ee CM 05 p in CO in CO 9 CO CO in co p t> CO o tr­ et in CO rH CO 9 ■Vt* CO 05 CM 9 et* CO CO pH 9 CO CO 05 t> p co CO CO CO 0 CO CO p H* CO CM 00 CM O CO rH CO p 00 in 05 rH ■'Vf M vtf CM 05 S3 < c i «S p U Eh tj -p cti G) U> S3 cci P a) > & M §P -H O oo o * o CO • CO LO tH • CD H 1 tH O to 05 co CO LO LO co 'Cf O O O CD tH 05 CO oo 00 LO CM • • LO tH LO CO LO LO • 00 LO o CO b £ CO •5 S £ CD s: ■h £ £ O CD CD KJ -H M 05 03 lc O .£ £ £+■>+■> CD 05 o CO LO •C r « IH • • a £ ■rH O S 05 tiOi cc! £ £ rH CD > *=cj fl • cd rQ £ d ■H E-c 05 +» £ JO +» is "S CO • H* 00 CO LO • • H 1 i o> •a (D • LO CO LO LO -H S O tH CO CO CD 05 • CO a> CO 05 05 • IH LO o w M Ph Ph <£! X07 - CO 00 tH LO CO rH -£ X O O P o ■P fq *rt rH p X £3 i | 02 • •p +» *H c O £ H P jS I • 1 efei rH I & ^— s + n bO - •w* O -P XJ bG | CCS 0 -H *-*%, p x Xo Eh &q -■— - P CCJ X *H >s X XP» O «5 U O fx< w * X =5 x 0 w 1 0 •H 0 X P4 T—I rH «S I P o rH O I • P £ X • TP X T J * to O 'M' X o X rH • "vP X X X X 05 o X X X rH X o t> rH O Tp X * • O • o X X X rH rH X X rH 05 • o X O 05 • X X X • rH o 00 0 X P rH Tp p X KJ pq rH r> rH 0 I X> £ O >H O rH P XI P I 05 t- to to • * X TP X TP Tp TP X X X Tp Co X X X TP X X X X X X X TP o X • T —1 rH • X X Tp TP Tp o X X 05 o X tr 05 X X rH o X X rH rH X X o X TP Tp • TP X 05 • rH TP X X X X X 05 • X 05 X X X X X X • m • o 9 • X t> X X X Tp c- • to X o • X X X X 05 • X o rH O X X 05 X • to X X X X • 05 05 TT X • o TP X X X rH • X X o X X rH X • X X TP X t• 05 X X X X • X 05 X X 05 • X X 05 rH O TP • rH X rH O • X X X rH 05 • tX rH X • 05 to X X o Tp to X X to to m o X to 9 o X O to TP c- 05 X to CO CO 05 t• TP rH O * t- X X X rH • X TP X • 05 X X • o X 05 rH 05 « to CO • Tp to m TP to to to X « TT 05 • X X TP X X • rH « Tp X rH • X o X X X X X t> o • X X X c• rH X t> o X o • TP X X X to • 05 05 X • TP X 05 o X 05 • rH Tp Tp Tp * 05 X X • tX rH • tX c X X X X 05 o X t> 05 X X i— 1 Tp X X CD rH rH X X o X 05 • o X rH X X X • rH X X X TP • o 05 o X o • X rH 05 rH rH • X o X X X X Tp X • TO X r-H rH • Tp • Tp * rH X • Tp rH r\ £ rH 0 •rH I X £ O *H O O rH P XI CM » I rn 05 w •rl • o -H , p oZ +-> 3 O X 00 00 CM x o tH ' P 05 X TP f3-P cjJ X *H >> x X G X to >-- 05 P CO 05 •w O p( 05 TP TP Tp rH ^ r-H 0 | ,Q Q rH CCS rH CM Tp X CO to CO I o o X X t~ X X X * o • to • rH 00 bo 05 X X X 00 rH a X X 05 X « t* Tt rH • o -q* to X X • • X o « o X • X TP o rH • to CO m CO • Tp CO X » Tp t• rH 'Sp TP o X X X TP fro X X CO o X o X 05 • TP 05 X X X Tp X X m * CO • co X • o • • Tp 05 £ •H o rH (QO P O esi £ ■P X w k 0 X H-» M 'O £ 5 cmx o o 3 0 0 P 0 t n ^ — - bO O • X CM O 00 o rH tP to 05 • rH to to rH X • X • O to 05 o CO X £x, XJ • cfe? X S O £ rH O o X I >— *. X 0 Ol P CCS X *ri t>» CCS0 0 P 0 CCJ § X X t— X Co 05 CM X X X X t— X X rH 05 rH • rH X o X • o X 05 rH rH X O X • • X t> X X rH 05 • X rH 05 X X rH X O o • * rH to to • o rH X X O ■ to rH Tp tP rH X 05 X X • m rH • O TP TP rH • • X X X rH CO to 05 05 « TP X rH X • X X X X TP TP t> o o Tp X X X -rP rH o trH o X o to to to CO X X TP 05 X rH Tp X X X X X • TP • t- 9 X X X rH X rH • X X X X X X rH • Tp X X X • X • X X X Tp rH • 05 O TP rH X t> rH X X X rH • 05 X X t— X TP TP rH TP Tp rH C 05 X *— 1 X X X X X CO X o TT • rH X CD • XI a ■p S 10 O O •H O ss TJ O I bo H'-' I 0 O r-*' >5 P X •H 0 trj— - bO ■P rH rH £ 0 X 0 X CD 3 o c& P cciX -H >> CCS0 0 P 0 & co P a> 0 P C/5 I g 0 1 0 X >5 0 £ • X X 05 05 X t- CM t- bO • rH X X • • P CM t— o to to to O R 0 tc •rH P4 • CO CO X to to • 05 X rH to tX X t> t- O rH oo to to X I> X X Ch • rH O t~ • rH X X X 05 X to CO • X X X to t> to X rH C— X t> • rH tH O X 05 05 X X rH X X * * t- Tp t- m X fc- tr- i— ! co X X X c- o t- tX o rH X X o O rH X X X • • rH X X • X X c- « o • X Tp • rH c- rH C- X 00 X X • X X X • • X X • to o X • r— • X t> o o rH X X 05 t> C5 rH c X X X X tX 05 X X Tp o rH O P P £ O C_i 0 X P • o •S ® X X X o - 108 X X tP X O X 0 05 O cm I 42 c i« ^ ^ 0 CO CM fcJ2 X occi0 0 S i 0 - p p q Ek J'-' pq H • I 3) ffl 43 X O -h py-— ■ bO M cq in • t 0 O -H 42 >5 43 X •rj CM • "M4 00 rH CM O CM CM CM CD • H4 LO tH CM LO CO LO • CD H4 O tH • 00 H* M4 CM • H4 LO 00 00 • CM LO tH • rH CO 00 rH CM CM 00 CO CO H1 IH tH r— 1 OO 00 CM CO tH 00 • 05 LO O tH • rH LO • CD O rH tH LO CM CM * CD CM LO CM to CO • IH LO oc CO rH CM LO LO • O • • rH S5 CM H4 • • CD 0 O *H O O rH is 42 I S3 05 t3 3 o tH gS o rH I G O 42 0 -+-> <3 X *H > 5 O fa**43"—- no 0 bO 03 0 0 in 0 I 0 o ^ 42 >> N5 (S •rl d) 33 0 Pi 42 rH •ri ■H 01 rH >> 43 4-» 0 ) •H Q I 0 • 42 3>>H •H 0 Pi ^ bO 05 tH 05 CM LO o rH CM • tH o rH CM CM CM LO rH 05 CM • O O H4 r— 1 05 CO T— 1 • CO oo CD tH T — I 00 • •M4 ’M4 IH tH • CM CO ID CD * Tjl CO tH tH • O H4 CO 05 CO CO CM oo CO ■M4 CM tH O '4d4 'St4 CO rH 'St4 LO CM LO CO tH CM O H4 05 05 tH ^l4 tH O CD '=F CD CO •M4 CO CO 00 CM LO CD 00 CO H4 CO CD CO CO o •M4 rH H4 CD • rH H4 tH "St • IH H4 CD 'M4 CO oo CD EH « CM CO tH LO * 05 CD CD H4 • CO CM LO • LO tH CD tH • 05 tr­ ee tH • OO rH tH LO • 05 •si4 LO 00 • 00 tH CD CO • CM CD LO oo • CO CO LO LO CO rH CD • tH tH 05 rH O LO rH tH CM tH tH O • CM tH ID o • 05 CO 00 o • CM tH CO CO • 00 CD tH CO * tH IH CO ■M4 • 00 CD O CM • CM tH CO ■M4 • tH CH 05 LO • 05 CD » CM tH m • O • 05 * CD 00 H4 tH CD • 05 05 rH tH CM • CO tH LO rH O o to CM O rH o CD 05 CM LO O tH 05 CM 05 00 tH tH CO 05 ■M4 05 05 tH O O rH CO o 00 t- o 05 LO 00 tH 00 tH IH CD tH rH CM CO tH 40 •H T3 43 S O 0 1 s CD CM CM m Tf CO 38 S 3 H-» LO 29 «i o 28 *c G CO CO • 25 +J P3 05 05 • CM 1/2 o CM 20 43 CO LO • LO LO t• CO CO 14 0 LO CM • CM CD 1/2 • LO CO ■M4 rH CM 11 ' CM rH • CM OO IH rH • CD • tH 10 G flj X -H >5 CsPP 0 0 in 0 W ' bG »**s—' U oo H4 CM H4 • 05 CM OO tH H* • ■st* CD m rH I r-s O 43 0 o CD • CO 00 • CO 'M4 CD X &q • co • Eh ’■sf d) +» G rH *H I 42 a 42 •H P3 o in 0 rH • +-* O H PS (3 O - 109 - 2439.4 • o W -H 3 O tH 05 2386.9 CD * CO LO r^t4 tH GP CO "• tH • 0 4-> o •h 0 IH • CD rH CH rH O • rH LO OO CM o LO r— I "M4 57,78 k 0 cci X * H > s 4 3 42 >3 CD • CO CM 05 rH O CD CO H4 CM 1/2 5.73 52.5 i / s LO • M 4 o 39.8 X « cq 42 tH IH tH tH H4 CM CM CD 00 'Si4 00 • CO •M4 5407 S3 q 05 • CO H 4 ■M4 ■M4 tH • Tf 2008,0 cB _ H S-H O • rH t05 rH LO 05 LO LO LO • tH '«t4 1348.3 * JO 05 • CM LO CM CM CD CO rH LO CD • LO 32.64 0 0 -+-> --— . >*43 O - H pq bO ® k LO 00 tH H4 CM • rH 4131 (d ® H4 LO O • rH 1/2 659.7 £ O o ►3'-' CD 00 tH LO CM • 'Si4 916 72.02 0G rH I ->-s in G O 42 •+■» /-> cd X *H >5 X! X Q 0 00 qi'— * •Q o C tH o q v— • i a I x-v it bo • 05 O IH H 4 CO IH H4 LO CO tH rH to 00 • H4 CO 00 LO 05 tH CO • tH CM CM CM CO 0 tH 00 CM CM 00 LO 05 tH 05 O IH LO CD 05 O LO CO CO CO LO 00 0 05 0 05 CO LO CM co LO • 05 CM tH CM tH CM CM CM 05 CM O CO CO CO 00 to * CM 05 00 tH CM to 00 H 4 t— I O CO tH CM 05 CO 05 05 CO • tH * • tH • LO • CO CO H 4 • CO LO tH tq fr­ 05 tH • CO tH H4 * LO a> B 05 CM LO it • 00 CO • Q) (U 4^ X LO • CO CO CD m • • CH 0 LO LO CM • CO • 05 CO LO ■d4 CM 05 0 H4 * CM CO * CO • H4 CM • 0 • H4 00 00 tH 'si4 tH • O LO * CO • 0 M4 • tH M4 CO LO • ■M4 H4 • 05 TT •M4 H 4 05 ■M4 05 "M4 CO 'M4 CO CO ■M4 CO CO '34 O CM tH ■M4 05 tH CM CM IH CM CM • O CO LO CO 05 CO CO CO CO 0 00 • H4 tH H 4 05 LO CO CO CO LO LO CM tH 05 • CO CO CD 0 LO O 00 LO CM H0 CO 0 CM 0 05 CO 'si4 CO H4 CO ■M4 H4 M4 M4 tH O tH LO CO CM 00 CO 05 O CO CO CO H4 05 O tH LO CO 00 tH 'sr 05 O tH M4 CM CM tH CO CO 00 0 CM CO • LO LO 9 0 0 0 tH CM tH 05 CO M4 0 tH 0 9 H4 0 0 0 0 CO rH H tH tH CM CO 05 tH M4 0 O tH • tH LO H4 CO 9 CM IH CO 05 tH • CO 0 03 CO CM CM CO 0 0 0 LO CO tH 0 05 LO tH CM 03 CO 0 O I CM CO 00 >>£ CM CM CM 05 tH H 4 CM « * CO CO to CO 'd1 CM 03 CO tH CM • CO no • H4 CM LO tH O 05 O CM LO tH St "si4 O 9 0 O 00 05 L- r}4 00 tH CM O C5 O tH tH CO LO CM CM CO 0 9 0 tH LO LO CO LO LO 00 CO CO tH tH 05 0 9 CO 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 CO LO CO O O 9 9 ■M4 ■M4 CM ■M4 H4 H4 CO tH CO tH tH H 4 H 4 05 05 H4 CO "St4 LO 9 0 CM tH 9 CO M4 0 CM LO ■ — 05 tH tH t— E 00 • LO W N I O 00 • tH tH LO CM • CO O *H O m 05 ■M4 CO CM H 4 LO X3 X O 9) H S3 tH *h 1 q «J • I q -— 0 X *H >a CM® U> n!■ —* CD it di j JO S3 s 4-> td o_ cci 0) S3 «i tH r| /4 v ,0 CD O *X ■>b O S3 0 M o p^ i-3 0) • eg +-> ’i O to CJ *H O S T3 I & •h H' • tH Tjt (H O tH LO CM CM u [£| '— • h ''3* • • 05 CO ■ «J Q>•+■» ■H £ XO + C3 O +->tq '■— w E-t W U 0 CM M4 05 tH * JO S+> CO LO Ti4 CO K B O *rl W *rt tH S-i -h _ tH | fl o q O cd X *H cci CD CD it 0 txO k5 0) I ( D O - —' 43 t>j CM«sJ -H CD PC s— P4 H 0 0) to TO 0) H I JO •H P5t I 0> 0 A r*5 "H •H CD & P=J HO 9 CO tH CO CO m tH CO 10 0 9 9 CO IH tH CM tH LO CO CM H4 O O CM IH tH 00 0 0 9 0 0 CO in CO CM H4 9 in CO rH O 05 00 T—1 CO tH CD tH 05 CM ■M4 (H O tH tH CO CO IH 'si4 0 9 ' s i 4 0 05 0 tH. tH O CM t—! 05 O CM CD CO 'St4 CM tH M4 O 00 0 0 t—I CM t— 1 tH CM H4 tH Er­ in tH CO 05 O OO tH t— 1 in 0 0 IH tH CM '34 CM OO tH CO CM CM in 0 O 0 CO tH CO 'St4 'si4 t—1 tH CM 05 O 03 tH 0 O 05 tH CM 0 0 in 0 O 00 tH CM tH 9 0 tH 0 tH 'Si4 03 tH 05 0 tH tH tH CM 'si4 tH CM CO CO tH O 05 tH H4 CM tH O in 0 9 0 0 H 4 CO LO CO in O 'si4 CM CO tH CO 05 CO tH CO IH CO H4 CO tH CO CO CO in CO CO H4 tH tH CM H4 00 CO CO 'si4 tH O 05 CO tH 'St4 CO H 4 tH !H iH H4 CO 05 CM ■si4 H 4 CO tH CO 05 co CO CM CM o4 tH U5 O H4 tH 03 CO CO CO 05 CO CO in tH O ■M4 CO LO OO CM 'Sf 05 'Ct4 tH CM CM 05 00 CD CO • EH CD CO LO O 00 EH co tH CM co CD O l >3 C V ^ CD I CO 0 CM GO O CM CO CM 00 CD H4 tH 0 0 ClO 9 00 • 05 CO o 05 OO 9 'si4 co 00 00 CO 0 0 IH CD IH IH 00 • CO g CM (H CO IH CO 05 O 05 0 05 05 tH 0 9 CO CO CO 0 CO LO tH 0 0 LO CD tH 0 0 0 IH CD in 05 CO CO • 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 CO 0 05 m tH H4 tH 1H H 4 tH CO IH LO CM CM 05 IH 'si4 ■M4 « 05 • lO • CD tH • tH CM t> o IH o (H CM eh o tH CO tH C5 H4 O O lO 05 o 05 LO O CO LO o co tH 03 O O 'd4 00 00 05 CO b- CO t- 05 tH CO o tH tH lO CO tH IH • CM 05 in CO CM O tH 0 0 LO CO CO 0 00 00 CO o 0 (H LO CM 10 IH lO CD S3 ci tH tH A o 0 +-* C +-> p£, LO CO 05 CM CO cci - 110 - tH CM CM CM CO LO CO APPENDIX - Table XXXVI Trial III Warner-Bratzler Shear Readings - Cooking Shrink Control * Average Cattle Shear Cooking No. Reading Shrink lb. % Diethylstilbestrol Fed Average Cattle Shear Cooking No. Reading Shrink lb. % Implant Average Cattle Shear Cooking No. Reading Shrink lb. f 4 7.4 18.0 1 6.7 22.3 5 8.0 24.3 8 5.6 17.1 2 6.7 22.7 6 5.9 19.8 17 4.4 21.4 3 7.4 18.9 9 7.1 21.6 22 5.9 21.4 7 6.4 18.7 12 4.7 20.8 23 6.6 21.7 10 7.4 19.5 13 6.7 15.4 24 10.4 13.3 11 5.8 22.4 15 6.6 16.7 30 6.7 21.9 14 6.5 22.7 16 5.7 20.5 31 7.4 21.0 20 6.0 14.7 18 5.9 22.9 32 6.8 19.8 25 8.2 19.2 19 7.3 17.0 33 6.8 16.0 28 7.1 15.7 21 9.6* 21.6 36 5.8 23.0 29 6.3 17.2 26 6.5 15.5 37 5.9 18.8 38 6.4 24.1 27 6.8 19.4 39 7.0 14.3 40 7.9 15.5 34 6.4 13.0 42 6.9 22.8 41 5.6 16.8 35 5.0 15.8 * One side of steak dried before cooking. - Ill BIBLIOGRAPHY Andrews, F. N. , W. M. Beeson, and F. D. Johnson. 1954. The effect of stilbestrol, dienestrol, testosterone and progesterone on growth and fattening of beef steers. Jour. Anim. Sci. 13:99-107. Andrews, F. N . , Martin Stob, T. ¥. Perry,andW. II. Beeson.1955.The effect of feeding three female hcrmone-like materials to feeder calves. Purdue Univ. Agr. Exp. Sta. A. H. Mimeo 149. Andrews, F. N. , Martin Stob, T. K. Perry,andn. M. Beeson.1956.The effect of oral and subcutaneous estrogen and androgen administration on growth and carcass quality of lambs. Jour. Anim. Sci. 15:575588. Beeson, W. M . , F. M. Andrews, Martin Stob, and T. W. Perry. 1956. The effects of oral estrogens and androgens singly and in combination on yeanling steers. Jour. Anim. Sci. 15:679-688. Bell, M. C., R. L. Murphree, and C. S. Hobbs. 1954. The use of urea and stilbestrol in rations for fattening yearling steers. Jour. Anim. Sci. 13:976. Bell, T. Don., W. H. Smith, A. B. Hrnart, A. b. Gardner, 0. L. Mackintosh, and A. Soule. 1955. Use of hormones. Kansas Agr. Exp. Sta. Cir­ cular 320:8-15. Benne, Erwin J. 1955, Persona,! communication. gan State University. Dept. Agr. Chem., Michi­ Burroughs, Rise, C. C, Culbertson, Edmund Cheng, b. H. Male, and Paul Homeyer. 1955. The influence of oral administration of diethylstilbestrol to beef cattle. Jour. Anim. Sci. 14:1015-1024. Burrows, Harold. 1949. Biological actions of the sex hormones. bridge University Press, Cambridge, England, pp. 127-123. Cam­ Cahill, V. R . , E. U. KLosterrian, F. 3. Deatherage, and L. C. Xunkle. 1954. The nossible inunctions of diethylstilbestrol as observed in beef carcass evaluation on certain associated glands. Jour. Anim. Sci. 13:963. Cheng, Edmund U . , and Rise Burroughs. 195^. diethylstilbestrol in the bovine rumen. - 112 Invitro metabolism of Jour. Anim. Sci. 13:1017. Clegg, li. T. and H. H. Cole* 1954* The action of stilbestrol on the growth response in ruminants. Jour. Anim. Sci. 13:108-130. Clegg, M. T., Reuben Albaugh, Joseph Lucas, and A. C. heir. 19 55. A compa.rison of the effect of stilbestrol on the growth response of lambs at different age and sex. Jour. Anim. Sci. 14:17 3-185. Clegg, M. T. and F. D. Carroll. 1956. Further studies on the anabolic effect of stilbestrol in cattle as indicated by carcass composition. Jour. Anim. Sci. 15:37-47. Dinusson, W. E., F. N. Andrews, and vl. M. Beeson. 1950. The effects of stilbestrol, testosterone, thyroid alteration and spaying on the growth and fattening of beef heifers. Jour. Anim. Sci. 9:321-329. Dorfman, Ralph I. 1955. Steroid hormone metabolism. Academic Press Inc., few York. P. 602. The Hormones. Ellison, E. T., J. C. Birch. 1936. The effect ofestrogenic substances upon the pituitary, adrenals, and ovaries. Endocrinology 21:746. Emmens, C. ¥. and a . S. ParRes. 1947. Effects of exogenous estrogens on the male mammal. Vitamins and hormones 5:235. Emmens, C. W. 1950. pp. 394-395. Hormone assay. Academic Press Inc., few York, Gaunt, X., J. H. Birnie and J. J. Eversole. 1949. Adrenal cortex and water metabolism. Physiological Review 29:281-305* Hammond, J. sheep. 1932. Growth and development of muttonqualities Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh. in the Hankins, C. G . and Paul E. Howe. 1946. Estimation of the composition of carcasses and cuts. JSBA Technical Bull. 926, Hemieman, P. A., E. Rust, and J. Meites, 1953, Stimulation of growth and fattening in lambs with progesterone-estrogen combinations, Jour. Anim. Sci. 12:947. Henneman, ;. A. 1955. Unpublished data. Michigan State University. Jordan, P. S., R. n. Jordan, and n. G. Croon. 19oo, &jfect ci stil— bestrol, prcgesterone-estradiol implants and oral administration of stilbestrol on fattening lambs. Jour. Anin. Sci. 14:936-3*0, Jordan, K. h. 1953. Effect of stilbestrol-prcgestercneimplants fattening lambs. Jour, anim. Sci. 12:948. - 113 on Kastelic, Joe, Paul Homeyer and E. A. Kline. 1956. The influence of oral administration of diethylstilbestrol on certain carcass charac­ teristics of beef cattle. Jour. Anim. Sci. 15:639-700. KXosterman, Earle U., 7. k. Cahill, Orville 0. Bentley, and A. L. xioxon. 1955. The effect of protein level on response from stil­ bestrol when fed and when implanted in fattening steers. Jour. Anim. Sci. 14:1249. Light, Merle R., W. E. Dinusson, R. M. Richard and D. W. Bolin. 1956. Urea and stilbestrol for fattening lambs. Jour. Anim. Sci. 15:570574-. --- --- -Luther, H. G., C. k. Adams, H. E. Downing, W. M. Reynolds, and G. S. Hawley. 1954. Steroids in cattle fattening. Jour. Anim. Sci. 13:1025. Luther, H. G., C. k. Adams, 1. K. Downing, W. M. Reynolds, and G. E. Hawley, 1954. Steroids in lamb fattening. Jour. Anim. Sci. 13:1025. Meites, J., S. P. Reineke, and C. 7. Cairy. 1952. Induction of lacta­ tion in dairy cattle by diethylstilbestrol-progesterone implants. Jour. Dairy Sci. 35:504. Naumann, H. D. 1951. A recommended procedure for measuring and grad­ ing beef for carcass evaluation. Proc. Reciprocal Meat Conference 4:S9. National Livestock and Meat Board, Chicago, Illinois, 0 ’Mary, 0. C., and A. E. Cullison. 1956. Effects of low level implanta­ tion of stilbestrol in steers on pasture. Jour. Anim. Sci. 15:4851. O'Mary, C. C., E. P. Warren, T. J. Davis, and H. II. Pierce, Jr. 1956. Effects of low level implantations of stilbestrol in steers fat­ tened on dry lot rations. Jour. Anim. Sci. 15:52-58. Perry, T. W., W. M. Beeson, F. N. Andrews and Martin Stob. 1955. The effect of oral administration of hormones on growth rate and de­ position in the carcass of fattening steers. Jour. Anim. Sci. 329-335. Pincus, Gregorj'" and Paul A. Zahl. 1937, The biogenesis of^orimary sex hormones. Jour. General Physiology 20:879-893. Preston, Rodney, Edmund Cheng, C. D. Story, Paul Homeyer, John Paves, and Wise Burroughs. 1953. The influence of oral administration of diethylstilbestrol upon estrogenic residues in the tissues cf beef cattle. Jour. Anim. Sci. 15:3-12. - 114 - Ricnardson, D., a . I , Baker, .0* L* Good, and R. F. Cox, 1955, The value of stilbestrol in beef cattle rations wintering phase. Kan, Ae, Exo. sta. Circular 320:50-51. Rulif^ son, TT. S., T. D. Bell, J, 3. Hughes, and A. Bunn. 1954. Neutral 17-ketosteroids in the urine of normal and diethylstilbestrol treated wether lambs. Jour. Anim. Sci. 13:1030. Snapp, R. R, and Sleeter Bull. 1944. Effect of pregnancy on quality of beef. 111. Agr. Exn. Sta, Bull. 503. ?. 47. Snedecor, George W, Iowa. 1946. Statistical methods, Iowa State College Press. Stob, Martin, F. N. Andrews, N. X. Zarrow and W. k. Beeson. 1954. Es­ trogenic activity of the meat of cattle, sheep, and poultry follow­ ing treatment with synthetic estrogens and progesterone. Jour. Anim. Sci. 13:138-151. Turner, C. D. 1955. General endocrinology. adelphia, p. 272. W. B. Saunders Co., Phil­ Turner, Chas. W. 1956. Biological assay of beef steer carcasses for estrogenic activity following the feeding of diethylstilbestrol at a level of 10 mg. per day in the ration. Jour. Anim. Sci. 15:13-24. Twombly, G. H, 1951. Synthesis and metabolism of labelled steroids. Vitamins and hormones 9:260. Weisberg, Harry V. 1953. Rater, el.ectroljrte and acid-base balance. The Williams and Wilkinson Company, Baltimore, Kd. Whitehair, C. IC., Willis D. Gallup, and M, C. Bell. 1953. Effect of stil­ bestrol on ration digestibility and on calcium, phosphorus, and nitrogen retension in lambs. Jour. Anim. Sci. 12:331-337. Wilkinson, W. S., A. L. Pope, P. H. Phillips, and L. E. Casida. 1954. The influence of diethylstilbestrol on certain blood and liver constituents of lambs. Jour. Anim. Sci. 13:634-693. Wilkinson, W. S., C. C. 0 fHary, G. D. Wilson, R. W. Bray, A. L. Pope, and L. E. Casida, 1955. The effect of diethylstilbestrol upon growth, fattening and certain carcass characteristics of full fed and limited fed western lambs. Jour. Anim. Sci. 14:866-877. Winter, Charles A., 1952. A comparison of the effect of cortisone acetate and of desoxycorticosterone acetate upon water balance. Ciba Foundation Colloquia on Endocrinology. Vol. IV, p. 512. - 115 -