THE EFFECT OF LEVEL AND SOURCE OF FIBER ON FEED-LOT PERFORMANCE, CARCASS CHARACTERISTICS, AND GASTRO-1NTESTINAL TRACT OF SWINE By Laysel N. Hochstetler AN ABSTRACT Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Animal Husbandry 1959 Approve d _____________ ABSTRACT Laysel N. Hochstetler A total of 108 pigs were used in four trials de­ signed to study the effect of replacing part of a basal ration with different fibrous feeds. Data were obtained on feed-lot performance, carcass characteristics, and gastro-intestinal tract. In the first trial, oats re­ placed 20 and 40% of the basal ration. There were no significant differences between treatments. In the second trial, wheat bran replaced 20 and 40% of the basal ration* There was a highly significant (P .01) decrease in daily gain and a significant (I5 < *05 ) in­ crease in feed required to produce a pound of gain be­ tween the pigs receiving 40% wheat bran and those re­ ceiving the basal ration. In the third trial, alfalfa replaced 10 and 20% of the basal ration. There were no significant dif­ ferences between treatments. In the fourth trial, wheat bran replaced 20 and 40% of the basal ration. In this trial, there was a significant (P < .05) de­ crease in rate.of gain, backfat thickness, dressing percentage, and a highly significant (P < .01) decrease in percent fat trim and increase in feed per pound of gain between pigs receiving the 40% wheat bran and those receiving the basal ration. 2 ABSTRACT Laysel R. Hochstetler The carcasses from the 40% lot exhibited a sig­ nificant (P < .05 ) increase in both the percent of lean cuts and primal cuts (carcass basis) over both the basal and 20% wheat bran lots. The large intes­ tines of pigs fed 40% wheat bran (trial II and IV) con­ tained significantly (P < .05) more fecal material than the large intestines of pigs fed the basal ra­ tion. Carcass length and area of the longissimus dorsi were not measurably affected by any of the ra­ tions fed. THE EFFECT OE LEVEL AND SOURCE OE EIBER ON FEED-LOT PERFORMANCE, CARCASS CHARACTERISTICS, AND CASTRO-INTESTINAL TRACT OF SWINE By Laysel N. Hochstetler A THESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OE PHILOSOPHY Department of Animal Husbandry 1959 ProQuest Number: 10008538 All rights reserved INFORMATION 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 complete 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 10008538 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 4 8 1 0 6 - 1346 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to express his sincere thanks to Dr. J. A. Hoefer for his constant personal interest and continual guidance. Thanks are due Dr. C. A. Hop- pert, Dr. R. W. Luecke, and Dr. E. P. Reineke for their valuable suggestions and encouragement. The writer is greatly indebted to Dr. A. M. Pear­ son for his valuable assistance with the carcass study, and to Dr. D. E. Ullrey for his assistance in the his­ tological study. The author greatly appreciates the interpretation of the slides by Dr. R. K. Ringer and Dr. D. A. Schmidt and expresses his gratitude to Mr. Heal First for his assistance in the preparation of the histological slides. The writer is also indebted to Dr. W. Do Baten for his assistance with the sta­ tistical analysis. The privilege to have worked with the entire guidance committee and to have known them as a scien­ tist, scholar, teacher, and friend will always be cherished. The author wishes to express deep appreciation for the financial support of Michigan State University in the form of an instructorship and to the Animal Husbandry Department for providing laboratory facili­ ties. Thanks are due Mrs. Donald Hillman for her aid in the preparation of this thesis. The writer wishes especially to acknowledge his gratitude and indebted­ ness to his wife, Catherine, and to his sons, Douglas and Franklin, whose sacrifices and encouragement made this study possible. TABLE OE CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION................................... 1 REVIEW OE LITERATURE ........................... 3 The Effect of Limited Feeding on Carcass Characteristics .................... 3 The Effect of Adding Eibrous Eeeds to Self­ fed Rations ......................... 3 The Digestibility and Utilization of Crude Fiber by S w i n e .............. 11 EXPERIMENTAL PROCE D U R E ......................... 13 Trial I ................................... 1? Trial I I ................................. 19 Trial I I I ................................. 21 Trial I V ................................. 21 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ......................... 25 % The Effect of Rations Containing 0, 20, and 40% Oats Upon Growth and Carcass Char­ acteristics ........................ Trial I 25 ............................. 25 The Effect of Rations Containing 0, 20, and 40% Wheat Bran Upon Growth and Carcass Characteristics ..................... 30 Trial I I ............................. 30 Trial I V ............................. 34 The Effect of Rations Containing 0, 10, and 20% Alfalfa Meal Upon Growth and Car­ cass Characteristics ................ 39 Trial I I I ........................... 39 TABLE OE CONTENTS Page DISCUSSION AND COMPARISONS OE COMBINED TRIALS . 44 HISTOLOGICAL STUDY ............................. 47 S U M M A R Y ....................................... 48 LITERATURE CITED ............................... 50 A P P E N D I X ....................................... 54 LIST 01 TABLES AND A FIGURE 1 Percent of Protein, Crude Eider, and TDN in Rations ............................. 2 Percentage Composition of Rations Used in Trial I ............................. 3 Percentage Composition of Rations Used in Trial II ........................... 20 Percentage Composition of Rations Used in Trial III ........................... 22 Percentage Composition of Rations Used in Trial IV ........................... 23 Means and Standard Deviations of Eeedlot Performance for Trial I .............. 26 Means and Standard Deviations of Carcass Traits for Trial I .................... 27 Means and Standard Deviations of Eeedlot Performance for Trial II .............. 31 Means and Standard Deviations of Carcass Traits for Trial II .................. 32 Mean Weight and Standard Deviation of Stomach, Intestines, and Contents . . . 33 Means and Standard Deviations of Eeedlot Performance for Trial IV .............. 36 Means and Standard Deviations of Carcass Traits for Trial IV .................. 37 Means and Standard Deviations of Eeedlot Performance for Trial III ............ 40 Means and Standard Deviations of Carcass Traits for Trial III .................. 41 Correlations 43 4 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 LIST OF TABLES ADD A EIGUHE Appendix Table 1 2 5 4 Page Means and Standard Deviations for Eeedlot Performance ................... 55 Means and Standard Deviations of Various Carcass Characteristics of Group Eed L o t s ....................... 58 Means and Standard Deviations of Various Carcass Characteristics of Individually Eed L o t s ................. 57 Means and Standard Deviations of Various Carcass Characteristics of Group and Individually Eed Lots Com­ bined ................................. 58 Figure 1 Effect of Fiber on Daily Gain and Backfat ........................ 29 INTRODUCTION Much research has been directed toward ways and means of producing leaner pork carcasses. In 1931* Ellis and Zeller were conducting some experiments on the utilization of feed by swine as affected by the level of intake and discovered when the energy intake was restricted to hogs they produced leaner carcasses. Other workers followed up the study of relative effi­ ciency of limited and full-feeding for fattening pigs (St. Pierre et al. 1934, Burroughs and Carroll, 1939)Although there was some disagreement on the relative efficiency of gain, all agreed that restricting the energy intake produced hogs with less fat. Hand feeding swine in the United States is rather impractical and expensive. The logical ap­ proach to such a problem would be to self-feed a low energy ration. Crampton et ad. (1954) were able to produce leaner pork carcasses by diluting part of a high energy, self-fed ration with such high fiber feeds as alfalfa, wheat bran, and wild oats. On the other hand, Teague and Hanson (1954) fed a purified ration in which they increased the fiber content by - 1 - 2 adding Ruffex and found that carcass characteristics could not he correlated with the level of fibrous ma­ terial fed* The effect on swine of diluting the energy of a ration with high fibrous feeds is not clear as was in­ dicated by the conflicting reports in the literature. The purpose of the investigation reported here was to study this problem. 1. The objectives were as follows: To study the effect of increasing the fiber content of rations on rate and ef­ ficiency of gain. 2. To study the effect of fiber on carcass characteristics. 3. To study the effect of using different high fiber feeds. REVIEW OE LITERATURE Effect of Limited Feeding on Carcass Characteristics Ellis and Zeller (1931) hand-fed pigs at three levels: full feed, three-fourths full feed, and one- half full feed. They reported the three-fourths ra­ tion resulted in a small decrease in the amount of fat, hut the one-half ration decreased the fat by 20%. Mansfield and Trehane (1935) reported on an experiment in which one-half of the pigs were full-fed and the other half were fed on a restricted diet. The pigs on the restricted diet consumed less feed per unit of gain and yielded a higher percentage of carcasses that graded A and B under the British grading system. McMeekan (194-0) found that for the first sixteen weeks the skeleton and muscle increased at a higher rate than fat. At about sixteen weeks, the rate of fat increase was equal to the rate of muscle increase. After that time, the fat increased at a faster rate than the muscle. McMeekan then conducted an experi­ ment with high and low planes of nutrition, and found - 3 - 4 that in the high plane pigs the skeleton was 221%; muscle, 291%; and fat, 1007% of the weight of these tissues in the low plane animals* McMeekan and Hammond (1939) planned an experiment in which they fed pigs to gain at four different rates. The first rate was to get a pig to 200 pounds as rapidly as possible, called the H-H; the next was to have the pig gain rapidly for sixteen weeks, then slow down the rate of growth, called the H-L. The other two rates were to have the pigs gain slow for the first sixteen weeks, then feed one-half of them for rapid gains from sixteen weeks to 200 pounds, called the L-H; the remaining half was grown slow from birth to 200 pounds called the L-L. According to the grading stand­ ards, the H-H pigs were too fat; the H-L pigs were nearer correct in the amount of fat; the L-H pigs were much too fat; and the L-L pigs had the least fat but had a larger proportion of bone to muscle. Winters et al. (194-9) reported on an experiment designed like that of McMeekan and Hammond and found the animals fed the restricted diet throughout pro­ duced the leanest carcasses. On the other hand, Shorrock (1940) reported that restriction of feeding made little difference in carcass quality, but what 5 slight advantage there was, was on the side of the most restricted ration* However, the lowest feeding scale was above 70% of the full-fed ration until the pigs reached 16b pounds. On the other hand, Brugman (1950) reported that carcass qualities of swine can be changed by limiting the feed intake to 70% of full feed up to 150 pounds, and full feeding from then until the animal reaches approximately 220 pounds live weight* This method of feeding brought about a signi­ ficantly higher percentage of primal cuts and lower percentage of lard as compared to full feeding through­ out the growing-fattening period. The Effect of Adding Eibrous Reeds to Self-fed Rations If restricting the energy intake to pigs by handfeeding will produce leaner carcasses, it seems logi­ cal to expect that self feeding a low energy ration would produce similar results. Vestal (1921) reported that when fibrous feed was added to a basal ration of corn and tankage the rate of gain decreased, and the feed required to produce the gain increased as the fiber in the ration was increased. Robison (1930) 6 reported that when the fiber content of a basal ration containing less than one percent was brought up to 6, 9, and 12% with peanut hulls and oat hulls the rate of growth decreased with each increase in fiber with the exception of 9 to 12%. He stated, "With few ex­ ceptions an increase in the fiber content of the ration increased the feed required per unit of gain, even with the feed calculated on a fiber free basis." Kobison also commented that pigs fed a relatively bulky ration tend to grow rather than fatten. Fargo et al. (194-1) found that it made relatively little difference in the rate of gain whether 5» 10, or 15% of ground alfalfa hay was mixed in the ration or whether 8 or 16% of oat hulls or oat feed was fed in addition to a ration containing 5% alfalfa hay if the fiber or roughage was finely ground. Whatley et al. (1951) reported on an experiment in which they fed all pigs alike up to 14-0 pounds and then self-fed one-half of them a high energy ration to 225 pounds. The other one-half were self-fed a low energy ration to the same weight. Restricting the energy intake by substituting ground hay for part of the corn in the ration reduced the rate of gain and 7 increased the feed cost. It also resulted in a leaner carcass with a higher yield of lean cuts; hut because of the lower dressing percentage, the carcass value per cwt. of live hog was not increased. Bohman et al. (1953) found little difference in rate of gain of pigs fed rations containing from 10 to 50% alfalfa. They reported fair gains were observed in animals fed 50% alfalfa compared with those fed the 10% alfalfa level, and a pelleted 50% alfalfa-grain mixture increased the rate of gain as compared with the ground mixture. Carcasses of pigs grown on ra­ tions containing 50 to 50% alfalfa were graded medium with a small proportion of Choice No. 1. Axelsson and Eriksson (1953) used wheat straw meal to raise the fiber content from a low of 4.8% to a high of 9*3% of the dry matter in the ration. They reported the daily feed consumption increased a small amount as the crude fiber content increased. However, this increase was too small to keep the amount of daily metabolizable energy from decreasing. They found that a crude fiber content of 6.57% of the dry matter was optimum for growth, and a content of 7*26% for feed efficiency. The higher fiber tended to pro­ duce carcasses with less fat. 8 Coey and Robinson (1954-) reported on an experi­ ment in which they fed rations containing 3*5 to 11.5% crude fiber. They equalized the intake of digestible nutrients by adjusting the feed intake according to the amount of fiber in the ration. Their results showed that a rise in the level of dietary crude fiber was accompanied by a fall in the dressing percentage and hence, lower carcass weights. This effect was produced even by comparatively small changes, such as a rise from 3-9 to 5% crude fiber. Carcass weight was positively correlated with back fat thickness. Conse­ quently the high fiber pigs had thinner backfats and tended to grade higher. Crampton et al. (1954-) reported that they were able to produce bacon carcasses with less shoulder and loin fat and a higher percentage of lean in the bacon rasher by "diluting" relatively high digestible ra­ tions with fibrous feed during the finishing period. Bacon carcass improvement was accompanied by a decrease in rate of gain when one-half of a high energy basal ration was replaced by either alfalfa or wheat bran or when the basal portion of the ration consisted en­ tirely of oats. Increases in the percentage of Grade A carcasses were also obtained when wheat bran or wild 9 oats replaced 23% of a high energy "basal ration. In these cases, the improvement was not associated with any change in rate of gain. On the other hand, Teague and Hanson (1934-) studied the effect of replacing corn starch in a purified hasal ration with Euffex at 3> 10, 19, and 20% levels. They found that carcass char­ acteristics could not "be correlated with the level of fibrous material fed. They reported that growth rate and feed utilization appeared to "be adversely affected "by the higher levels of Euffex ingested. Gard et ad. (1934-) found that 10% dehydrated alfalfa meal depressed growth, "but equivalent woodflock crude fiber failed to influence gains. Hanson et al. (1999) found when 15 to 30% alfalfa meal was added to a self-fed ration (replacing the corn in a corn-soy bean oil meal ration) a significant depression of rate and efficiency of gains was evident. However, when the pigs were equally fed, the depression in rate of gain was not as severe. The addition of corn oil completely overcame the depression produced by the 30% alfalfa level when equally fed. However, under ad libitum con­ ditions, corn oil did not appreciably improve rate of gain but increased feed efficiency. They stated that the growth-depressing property of alfalfa meal in the 10 ration appears to be due to a lowered TDN content of tbe ration and to a lowered feed intake of the pigs. Sheffy et al. (1955) reported that increases in rough­ age content over 12.5% resulted in slower growth even when the energy content of the ration was kept con­ stant by addition of fat. Bohman et al. (1955) 30, and 50% alfalfa. rations containing 0, 10, They found as the level of al­ falfa in the ration increased, the rate of gain, dress­ ing percentage, depth of back fat, and percent of bacon belly decreased while the percent of shoulder, ham, and loin increased. They also found the weight of the stomach and large intestines increased as the alfalfa level increased. They concluded that swine apparently adjust to a high level of alfalfa intake by enlarging the size of their digestive tracts where limited trans­ itory feed storage takes place as indicated by the increased weights of the stomach and large intestines. Merkel et al. (1958) found that restricting the TDN level by incorporating fibrous feeds into swine rations decreased daily gains and increased the feed required to produce the gains. However, the TDN con­ sumed per 100 pounds of gain was essentially equal ex­ cept when the ration contained approximately 52% "poor 11 quality'1 alfalfa hay. They found no significant dif­ ferences when the crude fiber content was less than 10%. In another article, Merkel et al. (1958) reported the incorporation of the fibrous feeds, corn cobs, or alfalfa hay into swine rations decreased dressing per­ centages, carcass fatback thickness, and leaf fat weights. The Digestibility and Utilization of Crude Fiber by Swine The capacity of pigs to digest fiber is usually regarded as very limited. However, Fingerling et al. (1915) reported the results of a series of digestion trials with 2 wethers and 2 pigs, using an alkalidigested straw pulp, immature grass and wheat chaff as sources of cellulose. The average digestibility of crude fiber in the straw pulp in the case of the pigs was almost 95 percent and was appreciably higher than the coefficients obtained in the trials with the sheep. However, the crude fiber of the other feeds was di­ gested much better by the wethers than by the pigs. Woodman et al. (1929) reported an average crude fiber digestion coefficient of 90% for sugar beets and 84% for sugar beet pulp. On the other hand, Mitchell and 12 Hamilton (1933) reported crude fiber digestion coeffi­ cients of 2% for oat hulls and 1.8% for alfalfa. Mitchell and Hamilton comment that the alkali treatment of the straw pulp may have initiated hydro­ lytic changes in the cellulose that would make it more amenable both to bacterial fermentation and to further hydrolytic changes in the intestinal tract of the pig so that it would, in a large part, pass from the crudefiber constituents of the feed to the nitrogen-free extract of the feces. Bohstedt and Fargo (1933) studied the relative effect of adding ground peanut shells, ground cotton­ seed hulls, oat feed, ground oat hulls, and timothy hay to swine rations. When they compared a unit in­ crement of fiber of the above feeds with the check ration, peanut shells and cottonseed hulls caused a smaller increase in feed required for 100 pounds gain than either oat feed, oat hulls, or timothy hay. Timothy hay, although ground to the same degree of fineness and having approximately the same chemical composition as oat feed, was less efficient than oat feed. They reported that the heat treatment of oat hulls produced as a by-product in oat meal manufacture has a favorable effect on the nutritive value as 13 compared to "green” oat hulls. Crampton and Bell (1944) reported that the fineness to which oats was ground made a difference in rate of gain of young pigs. They found that 50 pound pigs fed coarse, medium, and finely ground oats for 60 days gained 71 » 82, and 105 pounds, respectively. However the degree of fineness of the oats did not affect the digestibility of the dry mat­ ter. Teague and Hanson (1954) reported crude fiber, supplied by Ruffex, was poorly digested at all levels, and its inclusion depressed the apparent digestibility of the protein and nitrogen-free extract portions of the diet. Forbes and Hamilton (1955) studied the utilization by swine of such cellulosic materials as woodflock, ruffex, wheat straw, wheat straw pulp, and oat hulls. They found the digestibility of cellulose in rations containing about 50% of their cellulose from woodflock, ruffex, or wheat straw pulp averaged 4-1, 46, and 68 percent, respectively. Comparisons of varied fiber sources with woodflock showed the follow­ ing decreasing order of cellulose digestibility: alfalfa meal, woodflock, wheat straw, and oat hulls. Forbes and Hamilton (1955) also reported that 14 metabolizable energy values, expressed as a percent of the digestibility energy, show that the organic acids produced in the digestion of cellulose are highly utilizable by the animal. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE Pour feeding trials were conducted involving a total of 108 pigs. The breeds represented were Berk­ shire, Chester White, Duroc, and Chester White-Duroc crossbreeds from the University herd. The pigs were started on trial after they were weaned and wormed. Twenty-seven pigs were used in each trial. Fifteen of the 27 head were divided into 3 groups of 3 each and self-fed, and the remaining 12 pigs were self-fed in individual pens. There were three ration treat­ ments with 9 pigs per treatment, (five fed in a group and 4 fed individually), in each trial. They were weighed at 14-day intervals and feed consumption re­ corded. Daily gain and feed efficiency were calcu­ lated. All rations were analyzed chemically, using offi­ cial A.O.A.C. methods. The percentage of protein, crude fiber, and estimated TDN are presented in table 1. All pigs were slaughtered at the University Meats Laboratory when they reached approximately 210 pounds. - 15 - 16 Table 1 Percent of Protein, Crude Piber, and TDN in Rations Trial I Oat Rations Under 100 lbs. Basal 20% 40% Protein 14.9 13.2 13.2 12.9 12.8 12.6 3-1 4.3 6.3 2.9 5.0 6.3 TDN* 74.47 72.23 69.98 73.33 73.42 71.24 Trial II Wheat Bran Basal 20% 40% Basal 20% 40% Protein 14.6 14.6 14.6 13.0 13.2 13.4 3.1 4.4 3-8 2.6 3.9 5.2 TDN* 74.72 70.88 66.93 73.33 71.51 67.68 Trial III Alfalfa Meal Basal 10% 20% Basal 10% 20% Protein 13.0 14.9 13.0 13.1 12.7 13.0 2.8 3*3 8.2 2.3 5.2 8.1 TDN* 74.81 70.92 66.68 75.26 71o 32 67.10 Trial IV Wheat Bran Basal 20% 40% Basal 20% 40% Protein 17.8 18.7 18.0 13.2 14.5 14.2 3.3 3-2 6.3 2.8 4.2 5.3 74.62 70.70 66.73 75.40 71.48 68.48 Crude Piber Crude Piber Crude Piber Crude Piber TDN* 100 lbs. to Slaughter 40% Basal 20% *TDN calculated using National Research Council tables. 17 The following measurements were made on the chilled carcasses: dressing percentage, backfat thickness, carcass length, lean cuts (both live and carcass basis), primal cuts (both live and carcass basis), area of longissimus dorsi at the 10th and last rib, and per­ cent of fat trim. All data were analyzed by an analy­ sis of variance (Snedecor, 1946) and multiple range and multiple F tests (Duncan, 1955)Trial 1 The first trial was started in June 1955? using oats to replace 20 and 40% of the basal ration. The constituents of the rations are given in table 2. Seven Duroc, 3 Chester White, and 5 Chester White-Duroc crossbred pigs were lotted as uniformly as possible according to litter, sex, and size into three groups of five pigs each. These pigs were group fed on a con­ crete slab with a house at one end. were available at all times. 'Water and feed An additional 6 Chester White and 6 Chester White-Duroc crossbred pigs were assigned to lots on the basis of litter, sex, and size. The pigs were taken from these lots and placed in an (81 x 3 1) individual pen where they spent the rest of their lives except for weighing every two weeks. d O « C M O • o C M ft A00 C D A • 1 --1 --1 1 03 •H d d • d d • d d • d O • A O • A O ♦ O rOi ft o 0 Eh d o ■H -P ft 0 O & a o o >R Lf\ i—i ft cd • 0 ft O 1 — I o o 1 — 1 o ft o C M 1 — 1 0 ft ft 1 •H i— S 3 0 0 M 0 ft d d C M • d ft cD A • O C O CD i— 1 C O • 1 — I a A O • C D O • A o • o 03 d O ft C D • A C D • A O • AO • A O • o C M o P 0 o d A C D • C M C D A • C D A • ft ft -P cd C D (A cD . O A CD # O CA C D • A O • AO • d o • a LA CD i —1 cd 03 a ft o 0 h£) cd -p d 0 •H (S 3 o 00 A + 0 o P 0 ft 0 ft d 0 VH ft 0 H h0 S 3 H 0 P O O ft 0 0 O P cd 0 ft 0 0 d 0 1 — 1 ft ft 0 0 a •H 0 ft O p ft 0 ft 0 ft ft 0 o 0 ft 0 o ft d 0 o ft ft ft ft 0 0 p •H O i— 1 0 O ft X *r! + i— 1 0 P 0 p cd per pound 0 i —I ft d ■H a 0 O 0 P EH d 0 S 3 o ft 0 0 S ft ft o 1 — 1 Ifc o 0 ft o P 0 C u -P •H ft o p © o Pi ft S 3 0 15%. C M 03 s3 o *H ft cd ft 0 0 0 •H O 03 f* O 03 -P S 3 0 a 0 ) —1 ft ft 0 CD cd of vitamin A O • A and 3,000 USP units 00 A • of dicalcium AA • carbonate C O A • of zinc CA C D 00 • CA phosphate. LTN S 3 •H ft 0 03 }> 0 o d of vitamin C M O • USP units d o • meal i— 1 cd -H P ft 0 ft 1 i— 1i— 0 o 0 o 0 ft pq A O • dehydrated, alfalfa H ft A • 10 grams cd rH C Q oR OO -P C M O A • 10,000 0 ft A • Contains i— 1 A o • 00 Contains P 0 cR ft O ft d hr D per 18 o 19 Each pen was equipped with an automatic waterer at one end and a self-feeder at the other. The pigs were removed for slaughter at a minimum weight of 204 pounds. All pigs were in excellent health throughout the experiment. Trial II Wheat bran replaced 20 and 40% of the basal ra­ tion in the second trial (Fall and Winter 1955 and 1956). The constituents of the rations are presented in table 3* Twenty-four Duroc and 3 Chester White pigs were used in this trial. They were lotted according to litter, sex, and size in the same manner as in the first trial. Bohman et al. (1955) suggested that increasing the fiber in swine rations caused an increase in the weight of the stomach and large intestine. Conse­ quently, weights were taken of the stomach (both full and empty), small intestine, and large intestine (both full and empty). In addition, the volume of the stomach was estimated by filling it with water. His­ tological samples were taken from the fundus portion of the stomach, anterior portion of the duodenum, and center portion of the colon. Special care was taken 20 Pi CD -P O ft 0" bC 0 cd i—i CO o O -p OJ • CO 1—1 H O ■ ■3" UA O ♦ 0" O « • ft• cO • -3* • A O • A A O A O —1 rH 1 cd o to o cd 1—1 pq ft A O • O O- O • co O • m 0• cO • # A O • A O • A OJ O * O ft rH 0 0 a ft 0 O • cO CO 0 • ccj .h + ft" • O • ft" ♦ A O • A O • A C\J O • O ft A rH ft 0 Pj O 0 Pi *H ft CD 0 ft CD CQ 0 O •H ft cd ft OS ft o K\ ft * CQ 0 ft 0i—I 0 • CO 0 • ft 1 —! O m * 0* • O • ft • 1—1 1—1 cd •H —i -P 1 •rH 0 Pi CO H cd ft EH 0 o •H ft •H CO O ft Q 0 • rA CO O • CA IA O • LA ft O ♦ • A O ♦ A OJ O • • 0" • O • ft • A O • A O • A A O • O ft O • CA ft A O O 0- o o o O 4 3OJ a• 0• O • ft • A O * A O • A OJ O • O o o 0 Pi ■rH tSJ 0 bO cd -P Pi CD O 0 0 ft ' Pl Pi 0 0 ft Pi 0 0 Pi ft Pi •H 0 -P O Pi ft Pi 0 0 ft -P 0 0 ft r§5 ft 0 0 -P 0 0 a cR A O 1 —1 •rH O + cd -p Pi 0 a 0 ft ft ft 0 0 0 0 O ft )—1 0 0 a ft CO ft H CD •rH ft 0 Pi bO S H 0 0 O a- ft i—1 0 *rH 0 EH * ft 0 0 0 -P 0 ft ft 0 O ft ft 0 -P 0 ft ft 0 O ft ft J3 •rH O 1 —1 cd 0 •H {H P •H O rH 0 O •H ft ft -P rH 0 0 O 00 A ft X •H 0 -H rH 0 Pi 0 Pi •rH a 0 0 0 Pi O f-- 1 0 Pi 0 A 0 0 a •H ft O 0 ft O Pi 0 ■rH a CO -p •rH > M 0 0 0 O ft ft 0 0 0 •H 0 -P •rH 0 0 0 ft • f> ^ O A 0 ft Q • 0 -P 0 ft ft 0 O ft ft a 0 •rH O ft 0 O •H ft ft O ft 0 0 O ft 0 0 ft 0 -P 0 0 O ft 0 0 O O 0 •rH ts] ft 0 ft Cd ft •H 1> ft O 0 ft •H 0 0 ft CO ft O O O A ft 0 0 <1* 0 •rH a 0 ft •H > ft 0 0 ft *H 0 0 ft CO ft 0 a 0 O 0 O bO O 1 —1 *• 0 O -ft 0 1 —1 0 a 0 0 a 0 0 0ft •rH 0 ft ft f t 0 -P ftft 0 O 0 ft C/3 0 O 0 0 •rH ft O ft 0 0 ft 0 ft 0 O O O 21 to remove as much, fat as possible from the visceral organs before weighing. After the histological sam­ ple was taken the contents of the large intestines were washed out with water and the intestines allowed to drip dry before taking the empty weight. Trial III Alfalfa meal replaced 10 and 20% of the basal ra­ tion in the third trial (Summer 1956)* ents of rations are given in table 4. The constitu­ Nine Berkshire and 18 Chester White pigs were used in this experi­ ment. The experimental procedure was carried out in the same manner as trial II. Tri al IV In this trial wheat bran was used as the fibrous feed in the same proportions as the second trial (see table 5)* Eighteen Duroc and 9 Chester White-Duroc crossbred pigs were used in this trial. They were lotted according to litter, sex, and size. The group fed pigs were managed in the same manner as the other trials. However, excessive feed wastage was encoun­ tered in the individually fed lots. In order to bet­ ter control this feed wastage, the feeders were placed a 0 cR P O P CM t£ cr\ • O CN LC\ • 00 A O * LT\ • o CM A O • O III C Q • 03 0• co [>- A • o H A • A O • L T N • o rH A O • in Trial of Rations Used aCD E>~ • A i—i « arH Lf\ • LA • A • A O « A O • A A O • O C fN • A O A • i— 1 • A O • A C M O • A O A C M O • p p a • 0 P 0 0 p o 0 0 *0 a 0 P •H > 3 C D -P P 0 O > P O a a •H O i— 1 0 o ■H d 0 P ■ rH a a P 0 P 0 0 O 0 0 a O d a 0 p 0 0 a a a 0 P 0 ** <5^ A A •H 0 p ■H t> a o p a 0 o O • o i— i • a a •H'c R ■H •H N 0 o o 1 — 1 P a O «H C O0 a O 0 5D p 0 p a r’id a O rH o- 0 0 d H a d bO 1 *H i— 0 o •• a 0 H p ap a 0 0 0 a ® 0 a 0 P «H *H rH R i— I 0 0 P P pd a i — 1 o a a C Q 0 -a o 0 Ph C Q P d a A a o d p 3 a 0 ■a p i— f 0 0 a o a P # *■ oR O C M o o CM a 0 p o o 1 —1 Percentage Composition • 03 O P CM (—1 i— 1 • A co A C M O • O P •— 1i—i 0 O 03 o 0 1 —1 pq a i— 1 0 0 0 ctS (—1 SR O o -P i—i C M O • P o d 0 P •H a a p C Q P o o o o H 0 a •H 0 • a a 0 o a o bO P U 0 -P O ft d ” E£ d cd 1—1 O * CM LA cO • GA­ oo > M i—1 0 ■H Fh EH 0 rO I—I i—i cd o CO o cd 1—1 pq 00 • oCO CM • CO 00 LT\ ♦ LA • LA • o• fA LA o• Li \ CM O• 00 • o i—I d" • LA rH o• o ft 0 d o L f\ 0 (—1 r-Q cd Eh • 0 o f t d* 1—1 LA • LA * (A • LA O • LA o• LA CM O• CM LA • o LA LA • rA • O* LA O• LA CM O• I""1 ft rH cd •H -P •H Pi H d o •H -p •rH CO rH • OrH o* o o O -P CM i—1 0 0 cd pq • CA LA rA -• CO O- cD • LA • LA • rA • LA O • LA O• LA CM O• d* ca i—1 rA • OJ CM o• o LA LA • LA * rA • O• LA O• OJ O• CM • o LA • !A • lA O• LA O• LA CM O• o ft o o Pi •H 0 EO 0 ft Pi 0 O Fh 0 0 -P cd ft ft 0 o ft ft cd -P ri 0 d 0 rH -P q 0 •H ft 0 U EO Pi H ft ft Pi u O O d 0 ft Pi d O Pi ft Pi *H 0 -P O U pH Pi cd Fh ft ft 0 0 rj rfS p p {—! 0 S h 0 Pi •H d i —i 0 0 O •H o O •H Pi 0 Fh EH X •H )s* Pi •H o PI ft Pi 0 o I —1 a0 0 =& -P ■=*1 Pi PI O o > 0 •H -P 0 ft ft P 0 0 ■H i-q o Fh d <3* o Fh 0 -P •H > d ft -p ■H > Pi ft ft O f t 0 o 0 P ft •H O i— 1 0 o •H ft 0 Fh •H d d ft ft ft o 0 0 Pi O rA ft O ft d d ft PI 0 o ft ft Fh 0 ft a C Q O o o#■» rA ft d 0 <*! d "H a 0 0 LA d -p o •H LA ft > rH Fh 0 0 ft 0 o O a o 0 i —i • d f t *H qR. •H •H 0 d o o 0 ft ft 00 LA ft i—1 0 0 • 0 •H ft 0 0 < — i O + pq P 0 0 LA ft a o C * CM LA O 0 0 a 0 ft i—1 0 ft i—1 0 o o o •H -P cd Ph o LA • rH d" 11 ft d •H ft CD 0 H 0 LA — rH d- cq -p OJ o• o d o § 0 0 ED 0 ft d ft 0 O rA ft O rH a 0 ft F h ft •H •• a ft d ft 0 0 C Q ft O O o o 0 0 E0 i— 1 ft d a 0 ■dH •H 0 ft 0 0 ft *5 ft ft Pi ftft d d o o d d C Q0 o o cd rn o 24 in the pens for only 3 one-hour periods per day (morn­ ing, noon, and night). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The Effect of Rations Containing 0, 20, and 40% Oats Upon Growth and Carcass Characteristics Trial 1 The means and standard deviations of daily gains and feed efficiency are given in table 6. Those of the carcass characteristics are presented in table 7 and 7a* Pigs on the basal ration gained 1.67 pounds per day and consumed 5*59 pounds of feed per pound of gain, while the pigs fed 40% oats gained 1.99 pounds per day and required 3*79 pounds of feed per pound of gain. However, the differences were too small to be signifi­ cant. The average backfat of carcasses from the basal lot pigs was .1 inch thicker than carcasses from the 40% oat lot. Again, the difference was not significant. Mention is made of these non-significant differences because they fit into the general trend when all trials are compared (Figure 1). Other carcass traits were not affected regardless of the level of oats in the ration. - 29 - 26 • -P tg; H H cd •H Pi EH 14 O ft 0 O d cd a (—1 *—N cd -p * Pi O CQ f t i—1 ,.Q pq d ft 0 W 0 pq d• O rH OJ ft o l£> 0 1—1 ft cd EH ft O 0 Pi O •rH -p cd •rH > 0 PV O rH [>» 5rP > H H • i—I o o o• [> • LfO CJN • 00 OJ OJ OJ OJ I— 1 I—I 1—i 1—1 • • + 1 o o o • + 1 LQ [> • ON LD • LfO LfO * o• NO NO NO NO NO NO NO LfO 00 NO 00 UO i—1 • • • o - o• o• + 1 + 1 NO + 1 • o + 1 o + 1 + 1 NO LfO [> • 1--1 VD • i—1 00 LfO • 1—I [> LQ • i—1 OJ O • o• lD LfO LfO ft • 1—1 • ft • LQ • 0 O bD LfO LfO LfO • NO NO LfO o co • to NO • Pi ♦rH ft cd ft d 0 pq ft d o Pi O • H ft cd 0 cd PP ^ O OJ ■4* + + o LfO ♦ 1—1 KD OJ O o • • oo d ft 0 d ft o ft o + 1 cd d 0 o * bD d *h Pi f t bD ft ft 0 -P cd o •=t CQ ft NO • i—1 0 0 -P cd • 00 O OJ LD • • oNO CQ bD ft ft LfO o• i—1 ^ cd -p • •rl 03 -P b D d •H *H i—1 Pi 0 ^ f t Es- o 0 d cd 0 3 f t • 1—1 0 O / - '* Pi Pi • q j- H to d d cd d 0 0 O Pq f t Pi cd d Pi 0 -P CQ d Pi cd OJ • 00 o i—i d 0 0 pq lD Pi f t pi ft Pt 0 ft rH • DO OJ 0 l>> ft rH i— 1 cd d d cd o ft •H cd > w ■H cd d Pi pq O OJ + 0 -P cd o o H * Pi fO> b D ft 1 i—1 I cd d 0d p! f t *h > d ft a d O Pi O ft ft M H cd 0 ft cd O OJ d- + + o d H M ft 0 ft ft cd 0 cd pq o o o i—i • OJ 0 -h d EH -P cd PH Trial for Traits of Carcass Deviations and Standard o cd P cd d P CO 00 • OJ OJ • LA OJ A o LT\ Go • LA OJ • <-- 1 A A vO GO • • 1—1 + 1 + 1 + 1 o • vO A P ^N P . bD d d H 0 ^ P d" • LA A A FA « +1 LA * LA A o • LA A Ol A• 00 A • + 1 + 1 + 1 co • 00 OJ W 0 0 /- N d * d OH 00 OJ • ON • CO OJ LA O • CO • J—1 00 • 1 —i VQ « VO OJ d" A ♦ O d• 00 OJ • 00 OJ o rH i—i • OJ • VO • 00 OJ VO o • • vO OJ rA • vO OJ O O vO d• OJ rA « vO vO • r^j rH + 1 + 1 P 0 cd rH A L f\ • o o OJ vO vO • • LA O Go o rH OJ + t i—J ♦ A A 00 • LA A OJ VO • I-- 1 vO OJ • rA • LA A CO 1—1 • + 1 +1 1-- 1 • 00 OJ 00 • 00 OJ rH OJ • 00 o • co • 00 OJ rA O • CO • LA A P •H d + 1 P 0 cd d rH • 00 OJ VO CA • rH o NO • 00 GO i—1 • vO GO rH o m d 0 pH p d o d cis 1— 1 cd 0 cd pq 0 P cd o o o o OJ d- !>: 0 rH p (— 1 cd cd 1 o d i— cd d 0 •H cd t> ■H pq OJ d d H 0 P cd o o o d* pq o 0 P cd 0 P cd o o cR o o OJ d 0 P d cd 0 P P o p P d- 0 d o p d 0 P t> P 0 0 o p •H cd P cd d 0 d d 0 cd 0 Pd rH o i—1 d cd & d 1 d 1 *H d l> i—1 0 *H cd 0 d d cd *H d P H 0 O d O d d cd 0 d d 0 cd Ph d 0 PH 0 P cd G '1 • A CO i—J 0 bC •H PH 0 be •H Ph PH • A A (—i 0 bD d 0 vO vO O CO 00 • • J—1 rH A O d d cd Go IA • +1 +1 +1 • > -=5j 0 b£ •H 1 0 P P OJ d" CA OJ CA CA 00 • • • 1 I--1 1 --1 1— d- LA • • LA GO GO CO rH rH p 0 d •H • d cd P P 0 d d 0 P rd P /-N bDp • p bD 0 0 *h p i—1 0 (d W d O •H P cd P3 • p •rH d rA • VO OJ +1 +1 +1 ON • rH d" 1—1 « l—1 K0 • LA OJ + 1 + 1 i—I • LA A OJ d~ • + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + +1 +1 +1 00 FA o O H V cd p pq Eh CO 00 • + 1 + 1 + 1 i—1 • A OJ • 1—1 1—1 d’ • K0 rA i—t • rH 00 * VO OJ o 0 0 Cd o d cd OJ OJ • (A OJ • A OJ A • Means 7 Table 0 bD bD d cd •H -P 0 d 0 0 0 O d d IP 0 ( If P 00 K\ • rH + 1 + 1 + 1 I -P d 0 O d 0 PH « h o 0 bD d 0 d o •H d 0 P d 0 0 0 0 d p o •H p p 0 bO cd d 0 > P cd p 0 P P a o d d 0 d d 0 0 0 •CHQ p P •H 0 Q ON P• • P § •H d o bd•H P Pi P p Ph p H O •H -P O O -P is EH CQ •H CQ aS -p rH 0 pq P 0 CQ o p Eh O **H 0 -p •H 0 P 0 1 —I ■3 Eh P P cd o I —1 c xS p cd CD 0 > Ph •H CQ •H CQ as -P o CQ pq P 0 CQ o P O •H -P cd •H > CD Pi P P cd P P cd -P to P 2 8 Id ♦ id Ld • id rd • rd P• rd tO LT\ • P" P• fd p♦ to id • P" rd * id i—I d i—1 • pi—I • tO i—1 • 1—1 • Id O • KN ON • CM i—1 C\J • i—1 CM lT \ • 1-- 1 00 rd • rd pq o ■H -P 0 P to to * rH 00 id • CM ON id • rd id • i—1 O * r—1 + 1 + | +1 CM * 1-- 1 to i—1 • rH to P* • rH tO P* • ■—i to CO 1—1 CM • CM to p" • CM i-- 1 hc\ • i—1 CJN rH * 1-- 1 d id • d p• P' to • • <—t + 1 + i bd Ph Pi P P o o -M p" id • CM d o• rH id to • rH o + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 d 0* to • to p* rH « d P’ rd id • OJ CO CM • 1-- 1 ON Id • to • to p* c^ • to P' ON 00 ON « 1—I to rd • CM i—1 0 US aS pq OJ * L f\ Id 0 -P 0 o o CM CM m id rd 0 -P 0 o tO rd • 1-- 1 CD o d O 1--1 • d P’ d P OJ • id • to p* £ cd CD I—I • id • CM + 1 + 1 + 1 CD CD i> Ph P CM • id fd • to p" p CQ P• rd id • rd <—1 • to p- d Id « cd CQ 3 P i—I 0 P d i—1/ 0 •H > •rH d P H o • Id rd id « tO id 0 -P 0 o 0 -P 0 O 0 0 o pq CM RR O P* P [>2 rH i—1 oi p P •H > •H P P M + 1 + 1 + 1 ON • to p- to • to p" ON » to p" OJ to • Id d • d to • P + 1 + i + 1 P Ld i—i I d 0 • • • d d P- I d rd fd rd P O P CD 0 0 1 d -P 1 0 0 P o o •—f 0 0 P 0 "cR oR •H p P o o 0 o o pq CM p - «v •» P P •H •H O O rH i—1 P 0 i—1 P O rP 0 P o >H ** P 0 P rH P o p 0 p p O 0 0 P 0 0 0 0 P P r—1 o p P rH O P H M 0 P OF FIBER ON DAILY 1 a L *^ cd l— UJ X O 1 o I i< t =! o cd f— 2 2 □ 0 CD ros *> I < a * O .8 £ \- £ % £ y * I v///yyyAvx/AVAyyyyA £ o I I £ IT I- I* < cd co xto !< r UJ $X $ i * O H t 4 '/arA tr/A W jrA trA yA M M ay// co < FECT FIGURE I GAIN AND BACKFAT T Cd H O 2% 30 The Effect of Rations Containing 0, 20, and 40% Wheat Bran Upon Growth and Carcass Characteristics Trial II Means and standard deviations of daily gains and feed efficiency are presented in table 8, while those for the carcass traits are given in table 9 and 9a. In the second trial, one pig in the group fed 20% bran lot had to be removed from the experiment because of extremely poor growth. The data were treated for missing values as outlined by Goulden (1952). Pigs fed the 40% wheat bran ration grew at a significantly lower rate (P < 0.01) than those fed the basal ration. Pigs receiving the basal ration required significantly less (P < 0.05) feed per pound of gain than either those receiving the 20% or 40% bran rations (table 8). The 40% wheat bran pigs tended to yield leaner carcasses than those from the basal lot as in­ dicated by backfat thickness and percent fat trim (table 9). However this trend was not significant. There was a trend for the percentage of primal cuts (carcass basis) to increase as the bran was increased in the ration, but at a non-significant rate. Carcass length and dressing percentage were not measurably af­ fected by the different levels of bran in the ration. 31 -P H i —I cd d rH '"N cd -p • P O CQ •H I 1 rO tO • 00 o OJ Ph fd ( —1 CD w CD Ph P o • cO O CM L f\ • co o CM cO ♦ 00 o OJ o CM cO * LO o OJ to • )—1 • 00 • oo • 00 o CM CO • cO O OJ ro • O OJ ro cO • ro co o • o ro • 00 o • * -* CM O • EH p o <1) O d cd a P s d t> i—i d < 21} *H cd [> i—l • rH i—1 • +1 + I Pi o cO cO • ■M* * c q P CD Ph + 1 CO cO i—! o • • • 4-1 00 O • +1 +1 + 1 O - LA LO LO •p* r o • • • rH 1 — 1 rH CO CN • rH o o• rH d NO 00 • * LO • CM LO l>• CM LO LO LO O f --1 i—i o CQ P o •H -P cd *H !> CD d cd •h -P *H P -P d • bD CQ *H d (D d 00 * CN OJ OJ OJ ro • CM LO • CQ O bO LO LO LO LO Ph bD *H P cd d P cd P -P C O cd CD P Ph CQ •H ■P fd s O cd pcj -P *H cd CD Ph P cd P PP pq CQ bO d 0 CQ bO Ph d CD Ph rH rH cd d d *H t> •H d P H + 1 +1 + 1 l> cO • i—i [> - o LO tO • • 1 —1 rH o• 00 ro 00 • CO ro CO • 00 ro CO CO CO CQ d P CO O • -P cd CD ^ ^ rH ^R RR cd d cd PQ P c±j M P P CD Ph P pq (>5 i —I -P cd rH 0 cd •H O O > + + fd P H P( ra (\j 4o Pt fd d H M cd P CD d cd 0 P d 1 p cd 0 1 £ ES d CD P 1— 1 RR cd o CQ CcJ cd + pq § P pq Ph d d a o o P cd P pq -p cd 0 S 1— 1 RR RR cd CQ cd pq O O + + CM OO Ph P h H H * * * OQN • 1-- 1 II d *H CD d O Eh d 0) A P h os Ph Trial for Traits of Garcass Deviations 1—1 00 • rH On • 00 OJ LO NO % • o - lD OJ OJ oON » OJ lO • OJ O ON • rH + 1 + 1 + i p H • LT\ tA OJ ON • A A * bD d f! H 0 w i-P + | 1-- 1 • 00 OJ OJ 1—1 o 0 cd w 4-3 0 /'”>» 0 d • 'H js l f j M O M O 0 A PQ Eh o♦ do- o[A • 00 OJ # o 00• 00• i— 1 rH rH • to ­ ol 00 • LfO OJ dLfO • 1--1 1—1 LD rH NO • m t--1 ON « d10- d• ro O- i—J d• d* • o« LA t> - O rH • + 1 + | NO • 00 NO • 00 00 oOJ OJ OJ LfO 00 o• rH • + 1 + 1 + 1 L f\ LA O• NO OJ J>• ft l> • LfO OJ ON • LA OJ OJ d" • dLA • o• LA LO­ LA OJ » NO d• + i LA o• + 1 + 1 o• d* o- OJ OJ • + 1 + i ON • to ­ ol OJ • 00 OJ OJ ON 1—1 rH • • [> - d * o D- tO- l> • • 1— 1 i— 1 1 1— OJ LD • rH NN ON • 1—1 t> • • CO lD OJ OJ + i OJ • LA [A + 1 + 1 + 1 ON ON * + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + i + 1 + i LfO • co­ ol O NO • 1-- 1 + 1 + 1 + | ON NO • rH LA o• 0 bC •H Ph JA • EA OJ t> O • OJ • t> - LO 1-- 1 • + 1 1--1 • OJ d" O • + 1 + 1 + 1 1—1 00• rH oO• rH P h 0 -P A -P ^ bO A • d bO 0 0 - H .Q l—J Q J fA NO • o o OJ o • LfO ON t—i LD • O • 00 o o ON rH OJ oft ON • C O ­ dON ON 1—1 i— I m rO rH t— J 0 0 A OJ • o o OJ LD ON i—t LA LD • 1— 1 ON • LD ON 1—1 •rH > •H • j> Means 0 be •H p^ A 0 Ph d o •H +3 0 Ph I—1 0 pq Pi 0 Fh PQ A A d -p 0 0 1-> 0 0 A A pi 0 ^R ^R 0 0 o O o pq OJ dd cd Td 0 Ph (>5 rH i—1 0 2 A •H > •rH A Pi H d 0 d a 0 d pq pq -P 0 0 £0 -p 0 0 rH £ 0 0 cR cR 0 O o pq OJ d- pi d o 1 1 0 d •H A a o o A d 0 A •H Fh P 0 0 i—1 A d 0 I—1 A -P d 0 > 0 0 0 rd -P 4-3 0 A 0 Fh pq pq P 0 0 -P 0 0 p A 0 ^R ^R 0 o o 0 pq OJ d- -P 0 Ph •H A 0 A —/ H H i— 1 0 *H g o ct— 1 CQ p 0 G EH -=tj ON 0 i-H P 0 EH CQ CQ Cd i—1 NO 00 00 LfO cd ■H . t> CD PI tG G cd Td G cd P CO Td G ♦ r—1 cd 0 !> P h •rH P p cd Pi ON LO ON LO 00 # • to• + | + 1 + 1 i—1 00 . • G* _1_ ON 00 NO • • *--1 C J • NO 00 NO NO NO CJ 00 I—1 C J • . • I—1 1—1 i--) OJ o lO lO « ON • i-H . CO LO LO 00 CO 0 •J" G - he • ON • 1- 1 i— l 00 ON CJ a lO rH • 1— 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 ON 1— 1 • • » o- 00 ON 4" i— i co 00 lO • • 1— 1 t— 1 LO LfO C J LfO NO . i— I • 0 hC NO rH • • + 1 + 1 H* I tG • LO LfO NO LO ON • LO NO NO G 0 G 0 G pq LfO LfO 0 NO NO Fh NO • rH 00 ON lO . rO G 0 Fh 1— 1 p q G 0 Fh pq 0 P- CQ G 0 o pq LO • • LO O C\J o n|- 0 G tG *H i> •H Td G H rCd 0 Fh i— 1 0 0 0 pq pq O CJ o nj- LfO LfO • G- 1— 1 C J C O LfO a • Fh + 1 rH i— i \-1 • 0 G 00 tG nl•H + 1 + 1 o CJ • ♦ 00 ON G' G - 'd O- i— l C J 1 — 1 CO LO M 1- 1 r H G • a • OJ Td + 1 + 1 + 1 G 0 P- G o G cG r— 1 I— 1 • CJ 1—1 LO • • [>- o 4- Ph NO oG* NO + 1 + 1 +1 LO Ph • • • *--1 i—! + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + i Fh • NO i—1 i—1 [>10• • • 1—1 1--1 O J * cG NO • NO LO 00 0 NO • NO LO G - 1— 1 N O • • • CO o- ON G- Td 0 Ph o NO G• 1— 1 nfr • LO t£ *rH Ph •rH lO i—1 + 1 + 1 H-l NO o LfO • LO 0 0 CD 0 + 1 + 1 H-1 pq o Fh i=3 CJ . NO Fh Ph • LfO « NO LO lO cd * • NO LO ON N O OO • • 1- 1 O J cd CQ CD • H P i-l CQ G cd 0 G LfO • CJ ON 0 o 00 • + 1 + 1 H-l G ’ G CQ o i 1 NO NO LO * Fh £ cd o O cd • NO OJ + 1 + 1 H* 1 pq G p • C\J + 1 LfO LfO • NO o« . no CQ •H CQ cd P CQ CQ cd cd CQ o OJ LO lO o O P cO •H P G • + 1 +1 Fh CD 0 i> P h CQ •H i-H PQ o o 1- 1 • NO o •H •H P G CQ G P h cd 0 cd NO • NO LfO • + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 CQ •rH CQ cd P cd o CJ » NO a CQ o G NO OJ * EH £ Fh i—1 • • NO 0 CQ o CQ P Fh CQ cd 0 o Ph P O LfO nh + t + 1 * PQ G g Eh +1 CO « NO NO • NO • LfO • 1 1 *£} 0 G •H a o o •— 1 ON nj• * • lO NO LfO NO G cd G i— 1 pq 0 0 0 O pq C J lO NO G 0 G pq O shoulder, loin, ham, and belly o LfO • G Ph G o H i-l P • P cd CD G c d Fh CD C Q OJ LfO * NO ♦ York O ON N O + 1 + 1 + 33 NO the New P G • NO ♦ Includes *H • NO NO LfO • lO shoulder, loin, and ham. 3 G + | + 1 + 1 CQ CQ • 3 cd C d a P CQ *H CQ CQ •H P • hC CO. CJ • York Cl) P OJ G• LO LfO • the New /"‘N 00 LfO • Includes 1 OJ cO In . •H P CQ •H 0 p 34The full large intestine was significantly heav­ ier (P < 0.05) in pigs fed the 4-0% bran ration than those on the basal ration; however, there was no sig­ nificant difference in the weight of the empty large intestines* Neither the weight of the stomach both full and empty, nor the volume of the stomach (as measured by the amount of water required to fill it) were significantly affected by the various levels of bran, in the ration (table 10), Trial IV Table 11 shows the means and standard deviations for daily gains and feed efficiency. Tables 12 and 12A show the means and standard deviations for the carcass characteristics. In the fourth trial pigs receiving the 40% bran ration gained at a significantly slower rate (P < 0.03) and consumed more feed per pound of gain (P < 0.01) than those receiving the basal ration. Carcasses from the 4-0% bran lot had significantly less (P < 0.01) backfat thickness than those from the basal of 20% bran lots. This was accompanied by a lower percent fat trim (P < 0.01) in carcasses from the 4-0% bran lot as compared with those from the basal lot. The per­ centage of lean and primal cuts (carcass basis) was 0 cd Fh • pq 0 P cR i—l o 0 P 0 0 -P 0 o o > H 0 0 Fh • pq 0 i—1 cd •H Fh EH <—1 o CVJ a 0 rH • cd 0 0 P Cd rH pq CQ CD 0 •H o I —1 CD i —I ■3 E h -p C Q. H CH O Pi o i— 1 • cd 0 0 p cd i—i pq -cdp •H 0 0 Fh • pq 0 ^ P cR i—1 o t> 0 Pi ♦ - o• LA a1 —1 rH CVJ CVJ 00• • CO 00 o o OJ Cvj l>• o 1 —1 CVJ o • LA rH CVJ * * —1 LA vD 1 O J O• • o « + 1 +l + 1 LTN o la vO LA • o• • IA a- a- * (A 0-• rA vD• 1 —1 rH CVJ 0*• CA O CVJ CQ 0 0 *H 50 cd-'-N 0 <23 • Pi m 0 t>aP |>r—1i —f <3j*H ✓ 0 PI cvj ir\ vO• ca• tA fA * IA Lf\ vD i —1 i—• IO • • +1 +1 + 1 vD 00 o t IA VDO Lf* • -1 1 -1 1 1 —1 i —01-px—v * ! CQ • PH pho ♦rH*H ft ^ 0 rH CO• VD• VD• 0" •=J" IA IA IA O• CVJ rA LA (A CA CA *51 CD Pi o *rH P 0 Pci 50 Ph ft 0 Ph ft .0 o Pi <23 « ft i —1 0 CD 0 PP 00 ON VD 0*• • OJ• IA fA 0* 0- vD [>O* O• o • —1 00 LA 1 V 1 MT• O• i—♦ CD + 1 + 1 + 1 50 +1 + 1 H-l •H cvj 00 vD Ph VD 00 rA LA LT* \ fA • * OJ• ft • 0*• lA —1 1 —1 1 -1 i —1 1 -1 rH 0 \ Ph rH —1 o• i • o • O(tf CA 00 o CVJ IA oj f0 t •H •>H ft LA Lf\ a* a- H0 w ft 50 •H 0 0 P h 0 0 Pi Pi 0 0 ft 0 0 ft Pi Pi 0 Pi Pi 0 PQ pq o pq PQ Ph Pi P p <23 p P {H >5 0 r 0 1 0 0 0 .0 1 0 0 i —1 0 ft 0 0 3 0 g P* 0 ft —i •H o\ •H i ft o J> 0 O o o CVJ a* •H CD OJ a- a o ft 0 pq H" H+ + III. C • CQ O 50 m "s CQ Pi cd S • 0 ~ rH CVJ II. In r> H H 0 •H Pi Eh S oh ft CD O Pi 0 a Pi O Vi Pi CD Ph ft o 1 —1 Td CD rH I-1 CD Ph 0 i —f Ph o 'S CQ Eh Pi O •iH ft cd > CD ft - d' • co D- d* * I—I NO erf• vO • dd• + i O • QN OJ vO 1—1 • res • CO OJ 1—1 • o o o» rH ON • CVJ CO- i—i • d* f> - • NO O- • OJ I—1 vO • i—1 VO CVJ ON * • 00 i—i • i—I CO * LfO CO # 1—1 1—t • H-l + 1 + 1 + 1 CO • 1—t CN • NO O- NO • ON CO CVJ 1—1 • d* L f\ • (—1 + 1 + 1 NO • dt> - H-l vO * ON CO + 1 + 1 ON • ON CO ro- o• H-l NO O • 1—1 • 1-- 1 o NO d" O • ON d• I—1 O + 1 H-l 1-- 1 m + 1 • 0 d H -l co • NO CO + 1 3 7 p + 1 + 1 H -l + 1 + 1 + | 0 0 0 /-~ X P * ,d d O H *H v rd PQ E h vO vO • 00 O • rH ON • VO CO o erf -p erf P rd O erf o o* L f\ • oC\J + 1 H-l CQ CQ -P • 0 bO d o Pi H P 0 w erf dJ O NO VO • 1-- 1 1—1 • CO * * LfO o« 3 P rH 0 -P d l 0 p 0 i—1 —i O d d 0 0 bD d d 0 •H o p -P 0 0 rH d d 0 + 1 i—i • ON CO v0 » ON CO LfO * * * LfO NO 00 • ON CO o• o• o• 0 bC H -l + 1 + 1 ■H CVJ Ph o CN. LfO • m • d 0 rH 1—1 I—1 Ph o CO • NO O OJ rH • o^ 1—1 rH • d- (0 * J—1 CO cd o o on rH !> -=aj LfO • d" o• o- ON 1—1 0 b£ ■rH Ph Means d 0 P pq PQ 0 b£ -p 0 0 ■rH Ph d 0 Ph d o P •rH -p o 0 PI C5 p P Pi 0 P <~) -P 0 0 d rH 0 0 0 PQ o co O d- s p d 0 p P>H pq pq to r—1 1-1 c6 1— 1 d 0 d •H 0 0 > -p 0 0 -P 0 0 d 0 •H d d H pq £ § cR o o CO d" !>: r—1 i—1 00 • 0 NO d d CO •H > ■H d d M o to CVJ d" * o> I l d 0 d ■H d a o o rH d 0 0 erf d d p o d s p pq d 0 p pq -p 0 0 -p 0 0 rd rd & 1— 1 0 0 ^R 0 O CO pq • LfO ON ON 1—1 rH d d 0 ft d o p cd p o -H P 0 -P d erf 0 d ~p rd -P o d p 0 t> 0 0 d 0 o d * **rd 0 P O p 0 p O P -H i—1 *H 0 c d ^R P O 0 o cvj d P 0 d d P d 0 0 0 P 0 /-N -P • d 0 bDd d d 0 w 1—I U2 • -P -p 0 P a o P P P 0 O p -H d P 0 0 0 P 0 d a d 0 0 0d 0p d rd a o o •H Fh ^ ^ d p LfO I— 1 rH P O O O d • • * 0 0 O O O bO P , erf 0 P 0 0 0 P h P h P h t> 0 cR V V V J d- — ''d d * * * 0 d o * * * rO •H Ph CO CVJ # • ON OJ • NA KA « to­ ol • a a •H fcd•H 3 o id d d -PP for Trial Traits of Carcass Deviations and Standard Means • a pq a 0 0 O rO 0 a CQ d 0 a o +1 1-- 1 • NA d• KA LO • KA LO • KA KA • KA d d OJ NA • VO NA • vO KA * OJ d• d* OJ • 00 KA • LO KA • i—1 KA • d KA • d O H -l + 1 H-l + I + 1 H- 1 + 1 • KA • KA + 1 + 1 + 1 rH • NA KA • KA i—i • KA KA • KA KA • KA OJ • KA OJ • KA KA • KA LO OJ • OJ dO• Ol 00 i—I • 1-- 1 Oo • rH OOJ • d d* i—1 • 1-- 1 i—1 vD • O OA • * O vO • + 1 + | + 1 + 1 H-l + Or • OJ co L f\ • OJ VO KA » UA vO • OJ vO KA • LO VO VD « vO vO CO • OJ vO 00 • KA VO CO • LO vO d" o• (—t OJ i—1 vO CO • • 1—1 1—1 KA O • 1-- 1 LO OJ • 1—1 00 * 1—1 CA KA • rH O d O I 38 + 1 NA • NA + 1 + 1 + 1 -P o Ph 00 d • OJ + KA + 1 + 1 + 1 0 •H 0 d -p 00 OJ * + 1 + | H • o KA • OJ • NA + | • CJ1 co CJ1 0 CO EH IV (Continued) p i -P CQ CQ d Pi •H CQ CQ d CO KA oo VO • • i—1 I— CIS m 0 •H •H -p 0 a p! d 0 pq o a 0 0 + 1 +1 > Ph •H d 0 •H 0 d -p pq a 0 0o d 0 d CQ o -p Fh d 0 PM o o a d CQ CD •H -P d cq a d* O• OJ 00 00 • rH LT\ 00 • rH o PP O a 0 0 > PM •H Pi vD d* • OJ 00 • 00 d- a d d• vO d- LO • vO d" + 1 +1 a + CQ bfl Ph a o •H -P d P3 Pi P O F h d OJ • oo d00 o• rH I--1 * vo NA i—1 d 0 d pq 00 • dNA vO • vO d- OJ • CO d" vO « CO d- OJ co • vO O• co o • OJ -M d• i—I LO o VO LO • J-- 1 VO • VO KA H d H d pq pq a a o o OJ + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 1 + 1 + d 0 PH + 1 NA * LfA d- d* • co dI—1 CO • 0 bC *H + 1 PM LO * d 0 VO PH KA l>5 rH rH d a d > •H d a p i vO • 1—1 LO I—1 o- LO KA • OJ [> • + • KA LO 1 + 1 Ol • 00 KA 00 ♦ co KA a a d d a a i—1 pq d 0 RR d pq OJ pq cR o o d' • OJ + 1 + 1 H -1 0 h£ LO • vO vO • vO d d; VO • LO OA • d 0 Ph d • Od # PM + 1 + 1 * Ol ka o■ >i + 1 + | +1 rH rH i—1 CO • • • aJ a CO OA OJ LO d d d-rH > •H d a p i d a d a a o a o i i d 0 a •H d a o o KA d • i—1 H -l KA • VO KA i—1 d 0 d FP LO d i—1 rH • • OJ OJ + 1 + 1 KA ♦ vO KA vO • IO­ NA a a a d a a pq pq cR oR O d o Ol • tA> rH (—1 0 d • 0 -P • d O a i—I CD d d *RR O d a OJ a d d rd d a #** d a a ■H •H 1—1 O O d i—i i—I 0 0 d *- a* 0 o d rd H -P a o rd rd ■P 0 O d d a 0 d H a o rd 0 d a a o o O M >H a H £ 0 0 < N LO o 0 0 • 0 0 O d d a a Sj i—1 i—1 o Ph O aa p i * d d 59 significantly larger (P < 0.09) in carcasses from the 4-0% "bran lot than in carcasses from either the basal or 20% bran lots. On the other hand, the dressing per­ centage of pigs from the 40% lot was significantly lower (P lot. 0.09) than that of the pigs from the basal There was significantly more fill in the large intestines of pigs from the 40% bran lot than of pigs from the basal lot (table 19)* Thus, the amount of feed and water retained in the digestive tract ap­ peared to contribute some to the lower dressing per­ centage. The weights of the empty stomach, small in­ testine and empty large intestine were not significantly affected by any of the rations. The Effect of Rations Containing 0, 10, and 20% Alfalfa Meal Upon Growth and Carcasses Characteristics Trial III The feedlot performance results are presented in table 15 while the results of the carcass traits are given in tables 14 and 14A. In this trial the daily gains of pigs in the basal lot were much lower than the average gains for the basal lots of the other 40 • -p M ft ft erf 1—1 /'"A Crf f t • 54 O 0 •H r - 1 fQ pH d f t Qj \ _y 0 PH • 00 o eg KD go 4 • A o i—1 o ft eg A• 00 o ft A• ft ft ft A O ft 00 go • LA rA • A i—1 « I 1 I o • LA • 00 O ft O • 1—1 rH eg KA • A O ft o A ft o • i—1 CO • KA KA • J-- 1 ft ft 4 1-- 1 (—1 • LA KA 00 • ■4" KA A 4 ■d" KA OA OA OA i—1 Crf 0 i—1 Crf 0 crf ft 1—1 crf ft 1—1 crf ft 1—1 crf ft 1—1 ■H U ft U o ft 0 o 54 erf a B o ft £~i 0 54 f t 0 O ft 54 • rf-H W 3 f lip fl) ? P H 0 O w ft ft LA * LA 0 54 0 ft bQ crf/-N crf d • 54 0 0 !> s 4 > f t i—1 <3 f t ^ erf p KA i—! • O 00 • KA ka OA o • LA 1—1 • 1—1 Crf f t s s *H rP * f t b£> 0 ■H f t d fj 0 H 5-4 *5 ' * 0 O bD P i *H Ph ft • a a ft ft eg • A ft LA LA lA Pi d 54 erf d 54 0 -P CQ 0 b0 ft ft d 54 erf w 54 erf 0 54 O •H P crf Ph d 0 ft ft d o Pi d * ft 1—1 crf 0 3 i—5 erf ft r—1 erf ft i—1 <=*{ erf ft i—1 crf ft rH Crf 0 I—1 ^ R ^ R crf o o 0 (—1 f t crf + pp + ON ft ♦ LA •—i KA ■ OA ft • ft ft • • KA + 1 + 1 + 1 OA go ft ft • « 1—1 i—I eg • A ft • d* o + 1 + 1 + 1 LA LA • <—1 • ka • O LA 4 1-- 1 o • LA •d* 0 b0 •H Ph d 0 ft OA KA 4 ft LA • o KA • ft KA • •3* 3- ft crf 0 m ft crf 0 erf ft ft crf ft ft crf ft 1—1 crf ft 1—1 < J>s rH ft erf d d •H i—1 ^ R ^R crf O O > 0 i—1 f t •H crf d + + 54 pp ft • ft ft 0 i—1 b0 • •H P h \—| d 0 Ph ft ft crf d d ■H > ■rH d 54 ft d ’ 54 crf ft d O 54 O 1 1 d 0 54 *H rO a o o • ft ft H i—1 ^R erf O 0 i—l erf + PQ ^R O ft + 41 ON • CM a *H 0 Eh P crf Ph 00 • LA C\J rH 00 • crf o K\ AJ • i—1 LA CO • CM LA • cO c\J i—1 • -V OJ A O OJ • OJ rH 4* • LA CD • • LA CM 00 • 4* A rC j^ N ■p * bD 0 0 M 0 w P 00 • CM A 4" OJ • rH 00 00 00 • C\J 0 0 0 /- N 0 * P Pi O M *H ^ P EH A OJ * • A CA i—1 • LA • LA A O • 0" A cO 00 00 CO • » + I ♦ CO CM o t—1 • + 1 + 1 0- i—1 4 * A cO • • i—1 I—I 00 • l—t 1-- 1 • ON CM 00 4-1 LA • 4* CM 4* 4* • + 1 KN + KN A O KN • 00 00 • LA CM » LA CM ON OJ • H 4* • OJ + f LA • 4* A LA • LA A • + 1 + 1 ON O • ON O • O * KN A KN KN # OJ • ON OJ CM • ON CM cO 0O • o• 0 + 1 + 1 + 1 b£ i—1 KN A •H A cO LA Ip ♦ • ♦ rH f--1 rH P 0 >1 00 ♦ ON ON rp O • OJ o CM CM • A ON i—1 > ' rH 0 0 0 0 b£ •H IP 0 o •H P 0 W P 0 Ph p. o 0 ci> EH i— 1 0 i—1 0 0 0 PQ i—1 0 0 0 Eh i—1 0 i—1 *=3 i— 1 <1? O rH o OJ 00 • A ON i—1 01 hC •H Ph p 0 Ph *>: rH i—1 0 0 P ■H t> •H P 0 H KN • r—i o PP • 00 CM ON 1—1 i—i 1—1 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 eh H i—1 eh i—I eh i—l 0 i— 1 0 0 0 O 0 i—1 - il o rH O CM rH 1—1 0 0 P •H > •H P a M 00 • 00 ON 1—I cD • 1—1 o CM LA • A ON i—1 p 0 0 rH 0 0 i—I 0 0 P p. 0 O fH P 1 1 P 0 0 Eh rH 0 Eh H *=*1 0 Eh i— 1 0 Eh i—1 <*1 0 •r-t p a o o 0 p p Eh O 0 bD P 0 0 O •H 0 0 p 0 0 0 P P P P 0 0 t> 0 0 O P 0 0 O P #> P P o 0 p *H 0 •rH 0 eh Eh o 0 P p pH 0 0 ^ P • P 0 bDP 0 H~1 c d '- ' i—i CO • P P 0 0 •H Eh Pi 0 0 P 0 0 4" CD i—1 O • • ON 4» iH i—1 LA • P 0 0 i—1 + 1 + 1 + 1 • CO CM -dLA * 1--1 0 i—1 KN KN • • CA CM CO LA • 1—1 • 4* CM P 0 0 rH « ON CM + 1 + 1 + 1 CO LA • o • iH 0 P P •H 0 A A cD • LA CM • P *H 0 LA A • LA • KN A CO OJ • KN 00 + 1 + 1 A LA O • 1-- 1 *f* 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + i + 1 + 1 + LA A ON • LA 0" 1—1 <—i • • KN LA + 1 + | + 1 + 1 + 1 i—1 A • Means and Standard Deviations of Garcass Traits for Trial 0 bD bO 0 0 •H -P W a 0 0 0 O 0 Ph P 0 Ph o cO CO • C\J + 1 + 1 +1 III p 0 0 O 0 0 Ph rH 0 0 0 PP o I—1 p 0 0 bD P 0 P 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 o •H 0 0 P 0 0 0 0 0 0 M O •H P P 0 P P a o 0 Eh 0 bD cR 0 0 0 O CM 0 p P 0 0 0 0 0 0 > / N d 03 a d •H +3 d o o 1— 1 H M i—1 d •H d EH d o 03 -P •H d d EH -d d" rH 03 03 d d o rH d d d d o Hi o 03 d o •H -P d t> 0 « d d d nd d d -P co •H d ro d •H • o « d PP H -P 0 0 • a d 0* a id 03 *H 0 0 •H d bC •H * d P3 d M o fd d -P • d 0 d 01 d 0 03 -d EH d o d" UN d* • OJ d• ON d• OJ 00 ■ OJ •H -P d pd KN d~ • d* 1 — 1 OJ • • d- d- ON C O ON 4 4 4 KN KN KN 00 OJ • rH i— l I— 1 oLfN CO d• * • OJ rH OJ C O ­ OJ LfN ON N O C D • • 4 KN 4-1 4-1 4-1 N O KN 00 4 • 4 d- LfN LfN N O N O N O cD 00 • I—1 rH cD i—1 • rH LfN KN N O 1 --1 LTN ON 4 • • OJ 1 --1 --1 1 N O 00 rH ON 1 — 1 LfN • 4 4 --1 r— 1 * 1 --1 o 4 1—1 H* 1 + 1 cD 00 O [>- Co­ d' 00 KN d- LfN LfN CH • 1--1 cD 4 1-- 1 + I u 4-1 4-1 4-1 + 1 + 1 4-1 • 00 d' d- O 4*1 OJ • ON CN- cD KN d Hi i—1 d Hi i—1 -d KN i—1 d 0 d PP • o i—i ON C O 4 4 O- 00 d- d- rH ON d4 4 4 0 C O O- C O bC d^ d’ d" *H pH KN d* 00 O • • OJ OJ 00 KN ON 4 OJ + 1 + 1 4-1 LfN OJ NO ON • • 4 1 —1 rH Ol LfN LfN LfN CO­ rH ON • 0 b£ Ph LfN • KN d p d Hi 1 —1 *d o OJ O O ro, iD oj * OJ • * i— [ C\J ml 0 fH rd 0 Ph rd *r| t> ■H a i— 1 rd ■H d 0 > d •H PP rd a H KN ON ON • • 4 t--1 O o LfN LfN LfN eg 00 on ON LfN N O d + 1 + 1 +1 P d ON 4 OKN In rH i— 1 d LfN N O C O ON N O O4 4 4 >5 4-1 4-1 4-1 i —l i— l d a 4-1 H -l f>s I —I rH 03 d 4-1 4-1 4-1 +1 +1 + O- o • • rH 1 —[ + 1 +1 + 1 O- d- ON • * • On o o cd i— i UN o NO LfN N O • 4 • 1 --1 4 d* + 1 4-1 KN cD 4 OJ d o cD i—i LO LfN o♦ • • 4 d- 00 d- d~ 4 • • LfN LfN N O cD NO NO O' Ph Pi o 4 d" d* • LfN NO d* 0 Ml "H P4 t --1 i— 1 ON OJ • • • d- KN d’ +1 cD 4 \-- 1 + J + 1 4-1 n O + i O- On +1 + 42 KN O LfN LfN • 4 OJ • LfN cD < 1) o • o d4 CD 4 KN CD 4-1 d d 0 0 •H -P id 0 d d 0 PP o d 0 0 > Id d 4-1 O +i + 1 + 1 + 1 0 *H 0 d -p pp d 0 0 O 0 d d d 0 0 o Ph -P d a d o O 0 d d 0 I— I ON i—I O d- LfN N • • • • ♦ d~ KN 0 •H -P 0 d d 0 PP o d 0 0 > fd •rH hP d • OJ • d~ + i o i—i d a •H d Ph KN d LTN d - + 1 + 1 + 1 0 -H 0 d -p pp d 0 0 O 0 d d 0 d 0 -P O P h a d o d nd d KN d• PJ d 0 Hd| Hd rH l —I d d Lf\ 4 KN a d e> 1 i nd 03 a •H O o KN rH • 4 O- C O KN KN d 03 d FP ,d Hi H i— H d H d Hi i 5 3 $ rH B OJ a d d d d Ph nd d d d •H O d ■H O d 03 d 03 nd nd P03i a o d o Ph 03 d o d o 03 |Sh td 03 03 nd 03 03 nd o d o d —i i —I i ( —I I —I t>H t>H a CD a H H d p3 43 three trials. The author has no valid explanation for the reduced gains. There were no significant differences due to treatment, in feedlot performance or carcass traits studied. However, certain trends are apparent. These include a tendency for the rate of gain to decrease as the level of alfalfa meal was increased (table 12). (There was also a tendency for the carcasses from pigs on 20% alfalfa meal ration to be leaner than those from the basal lot as indicated by the backfat thick­ ness and percent fat trim. There were no significant differences between treatments in the weight of any parts of the gastrointestinal tract. DISCUSSION AND COMPARISONS OP COMBINED TRIALS Pigure 1, page 29, shows the general trend of the effects that the various rations had on daily gain and backfat thickness. There was a tendency for the daily gain and backfat thickness to decrease as the fiber content of the ration was increased. There was a cor­ relation of .4-84- between daily gain and backfat thick­ ness (see table 19)* While this may not be a high correlation it does indicate that there is a tendency for the backfat thickness to decrease as the rate of gain is slowed up. Blunn and Baker (194-7) reported a correlation of .29 between rate of gain and depth of backfat and Dickerson (194-7) reported a correlation of .6 between rate of gain and degree of fatness. This is also in agreement with Crampton et al. (1954-). Carcasses can be divided into three main portions: bone, muscle, and fat; and a change in the percentage of any one of the three affects the percentage of the others. Since the bone is included in the lean and primal cuts, a decrease in the amount of fat would tend to increase percentage lean and primal cuts in - 44- - 4-5 * * co OJ d 0 d •H d a O o * 1 * * KN OJ LfN • 1 0 d pq "—> > H * * KN 0LfN • * * LfN OK OJ • I * * 1—1 00 * * cD OJ LfN * * * 00 cD vD • 1 * * * * d00 • • * 00 CO KN • lD cD cD 0 * * KN o KN • I * * to­ co KN • * * OK LfN CD • 1 * * cO OK CO • * * cD CO KN * * LfN LfN CM • * * * * OKN LfN • * * 00 <—1 LfN • * * KN OJ O1—1 • t * # o KN ON * I co KN • | LfN • | * * CD CD CM • * * LfN CM d" • I * * CD d" LfN • * * i—1 -MLfN # 1 I —I o 0 ft c—1 0 ft i—1 <*1 p 0 * LfN 1—1 CD O KN • ■ 1 ON CM KN • • 1 1 OJ ^}OJ • H H H 03 L f\ rH fl O -H -P 0 0 i —I i —I d 0 Eh 0 d d o o cjCO OJ • 1 LfN CO O • 1 OK CM OJ • OJ 00 OJ * ■ 1 OJ OJ • KN CO 1—1 • 1 CD ■3OJ * 00 i—1 CM « 1 00 o • p o *H ft •rH d 0 d pq H H 0 P 0 o v_/ * #• KN 00 cD • 1 * * KN CD CD • * * OK O^t* • 1 * * OK IN* • * * LfN i—1 LfN • rH ■4* KN 0 i 00 cjKN • OK LfN ■3* OJ • KN LfN KN • OJ • 1 1—1 LfN KN * 1 1—1 ^}KN • KN O KN • I OK 00 CM • KN OJ o • OJ o o • i LfN rH o • rH KN O • 1 d bD *H CO * * LfN OK KN • * OJ (-- 1 o • i—1 OJ o • 1 00 KN • 1 * * [> CD d* • * OJ LfN o • 00 LfN • I o • 1 0 p 0 -P cd ft [>5 rH ♦H cd d d d cd d CD d •H 5 r—I •H cd d d d cd £3 PI Eh d 0 d CD SH CD CD ■H CD £ cd ^ 6 0 -P 0 ft 0 pq pq o cd rd d cd d CD d -p cd ft o 0 d d a 0 CO Js; •H 0 P I CH 0 EH d 0 d M d d 0 •H 0 •H 0 0 ^ dl £ b O ft -P -P O 0 0 pq bD d •H 0 pq 0 d o d 0 d 0 0 0 ft P d 0 o d 0 ft d 0 -H 0 d 0 d d hOrd o p! ►>3*0 d h d H ft d •H 0 d -P ift > 0 •H r—I i— I C D d rH C D d CCS ft tH ND ND O - NO NO NO ft-LlOND • • • Nod- d- LTOLfOO• o • NONONO LfOCO O • * • NONOd" • C D bGH ♦ ft Fh 0 <0 C O O 0 ft F hft 1 — I 03 cd 0 • • * * co NOOND NOrH • • • +1+1+1 O NONO 0 rH UO O OJ o • # • +1+1+1 lto o n * • * d* d* lO Nod* d" Lfoco d* • • • NONOd" d- ND O • • • NONOd" COLfOND O O O • • • +1+1+1 d- NOOJ • • ♦ 1 — 11 — 11 — 1 * d~ ND Oo o o • • • +1+1+1 ND LfONO • • • 1 — 11 — 11 — 1 * NO ■0 0 d •H CO f t d d •H o o 0 OJ 10 rH 0 0 • *H 0 cd •H 0 > i> ift •H i 1rH 0 bd d 0 cd H fH OnND 00 O 0 O • • • +1+1+1 oo [>-d♦ * • i— it— 11— i 00 NO00 ft d 0 * ND 00 OJ O O o * • • +1+1+1 O-ND d♦ • • r— 1i— It— 1 LfNd~ NO o o o • • • +1+1+1 O-ND ND # • * i— I i— It— 1 * 0 ft 1 — 1 b£ o• 0 ♦ o* 0 +1+1+1 E>-ND ND • • « t— 1i— 1r— 1 000 UOCO NO d• O• O* +1+1+1 lOOO • • • I —II —II —I 0 4 • iH ft o 0 ft F h ft 0 ft i— 1Oo i— I NOi—\OJ • • • +I+1+I LfO-^f NO • • * 1 — 11 — 11 — 1 NOOONO 0 - 0 d- 1 —•Ii —•to• +1+1+1 i —• 1O•i —*1 +1+1+1 d" NOOJ ND uod* • • • • i —11—ii —i • • < —II —II —I 00 LfO(— 1 O 0 NO « • « +1+1+1 LfOd" NO • • • 1 — 11 — 11 — 1 NO UO'D i — I rH O 0 0 0 + 1 + 1 + 1* a ^ S ND ND d" • « f t f t - ft cd cd 0 • 000 ft rH rH • •Fh Fh Fh r —li —Ift ft ft 0 0 cd -P bO 0 r—I ND OJ * • * 0 (— I d" d- d* rd O -p •H •H rO O-CO QN • • rH O''' CO • • 00 oooo i —Io o 0 Fs • • LfOd* d" NO NO NO NO NO NO O > LfO d" OJ OJ OJ NO NO NO 0 0 0 LfO i— I bD bD bD 1. h ft -p d cd cd •H F h ft eh cd cd 0 0 O O i —1 0^R^R cd 0O O cd OJ d PP + + ft ft -P -P 0 0 0 h pq pq -P -P cd cd ft ft ft ft 0 0 a F F o ♦H -P t>Fh Fh Fh 0 00 0 0 < —1 i —1ft ft ft •rH •H *H Table Appendix -p -p -p d d d 0 0 rd rd 0 i —I cd c R o R 0O O cd •H Fh cd o j d - eh pq + + fH EH ftft 0 bO bOP S3 cd s3 •H P 0 0 s3 o 0 ,3 0p 0 + 1 +1 LfN LA • COS' N 0 0 0 0 3 3 • +1 +1 +1 CD C M 3- • • • A • LA KA * • • C M C M LA CD CD CD CD co OK KA 1 — 1 KA • • « 1 — 1 C M KA OK OK A KA OK 3" • • • 1 --1 C 1 M I— OK KA 00 cD A O • • • C M 1 --1 --1 1 CD 3" 00 00 3^ A • * • C M C M rH +1 +( +f -H H * 1 H-1 +1 +1 +1 rH • cD 3" CD CA • • CD CD 3* 3" • 00 ■3" K"\ • OK 3~ A 3' O • • • OK O 1 — i 3" LA LA 00 • 00 3" A O • rH Lf\ LA ON C M * * rH S A ­ C M OK CK CD KA 9 • • C M H l— 1 0 1 — 1 M 3* 00 C • • • C M LA 3" CD OK KA LA • • • --1 1 — i 1 • • • LfN o rH • A 1 --1 A * • • 0 0 0 0 LA 3* * + 9 A LA SA­ LA 3" A A KA A 3A A KA • CM A 9 CM OK • 1 —1 3* • 1 —1 3" A A • + 1 H-l O 3" 3A —1 C M 1 A A KA 3^ • cD • • • C M KA A A CD CM 00 « * • 1—1 H-l H-l H-l A H-l C M 3* • • —1 00 1 3- LA +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 • ok + 1 H-l 3* 4 3* 3* • H-l OK • 00 CM OK • O 9 0 0 CO CM CM 1-- 1 LA * • A 00 CM CM KA • 00 CM LA • 00 CM 0 0 00 • 00 CM • 00 CM O • OK CM KA • OA CM CD • OK CM 00 CM LA O • rH 1 —1 • CM 1 —1 ♦ 00 CM 9 LA O • A CM ♦ OK 1-- 1 • O 1-- 1 * CD 1-- 1 • CM 1 —1 • CM 1—1 • H -l ♦ CM 0 0 OK • • 1—1 rH OK • t—1 H -l H -l + 1 H-l + 1 + 1 + 1 00 CD • • 1-- 1 1—1 00 9 rH 00 * 1—1 A CD • • 1 —1 rH A • (-- 1 + 1 LA • 1—1 —1 1 —1 1 3 0 3 Table Appendix +1 +1 KA LA LA CD CD CD O 0 *H *H pq 3 ' —' P +| rH 1 -- 1 3" CD CD CD + 1 + 1 H-l 0 00 3 • • C M 1 — I I--1 CD LA o • 9 i— 1 1 o -- 1 CD cO CD 9 MM • +1 +1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 3 0 3 0 1—1 *H O ft 1 O i— KA 00 • • • 1 --1 C M M C b £ )3 030 P 0 LA 3" 00 C M A 1 — 1 • • 9 C M C M i --1 O A 0 0 +1 +1 C M KA 00 00 OK C M CD A ft H-l LA o 0 o 0 3 3 Ph Pi 0 v—' H-1 -H i— 1 C M C O C M LP\ KA • • • r— 1 i— 1 KA +1 +1 +1 003 +1 • • LA OK OK • • • CD KA A C M C C J M C + 1 + 1 +1 o 3 ft PI +1 +1 +| m C M C M C M --1 00 LA J • 9 • LA CD f C M C M C M # 0 • 9 OK rH OK CD KA • ♦ • C O A CD C M C M M C cD W 0 0 3 O cd o 3 3 cd cd 0 o • C M CO i— 1 • • • A CD A C M C C J C M +i <3 S3 cd S 3 ^ 0 3 0 •H O Ph P • +1 +1 +1 O -P 0 Ph • KA 00 C M O CK CD KA OK C M O C • • • C M C --1 M 1 2. Means and Standard Fed Lots Deviations of Various Carcass ^ H i—1 i—1 0 0 0 •H 0 3 Eh pq 0 p 0 O 0 P 0 H H O pq pq p p 0 0 0 0 3 3 S* 1 —1 1—1 O CM H- O 3H* 0 0 *H 3 EH 0 0 pq A O CM + 0 0 3 0 3 O 3H- 0 ft rH 0 ft 1 —1 H H M 0 0 0 ft rH 0 ft 1 —1 0 0 pq O 1—1 + 0 3 pq pq p p 0 0 > ft 3 0 0 3 3 1 —1 1—1 —1 1 —1 1 ' . 0 0 0 •H 3 EH 3 0 3 m O CM + 0 •H 3 EH 0 0 0 pq cR O CM H- cR O 3* + 37 ft /-N o s ft •H P o p 0 ft 0 f t n_ x fH Ctf P4 03 P> P 0 -P O 0 0 p 0 -H 0 rH 0 0 O 0 P 0 p g 0 rO 0 ■HO Ph 0 /—v Pi 0 0 p 0 O 0 P P Ph 0 v— ' ft 0f t 0 0 i —1 i —1 (N UN 00 p• a a CM 1 —I CM +1 + 1 +1 00 P" P" • a a UN LfN cO CO cO cO p" C^ —I O CM i a • • -1 1 —1 1 -1 t +1 +1+ 1 KN CD a • CM UN cD CD CD cD KN PKN CO • • CM ft rH +1 +1 +1 CO cO i —1 • CO ftp- P* p- KN 00 ON ON CM co • • 1 -1 r —1 rH + 1 +! + 1 co ON ft IN- 00 ON p- P* P- KN p" KN 00 o CTn • « CM CM CM +1 + I +1 CM cO o i1 1 —1 KN LfN UN LfN CM cO 00 00 O CM +1 +1 +! o cO ft ON ft KN P- UN UN !>■ IN- O CO ON o 1 -1 CM +| +1 +1 Lf\ i —1 ft Lf\ UN C^ IN- IN- CN p- ft cO LfN KN —1 ft l + 1 +1 + 1 ON o CM P* LfN UN CN IN CN LfN P" i 1 CO P- P~ CM +1 + 1 +1 o KN LfN p- KN KN CN N IN i 1 i 1 CO o- CO UN ft -1 +1 +1 +1 KN CN- O P* KN KN CnO- CO P* CM IN- IN- CO • * -1 +1 +1 +1 _j. CO ft * 00 00 00 CM CM CM P* o KN P' ft P" * +1 +1 +1 KN 00 O • 00 CN 00 CM CM CM 00 O KN CO KN 00 • +1 + 1 +1 i —! IN IN • ON ON ON CM CM CM 1 —1 ft CD CO CM ON o CO CM o • +| +1 CT' o • i —1 CM CO CM ON -1 i i —1 I —1 • • + 1 + 1 +1 00 CN CN • • ft 1 -1 i —I P- CO ON i — O 4 0 o p o P 0 P 0i —I-H ^ • • * • • 0 0 0 0 0 0 • ft P Pi ft ft O OOP 0 ft -H ft ft'--' • P • • * 4 4 4 • • 0 5DrP P 00 CN KN LfN CD' p• • CM 1 -1 +I+ 1 +| LfN i —1 • • 00 CM P* P" CO cO CO • 0^"N bo &Dft p 0p *H P 0 0 0O O O- CO 00 o CO KN • • • CM 1 -1 CM +1+i +1 00• CM CM 1 —1 I -1 ft CO CD CO 4 • w 0 P KN o 00 CO CN- cO • ft l —1 + 1 +! + 1 KN 00 o a o- KN CM CM CM CM 4 P 0 -P 0 0 0 p O 0 -H 0 O 0 O 0 P 0 P 0 0 ft 0 0 O Ph ft LfN KN pCO• i —1 1—1 • CM KN KN +1 + 1 +1 CN LfN CO UN P- KN CM CM CM i • • j— 4 l 4 • • • • * 4 4 • ft CM • +f 00 * 1 —1 • « • a Table Appendix ft iH crf •H p ft 0 0 p P 0 0 o o 1—i 0 cR ft 0 O o 0 CM pft pq + + ft 0 u H ft i —1 0 ft P ft p 0 P pq P 0 0 g 0 0 P pq p 0 0 g ft 0 0 O o 0 CM pq + + a a a • a — — • a a • a a • 1 a a 4 a ft in ft i —i 0 •H P ft • a 0 1 • 4 4 • +! +1 +1 KN ON ON ON O CM CM KN • m I— t 4 ft t>- P" i1 • +1 +1 +1 UN o-1 ft ft I — O O 0 a i —1 0 0 o o 0 1 —I CM pq + + a • a 0 ft ft 0 ft i —1 P 4 • — — • i —i I —1 0 0 0 0 0 ft ft 0 ft i —i 4 a +1 +1 +1 cO UN UN i —1 ft 1 —I a 4 • O a 0 a a a • 4 a . 3* Means and Standard Deviations Individually Fed Lots. of Various Carcass Characteristics of p p o -p o o LfN ON KN IN • • 1 —1 1 -1 KN +1 + 1 + 1 1 —1 CN IN • CN UN LfN CM CM CM • -P fn 0 0 ON K\ i —1 00 -1 ■3• • C\| 1 -1 KN +1 +1 +1 OJ CO KN • * • LfN CO LfN CM CM CM > ft 4 0 P 0 P pq p 0 0 g 4 P 0 P pq p 0 0 & —i 1 -1 i Crf 0 0 o o •H 0 CM pp ft pq + + of Group ON 00 • •H ft -P ft ft P 0 O p 0 O Eh 0 NO 0 w fh Carcass 0 P ft 0 P O 0 0 ft ft•H 0 i —t o 0 O ft ft ft ft 0 ft A 0 A O ^A ft A 0 P 0 A ft 0 0 O d-H O 0 ft Eh ft 0 0p 0o • N NN • • ♦ VO OJ A OJ CD * J —I A '-'N P o IN ♦ £4 0 O Eh 0 A A CO 3 o 0 0 ft 0 O 0 Eh M ft P i 0'— A cn • CO O) cm + | o 00 4 4 CD cD ON 00 A- (N ON CD 4 4 4 4 4 4 CD CD vb IN LfN i—1 Ol LfN CO LfN • 4 4 cD CD CD ft* VO ft* * + 1 + 1 + 1 ft- O # N ft- --1 o 1 • • 00 CO ft- Ol NN cD CD 4 4 C\J ft• 4 + 1 + 1 +1 vO OJ ■ 0 P 0 0 hOrft O ft O f t0 f t fti —1*H 1 --1 4 OJ + 1 ^1“ CD CD LfN ON CD cD 00 (N ft- 4 4 LO o NN CD ON IN 4 4 A IN OJ 4 + 1 NN CO ON 4 O o o ON M) 4 CD cD 4 C\J A ON 4 o A o LfN LfN LfN CO ft- f t - lo LfN ft* O'- LfN 4 • ON vO A OJ LfN LfN ftft- ft- A ft- A 4 ft 4 4 4 + 1 + 1 + | LfN O OJ 4 4 ^}* (N ftIN + 1 1 --1 LfN 4 4 4 NN Cn. NN N ftCN * P P ft ft ft ft o o A A A A 4 fl +1 O .O • ■H "H ft ft hO hO A A 4 NN OJ IN IN LO Ol • ON ON i—1 NN • • OJ OJ • LfN i—1 • + 1 + 1 + 1 VO OJ KN NN NN NN 4 4 4 4 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 00 i—I 1 --1 OJ O Tft lT \ OJ LfNi —I 0^> 0 0 00 CO i—1 OJ 00 i—1 IN Ol OJ 1 --1 00 OJ CO 00 CO OJ 00 OJ Cn- 00 OJ OJ co OJ ON CM ON OJ ON OJ 00 o NN O CD ON VO O ft* LO o 4 4 LfN IN O O • • 4 • f t0 0 • A ftrft Pi Pi o o o ft ft A *H A O + 1 + 1 + 1 o • OJ P + 1 +1 ON ON CO • 4 • -- 1 i— 1 1 fto o 4 4 CO • 1 — 1 A CN vO vO 4 4 A I- - 1 Table 4* ft ft ft f t ft f t A A P ft O A i—1 ft •rH ft EH 1—I ft 0 ft pq o OJ + 0 p ft o o ft+ P ft 0 A A 1-1 ctf •H ft A Eg 1-- 1 ft 0 ft PQ O CM + P ft 0 g o ft+ o 4 + 1 + 1 +1 + 1 4 + CD ft ft 0 A A A A f-1 cti •H ft A ft A ft 0 ft pq A A i —I -ft -ft O OJ + fl +1 A- LO A ft A i—I ft 0 ft A A A ft ft p 0 0 ft ft ft 0 fO A a ft ft ft p a a ft o o 0 ft ft ft A A P ft ft P P ft ft ft ft A A 0 ft ft P P •rH A 0 A A hOA A A ft ft A hO hO A A 0 A A 0 > 1-- 1 oj O 1—1 + O• O• ft ft A A TCJ LfN NN 1 1 f t f t A A o o o o >s \$ A A 4 1 A 0 1 CO • t- i —I I -> ft A cD 4 ON ft- • LfN IN [>. + 1 + 1 + 1 w A LfN VQ • LfN NN CO A W ^ M ft O CM CN CM LT'S, A 4 N • o 4 + 1 + 1 +1 + 1 + 1 + 1 00 NN ON ♦ • • LfN LfN LfN CN CN O- ft4 NN 00 • 4 LfN LfN 4 O LfN CO CE­ + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 ft• • 1 --1 I--1 cD V0 ON • OJ 58 A 4 o 4 CD vO • vO ON + 1 VO vO 4 1 --1 + 1 + 1 CD + 1 +1 00 ON • 4 OJ NN CD LfN LfN IN O LfN LfN CM OJ ON 00 • • *--1 OJ 0 Appendix 4 OJ 4 + 1 + 1 +1 w CnON + 1 + 1 + 1 1 —1 ft- hO hOP ft ft ft •H P 0 P OJ ON NN IN ON ON ■ • • ftA ON NO i—J LfN LO o 4 * A + 1 + 1 4* 1 0^ O OJ ft- rft + 1 + 1 + 1 f t cts P h Means and Standard Deviation of Various and Individually led Lots Combined Characteristics A O £ -P ft 0 A p § O Ol + o ft+ A o O ftftA A ■H