THE EFFECTS OF DTETHY’LSTILBESTROL PLUS 5- . METHYLTESTOSTERONE ON 3me PERFORMANCE AND _ COMPOSITION ‘ — Thesis for the Degree of M. S. MICHIGAN. STATE UNIVERSITY THOMAS D. BTDNER '1969 . .‘.~.‘. .5; .:...l,l.l‘.‘flkw I It ”1‘" 1’7 o ;‘_I' THES'S IJIOJa‘nnti'x I I "‘1 I <,..~ .i . . h/‘lLllngH state \. University "—- ABSTRACT THE EFFECTS OF DIEEHYLSTILBESTROL PLUS METHYLTESTOSTERONE ON SWINE PERFORMANCE AND COMPOSITION by Thomas D. Bidner Sixty-four pigs weighing approximately 100 lb. were randomly assigned to a 2 x 2 x 2 factorial experiment (12% and 16% protein, barrows and gilts, and with and without 1 mg. diethylstilbestrol plus 1 mg. methyl- testosterone, DES + MT, per lb. of ration) and fed to slaughter weight of approximately 210 1b. The experiment was initiated to study the effects of DES + MT, protein level and sex group upon: (1) Feedlot performance; (2) Carcass characteristics; (3) Right ham composite analysis including percents moisture, fat and protein; (4) Blood analysis including hematocrit, hemoglobin, total serum protein, electrophoresis of serum.proteins, serum calcium and phosphorus; (5) Femur analysis including weight, calcium, phos- phorus, percent ash, moment of inertia, maximum.load, bending moment and breaking stress; (6) Some endocrine gland weights; and (7) Organoleptic analysis. The DES + MT treated pigs gained 1.68 lb./day compared to 1.67 lb. for untreated pigs. Pigs receiving DES + MT consumed 0.3 lb. less feed per dayznui also required less feed per pound of gain. Hormone treated pigs were longer (0.3 in.), leaner (0.15 in. less backfat) and heavier muscled (0.44 sq. in. more 1. ggggi muscle area) than controls. The DES + MT treatment also increased ham and loin by 2% and.1ean cuts by 2.6% compared to untreated controls. Composite ham samples from.treated pigs had significantly (P'< .01) more moisture (3.8%), protein (1.14%) and less fat (4.68%) than controls. Hormone bin, serum c but the sen treated pigs controls. I were not sig gm. more tha (P < .01) la Pared to C03 "Eighed 0.32 Identic. from control an uIldesirabj The DES 4. HT PrO‘Eein Significantl, 10th rib were ration (3.79 W ham and (P> .05). C Gently (P < .1 the blood Com; calcium which Thomas D. Bidner Hormone treatment had no significant effect upon hematocrit, hemoglo— bin, serum.calcium, serum inorganic phosphorus, or total serum protein, but the serum.protein components were significantly altered. The DES + MT treated pigs had 3.3% more albumin and 1.3% less B-globulin than untreated controls. The a- and y-globulins were also reduced but the differences were not significant (PI> .05). The femur from treated pigs weighed 20 gm. more than that from the controls. These bones also had significantly (P‘< .01) larger moment of inertia, maximum load and bending moment comp pared to controls. The pituitary gland from the treated and control pigs weighed 0.3201 and 0.2907 gm., respectively. Identical taste panel scores (6.5) were observed for the loin roasts from.control and treated pigs. Three independent taste panelists detected an undesirable odor in seven loins from among the hormone treated pigs. The DES + MT treated loins required 0.5 lb. less shear force than controls. Protein level had no significant influence on feedlot performance. Significantly (P < .01) larger l- 51313; muscle areas (4.14 sq. in.) at the 10th rib were found among the 16% protein ration than the 12% protein ration (3.79 sq. in.). Higher protein level also tended to increase per- cent ham and loin and lean cuts but these differences were nonsignificant (P > .05). Composite ham analysis of the 16% protein level had signifi- cantly (P'< .05) more moisture and less fat than the 12% level. ane of the blood components were influenced by protein level fed except serum calcium.which was decreased from 10.8 mg./100 ml. to 10.3 mg./100 ml. by the higher protein level. The 16% protein ration also significantly (P‘< .05) increased femur moment of inertia and.maximum.load. Thomas D. Bidner No differences in feedlot performance were observed between barrows and gilts. Gilt carcasses had significantly more 1. 9232i muscle area, ham and loin, lean cuts and less fat trim.than barrow carcasses. Gilt carcasses also had less backfat thickness and were longer but these differ- ences were nonsignificant. Ham.composition analysis was similar between barrows and gilts. Barrows had significantly (P'< .05) heavier pituitary glands (0.3184 gm.) than gilts (0.2925 gm.). All blood components measured were similar for barrows and gilts except for serum.calcium. Gilts had serum.ca1cium.levels of 10.8 mg./100 m1. compared to 10.3 mg./100 ml. for barrows. Gilt femur bones also had significantly larger moment of inertia than barrows. There was a significant (P'< .01) interaction between DES + MT x sex for daily gain. Hormone treatment reduced the rate of gain among barrows while it enhanced gilt daily gains. The interaction of DES + MT x protein level was also significant (P'< .05) for gain per day. The hormone treated pigs gained faster on the 16% protein ration (1.71 vs. 1.65 lb./day) while the untreated pigs gained faster on the 12% protein ration (1.72 vs. 1.63 lb./day). The DES + MT treated pigs were also significantly (P‘< .05) leaner on the 16% protein ration when compared to the 12% protein ration. THElEFFECTS OF DIETHYLSTILBESTROL PLUS METHYLTESTOSTERONE ON SWINE PERFORMANCE AND COMPOSITION By Thomas D.rBidner A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Animal Husbandry 1969 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to express his appreciation and thanks to Dr. R. A. Merkel for his guidance and encouragement throughout this course of study. Appreciation is expressed to Dr. EL R. Miller and Dr. D. E. Ullrey for their help and guidance. The author also wishes to thank Dr. G. D. Riegle for reading this manuscript and Dr. W. T. Magee for his assistance with the statistical analysis. Thanks are extended to Eli Lilly and Company for furnishing diethyl- stilbestrol, methyltestosterone, tylosin, and financial assistance. Thanks are due Mrs. Betty Schoepke for her assistance in the laboratory and Mrs. Beatrice Eichelberger for typing the manuscript. The author wishes to thank his parents, Mr. and Mrs. Lyle Bidner, for their encouragement and understanding. To his wife, Sara, the author expresses sincere appreciation for her sacrifice and for making everything meaningful and worthwhile. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 REVIEW OF LI TERA TUBE O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 3 The effect of diethylstilbestrol, methyltestosterone, or a combination of these hormones on swine as measured by the followingjparameters: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Physicalappearance................. 7 Carcassmrit00000000000000.0000. 8 ChemicalanaJJSj-S0.0000000000000000 11 BoneOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.000... 12 Blood components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Endocrine gland weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l3 Porkpalatability.................. 13 The effect of protein level on swine performance and carcass trait S O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 14 Some compositional and feedlot performance differences between barrows and gilts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Slaughter Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Cutting Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Physical Separation and Grinding . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Chemical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Blood Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Bone Anflij-S O O O O 0 O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 26 ‘3: Endocrine Gland Weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OrganOIQPtiC Analij-S O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 0 27 Statistical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 iii Page RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O 29 Feedlot Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 The effect of diethylstilbestrol and methyltestosterone, sex and protein level upon swine performance . . . . . . 29 carcass Merit O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O I O O O O O O 31 Effect of diethylstilbestrol plus methyltestosterone . . 31 12%VS01670Pr0'teinlevel 00000000000000032 BarrOWSVS.gil‘tS.c.................34 Hormone treatment, protein level and sex interactions for the carcass traits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Chemical. Analys is O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O 38 Effect of diethylstilbestrol plus methyltestosterone . . 38 12% vs. 16% protein level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Barrowsv50gilts000000000000000000039 Hormone treatment, protein level and sex interactions for the ham.composition analysis . . . . . . . . . ... . 40 BlOOd AnaJ-ij-S I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 40 Effect of diethylstilbestrol plus methyltestosterone . . 40 12%VS016%pr0teinlevel 00000000000000043 BarrOWSVS0giltS000000000000000000044 Hormone treatment, protein level and sex interactions for the blood components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Bone Andy-Sis O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Q 45 The effect of diethylstilbestrol plus methyltestosterone 45 12% vs. 16% protein level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 BarrOWSVS0giltS000000000000000000049 Hormone treatment, protein level and sex interactions forbonedata00000000000000000000050 Endocrine Gland weights 0 O O Q O O Q . Q O O Q C O O O Q Q Q 53 The effect of diethylstilbestrol and methyltestosterone, sex and PrOtein level 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 Hormone treatment, protein level and sex interactions for endocrine gland weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 iv . I 0 , 0 0 I 0 I 0 . a a . 0 p . . u 0 I 0 n n 0 0 n T 0 u a 0 w T 0 0 I u . u 0 I 0 . u I r , 0 0 0 u 0 t . 0 0 . . 0 0 . 0 o O T c 0 0 I! a. .i‘ufl Pork Organoleptic AnalySiS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 The effect of diethylstilbestrol sex and protein level . . . . . Hormone treatment, protein level for the organoleptic data . . . Correlation Coefficients . . . . . . SWY . . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O BI BLI mRAPHY O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O APmNDIX O O C O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O and and methyltestosterone, sex interactions Page 56 56 58 58 63 65 74 Table 10 ll 12 13 14 15 l6 17 18 19 20 LIST OF TABLES Experimental Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Composition of The Rations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Feedlot Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Effect of DES + MT Upon Carcass Traits . . . . . . Influence of Protein Level on Carcass Traits . . . . . The Influence of Sex Group Upon Carcass Traits . . . . Hormone Treatment, Protein Level and Sex Interactions for the Cacass Traits O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Effect of DES + MT on Ham.Chemical.Analysis . . . . . . The Effect of Ration Protein Level on.Ham Chemical Analysis The Effect of Sex Group Upon Ham.Chemical Analysis . . . . Hormone Treatment, Protein Level and Sex Interactions for the Ham Composition Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Effect of Hormone Treatment Upon Blood Components . . . Influence of Protein Level on Blood Components . . . . Blood Components 0f Barrows and Gilts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hormone Treatment, Protein Level and Sex Interactions for the Blood Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bone Analysis as Influenced by DES + MT . . . . . . . . The Effect of Protein Level on Bone . . . . . . . . . . Bone Data for Barrows and Gilts . . . . . . . . . . . . Hormone Treatment, Protein Level and Sex Interactions for Bone Data 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Influence of DES + MT, Sex and Protein Level on Pituitary and.Adrenal Gland Weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi Page 21 22 29 32 33 34 36 38 39 41 42 43 44 46 49 50 51 54 Table Page 21 Hormone Treatment, Protein Level and Sex Interactions for EndOCrineGlandweigh'tS00000000000000000055 22 The Influence of DES + MT, Protein Level and Sex on organOleptiCData00000000000000000000057 23 Hormone Treatment, Protein Level and Sex Interactions for the OrganOIGPtiC Data 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O 59 24 Simple Correlation Coefficients Between Gain Per Day and Some Carcass and Blood Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 25 Simple Correlation Coefficients Between % Lean Cuts and Some Carcass Traits, Bone and Blood Data . . . . . . . . . 60 26 Simple Correlation Coefficients Between Femur Weight and 80m Bone Data . O C O O O O O O O O O C I O O O O O O O O 61 27 Simple Correlation Coefficients Between Some Serum Components and Bone Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 vii Appendix.A. Appendix B. Appendix C. Appendix D. LIST OF.APPENDIX TABLES Data on Lots 7 & 8, Treated and Control Gilts on 1% PI‘Otein O O O C O O C O O O O O O C C C O C O 0 Data on Lots 9 & 10, Treated and Control Gilts on 16% h.O‘tej-Il O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O 0 Data on Lots 7A & 8A, Treated and Control Barrows on 12% Protein Data on Lots 9A & 10A, Treated and Control Barrows on 16% Protein viii 74 80 86 92 INTRODUCTION Todays swine producing industry requires rapid growing and efficient hogs which will yield carcasses with a minimum of backfat and a.maximum of muscle. In recent years, great strides have been made through selection and testing programs to improve these desirable characteristics in swine. However, it has been repeatedly shown that gilts yield leaner, heavier muscled carcasses than barrows. Barrows usually gain more rapidly but gilts are more efficient. It is evident that differences between barrows and gilts are associated with their sex hormonal activities which in turn influence the performance and carcass traits of swine. Numerous studies have reported an anabolic effect with diethylstil- bestrol feeding in ruminants and with testosterone or some of its deriva- tives in rats. Recent work has suggested that feeding a combination of diethylstilbestrol and methyltestosterone to swine may exert a similar anabolic effect especially among barrows. The protein content of the ration has also been reported to exert an influence on swine carcass quantitative characteristics especially leanness and amount of muscle. This experiment was initiated to study the effects of feeding a comp bination of diethylstilbestrol and methyltestosterone upon swine perfor- mance and composition. The specific objectives of this study were as follows: 1. To study the effect of these hormone-like compounds upon feedlot performance, carcass qualitative and quantitative characteristics, some blood and bone components, and some endocrine gland weights. 2. To study the influence of ration protein levels and the possible interactions with hormonal treatment. 3. To determine possible differences in response between barrows and gilts to the hormonal treatment and/or protein levels. REVIEW OF LITERATURE The effect of diethylstilbestrol, methyltestosterone or a combination of these hormones on swine as measured by the following parameters: Performance Numerous workers have shown that diethylstilbestrol exerts an anap bolic effect in ruminants. Additionally,rate of gain and feed efficiency have been significantly improved by either feeding or implanting diethyl- stilbestrol. Few such data are available for swine. Dinusson gt 21. (1951) observed no growth stimulation.from.stilbestrol implants, but treated gilts required 5.2 to 13.7% less feed per hundred pounds of gain than controls. Woehling g: 31. (1951) found that two 12 mg. implants had no significant effect upon rate of gain, daily feed consumption, or feed efficiency. Pearson g: El° (1952) conducted three separate experiments and con- cluded that stilbestrol implants did not materially affect gains of either gilts or barrows but apparently caused growth depression.among young boars. Perry'§t_al. (1954) fed 2.5 mg. of stilbestrol daily from.45 lb. to 125 1b. and then increased the level to 5 mg. daily; however, no signifi- cant improvement of either growth rate or feed efficiency over that exerted by antibiotic feeding was observed. Beeson 33 El. (1955) reported similar results from hogs fed 2 mg. of stilbestrol daily. Taylor 31 31. (1955) fed 0, 5, 10, 20, 40, 80, 160, 320, 640, and 1280 mcg. of stilbes- trol per pound of ration but none of these levels had an effect upon the -4- rate of gain or feed efficiency. In a similar experiment, Sewell gt 31. (1957) fed 0.5, 2.0, and 2.5 mg. of stilbestrol per pound of feed with no consistent growth stimulating effect. However, they noted a trend toward more efficient feed utilization among pigs which received a come bination of the high level of stilbestrol and antibiotics. Tribble if 11. (1958) used intact and castrate males and females to determine the effect of added hormones. Their data indicated that neither sex nor stilbestrol caused significant differences in rate of gain. How- ever, they observed a sexrstilbestrol interaction in that the males increased and the females decreased in rate of gain when stilbestrol was fed. Hale gt El’ (1960) fed pigs both high and low energy rations which were supplemented with 2 mg. of stilbestrol per day and they observed no significant difference in rate of gain. The best feed efficiency was obtained on the high energyhlow protein ration containing stilbestrol. Cahill 33 El. (1960) implanted both barrows and gilts with stilbes- trol pellets of 1.5, 3.0, and 6 mg. at 150 lb. They noted decreased growth rate among the implanted barrows while the gilts receiving the 3 mg. implant gained more rapidly and consumed less feed per unit of gain than the control gilts. Day 2: El. (1960) also reported that stilbestrol implants had no significant effect upon growth rate of barrows and that high levels of stilbestrol tended to reduce growth. Beacom (1963) reported that a single 12 mg. stilbestrol implant had no influence on rate of gain.among barrows. The hormone treated barrows -5- showed reduced average feed consumption of 0.52 lb./day and improved feed efficiency when the protein level was increased from.l4 to 16%. The latter author also observed a protein X hormone interaction which indicated that the major improvement due to implantation occurred when additional protein was fed. Gorrill.gt,gl. (1964) also implanted hogs with 12 mg. of stil- bestrol and they observed reduced average daily gain for barrows frmm 1.53 to 1.36 lb., but increased gilt gains from 1.26 to 1.34 lb. The daily feed intake of the barrows was decreased from.6.0 to 5.3 lb. while feed intake of the implanted gilts increased from.5.0 to 5.4 lb. Sleeth 23,31. (1953) conducted two trials in which they injected hogs with 1 mg. of testosterone propionate per kilogram of body weight once weekly for six weeks and then semi-weekly for 115 days. They observed that treatment reduced the gain per day but had no effect upon feed effi- ciency. 0n the other hand, Perry 23 21. (1954) fed 20 mg. testosterone daily from 45 lb. to 125 1b. and then 40 mg. daily to the finish of the test. They noted no significant improvement on growth rate or feed efficiency over that exerted by antibiotic feeding alone. In a similar experiment, Beeson.g£lal. (1955) fed 20 mg. of testosterone throughout the experiment but in this case the hormone reduced the rate of gain but had no effect upon feed efficiency. Perry'gt El. (1956) fed pigs 9, 17, 27, 34, 47, 52 and 62 mg. of testosterone per day. They observed that 9 mg. per day had no effect on growth rate, but the higher levels reduced growth rate. The pigs that received 17 mg. or more had lower feed consumption and greater feed efficiency. -5- Johnston.g£ 21. (1957) in a summary of five experiments reported that there were no differences between feeding 9 mg. or 15 mg. of methyltestos- terone per pound of feed. In both cases, the data showed that methyl- testosterone decreased rate of gain, daily feed consumption and feed efficiency. However, No1and and Burris (1956) found no apparent effect upon weight gain, feed consumption or feed utilization for either intact males, castrated males, intact females or castrate females when methyl- testosterone was fed at rate of 0, .015, 0.15, and 1.5 mg./kg. of body weight. Whiteker 21 El. (1959) found that providing 20 mg. of methyltestos- terone per head daily had no significant effect on rate of gain. Hale 23.21. (1960) fed barrows 20 mg. of.methyltestosterone per day from.60 to 205 lb. They found that testosterone reduced the gains on a high energy ration but had no effect on low energy rations. In a more recent experiment, Henry (1962) reported that feeding 3 levels (2, 4, and 8 mg./lb.) of 4-hydroxy-l7-alpha-methyltestosterone had no significant influence upon feedlot performance. Since neither estrogenic nor androgenic compounds have had a signi- ficant effect on feedlot performance alone, combinations of sex hormones have been studied. Thrasher 2:.El° (1959) studied various combinations of feeding and implanting stilbestrol and testosterone but none of their treatments had a significant effect upon growth rate. JOrdan 2: a1. (1965) reported a study in which they fed pigs a combination of diethylstilbestrol and methyltestosterone (2.2 mg. per kilogram of ration) from 48.8 to 99.8 kg. When the combined data for barrows and gilts were compared, the latter authors found that the hormones reduced rate of gain and feed consumption while feed efficiency was increased by 5%. This increase in feed effi- ciency was largely attributable to the barrow performance. Baker gt _a_l_. (1967) fed 2.2 mg. of methyltestosterone and diethyl- stilbestrol per kilogram of ration in three separate experiments and found that the hormones tended to increase feed efficiency especially among barrows but no significant effect upon rate of gain was observed. Wallace and Lucas (1969) also conducted 3 experiments to determine the influence of feeding either 1 or 2 mg. of methyltestosterone and diethylstilbestrol per pound of ration. They reported that while gains were less among the hormone treated pigs they were not significantly different from controls. Hormone treatment also resulted in greater feed intake reduction among barrows than for gilts. In experiment 2 the treated hogs also gained more efficiently but these effects were not ob- served in the other experiments. Physical appearance It has been reported that hormone administration may have undesir- able side effects. erhling g: 31. (1951) reported that reproductive organs from.hogs implanted with diethylstilbestrol or methyltestosterone showed evidence of hormonal stimulation. Dinusson 2: El. (1951), Pearson 232 3;. (1952), Perry 59 31. (1954), Beeson gt 3.1. (1955), Swell g 3;. (1957), Thrasher g: §l° (1959), and Gorrill £3 31. (1964) found that stilbestrol treatment caused teat development in both barrows and gilts and swelling of external genitalia of gilts. Taylor pt 31. (1955) fed levels of 0, 5, 10, 20, 40, 80, 160, 320, 640, and 1280 mcg. of stilbestrol per pound of ration but only those fed 320 mpg./1b. or more showed enlargement of teats and gilts also showed enlargement of the vulva. Fewer instances of side effects have been reported for testosterone administration. Beeson E: El. (1955) observed no side effects when barrows and gilts were fed 20 mg. of testosterone per day. Henry (1962) also re- ported no viriligenic effects when hogs were fed 2, 4 or 8 mg. of 4-hydroxye l7-alpha-methyltestosterone per pound. On the other hand, Perry-gt 3;. (1956) fed 9, 7, 27, 34, 47, 52 and 62 mg. of methyltestosterone per day and observed that high levels of methyltestosterone caused the vulva to assume a fish hook shape. Whiteker 22,21. (1959) reported that 20 mg. of testosterone per day caused both barrows and gilts to show masculine behavior and characteristics. To date no one has reported undesirable sideeffects from.feeding a combination of diethylstilbestrol and testosterone. Carcass merit Pearson gilgl. (1952) reported that stilbestrol implants had no effect upon dressing percent, backfat thickness or tenderness of swine. Sleeth 23 21. (1953) observed that testosterone propionate reduced backfat but they indicated this could have been due to their slower gains. No1and and Burris (1956) also reported that 1.5 mg. of methyltestosterone per kilogram of body weight produced carcasses with less backfat and higher percent of primal cuts. -9- Beeson 21 21. (1955) indicated that carcasses from pigs fed 20 mg. of testosterone had heavier weights of ham, loin, picnic and boston butt which were accompanied with lighter fat cut weights. The hormone increased the percentage of four lean cuts from 58.8% to 62.4% in the latter study and physical composition analyses of these carcasses showed 5% less fat and a concomitant 5% increase in lean compared to controls. The latter authors also observed a trend toward leaner carcasses among stilbestrol treated animals but the effect was nonsignificant. Perry 21 21. (1956) also observed that 9 mg. and higher levels of methyltestosterone increased carcass leanness with a concomitant signifi- cant decrease in backfat. Heitman and Clegg (1957) reported that implants of 30 mg. of stilbestrol or more at light weights (58-73 lb.) yielded leaner carcasses which were shorter, had less backfat, and a greater lean cut percent. They concluded that the leaner carcass may have resulted from.reduced gains since implants at heavier weights had no effect upon gains and there were no differences in backfat thickness or percent four lean cuts. Johnston 2: 21. (1957) in summarizing five experiments reported that either 9 or 15 mg. of methyltestosterone reduced backfat thickness in four experiments; but in the fifth experiment, when the animals were con- fined to metabolism.cages with practically no activity, there was no decrease in backfat thickness. However, Tribble 2: 21. (1958) observed that feeding 0.25 mg. of stilbestrol per pound of feed had no significant influence upon carcass characteristics of gilts, spayed gilts, boars, or barrows. -10- Thrasher 21 21. (1959) reported that methyltestosterone or 11 beta- hydroxy517 alpha-methyltestosterone improved carcass leanness but various combinations of feeding or implanting stilbestrol and testosterone had no significant effect upon live backfat probes of growing-finishing swine. Whiteker gt 21. (1959) also observed carcasses with significantly higher percents of lean cuts than controls from feeding swine 20 mg. of methyl- testosterone per head daily. Cahill 21 21. (1960) showed a positive relationship between amount of stilbestrol implanted and both size of longissimus dorsi muscle and percent four lean cuts. Day'gi 21. (1960) reported that stilbestrol and progesterone-estradiol implants significantly reduced backfat. In a similar experiment, Hale 21 21. (1960) observed a decrease in backfat thickness of pigs which received testosterone but stilbestrol exerted no effect on backfat thickness. Neither stilbestrol nor testosterone had any effect on carcass length or area of longissimus 22521 muscle. Beacom.(1963) implanted barrows with 12 mg. of stilbestrol and ob- served less backfat, larger areas of the longissimus dorsi muscle, and greater net returns among treated pigs than controls. Mere recently, JOrdan 2: 21. (1965) reported that a combination of 2.2 mg. of diethylstilbestrol and methyltestosterone per kilogram of ration increased lean cuts and reduced backfat and fat trim. Baker 21 21. (1967) obtained similar results by feeding the combination of 2.2 mg. of diethyl- stilbestrol and.methyltestosterone per kilogram of ration. The latter authors observed that regardless of sex or protein level of the ration, carcass leanness was improved with hormone treatment but the response -11- tended to be greater among barrows than for gilts. The criteria they used to measure carcass leanness were: backfat thickness, percent lean cuts, percent fat trim plus leaf fat, area of the longissimus dorsi muscle and length. Wallace and Lucas (1969) fed the same combination of diethylstilbestrol and methyltestosterone as mentioned in the latter two experiments. They reported that hormone treatment significantly reduced backfat thickness in all experiments and this observation was much more pronounced among barrows than for gilts. The treatment also significantly increased the percent lean cuts; however, longissimus dorsi muscle area was not increased by hormone feeding. Chemical analysis Clegg and Carroll (1956) showed that stilbestrol implants in cattle significantly increased the percent moisture and reduced ether extract content of a rib steak. Ogilvie 21 21. (1960) observed a significant in- crease in percent protein and moisture and a decrease in fat among carcass composite samples from.steers fed either 10 or 30 mg. of stilbestrol per day. Wallentine 2: 21. (1961) obtained similar results when steers received 10 mg. of stilbestrol per day. Henry (1962) observed that three levels of 4-hydroxy-17-alphaemethyl- testosterone significantly increased the protein content of the untrimmed, boneless wholesale cuts of swine. 0n the other hand, Whiteker 23 21. (1959) reported the protein content of pork loin was not increased by feeding methylandrostenediol, methyltestosterone or thyroprotein but in fact tended to decrease. -12- Bone Numerous studies with the rat, dog, and guinea pig have shown that testosterone and certain of its derivatives exert an anabolic effect upon these animals. However, Turner 23 21. (1941) found that even with pro- longed injections of large amounts of testosterone propionate the skeletal structure of rats was not affected. OFMary‘gi 21. (1952) also observed that western lambs treated with stilbestrol had a higher percent of bone plus connective tissue but there was no significant difference in percent bone alone. Clegg and Carroll (1956) also observed a nonsignificant trend toward increased percent bone in cattle implanted with stilbestrol. Bell 955 21. (1957) fed lambs 4 mg. of stilbestrol daily and showed that treatment increased body retention of calcium, phosphorus and nitro- gen. Hallentine_§t 21. (1961) found that bone from.stilbestrol fed steers contained a lower percent ether extract and a higher percent ash than un- treated controls. Blood components Gardner and Pfeiffer (1943) observed that injection of estrogenic hormones increased levels of serum calcium.and accelerated the formation of endosteal bone in birds. Whitehair 23 21. (1953) noted that lambs implanted with stilbestrol retained 60% more calcium, 30% more phosphorus, and 83% more nitrogen than the control group. Wilkinson 23 21. (1954) also reported that lambs treated with stilbestrol had a significantly lower hematocrit than controls. The latter authors observed that treated lambs had a significantly higher quantity of plasma globulins and total -13- proteins than controls. Shroder and Hansard (1958) observed similar re- sults from lambs fed 2 mg. of stilbestrol per day. Their data revealed that fecal endogenous calcium was reduced approximately 20% with little apparent influence upon calcium absorption. Phosphorus absorption was increased but fecal endogenous phosphorus was only slightly decreased by hormone treatment. Endocrine gland weights Clegg and Cole (1954) showed that the pituitary glands of the stil- bestrol treated steers were in all cases significantly larger than controls. The adrenal glands showed a similar response. Cahill 21 21. (1956) re- ported similar findings when either bulls or steers were implanted with 84 mg. of diethylstilbestrol. In the latter study the hormone treated cattle had significantly heavier pituitary and adrenal glands at the end of the experiment compared to controls. Struempler and Burroughs (1959) observed an increase of the anterior pituitary of cattle fed diethylstil- bestrol. Preston and Burroughs (1958) also observed heavier anterior pituitary weights from lambs fed stilbestrol. Johnston,e1_al. (1957) observed that feeding methyltestosterone some- times reduced adrenal gland size of swine but at other times it had no such effect. Porkgpalatability Pearson 23 21. (1952) reported that the administration of stilbestrol implants appeared to have little influence on organoleptic rating of loin roasts. Sleeth_e1_al. (1953) found similar results with injections of -14- testosterone propionate. They observed no differences among roasts from hormone treated and control groups in palatability scores or Warner- Bratzler shear values. However, Wallace and Lucas (1969) reported that feeding 1 mg. of methyltestosterone and diethylstilbestrol per pound imparted an undesirable aroma and flavor to the pork as determined by taste panel evaluation of roasts. They observed considerable variability between samples from treated pigs with some showing little or no objection- able odor and flavor. However, the objectionable roasts were invariably observed among both treated barrows and gilts. The effect of protein level on swine performance and carcass traits Robinson 21 21. (1952) reported that when swine were fed rations containing approximately 10, 12, 15 and 20 percent protein the resultant carcasses from the higher protein levels yielded more lean cuts and less fat trim than those from.lower protein levels. Ashton 21 21. (1955) ob- served similar results on carcass leanness in their studies of protein level. Catron gt 21. (1952) fed protein levels that varied from.8 to 20% on a corn-soybean oil meal ration. Levels of protein had no significant effect upon rate of gain, feed efficiency or any of the carcass traits measured. Tribble and Pfander (1955) compared 12 and 16% protein levels for pigs being full-fed and limited fed. Their data indicated no differences in feed economy between protein levels; however, the carcasses of pigs fed -15- the high protein rations contained 1.6% more lean cuts and 4.5% less fat than the low protein fed pigs. In contrast, Jensen 2: 21. (1955) observed a significant effect of protein level on rate of gain, with the 16 and 18% protein level yielding.maximum gains. Baird £3.21, (1958) in comparing high levels of protein (17, 19, and 21%) to low levels (11, 13, and 15%) noted that there was no effect upon daily gain and feed efficiency; in fact, the high protein levels were negatively correlated with these traits. When high quality protein rations were fed, Kropf 31 21. (1959) also found that both 12 and 16% total protein were able to support good growth from weaning to 200 lb. In their studies, the carcasses from pigs fed the 16% protein ration had . greater cross sectional areas of the longissimus dorsi muscle, increased carcass specific gravity, higher levels of carcass protein, and decreased backfat thickr ness as compared to those fed the 12% protein ration. Stevenson 2: 21. (1960) fed levels of 14 and 18% protein up to 125 lb. and then the levels were reduced to 11 and 15% protein until slaughter. Their data showed the higher protein rations significantly increased feed efficiency, carcass grade, and preferred cuts while backfat thickness and total carcass fat were significantly reduced. 0n the other hand, both Braude 2t 31. (1960) and Hudman and Peo (1960) were unable to show that protein level had a significant effect upon any of the carcass traits measured. Aunan g a. (1961) reported that initial protein levels of l4, l6, and 18% did not significantly affect daily gains. Their data supported _15- the thesis that genotype of the animal is the important factor in carcass leanness and that initial protein level for weanling pigs, within the range of 14 to 18% had only minor influence on carcass quality. Clawson 2: 21. (1962) fed rations containing protein levels from.lO to 18% formulated so that a similar ratio of amino acids was maintained. They observed that feed efficiency was more closely associated with energy level of the ration than with the calorie-protein ratio. A constant cal- orie-protein ratio was maintained as energy and protein levels were increased in the rations; however, the feed per pound of gain decreased consistently with increasing protein levels. In their studies, the phyh sical measurements and chemical determinations made on the carcasses were not significantly influenced by rations. Jones 21 21. (1962) found when the total digestible nutrients were held constant and the protein level was increased from 12 to 21% that the 18% ration yielded the highest average daily gain and feed conversion. Supplementation with lysine also stimulated gain and feed efficiency. Wagner 21 21. (1963) fed pigs three levels of protein (l3, l9, and 25%) and two productive energy levels (950 and 1170 Kca1./lb.). They showed that as protein levels increased above 13% average daily gain and feed required per hundred pounds of gain decreased. The latter authors also found that as protein level increased carcass backfat decreased and percent lean cuts increased. Additionally, higher protein levels increased tissue nitrogen in one experiment but not in a second trial. Dukelow 2: 21. (1963) self—fed a corn-soybean oil meal ration contain- ing 12, 14, and 16% protein and the 12 and 14% protein rations were supple- -17... mented with L-lysine and L-lysine plus methionine to equal the amino acid level of the 14 and 16% protein corn-soybean meal rations. They noted that neither the higher protein levels nor amino acid supplemented rations had a significant influence on rate of gain, feed efficiency, or any of the carcass traits measured. Crum 2E _a_l_. (1964), Robinson gt 21. (1964), and Seymour 31 21. (1964) reported that pigs fed high protein rations grew more rapidly and produced leaner carcasses with less backfat and larger longissimus dorsi muscle areas. Crum.2£ 21. (1964) also observed that the higher protein levels decreased carcass firmness and degree of marbling. Similar results were obtained by Holme and Robinson (1965). Meade 2E 21. (1966) were unable to obtain a significant response in growth rate, feed efficiency or carcass leanness with increased protein content of the ration or amino acids supplementation. Hale and Southwell (1967) found that pigs fed rations containing either a 18 to 15 or 16 to 13% protein sequence were more efficient and had higher lean cut yields than pigs fed the 14 to 11% protein rations. Jurgens 21 21. (1967) observed that average daily gain and feed effi- ciency were increased by feeding 16% protein as compared to 12% but these traits were not significantly affected by supplementation with 0.1% L- lysine. They also reported that the higher protein level increased protein and reduced fat content of the longissimus dorsi muscle. In a similar experiment, Lee 21 21. (1967) reported that higher protein levels increased rate of gain, feed efficiency, and carcass leanness. They also indicated that protein level had no effect upon panel juiciness, tenderness, flavor or overall acceptance score. -18- Some compositional and feedlot performance differences between barrows and gilts Bruner e_t _a_l_. (1958), Cameron (1960), Mulholland 93 a. (1960), Wagner e_t 21. (1961), Waldren (1964), Crum 3’2 21. (1964), McCampbell and Baird (1965), Hale and Southwell (1966) and Hines (1966) found that barrows grow faster than gilts. Comstock 21 21. (1944) also reported that barrows grow faster than gilts and this difference in growth rate increased with age. Bell e_g g. (1958), Cameron (1960), Hines (1966),and Hale 33 21. (1968) reported that barrows consumed more feed per day than gilts. Bowland and Berg (1959), Wagner _e_t_ a. (1961) and Hale e_t 31. (1968) observed that barrows required more feed per unit of gain than gilts. However, Hines (1966) noted no difference between barrows and gilts iilfeed efficiency. McMeekan (1940) described the intact female as having less fat, more bone and more muscle than barrows. Self 21 21. (1957) obtained data on 584 gilt and barrow carcasses which indicated that gilt carcasses contained.more muscle and less fat than barrows. Additionally, gilt carcasses had significantly larger longissimus dorsi muscles than barrows (3.81 and 3.49 sq. in., respectively). Bruner 23 21. (1958) published data obtained on full sib pairs (barrows and gilts) at the Ohio Swine Evaluation Station over a period of five sea- sons. They reported that gilt carcasses had 2.3% more lean cuts, 0.41 in. greater length, 0.51 sq. in. larger longissimus 22521 muscles, and 0.1 in. less backfat than littermate barrows. -19- Kropf 22 21. (1959) concluded that gilt carcasses contained more muscle and less fat than barrow carcasses. They also noted that gilt carcasses had greater specific gravity values, higher percents lean cuts, and larger longissimus dorsi muscle areas. In addition, chemical analysis of a car- cass composite sample showed that gilt carcasses contained less fat, more protein and moisture than barrows. Cahill 21 21. (1960) obtained similar results and concluded that differences in leanness became obvious after the pigs reach 150 lb. Handlin 31 91. (1961) also reported that gilt carcasses were superior in most quantitative characteristics to barrow carcasses. Salmela 21 21. (1963) and Cahilly 31 31. (1963) concluded that gilts were superior to barrows in all attributes of carcass leanness. Cox (1963) observed that barrows had a slightly higher proportion of fat over the shoulder and a smaller proportion over the loin than gilts. Fletcher 91 21. (1963) compared barrow and gilt carcasses as to whole- sale cuts, edible portion, fat, and bone. Their data showed that gilts had a significantly greater ham and loin edible portion as well as greater total percent of edible portion. The latter authors also found that gilts possessed significantly greater percents of bone and less fat than barrows. Waldren (1964) reported female carcasses had significantly less shoulder and.middle cuts, less backfat, and greater longissimus dorsi muscle areas than male carcasses. Judge (1964) also found that weight of edible por- tion of hams was significantly greater in gilts than barrows. Crum.2£ 21. (1964) reported similar results but they also noted that barrows had more marbling than gilts. -20- Rahnefeld (1965) reported results summarizing the effect of breed and sex and contrary to the findings of most workers, they found no breed or sex differences in backfat thickness. Hale and Southwell (1966) and McCampbell and Baird (1965) observed that gilt carcasses were leaner and heavier muscled than barrow carcasses. Hale and Southwell (1966) also reported that gilt carcasses had a signi- ficantly higher dressing percent as compared to barrows. Hines (1966) showed that gilts yielded carcasses with less backfat (0.11 in.), larger longissimu§ d9§§1_muscle areas (0.52 sq. in.) and greater length (0.2 in.) than barrows when slaughtered at similar weights. In addition, gilts cut a higher percentage of ham and loin (1.7%) as well as lean cuts (1.8%) than barrows. Dressing percentage usually favored barrows which was consistent with greater backfat depth among barrows. Recently, Hale 2: 21. (1968) found gilt carcasses were longer, con- tained larger loins and yielded higher percentages of lean cuts as compared to barrows. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE Eighty-six crossbred weanling barrows and gilts were obtained from a Michigan feeder pig sale and fed the standard.MLS.U. 16% protein grow- ing ration until they reached 100 lb. live weight. At 100 1b., 64 pigs were randomly divided among eight treatment groups of 8 pigs each as shown in table 1. TABLE 1. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN Lot number Number of Gilts Barrows hogs/lot Treatment 7 7A 8 12% protein plus DES + MTa 8 8A 8 12% protein ration 9 94 8 16% protein plus DES + MT3 10 10A 8 16% protein ration aDES + MT = 1 mg. of diethylstilbestrol per 1b. and 1 mg. of methyltes- tosterone per lb. of ration. Composition of the rations is shown in table 2. Barrows and gilts were fed separately in 10 ft. x 15 ft. concrete floor pens. Automatic water fountains and self-feeders were located in each pen to provide 22 libitum water and feed, respectively. The experiment was started May 1, 1967, and the last group of hogs was taken off test July 21, 1967. Feedlot data were obtained by weighing the animals every two weeks for the first six weeks and weekly thereafter. .. 21.. -22- TABLE 2. COMPOSITION OF THE RATIONS Lot 7&7A 8&8A 9&9A 10&10A Ingredients lb. 1b. lb. lb. Corn 891.2 891.2 795.1 795.1 Soybean meal (50%) 80.0 80.0 177.0 177.0 Dicalcium.phosphate 11.2 11.2 9.2 9.2 Limestone 7.1 7.1 8.2 8.2 Trace mineral salt (Hi-Zn) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 V.T.M. - premixa 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Bestronb 0.5 --— 0.5 --— “flan-100 .2:- -_9_°_5. -:.:':_ __0..-_§ 1000 1000 1000 1000 Calculated analysis % Protein 12.0 12.0 16.0 16.0 % Ca 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 % P 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 aTen lb. of V.T.M.-premix contains 0.6 l’. of M.S.U. ASE D mixgz 1 lb. of B vitamin mixe; 1 lb. of vitamin B12 ; 0.1 lb. zinc oxide; and 7.3 lb. of ground yellow corn. b1/2 lb. of Bestron contains 1 gm. of Diethylstilbestrol; 1 gm. of methyl- testosterone and 5 gm. of Tylosin. 01/2 lb. of Tylan-lO contains 5 gm. of Tylosin. dWLS.U. A & D mix contains I.U. of vitamin A/lb. 800,000 I.U. of vitamin D/lb. and 3,628,720 eVitamin B - Merck 1231 contains 8,000 mg. riboflavin/1b.; 14,720 mg. of pantothenic acid/1b.; 36,000 mg. of niacin/1b.; and 40,000 mg. of choline/ lb. fDawes B12 contains 6 mg. of vitamin 312/ lb. -23- The pigs were removed from the experiment when they individually reached approximately 210 lb. live weight. Individual pig daily gains were calculated; however, feed consumption and feed efficiency represent lot averages. Slaughter Procedure Bestron was withheld approximately 90 hours prior to slaughter. The animals were slaughtered in the University meat laboratory and dressed packer style. Hams were faced but the facing was left attached and leaf fat was loosened and removed after chilling. The carcasses were chilled at 34-40°F. for 48 hr. Prior to cutting the carcasses, length and backfat thickness (av. of three measurements) were measured as described by the Pork Carcass Evaluation Committee (1952). Cutting Procedure The cutting procedure followed was that described by the Pork Car- cass Evaluation Committee (1952). Area of the longissimus dorsi muscle and marbling score (Wisconsin score system) were recorded at the 10th and last rib. Physical Separation and Grinding The right trimmed ham.plus collar fat and other fat trim.from this ham were physically separated into skin, bone, and.the combined lean and -24. fat. The combination of lean and fat was ground five times to assure homogeneity, twice through a 1/4 in. plate and three times through a 5/64 in. plate. A sample of approximately 50 to 75 gm. was taken and stored in glass bottles at -20°F. for subsequent protein, fat, and mois- ture determinations. Chemical Analysis Duplicate composite ham samples of approximately 5 gm. were placed in disposable aluminum dishes, and dried at 100°C. for 24 hr. for moisture determinations. Fat content was determined by extraction of the above dried sample with anhydrous ether for 3 1/2 to 4 hr. in a Goldfisch Fat Extractor as outlined in A.O.A.C. (1965). The micro-Kjeldahl technique described in A.O.A.C. (1965) was used to determine total nitrogen. Appro- ximately 1 gm. of fresh tissue was used for this analysis. The following formulas were used to calculate the percent moisture, fat, and protein on a fresh weight basis. wt. of 24 hr. dried sample wt. of fresh sample X 100 = % moisture wt. of dried ether extract wt. of fresh sample X 100 = % fat *gm. nitrogen X 6.25 = gm. of protein gm. of protein wt. of fresh sample (gm,j X 100 = % protein *Assumed that the protein contains 16% nitrogen -25- Blood Analysis The hogs were bled at the start and finish of the experiment. Blood samples were obtained from the anterior vena cava as described by Carle and Dewhirst (1942). The blood was placed in centrifuge tubes, allowed to clot and the clot freed from the tube. The clot and serum.were separated in a Servall model M centrifuge. The serum was then placed in vials and aliquots taken for serum protein and electrophoretic analyses. The remaining serum.was frozen and stored at —20°F. until used for calcium.and phos- phorus analyses. Hematocrit was determined using fresh blood according to the micro- method described by McGovern 21 21. (1955). The blood samples were cen- trifuged at 10,000 rpm. for 5 min. in an International "Hemacrit" centri- fuge. Hemoglobin was obtained using fresh whole blood by the cyanmethemo- globin method of Crosby'2i 21. (1954). Total serum protein concentration was determined using the ultra- violet spectrophotometric technique described by Weddell (1956). Electrophoretic separation of serum proteins was accomplished on agar gel in a modified Durrum cell (Cawley and Eberhardt, 1962). Quantitation was accomplished with a Beckman Spinco Analytrol densitometer. Serum calcium was determined by atomic absorption spectrophotometry (Jarrel-Ash Model 82-516 with a Hetco burner and an air-hydrogen flame) as described by Ullrey 21 21. (1967). Inorganic phosphorus was deter- mined by application of the spectrophotometric method of Gomorri (1942). -26- Bone Analysis The right femur was cleaned of adhering tissues, weighed, and frozen at -10 to -20°F. for further analysis. Femur strength was determined by using the *Instron Testing Instrument Model-TT CML equipped with a load cell-F.M.-compression having 500 kg. full scale, crosshead speed of 0.2 cub/min. and a chart speed of l cme/min. The method for testing the bone strength and the formulas for;maximum.load, moment of inertia, maxi- mal bending moment, and breaking stress were similar to those reported by Weir g1 31. (1949) and Miller 11 21. (1962). One-half of the femur was cut into small pieces on a power band saw for determination of calcium, phosphorus, and percent ash. The fat and moisture were removed by subsequent 24 hr. extractions in absolute alcohol and anhydrous ether with a Soxhlet extractor. The dry, fat-free bone was ashed in a muffle furnace at 1200°F. for 18 hr. Percent ash was determined as follows: wt. ashed bone wt. dry, fat free bone X 100 = % ash on a dry, fat—free basis Approximately 300 mg. of powdered ash were dissolved in 5 m1.of 6N HCl and diluted to 100 ml. with deionized water for the calcium and phosphorus determinations. The ash solution was diluted 1:100 with 10,000 ppm. SrClz. This solution and standard stock solutions were used to determine bone calcium.by atomic absorption spectrophotometry as described above for serum calcium. *Instron Engineering Corporation Canton, Mass., U.S.A. Bone phosphorus was determined by application of the spectrophoto- metric method previously described for serum.phosphorus. Endocrine Gland Weights Both right and left adrenal glands were excised during the slaughter- ing procedure and weighed after removing adhering tissues. After removal of the skull cap and brain, the pituitary gland was removed from.the sella turcica and the intact gland was weighed to the nearest 0.1 mg. Organoleptic Analysis A section of the right loin (11th to last rib) was scored for degree of marbling and then frozen at -10 to -20°F. for taste panel and tender- ness studies. Two 1 in. chops were removed anterior to the last rib for tenderness evaluation. The remaining loin section was wrapped in aluminum foil and roasted at an oven temperature of 350°F. in an Etco Convection Oven (Medel 1860.2) to an internal temperature of 170°F. The internal temperature was recorded on a recording potentiometer. After cooking, the loins were uncovered and independently scored for odor by three panelists. The loins were allowed to cool to room.temperature and were then divided into 18 equal parts for taste panel evaluation. A consumer type panel, comprised of Michigan State University Food Science personnel was instructed to rate each sample for overall preference only using a 9 point scale. Net more than five samples were presented at one time. -28- The two remaining chops were cooked in 280°F. deep fat to an internal temperature of 170°F. Four 1/2 in. cores were taken from.each chop and were sheared at the approximated midpoint by the Warner-Bratzler shear apparatus. Statistical Analysis Analysis of variance and simple correlations were determined as described by Steel and Torrie (1960). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Feedlot Performance The effect of diethylstilbestrol and methyltestosterone, sex and protein level gpon swine performance Table 3 summarizes the feedlot performance by hormone treatment, protein level, and sex. Pigs fed diethylstilbestrol plus methyltestos- terone (DES + MT) gained 1.68 lb. per day which was essentially the same as that gained by controls (1.67 lb./day). This agrees with the findings of Baker 21 21. (1967) who found no significant difference in gains be- tween hormone treated and control pigs. However, these findings disagree with the work of J0rdan 21 21. (1965), Thrasher 21 21. (1967), and Wallace and Lucas (1969) since they reported a reduction in gain attri- butable to hormone feeding. TABLE 3. FEEDLOT PERFORMANCE Protein Hormone treatment level Sex Trait DES + MTa Controla 12%a 16%5 Barrowsa Gilts5 Gain/day, lb. 1.68 1.67 1.69 1.67 1.70 1.66 Feed/day, 1b0 601 604 604: 602 603 602 Feed/lb. gain, lb. 3.69 3.92 3.89 3.72 3.84 3.89 a32 pigs per group. Barrows gained 1.70 lb. per day while the gilts gained 1.66 lb. per day. Athough this difference was not significant (P=> .05), this trend -29- -3o- agrees with most reports in the literature which indicate barrows grow faster than gilts. The treated pigs consumed 6.1 lb. of feed per day as compared to 6.4 lb. per day for the controls. Likewise these data agree with the current literature reports indicating that DES + MT-fed pigs consumed less feed per day. The hormone-fed pigs were also more efficient than controls. It took 3.69 lb. of feed per pound of gain among the DES + MT -fed pigs while controls required 3.92 lb. of feed per pound of gain. J0rdan 21 21. (1965), Baker 21 21. (1967) and Wallace and Lucas (1969) found that DES + MT-fed pigs were more efficient than untreated controls. Pigs fed the 16% protein ration also gained more efficiently than those receiving the 12% protein ration. Crum.21 21. (1964) and Hale and Southwell (1966) reported that pigs receiving higher levels of protein are more efficient than pigs receiving lower levels of protein. The interaction of treatment X sex was significant (P'< .01) for gain/day. The treated gilts gained 1.76 lb. per day compared to 1.60 lb. per day for the treated barrows, while the control gilts only gained 1.64 lb. per day compared to 1.71 lb. per day for the barrows. These data agree with the work of Baker 21 21. (1967) since they also found that DES + MT reduced the gains of barrows. The interaction of treatment X protein level was significant (P < .05) for gain per day. The pigs receiving DES + MT-12% protein ration gained 1.65 lb. per day as compared to 1.71 lb. per day for those on the DES + MT-l6% protein rations, while the control pigs on the 12% protein ration -31- gained 1.72 lb. per day as compared to 1.63 lb. per day for those on the 16% protein ration. Thus, the hormone treated pigs gained faster on the 16% protein ration while the control pigs gained faster on the 12% pro- tein ration. Carcass Merit Effect of diethylstilbestrol plus methyltestosterone Table 4 shows the effects of DES + MT upon carcass traits. The hor- mone treated pigs had significantly (P < .01) less backfat, larger 1. 22521 muscle areas at both the 10th and last rib, lower percent fat trim, higher percent lean cuts and percent ham and loin than the untreated controls. The hormone fed pigs were also 0.3 of an inch longer but this difference was nonsignificant. The DES + MT treated pigs produced car- casses that were leaner and heavier muscled than the controls. Jordan _e_1 a_l_. (1965) and Baker 21 _a_l. (1967) also found that hormone treated pigs produced carcasses that were leaner and heavier muscled than controls. However, these results disagree with the results of Wallace and Lucas (1969) since they reported that DES + MT had no significant effect upon the 1. 22121 muscle size. Hormone treatment reduced marbling score slightly, but since marbling scores represent a 15 point scale there was essentially no difference among treatments. -33- increased from.3.79 to 4.14 sq. in. These data agree with the findings of Kropf _e_1 21, (1959). TABLE 5. INFLUENCE OF PROTEIN LEVEL ON CARCASS TRAITS Trait 12% Proteina 16% Proteina Av. backfat thickness, in. 1.68 1.63 Length, in. 30.1 30.2 L. 22121.muscle area, 10th rib, sq. in. 3.70 3.94 L. 22221 muscle area, last rib, sq. in. 3.79 4.14%* Fat trim, % 27.4 25.8 Lean cuts, % 50.4 51.7 Ham and loin, % 33.9 34.7 Marbling score, 10th ribb 5.6% 3.9 Marbling score, last ribb 4.0* 2.8 *P < .05 **P < .01 aEach group contained 32 pigs. bBased on 15 point scale, using the Wisconsin scoring system of 5 possible scores; each score was further divided into three categories, i.e., 1‘, 1, 1+, 2', etc. The 16% protein level also tended to decrease the percent fat trim and to increase the percent lean cuts and ham and loin, but these differ- ences were not significant. The 16% protein level significantly (P‘< .05) reduced marbling score at both the 10th and last rib. Crum 21 21. (1964) reported that higher levels of protein reduced marbling as compared to lower levels of protein. -34- Barrows vs. gilts Carcass traits for the barrows and gilts are presented in Table 6. Gilts had less backfat and were longer than barrows but these differ- ences were not significant. TABLE 6. THE INFLUENCE OF SEX GROUP UPON CARCASS TRAITS Trait Barrowsa Giltsa Av. backfat thickness, in. 1.70 1.61 Length, in. 30.1 30.3 L. 22121 muscle area, 10th rib, sq. in. 3.59 4.06** 1.,22121 muscle area, last rib, sq. in. 3.73 4.20** Fat trim, % 27.6 25.6% Lean cuts, % 50.3 51.9% Ham.and loin, % 33.5 35.1** Marbling score, 10th ribb 4.5 5.0 Marbling score, last ribb 3.6 3.1 *P‘< .05 **P < .01 aEach group contained 32 pigs. Based on 15 point scale, using the Wisconsin scoring system.of 5 possible scores; each score was further divided into three categories, i.e., 1', 1, 1+, 2‘, etc. The gilts had larger 1. dorsi muscle areas at both the tenth and last rib and these differences were statistically significant (P < .01). Gilts also had significantly (P < .05) less fat trim, greater lean cuts, -35- and higher percent ham and loin (P < .01) than barrows. Gilts had larger 1. 1111.1 muscle areas (0.47 sq. in.) at both the tenth and last rib than barrows. These results are similar to those reported by Bruner 21 21. (1958) since they found gilts had 0.51 sq. in. larger muscle areas than barrows. Hale and Southwell (1966) and MbCampbell and Baird (1965) re- ported that gilt carcasses were superior to barrows in most character- iStiCSO Hormone treatment, protein level and sex interactions for the carcass traits The interaction of DES + MT X sex, DES + MT X protein, and protein X sex for the carcass traits are summarized in Table 7. There were no significant effects upon carcass traits for the hormone treatment-sex interaction, thus hormones had a similar influence upon barrow and gilt carcasses. Baker 21 21. (1967) and others found that barrows were more affected by hormone treatment than gilts, especially for the carcass traits. A significant (P < .05) interaction between hormone treatment and protein level was observed for backfat thickness only, when comparing the carcass traits. Carcasses from the hormone treated, high protein group had considerably less backfat than carcasses from.the hormone treated 12% protein group, while this observation was reversed for the control groups, 1.2,, the 12% protein group had less backfat than the 16% protein group. The protein X sex interaction had no significant effect upon any of the carcass traits measured. .oeo .nm .+H .H .uH -.o.H .mofinomopoo mouse cede oopfi>fio nonpasm no: oncom zoom moonoom oHnflmmom m mo Bovmzm mcfihoom afimqoomflz one mufims .ofioom Paeom ma no oomomn .mwfim oH_anHeecoo asoaw comma mo. v as a.m m.m s.m N.e m.m N.m w.m H.m ooea ease .oeoon masseuse o.e a.m r.m m.m r.e m.m m.e r.e been secs .oaoon reasons: m.mm m.mm H.em m.em «.mm e.em m.em m.mm e .saoa one as: a.ae c.ae m.mm N.Hm c.re a.om o.mm r.mm e .neso anon ”mm.em e.rm a.mm e.em m.am c.em e.mm e.em e sense sea .mr.m am.m me.e ma.m me.m ea.m Ho.e Ne.e .se .en .oee ease .soas assess eoaoe .m oe.m rm.m aH.e Hr.m mm.m ea.m mm.m eH.e .se .an .oea race .soes oaonse_eoaoo .m H.om a.a~ e.om m.om m.am N.om m.om m.om .ee .remeoa rce.H sac.H rom.H eee.e ae.H ec.H oe.H cm.H .ee .oaosroare anemone .>< sensuous neeoeoaa naeoeoea sseoeoam soreness sesame snsoaaem sesame sense .eH . H .ea . H Hoaeeoo e: + was Hoaeeoo een+ meg Hosea eaoeoea x a» + was New x a: + man .meH'.05). Jurgens 21 21. (1967) reported that loins from pigs fed 16% protein had significantly less fat and more protein than those fed 12% protein. Lee 21 21. (1967) observed that the ether extract of the trimmed loin and right ham varied inversely with the protein level fed. Barrows vs. gilts The compositional analysis of the right ham for barrows and gilts is shown in Table 10. Gilts had hams with slightly more moisture and protein content and less fat than barrows, but these differences were not significant. Kropf 21 21. (1959) reported that the longissimus 22521 ;muscle of gilts contained more protein and moisture and less fat than barrows. TABLE 10. THE EFFECT OF SEX GROUP UPON HAM CHEMICAL ANALYSIS. Trait Barrowsa Giltsa Moisture, % 52.48 51.86 Fat, % 32.22 33.01 Protein, % 14.82 14.66 ElEach sex group contained 32 pigs. Hormone treatment, protein level, and sex interactions for the ham composition analysis A summary of the hormone, protein level and sex interactions for the composite ham chemical analysis data is given in Table 11. There were no significant (P > .05) interactions between any of the variables studied for the ham chemical analysis. Blood Analysis Effect of diethylstilbestrol plus methyltestosterone Table 12 summarizes the effect of DES + MT on the blood components measured. Hormone treatment had no apparent effect upon hematocrit, hemoglobin, or total serum proteins. However, the DES + MT altered the percentage of the serum proteins, although it had no significant effect on the total amount of serum proteins. The hormone treated pigs had a significantly (P < .01) higher percent albumin than untreated controls. Although the d-, B-, and v-globulins were decreased, hormone treatment 3' ' D J ‘xur‘mume -41- .mwfim 0H oocfiopcoo macaw comma 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 e .333...- Eém 8.8 elem 8.8 e Jar.- maém 8.8 3.8 8.8 e .5333: unsoundm omvaflo unacknom omeafiw peeps eaoeom e3 sec-br- ewe Now M Ho>oq :eovonm H¢.¢H «m.mH om.mH oo.mH mm.mH o¢.¢H bm.mH mm.mH R acfiovonm bo.mm em.mm um.wm O©.Hm m>.mm mH.em em.om mm.om R .uoh wN.Hm mm.m¢ mm.mm mm.mm wo.mv ow.om wo.¢m HH.¢m R .ohdemfioz mafioeoum mueoeonm oneovoom ocfloeonm unsoundm omeaew unsophom onwaflw pause IIRMHT Ell L3 F Homecoo a: + man Homecoo a: + man Ho>oq :Howonm N a: + man wow N a: + man .05) in- fluenced by hormone treatment in the present study. ' I. "C .. l-’.-’-'-i"v" .4- I-u—v-i -43- 12% vs. 16% protein level The influence of protein level on blood components is shown in Table 13. Protein level had no significant effect upon any of the blood components measured except serum calcium. level had a serum calcium level of 10.8 mg./100 ml. as compared to 10.3 mg./100 ml. for the 16% protein group. (P < .05). TABLE 13. INFLUENCE OF PROTEIN LEVEL ON BLOOD COMPONENTS Pigs fed the 12% protein This difference was significant I ' -.‘}”1-"3I-llU-le... . « Trait 12%a 16%a Hematocrit, % 40.2 40.2 Hemoglobin, gm./100 m1. 12.9 12.9 Total serum protein, gm./100 ml. 6.27 6.24 Albumin, % 50.3 51.0 al-globulin, % 5.7 5.7 avg—globulin, % 9.3 8.6 d3-globu1in, % 6.6 6.9 B- globulin, % 9.6 10.0 Y-globulin, % 18.6 17.6 Serum calcium, mg./100 m1. 10.8-X- 10.3 Serum.phosphorus, mg./100 ml. 7.6 7.6 *P < .05 aEach group contained 32 pigs. .. 45- Hormone treatment, protein level and sex interactions for the blood components The hormone, protein level and sex interactions for the blood comp ponents are summarized in Table 15. There were no significant (P2> .05) interactions between DES + MT X sex, DES + MT X protein, or protein X sex for any of the blood components observed in this study. Bone Analysis The effect of diethylstilbestrol plus methyltestosterone Table 16 summarizes the effect of DES + MT upon the bone (femur) data. Hormone treatment significantly (P‘< .01) increased weight of the femur bone. Clegg and Carroll (1956) reported that a trend existed to- ward higher percent bone in stilbestrol fed cattle. There were no significant effects upon bone calcium, phosphorus or percent ash. The hormone treated pigs had significantly (P'< .01) increased moment of inertia, maximum load, and bending moment. There was essentially no difference between the breaking stress of the bones from.hormone treated and control pigs. The hormone treated pigs had increased bone weight but not strength. The bones from treated pigs also contained lower percent ash than the controls but this difference was not significant (I’> .05). ‘3'»17'1-‘1 _ —46— .mMfim 0H confidence msopw scams m.» mg. 3s m.» m.» mg m.» m.» .32 83.3 .mSAOSQmonm Sdhom 3.3 83 33 8.3 33 8.3 m3 803 .32 83.8 €530.30 cashew 3.3 3.3 83 3.3 8.3 83 0.3 83 a 33:83.; 83 88 «5 a8 83 0.3 m.a 8m a 535833 N.» 3m m6 is Rm a.m m5 ad 8 .a3ss3w..me o.a 3a m.m m5 8m 85 8m 8m 8 .seasseamwe ad 8m 3m o.m 3.8 mm as. m.m R 6333838 38 0.8 3.8 88 m8 m8 m3 m3 s 58834 m6 m6 m5 m6 m6 3.0 m6 m8 .de 83.8 £33.93 Sufism H.309 0.3 a.3 8.3 a.3 83 3.3 0.3 8.3 .de 83.8 533888 88 8.8 0.8 88 88 38 88 38 R 38828: «3339mm $330.5 $330.5 «3330.5 smachpam wmvflw mmzohpdm «8:36 #393. '83 #3 L83 [RBI 3828 E + m3 39:.an E + m3 H964 «33.9mm N a: + man 80m x E + man mezmzomzoo Gooqm ”we mom mZOHBofiHHBZH xmm 92¢. .AEA ZHHBOME .Bzmzeg mzozdom .mH flamed. -47.. 30 .mM3m 03 000308000 muchw scams 8.8 0.8 8.8 0.8 8 .00 .0000000000_00000 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.33 8 .00_.0s30300 00000 0.83 0.03 3.03 3.03 8 .03300030-8 0.03 0.0 3.03 3.0 8 .03300030-0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 8 .03300030-00 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 8 .03300030-00 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 .03300030-30 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.30 8 .0300030 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .30 003\.0 .0308000.00000 30003 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 .30 003\.0 .0300300000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8 .0300080000 mkohhmm 008H3c mmzohndm ampfifiw 83039 0300000 803 0308000 803 0300 x 30803 0300000 Acmsnfivaoov mezmzomzoo aboam 00.3 00,0 0203303323 0300 020 .3083 230,303 33.332.33.03 02033000 .03 0300.3 TABLE 16. BONE ANALYSIS AS INFLUENCED BY DES + MT. Trait DES + MTa Controla Femur wt., gm. 271.88% 251.8 Phosphorus, % of ash 18.7 20.1 Calcium, % of ash; 44.6 44.5 Ash, %b 55.4 56.2 Moment of inertia, cm.4 1.05485- 0.89 Maximum load, Kg. 291** 272 Bending moment, Kg.-cm. 107 5%:- 996 Breaking stress, Kg./cm.2 . 1169 1164 MP < .01 3«Each group contained 32 pigs. bExpressed on a dry, fat-free basis. 12% vs. 16% protein level The effect of protein level on the femur bone data is presented in Table 17. Protein level had no significant effect upon femur bone weight, phosphorus, calcium, or percent ash. The 16% protein level significantly (P < .05) increased the moment of inertia. The maximum load was also significantly (P < .05) increased (273 to 290 Kg.). There were no sig- nificant (P > .05) differences between the protein levels for bending moment and breaking stress. ‘1" 'l- u " l"— "" -49.. TABLE 17. THE EFFECT OF PROTEIN LEVEL ON BONE Protein level Trait 12%a 16%a Femur wt. , gm. 259.4 264.2 r- Phosphorus, % of ash‘ 19.4 19.3 . ; Calcium, % of ash 44.4 44.7 Ash, %b 55.6 55.9 Moment of inertia, cm.4 0.91 1.03-3- Maximum load, Kg. 273 2900 L ' Bending moment, Kg.-cm. 1008 1047 Breaking stress, Kg./cm.2 1196 1.140 i’eP < .05 aEach group contained 32 pigs. Expressed on a dry, fat-free basis. Barrows vs. gilts The bone data for barrows and gilts are shown in Table 18. There were no significant (P > .05) differences for any of the traits measured except moment of inertia. Gilts had a greater (P < .05) moment of inertia (1.03 cm.4) than barrows (0.91 cm.4). -50- TABLE 18. BONE DATA FOR BARROWS AND GILTS Trait Giltsa Barrowsa Femur wt. , gm. 262.0 261.5 Phosphorus, % of ash' 19.7 19.0 Calcium, % of ash' 44.5 44.7 [”3 Ash, %b 56.3 55.2 Moment of inertia, cm.4 1.039(- 0.91 Maximum load, Kg. 284 279 ..__ Bending moment, Kg.-cm. 1047 1024 SWW/ Breaking stress, Kg./cm.2 1.140 1193 *P > .05 aEach group contained 32 pigs. xpressed on a dry, fat-free basis. Hormone treatment, protein level and sex interactions for bone data A summary of the hormone treatment, protein level and sex inter- actions for the bone analyses is presented in Table 19. There were no significant (P > .05) interactions for any of the bone components mea- sured. .03003 0033:303 .330 0 :0 000003axmn .wM3m 03 000303300 mso3w £00m0 0033 0033 0333 0003 0033 0033 0003 0033 0.so\.00 .000330 00300030 3003 380 0033 0003 000 000 0003 8003 .00-.03 .300000 0030000 000 000 000 000 080 000 000 000 .03 .0003 0003002 00.0 80.0 03.3 00.0 00.0 00.0 80.0 03.3 0.00 .0330003 30 300002 "3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 08 .003 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 00 8 .0030300 0.03 0.00 3.03 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 000 00 8 .0030000000 0.000 0.000 0.080 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.080 3.000 .00 ..30 30003 0030303m 03303039 00303039 03303039 0030330m 003336 0030330m 003330 33039 R03 33 803 El. 3033300 92 + man 3033300 9: + man 30803 03030333 x E + 03 0300 03 .333 + 0333 . 32033330: .03 3330.8 .3903. 0200 3303 0203900333823 0330 3323. 33383.3 233.0333 3.2380303 -52- .03009 0033:303 .030 0 00 000003mxmn .0039 03 000303000 @5030 50mmw 0033 8803 8033 0003 0.00\.00 .000330 00300030 0003 8003 000 8003 .00-.00 .300000.0030000 000 300 000 080 .00 .0003 0003000 00.0 33.3 00.0 00.0 0.00 .0330003 00 300000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 08 .000 8.00 8.00 8.00 0.00 000 .30 8 .0030300 0.03 0.03 8.03 3.00 .000 .30 .8 .053000005 0.000 0.300 0.000 0.000 .00 ..30 00000 0030330m 003330 0030330m 00333o 33039 0303000 803 0303000 803 000 0 0303000 . 30000330000 00.00 mzom mom mZOHeomu szeomm .azm280mme mzozmo: .a3 mgmoH :fimwonm ecospcohw ocoegom .memonz Qzm4_ZHmeomh Qz<_xmm .Hz + man kc mozmbqth .om mummq szeomm .Bzmze .05), but the hormone x sex interaction was approaching significance (P < .08) for the pituitary gland. The pituitary from.the hormone treated barrows was approximately 30' mg. heavier than control barrows while the pituitary from the treated gilts was only approximately 10 mg. larger than control gilts. Pork Organoleptic Analysis The Effect of diethylstilbestrol and methyltestosterone, sex and protein 122; The summary of the influence of DES + MT, protein level and sex upon organoleptic data is presented in Table 22. The taste panel preference scores indicated that essentially no differences existed which were attri- butable to hormone treatment, sex or protein level. The score of all groups averaged 6.5 which was between like slightly and like moderately on the nine-point score sheet used. Seven loins were described as having an undesirable odor by the three panelist who subjectively evaluated all loins immediately after removal from.the oven. All seven of the loins were from.hormone treated pigs, but none of these loins received low scores by the subsequent taste panel. Wallace and Lucas (1969) found that the loins from.the DES + MT - treated pigs had an undesirable aroma and flavor and this had a signi- ficant (P‘< .01) effect upon the taste panel scores. Hormone treatment significantly (P < .05) reduced the Warner-Bratzler shear values of the pork loins from 7.9 lb. to 7.4 lb. Neither protein level nor sex had any significant (P1> .05) influence on shear values. -57- .mwfim mm uoqflovaoo machw sedan .oanmhflmoc pmofi wqfion a sea: a ow a_Eopm mmpoom oocoummopmw mo. v E s.» m.» mg m.» a.» at» a: .535. m5 m6 m5 m6 m6 m6 «Hang 8mg nmzoosm page nfiflot $32.5 “$828 9.5 + man $8,... L2 F New Hm>oH GHoFOLm wcmewwohp ocosuom ¢Hmq szaomm .Hz + wan ha HoszAmZH was .NN Hummq :nmoonm Hm>oq :fimoocm a_az + man xmm x as + man mn ZHHBomm .Bzmze 0.246 P < .01 = > 0.320 TABLE 25. SIMPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN % LEAN CUTS AND SOME CARCASS TRAITS, BONE AND BLOOD DATA Percent lean cuts Av. backfat thickness -.83 Loin eye area 10th rib 0.78 Carcass length 0.55 % ham and loin 0.97 % protein (ham analysis) 0.69 Femur wt. 0.56 Total serum proteins 0.07 Hemoglobin -.09 Level of significance P‘< .O5I= > 0.246 P'< .01 = > 0.320 -61- Femur weight was negatively correlated with percent bone calcium (-.l8) as shown in Table 26. Femur weight was not significantly corre- lated with percent bone phosphorus (-.01) or percent bone ash (0.01). These results suggest that bone mineralization is not associated with bone size. Femur size was positively correlated with moment of inertia (0.68), maximum load (0.45) and bending moment (0.56), but there was a negative correlation of -.26 between breaking stress and femur weight. TABLE 26. SIMPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN FEMUR WEIGHT AND SOME BONE DATA Femur weight Bone phosphorus -.01 Bone calcium -.18 Bone ash 0.01 Moment of inertia 0.68 Maximum load 0.45 Bending moment 0.56 Breaking stress -.26 Level of significance P‘< .05 = > 0.246 P‘< .01 = > 0.320 The concentration of calcium in the blood was not highly correlated with any of the variables (Table 27). Serum inorganic phosphorus was positively correlated with breaking stress (0.36) but negatively corre- lated with femur weight (-.30). Inf-1‘ A _ -52- TABLE 27. SIMPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN SOME SERUM COMPON- ENTS AND BONE DATA Serum calcium Serum phosphorus Bone phosphorus -.06 -.06 Bone calcium 0.08 0.12 Bone ash 0.16 0.10 Femur weight —.11 -.30 Total serum protein 0.10 -.12 Breaking stress 0.13 0.36 Level of significance P < .05 ==>.246 P < 001 =>¢320 Warner-Bratzler shear value was not significantly correlated (-.O4) with the taste panel preference score. SUMMARY This 2 x 2 x 2 factorial experiment was initiated to study the effects of diethylstilbestrol plus methyltestosterone, DES + ME, (0 and l mg./lb. of ration), protein level (12% and 16%) and sex group (barrows and gilts) upon feedlot performance, carcass qualitative and quantita- tive characteristics, some blood and bone components, and some endocrine gland weights. At 100 1b. live weight, 64 pigs were randomly assigned to eight lots and fed to slaughter weight (approximately 210 1b.). Gilts and barrows were lotted separately. The DES + MT treatment had little effect upon feedlot performance for the combined barrow and gilt data; however, hormone treatment signi- ficantly reduced daily gain among barrows. The 16% protein level provided optimum growth for DES + MT treated barrows while untreated barrows gained faster on the 12% protein ration. Hormone treated pigs had significantly (P‘< .01) less backfat thick- ness and fat trim, larger l°.§2£§i muscle areas, higher percentages of lean cuts and ham and loin than untreated controls. There was a signi- ficant (P'< .05) interaction between DES + MT x protein level for backfat thickness. The DES + MT treated pigs on the 16% protein ration had 0.16 in. less backfat compared to treated pigs on the 12% protein ration. Gilt carcasses were also leaner and heavier muscled than barrow carcasses. The DES + MT treatment significantly (P'< .01) increased percent moisture and protein and reduced percent fat content of the composite ham sample. -63- -64- Hams from pigs fed the 16% protein level had less analytical fat and more moisture than the 12% protein group. Hormone treatment had little apparent influence on any of the blood components measured except DES + MT treatment significantly increased percent serum.albumin and decreased percent B-globulin. Weight and size of the femur bone were increased by DES + MT treatment but no signifi- cant effects upon bone calcium, phosphorus, percent ash or bone strength were observed. Hormone treated pigs had heavier pituitary gland weights and barrows had larger pituitary glands than gilts. Taste panel preference scores for the pork loin roasts indicated that no differences existed which were attributable to hormone treatment, sex group, or protein level since all groups received essentially the same score. Seven loins from the hormone treated pigs were described as having an undesirable odor. The DES + MT treatment significantly (P < .05) reduced Warner-Bratzler shear values. BIBLIOGRAPHY A.O.A.C. 1965. Official Methods of Analysis (10th ed.) Association of Official Agricultural Chemists. Washington, D. C. Ashton, G. C., J. Kastelic, D. C. Acker, A. H. Jensen, H. M. Maddock, E. A. Kline, and D. C. Catron. 1955. Different protein levels with and without antibiotics for growing-finishing swine: Effect on car- cass leanness. J. Animal Sci. 14:82. Aunan, W. J., L. E. Hanson, and R. J. Meade. 1961. Influence of level of dietary protein on live weight gains and carcass characteristics of swine. J. Animal Sci. 20:148. Baird, D. M., H. C. McCampbell and W. E. Neville. 1958. The performance and carcass characteristics of growing-fattening swine as affected by ration levels of protein and inedible fats. J. Animal Sci. 17: 1165 (Abstr. ). Baker, D. H., E. R. Diller, and C. E. Jordan. 1968. Effect of a combin- ation of diethylstilbestrol and methyltestosterone, sex, and dietary protein level on some serum lipids of finishing swine. J. Animal Sci. 27:660. Baker, D. H., C. E. Jordan, W. P. Waitt, and D. W. Gouwens. 1967. Effects of a combination of diethylstilbestrol and methyltestosterone, sex, and dietary protein level on performance and carcass characteristics of finishing swine. J. Animal Sci. 26:1059. Beacom, S. E. 1963. The effect of diethylstilbestrol and estradiol- testosterone implants on rate and efficiency of gain and on carcass quality of market pigs fed different finishing diets. Can. J. Animal Sci. 43: 374. Beeson, W. M., F. N. Andrews, T. W. Perry, and M. Stab. 1955. The effect of orally administered stilbestrol and testosterone on growth and carcass composition of swine. J. Animal Sci. 14:475. Bell, J. M., J. P. Bowland, C. D. T. Cameron, E. W. Crampton, L. E. Lloyd, M. E. Seale, and F. Whiting. 1958. Nutrient requirements for Canadian Yorkshire swine. II. The effects of barley and cat finishing rations on rate of gain, feed utilization and carcass quality of pigs marketed at 185 and 200 lb. liveweight. Can. J. Animal Sci. 38:73. -65- -66— Bell, M. C., J. R. Taylor, and R. L. Murphree. 1957. Effects of feeding stilbestrol and urea on ration digestibility and on retention of calcium, phosphorus, and nitrogen in lambs. J. Animal Sci. 16:821. Bowland, J. P. and R. T. Berg. 1959. Influence of strain and sex on the relationship of protein to energy in the rations of growing and finish- ing bacon pigs. Can. J. Animal Sci. 39:102. Braude, R., M. J. Townsend, G. Harrington, and J. G. Rowell. 1960. Effects of different protein contents in the rations of growing fattening pigs. J. Agr. Sci. 55:175. Bruner, W. H., V. Cahill, W. L. Robinson, and R. Wilson. 1958. Perfor- .mance of barrows and gilt littermate pairs at the Ohio Swine Evalua- tion Station. J. Animal Sci. 17:875. Cahill, V. R., L. E. Kunkle, E. W. Klosterman, F. E. Deatherage, and E. Wierbicki. 1956. Effect of diethylstilbestrol implantation on car- cass composition and the weight of certain endocrine glands of steers and bulls. J..Animal Sci. 15:701. Cahill, V. R., H. S. Teague, L. E. Kunkle, A. L. Maxon, and E. A. Rutledge. 1960. Measurement of and ways of affecting sexrinfluenced performance of growing finishing swine. J. Animal Sci. 19:1036. Cahilly, G. M., Jr., R. F. Miller, R. F. Kelly, and C. C. Brooks. 1963. Effects of various levels of dietary lysine on certain blood phenomena, muscle development and muscle-protein biological value of growing swine. J..Animal Sci. 22:726. Cameron, C. D. T. 1960. Effects of high fibre and pelleted and nonpelleted high fibre-high fat rations on performance and carcass characteristics of bacon pigs. Can. J. Animal Sci. 40:126. Carle, B. H., and W. H. Dewhirst, Jr. 1942. A method for bleeding swine. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assn. 101:495. Catron, D. V., A. H. Jensen, P. G. Homeyer, H. M. Maddock, and G. C. Ashton. 1952. Re-evaluation of protein requirements of growing-finishing swine as influenced by the feeding of an antibiotic. J. Animal Sci. 11:221. Cawley, L. P., and Lucile Eberhardt. 1962. Simplified gel electrophoresis. I. Rapid technic applicable to the clinical laboratory. Am. J. Clin. Path. 38(5):539. Clawson, A. J., T. N. Blumer, W. W. G. Smart, Jr., and E. R. Barrick. 1962. Influence of energy-protein ratio on preformance and carcass charac- teristics of swine. J..Animal Sci. 21:62. -67- Clegg, M. T., and F. D. Carroll. 1956. Further studies on the anabolic effect of stilbestrol in cattle as indicated by carcass composition. J. Animal Sci. 15:37. Clegg, M. T., and H. H. Cole. 1954. The action of stilbestrol on the growth response in ruminants. J. Animal Sci. 13:108. Comstock, R. E., L. M. Winters, and J. N. Cummings. 1944. Effect of sex on the development of the pig. III. Differences in the growth between gilts and barrows by breeding. J. Animal Sci. 3:120. Cox, D. F. 1963. Breed and sex effects on the relationship between weight and fatness measured at a constant age in swine. J. Animal Sci. 22:1091. Crosley, W. H., J. I. Munn, and F. W. Furth. 1954. Standardizing a method for clinical hemoglobinometry. U. S. Armed Forces Med. J. 5:693. Crum, R. C., Jr., H. D. Wallace, A. Z. Palmer, J. W. Carpenter, G. H. Taki, and G. E. Combs. 1964. Protein level effect on swine performance and carcasses. J. Animal Sci. 23:871 (Abstr.) Day, B. N., S. E. Zobrisky, L. F. Tribble, and J. F. Lasley. 1960. Effects of stilbestrol and a combination of progesterone and estradiol on growing—finishing swine. J. Animal Sci. 19:898. Dinusson, W. E., E. W. Klostenman, and M. L. Buchanan. 1951. Stilbestrol, effect of subcutaneous implantation on growing-fattening swine. J. Animal Sci. 10:885. Dukelow, W. R., R. S. Grant, R. L. Meade, and J. H. Goihl. 1963. Influ- ence of protein level, and of amino acid supplementation, on perfor- mance of growing swine, and on carcass characteristics. J. Animal Sci. 22:1119 (Abstr.). Fletcher, R. C., H. J. Tuma, and R. H. Seerley. 1963. Effect of slaughter weight on body composition of barrows and gilts. J. Animal Sci. 22: 1113 (Abstr.). Gardner, W. U., and C. A. Pfeiffer. 1943. Influence of estrogens and androgens on the skeletal system. Physiol. Rev. 23:139. Gomorri, G. 1942. A modification of the colorimetric phosphorus deter- .mination for use with the photoelectric colorimeter. J. Lab. Clin. Med. 27:955. Gorrill, A. D. L., J. M. Bell, and C. M. Williams. 1964. Effects of diethylstilbestrol implantation on growth rate, feed utilization and carcass traits of Y0rkshire pigs on restricted feeding. Can. J. Animal Sci. 44:320. -68- Hale, O. M., J. C. Johnson, Jr., and E. P. Warren. 1968. Influence of season, sex, and dietary energy concentration on performance and carcass characteristics of swine. J. Animal Sci. 27:1577. Hale, 0. M., W. C. MCCormick, and D. W. Beardsley. 1960. Response of pigs to diethylstilbestrol and testosterone fed in diets high and low in energy and protein. J. Animal Sci. 19:646 (Abstr.). Hale, 0. M., and B. L. Southwell. 1966. Protein requirements as related to breed and sex of swine. J. Animal Sci. 25:259 (Abstr.). Hale, 0. M., and B. L. Southwell. 1967. Differences in swine performance and carcass characteristics because of dietary protein level, sex, and breed. J. Animal Sci. 26:341. Handlin, D. L., J. R. Ables, D. H. Kropf, and R. F. Wheeler. 1961. Effects of finishing rations on gains, feed efficiency and carcass character— istics of swine. J. Animal Sci. 20:585. Heitman, H., and ML T. Clegg. 1957. Subcutaneous stilbestrol implantation in growing-fattening swine. J. Animal Sci. 16:901. Henry, W. E. 1962. The anabolic response of swine to 4-hydroxy-17-alpha- methyltestosterone and relationships between chemical and physical characteristics of pork carcasses. Diss. Abs. 23:771. Hines, R. H. 1966. The interaction of restricted feed intake and sex on swine performance and carcass quality. Ph.D. Thesis. Michigan State Univ. Holme, D. W., and.K. L. Robinson. 1965. The effect of dietary protein on the carcass composition of bacon pigs. An. Prod. 7:363. Hudman, D. B., and E. R. Peo, Jr. 1960. Carcass characteristics of swine as influenced by levels of protein fed on pasture and in dry lot. J. Animal Sci. 19:943. Jensen, A. H., D. C. Acker, H. M. Maddock, G. C. Ashton, P. G. Homeyer, E. 0. Heady, and D. V. Catron. 1955. Different protein levels with and without antibiotics for swine: Effect on growth rate and feed efficiency. J. Animal Sci. 14:69. Johnston, E. F., J. H. Zeller and.R. L. Hiner. 1957. Some effects on swine of orally administered methyltestosterone. J. Animal Sci. 16: 1024 (Abstr. ). Jones, A. S., W. R. Hepburn, A. Cadenhead, and A. W. Boyne. 1962. The effect of variation of protein quality and protein level in diets on the performance of young pigs. An. Prod. 4:185. -69- Jordan, C. E., W. P. Waitt, and N. E. Scholz. 1965. Effects of orally administered diethylstilbestrol and methyltestosterone on finishing barrows and gilts. J. Animal Sci. 24:890 (Abstr.). Judge, M. D. 1964. Comparison of longissimus dorsi area in genetically similar barrows and gilts. J. Animal Sci. 23:118. Jurgens, M. H., D. B. Hudman, C. W. Adams, and E. R. Peo, Jr. 1967. Influence of a dietary supplement of lysine fed at two levels of protein on growth, feed efficiency and carcass characteristics of swine. J. Animal Sci. 26:323. Kropf, D. H., R. W. Bray, P. H. Phillips, and R. H. Grummer. 1959. Effects of protein level and quality in swine rations upon growth and carcass development. J. Animal Sci. 18:755. Lee, C., J. L. McBee, Jr., and D. J. Horvath. 1967. Dietary protein level and swine carcass traits. J. Animal Sci. 26:490. MCCampbell, H. C., and D. M. Baird. 1965. Response of boars, barrows and gilts on normal and high energy rations. J. Animal Sci. 24:290 (Abstr.). MeGowern, J. J.,.A. R. Jones, and A. G. Steinberg. 1955. The hematocrit of capillary blood. New Eng. J. Med. 253:308. McMeekan, C. P. 1940. Growth and development in the pig with special reference to carcass quality characters. Part I-IV. J. Agr. Sci. 303276 8: 31:1. Meade, R. J., W. R. Dukelow, and R. S. Grant. 1966. Lysine and methionine additions to corn-soybean meal diets for growing swine: Effects on rate and efficiency of gain and carcass characteristics. J. Animal Sci. 25:78. .Miller, E. R., D. E. Ullrey, C. L. Zutaut, Betty V. Baltzer, D. A. Schmidt, J. A. Hoefer, and R. W. Luecke. 1962. Calcium requirement of the baby pig. J. Nutr. 77:7. Mulholland, R., E. S. Erwin, and R. S. Gordon. 1960. Protein-energy ratios for barrows and gilts marketed at 145 and 195 pounds. J. Animal Sci. 19:1278 (Abstr.). Noland, P. R., and M. J. Burris. 1956. The effect of oral administration of methyltestosterone on swine growth and development. J. Animal Sci. 15:1014. -70- Ogilvie, M. L., E. C. Faltin, E. R. Hauser, R. W. Bray, and W. G. Hoekstra. 1960. Effects of stilbestrol in altering carcass composition and feedlot performance of beef steers. J. Animal Sci. 19:991. O'Mary, C. C., A. L. Pope, G. D. Wilson, R. W. Bray, and L. E. Casida. 1952. The effects of diethylstilbestrol, testosterone and progester- one on growth and fattening and certain carcass charaderistics of western lambs. J. Animal Sci. 11:656. Pearson,.A. M., G. E. Combs, Jr., H. D. Wallace, R. B. Sleeth, J. W. Stroud, J. M. Shepherd, and M. Keger. 1952. Effects of stilbestrol implants on swine of different sexes. J. Animal Sci. 11:251. Perry, T. W., W. M. Beeson, and F. N. Andrews. 1954. The effect of stil- bestrol and testosterone on growth and carcass quality of swine. J. Animal Sci. 13:995 (Abstr.). Perry, T. W., W. M. Beeson, M. Mohler, F. N..Andrews, and M. Stab. 1956. The effect of various levels of orally administered methyltestosterone on growth and carcass composition of swine. J. Animal Sci. 15:1008. Perk Carcass Evaluation Committee. 1952. Slaughtering, chilling and cutting procedures for pork carcass evaluation. Proc. Reciprocal Meat Conf. 5:119. Preston, R. L., and W. Burroughs. 1958. Stilbestrol responses in lambs fed rations differing in calorie to protein ratios. J. Animal Sci. 17:140. Rahnefeld, G. W. 1965. Breed and sex effects on the relationship between weight and fatness in Lacombe and Y0rkshire swine and their reciprocal crosses. Can. J. Animal Sci. 45:33. Robinson, D. W., J. T. Mergan, and D. Lewis. 1964. Protein and energy nutrition of the bacon pig. III. The effect of reducing the protein content of pig diets at different live weights. J. Agr. Sci. 63:409. Robinson, W. L., L. E. Kunkle, and V. R. Cahill. 1952. The influence of various factors on the yield of pork cuts. J. Animal Sci. 11:752. Salmela, A. B., W. E. Rempel and C. E. Gates. 1963. The reaction of three kinds of single-cross pigs to three levels of feed intake. II. Car- cass characteristics. J. Animal Sci. 22:886. Self, H. L., R. W. Bray, and R. J. Reierson. 1957. Lean cut yield and an evaluation of hams and loins of the U.S.D.A. pork carcass grades. J. Animal Sci. 16:642. -71- Sewell, R. F., E. P. Warren, and C. C. O'Mary. 1957. Effects of orally administered diethylstilbestrol and a fermentation product on growing- finishing swine. J. Animal Sci. 16:20. Seymour, E. W., V. C. Speer, V. W. Hays, D. W. Mangold, and T. C. Hazen. 1964. Effects of dietary protein level and environmental temperature on performance and carcass quality of growing-finishing swine. J. Animal Sci. 23:375. Shroder, J. D., and S. L. Hansard. 1958. Effects of orally administered stilbestrol upon growth and upon calcium and phosphorus metabolism in lambs. J. Animal Sci. 17:343. Sleeth, R. B., A. M. Pearson, H. D. Wallace, D. H. Kropf, and M. Koger. 1953. Effects of injection of testosterone, estradiol and a combin- ation of the two upon growing-fattening swine. J. Animal Sci. 12:322. Steel, R. G. D., and J. H. Torrie. 1960. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. MbGraw—Hill Book Co., New Y0rk. Stevenson, J. W., R. J. Davey, and R. L. Hiner. 1960. Some effects of dietary levels of protein and alfalfa meal and of antibiotic supple- mentation on growth, feed efficiency and carcass characteristics in swine. J. Animal Sci. 19:887. Struempler, A. W., and W. Burroughs. 1959. Stilbestrol feeding and growth hormone stimulation in immature ruminants. J. Animal Sci. 18:427. Taylor, B., D. V. Catron, G. C. Ashton, and W. Burroughs. 1955. Stimula- tion in growing-finishing pigs by orally administered stilbestrol with observations on the development of certain organs. J. Animal Sci. 14:1258 (Abstr. ). Thrasher, D. M., C. K. Vincent, V. B. Scott, and.A. M. Mullins. 1967. Effects of a hormone combination on the feedlot, carcass and repro- ductive performance of pigs. J. Animal Sci. 26:911 (Abstr.). Thrasher, G.'W., T. W. Perry, F. N..Andrews, W. M. Beeson, and M. Stob. 1959. The effect of estrogenic and androgenic compounds upon growth and carcass composition of swine. J. Animal Sci. 18:399. Tribble, L. F., G. L. Amick, J. F. Lasley, and S. E. Zobrisky. 1958. The effects of sex and stilbestrol on growth, feed efficiency and carcass characteristics of swine. J. Animal Sci. 17:1179 (Abstr.). Tribble, L. F., and W. H. Pfander. 1955. Growth, feed efficiency, and carcass desirability of swine as affected by level of protein, chlor- tetracycline (aureomycin) and feed intake. J. Animal Sci. 14:1224 (Abstr.). -7 2.. Turner, H. H., E. Lachmann, and A. A. Hellbaum. 1941. Effects of testos- terone propionate on bone growth and skeletal maturation of normal and castrated male rats. Endocr. 29:425. Ullrey, D. E., E. R. Miller, B. E. Brent, Betty L. Bradley, and J. A. Hoefer. 1967. Swine hematology from birth to maturity. IV. Serum calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, copper, zinc and inorganic phosphorus. J. Animal Sci. 26:1024. Waddell, W. J. 1956. A simple ultraviolet spectrophotometric method for F“? the determination of protein. J. Lab. Clin. Med. 48(2):311. Wagner, G. R., A. J. Clark, V. W. Hays and V. C. Speer. 1963. Effect of E protein-energy relationships on the performance and carcass quality g of growing swine. J. Animal Sci. 22:202. Wagner, G. R., A. J. Clark, V. W. Hays, V. C. Speer, and J. T. McCall. 1961. Effect of energy and protein intake and sex on growth and feed efficiency of pigs. J. Animal Sci. 20:955 (Abstr.). Waldren, D. E. 1964. Influence of energy and protein level in rations for finishing market pigs on performance and carcass characteristics. Can. J. Animal Sci. 44:168. Wallace, H. D., and E. W. Lucas. 1969. Influence of dietary protein level, hormone supplementation and sex on carcass characteristics and pork acceptability. Feedstuffs. 41(1):24. Wallentine, M. V., J. J. Drain, G. H. Wellington, and J. I. Miller. 1961. Some effects on beef carcasses from.feeding stilbestrol. J. Animal Sci. 20:792. Weir, J. B. de V., G. H. Bell and J. W. Chambers. 1949. The strength and elasticity of bone in rats on a rachitogenic diet. J. Bone Joint Surg., 31B:444. White, A., P. Handler, and E. L. Smith. 1964. Principles of Biochemistry. (3rd Ed.). MCGraw-Hill Book Co., New York. Whitehair, C. K., W. D. Gallup, and M. C. Bell. 1953. Effects of stilbestrol on ration digestibility and on calcium, phosphorus and nitogen reten- tion in lambs. J. Animal Sci. 12:331. Whiteker, M. D., H. Brown, C. E. Barnhart, J. D. Kemp, and W. Y. Varney. 1959. Effects of methylandrostenediol, methyltestosterone, and thyroprotein on growth and carcass characteristics of swine. J. Animal Sci. 18:1189. -73- Wilkinson, W. S., A. L. Pope, P. H. Phillips, and L. E. Casida. 1954. The influence of diethylstilbestrol on certain blood and liver con- stituents of lambs. J. Animal Sci. 13:684. Woehling, H. L., G. D. Wilson, R. H. Grummer, R. W. Bray, and L. E. Casida. 1951. Effects of stilbestrol and testosterone pellets implanted into growing-fattening pigs. J. Animal Sci. 10:889. APIENDIX .HopvqooncHopoam RNH .mvHHw a .UovdoppnaHowopm RNH .mpHHua 0.00 0.40 0.00 00.0 00.0 0.00 00.0 0.00 40.0 0.000 4.000 sec: 0.00 0.00 0.04 00.0 00.0 0.00 00.0 0.00 00.0 0.000 0.000 00 0.00 0.00 0.04 00.0 00.0 0.00 00.0 0.00 00.0 0.000 0.000 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00.0 04.4 0.00 00.0 0.00 44.0 0.000 0.00 00 0.00 4.40 0.00 44.4 04.4 0.00 00.0 0.40 00.0 0.000 0.000 00 0.00 0.00 0.04 00.0 00.0 0.00 00.0 0.00 00.0 0.000 0.00 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00.0 00.4 0.00 40.4 0.00 00.0 0.000 0.400 00 4.00 0.40 4.00 00.0 00.0 0.00 00.H 0.00 00.0 0.H00 0.040 0 .40.00 0.00 0.00 00.4 40.4 0.00 00.0 0.00 H>.H 0.000 0.004 H .4 0 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 00.4 00.4 4.00 00.H 0.00 00.0 0.000 0.00 secs 0.00 0.00 0.00 00.4 04.4 0.00 00.0 0.00 00.0 0.000 0.00 H0 4.00 0.00 0.00 00.4 00.0 0.00 00.0 0.00 00.4 0.000 0.00 00 0.40 0.40 4.00 00.4 00.4 4.00 00.4 0.00 00.0 0.000 0.00 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00.4 00.4 0.00 00.0 0.40 00.0 0.000 0.00 00 0.00 4.00 0.04 00.0 00.0 0.00 00.0 0.00 00.0 0.000 0.00 H4 0.00 4.00 4.00 00.4 00.4 0.00 40.0 0.00 00.0 0.000 0.400 0H 0.00 0.40 0.00 00.4 00.4 4.00 H0.H 0.00 s0.H 0.000 0.000 00 0.00 0.00 0.04 00.4 00.0 0.00 00.0 0.40 00.0 0.000 0.40 0 0 you see» 0000 0 noso A.se .000 A.se .000 A.sev A.se0 0000 A000 A040 .0: Aofiv .0: .oz 000 e as: 0 once 4 00. 000: £000 mom: 000000 0000000 no 0060 000\0000 Hosea HoeeasH 000 Hmhofiv 0H Hmhofiu :HA szeoea 400.20 mequ 0000200 024.0004000 .0 0 s 0000 20 0900 .4_NH020004 -75- .HouvaoounHowOMQ RNH .mvHHw n oUOFdQEFIflflQPOHQ RNA” «mu—.HHGN 00.00 00.00 0.04 0.04 0000.0 0000. 0.4 0.0 000: 00.00 40.00 0.00 0.00 0000.0 4000. 0.4 0.0 00 00.40 00.00 0.44 0.44 0000.0 0040. 0.0 0.0 00 00.00 00.00 0.04 0.04 4000.0 0000. 0.0 0.0 00 00.00 00.00 0.00 0.04 4000.0 4040. 0.0 0.0 00 00.00 00.00 0.04 0.04 0000.0 0000. 0.0 0.0 00 00.00 40.00 0.04 0.00 0000.0 0400. 0.0 0.00 00 00.00 00.0 0.00 0.00 0000.0 0000. 0.0 0.0 0 00.00 00.00 0.04 0.04 0000.0 0000. 0.0 0.0 0 0 000 a 00.00 00.00 0.00 0.04 0000.0 0000. 0.0 0.0 0002 00.00 00.00 0.00 0.04 0000.0 0000. 0.0 0.0 00 40.00 00.00 0.04 0.00 4400.0 0000. 0.0 0.00 00 00.00 00.00 0.00 0.04 4000.0 0000. 0.0 0.0 00 00.00 00.00 4.00 0.44 0000.4 0400. 0.0 0.0 00 00.00 00.00 0.00 0.00 0000.0 0000. 0.0 0.0 04 00.00 00.00 0.04 0.04 0000.0 0000. 0.0 0.00 00 04.00 00.00 0.00 0.04 0000.4 0000. 0.0 0.0 00 00.00 00.00 0.04 0.04 0000.0 0000. 0.0 0.4 0 0 000 a .00 0004000 .0e.000\000 00000000 0000000 A.e00 0.000 .00 000 0000 A00-0V .02 00000000 000 0000000 000 000 0 000 0 .00 000000000 00000 000 0000 00a quohu< MGHHQHME whoom 00000002 Acoschcoov szeomm RNH 2o mBAHw nomazoo nz<.nme ‘0 8‘0‘* flaw/No 63 fit .29- :0:2 Lot 7a #505 o o 0 03505 0503 0.. 03mm 0-0-61 000 “‘wa COCOCD IDCDLD H b-aa ‘”53 L0 48.8 45. 43. 42.2 V‘ 6.06 6.90 (D 6.43 6.42 6.49 19 01040: O . O c>0uo 0101 V‘V‘N coo b-CDCO [0.4.4 LDLD OOV‘N ooo CDCDCD .0 68 76 COCO [‘0 4.3 6.3 5.9 5.7 6.8 54.3 50.0 43.4 47.4 6.64 6.01 6.25 5.95 6.59 6.50 80 81 -76- H 7.5 5.2 51.1 45.9 Mean Lot 8b N 00050000 '0; '0303 Q0 :10. 8.0 3.9 5.8 57.4 45. 6 5.75 6.42 (.73me 000. cacti-jaw (DUDOOLO o o o o mmmm 0 C5N 0010mm COCDQDCD 3O 39 (Db-QC“ o O o o HLDCDCD H Hb- cocn 17.0 3. 5. 6.0 5.8 4.7 5.4 45.5 55.9 51.0 51.1 39.0 47.2 50.7 45.4 5.94 5.68 6.21 6.08 6.90 6.50 6.75 6.57 53 55 62 Mean aGilts, 12% protein-treated. b Gilts, 12% protein-controls. DATA ON LOTS 7 &'8, TREATED AND CONTROL GILTS ON 12% PROTEIN (continued) APPENDIX.A. YZG ob 1n (finish) (%) (start) (.) YaGIObulin if) (finish) Obulin azalobfilin (start) (.) - ob (finish) (.) 6 Ag- file :5 B No. Pig 05b- o o 21.7 16. 21. 21. (O OH (DUDCDQOO) H H Lot 7a 11.0 11.5 11.6 12.0 11.3 11.4 t~<0‘$l0r4t~ O O O O O O aaaauauar-co 13 19 V'HO 68 76 16.5 14. 18. 19.7 13.2 13. 11. 80 81 H O) H O) N O) 00 (I) (0 L0 Mean -77- Lot 8b 16.3 22.0 8.5 10.6 7.8 8.0 26.5 9.3 12.1 8.5 6.8 22.1 18.9 16.0 13.3 10.5 12.9 03000: 00 o fi‘COO) CUfi‘H coo mbw 3O 39 53 22.9 10.6 12.4 10.1 18.1 18.9 7.3 10.2 10.8 11.6 7.9 10.1 8.8 8.1 55 62 18.1 20.7 9.8 11.8 6.5 Mean aGilts, 12% protein-treated. b Gilts, 12% protein-controls. .mHouvuooL-Howohm RNH .mpHHon .0000000-0000000 000 .000000 -78- 0.000 00. 4.00 0.44 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0002 0.000 00. 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.400 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 00 0.000 00. 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.040 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 00 0.000 00. 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 00 0.000 00.0 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 00 0.000 00. 0.00 0.04 4.00 0.000 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 00 0.000 00.0 0.00 0.44 4.00 4.000 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 00 0.000 40. 0.00 0.44 0.00 4.000 4.0 0.0 4.00 0.00 0 0.000 00. 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.400 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0 000 0.000 00. 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.000 0.0 4.0 0.00 0.00 0002 0.000 00. 4.00 0.44 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 00 0.000 00.0 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.400 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 00 0.000 00.0 4.00 0.04 0.00 0.000 0.0 4.0 0.00 0.0 00 0.000 00. 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.000 0.0 4.0 4.00 0.00 00 0.000 00. 0.40 0.04 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 04 0.000 00.0 0.40 0.04 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 00 0.000 00. 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.040 4.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 00 0.040 00. 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.000 4.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0 00 000 -.00- 04.00- 000 0 000 0 000.0 0.000 A04000 00 .000 A0 .000 A0 .000 .02 0000 0000000 00 0000 0 0000 .0: 00000000 0000000 0000000- 000000- 000 agenda-IR .00 ”0:00-8:04“ .03-00m Hm 0.00-how Hm 03.8w «0 005.006 .00 5.0-how AcosaHP-SOV ZHHEQME RNH .zo maAHc Acmezoo 924. nae-amm- -m a 0- meo-H 20 S33 .< NHQZHAE< -79- .mHoppcoouqfiowogm RNH .mvafio a .UmwamhvunflmPOHQ RNH .wefifiua m.b m.o wm.¢H am.mm Hm.m¢ $.wwHH N.¢wm cam: m.b b.w mm.¢H mm.o¢ mw.bfl H.H¢HH m.¢ooa mo m.b m.m mm.mH mm.mm wo.©¢ b.HmmH H.0a0H mm m.m 4.0 wb.mfl mm.o¢ oo.ow ¢.NNmH m.meH mm m.w m.m w¢.mH wo.¢m m>.om m.bmoa m.HNOH mm m.m w.o m>.mH mm.o¢ mm.m¢ m.o¢mH m.omoa hm o.m b.w Ho.mH om.mm Ho.wm m.HmOH w.mboa om o.m ©.o om.¢H om.mm oo.mv H.04Hfl «.mmw m H.@ m.o mo.mH od.om No.5m 4.400H v.0mb H w you w.» m.m mH.mH wv.Hm om.mm 4.0mma «.mQOH cam: m.b m.m H¢.mH 4H.om mo.wm m.HmmH H.mwm Hm flew m.b hm.mH mm.Hm mk.mm o.HwOH o.wbHH cm 0.0 0.0 00.2 0.0.00 0.0.00 0.000 0.00: 00 m.m m.m ¢O.©H o¢.om mo.mm m.ooHH m.¢mm we w.m H.o mm.mH mm.mm m>.Hm m.mm¢a m.NNOH H4 0.5 H.© mo.oH vb.wm mo.mm b.mH¢H o.o¢mH ma o.w m.m om.mH om.mm mm.mm H.momH H0mmm ma 0.» m.m mm.¢H mo.wm flv.ww b.mmmfi ¢.mwm m at #04 A.3Hv Am I Hv :fivaLm 90% R ohfipmfioz AN.EU\Jva A.son.wav .oz hmosm whoom IILR & mmmhpm wquQE mam Hmcwm mvwamy mMthac<_sd=\ mmmxdmhmuw mnmccomnz AcmsdeGOOV szeomm RNH zo meAHw Acmezoo 92¢ nmy Pig NO. (%) %) (%) a) Lot 9a (%) 22.6 22.0 24 31 38 HO CDC!) 12.9 10.2 10. 15. HO COCO V‘CD b—LD 14. 16. “DH 00 H 1 #6) coco ODCD P’l‘ 44 47 65 69 78 9.4 9.2 20.6 12.9 10.2 9.2 17.7 16.1 17.0 17.0 19. 19. mono 11.3 11.5 0-04 cot~ Mean -83- 22.0 23.7 17.8 25.5 25.2 9.6 8.9 10.5 Lot 10b 11.2 10.1 (DH .0 99b- 17.3 18.1 20.4 11.1 05!!) (DO) «)0 b-CO 17 43 19.9 15.0 17.4 20. 19. CD mbmm o o o 0 account OHlDNF‘I o o o o a mwmnw 46 58 84 85 Mean a'Gilts, 16% protein-treated. bGilts, 16% protein—-controls. .mHofiaoolfi 39a R44 . 344$ 4. .Umfimmhplufimpokm Rod gamma ~84- 4.454 44. 4.44 4.44 4.44 4.444 4.5 4.4 4.44 4.44 :44: 4.444 44.4 4.54 4.44 4.44 4.444 4.5 4.5 4.44 4.44 44 4.544 44. 5.44 4.44 4.44 4.444 4.5 4.5 4.4 4.44 44 4.544 45. 5.44 4.44 5.44 4.444 4.5 4.5 4.44 5.44 44 4.444 45. 5.44 4.44 4.44 4.444 4.4 4.4 4.44 4.44 44 4.444 44. 4.44 4.44 4.44 4.444 5.5 4.4 5.4 4.4 44 4.444 44.4 4.44 4.44 4.44 4.444 4.5 4.5 4.44 4.44 54 4.444 44.4 4.44 4.44 4.44 5.454 4.5 4.5 4.44 4.44 4 4.444 44. 4.44 4.44 4.54 4.454 4.4 4.4 4.44 4.44 4 44 444 4.444 44.4 4.44 4.44 4.44 4.444 4.5 4.5 4.44 4.44 4442 4.444 44.4 4.44 5.44 4.44 4.444 4.5 4.5 5.44 4.44 45 4.444 45. 5.44 4.44 5.54 4.444 4.5 4.4 4.44 4.44 44 4.454 44.4 4.44 5.44 4.44 4.444 4.5 4.4 5.44 4.44 44 4.444 44. 4.54 4.44 4.44 4.544 4.4 4.4 4.44 4.44 54 4.444 44.4 4.44 4.44 4.44 4.444 4.5 4.4 4.44 4.44 44 4.444 44.4 4.44 4.44 4.54 4.454 4.4 4.4 4.44 4.44 44 4.444 54.4 5.44 4.44 5.44 4.444 4.4 4.5 4.44 4.44 44 4.454 44.4 4.44 4.44 4.44 4.544 4.5 5.5 5.44 4.44 44 44 444 1445 44.54 444 5 44¢. . 444% 3444 A4 .45 44 .45 § .45 A4 .45 .42 4444 444.4444 .40 m: m m m: .43 2444443 3.433 3445.43 3.4.44.3 44A 255“» MO HGGEOSIH awn.”— Am ghwm mm ghmm .60 8.3th “U ghmm Acoxcflwcos ZHHBOME R3“ 20 mafia Aomazoo Qz< Qma4« 00wa o o o o IDV‘ 85 43.2 51.2 45.2 54.2 NUDE) LOOH coo. comb-co 8888 COCDCDID 32 49 52 64 74 6.2 10.3 5.3 46.9 46.3 4.8 6.23 6.48 6.31 6. 9.5 7.3 6.0 46.8 45.5 28 Mean aBarrows, 12% protein-treated. b Barrows, 12% protein-controls. —89- . mHopvnoouqfiopOhm RNH . mkohhdm o. .vopnohpucfiopohm Rmfl .kahhdmo 0.0m 0.0m m.oH m.HH m.m a.m cam: m.om «.om m.HH N.NH m.m m.m as «.ma o.mH m.m N.HH m.m m.m we «.mH N.Hm 4.HH m.~H H.m m.» mm w.mH m.oH H.HH H.mH o o as m.mH m.mm m.HH s.~H o ¢.m mm s.am m.mm w.oa m.m H.s N.m mm m.om o.aH H.0H m.HH o.m w.m ma m.¢m w.mm v.0H @.~H m.m m.» m paw peg H.mH w.om m.m o.mH e.o w.m ago: a.mH o.mm o.m m.~fi ~.s m.HH as o.oa s.m~ a.OH m.oa m.m o.NH ms m.sa m.mH m.OH 4.4H m.o 0 He a.ma H.mH m.m s.ma m.s H.HH om m.mH o.ma m.m s.NH m.o 0 mm H.4H N.©H m.m H.mH o.» m.m em m.mm H.afi o.m ¢.HH o.o ~.m Hm o.HN o.mm m.m o.HH m.m ¢.m Ha «E. 93 ARV ARV ARV Aev any ARV .oz AsmauamV Apgaamv AsmaaHmV Apnapmv Asmaqamv Aagdpmv mam qHHsQOH¢-> :mfisnoamu> unannoac-m amasnoae-myu, unannOHc-ma .cmasnoamnmm AcoscwpcooV szEbmm RNA” 20 mtommzm nomezco Qz< manage ..¢m m.¢¢ m.bH «.mmm m.b o.b m.OH H.HH cams o.o>m mu. o.mm w.mw H.mH m.¢om m.w m.b H.HH m.HH ab o.owm to. m.mm v.¢¢ H.Hm b.m¢m m.b N.m m.m b.0H mt o.mbm ab. H.mm m.mw w.mH «.mmm m.b w.m o.HH 0.0H Ho o.mmm Ho.H m.om m.mw o.bH b.5mm o.m w.» w.m o.mH om o.mom om. m.Hm m.m¢ m.mH ¢.Nmm 0.5 v.5 m.oa o.HH om o.o>m ww. m.mm N.mw o.mH ¢.mmm m.b m.b m.oa N.HH wm o.mom bo.H m.>m m.¢¢ m.mH w.Hmm m.m m.b m.HH b.0H Hm 0.5mm vb. >.mm o.¢¢ m.wH b.mvm m.m a.» o.HH o.mH HH am hm.w¢ c.5mNH o.©HNH ow 0.5 m.© ¢>.mH Hm.o¢ ¢¢.©¢ ¢.meH m.wbw mm w.b m.m N0.¢H om.Hm oo.mm b.5mOH o.mom mm w.w m.o bm.mH mm.wm mm.b¢ b.mmOH w.m©b ma b.o N.© ob.¢H mm.om or.mm H.HHHH m.¢moa m nom 0.4m mm H.wm m.~m m.>¢ Ho.m mm.m m.mm ms.H 0.0m mm.H m.»om 0.0-H 4H n.¢ om.« m.om mm.H 0.5m ma.fi 0.0-m c.4HH om m.mm ¢.Hm s.se mm.m me.m o.mm om.H 0.5m mm.H m.oom o.mm mm m.o~ m.wm s.mm oo.¢ mH.¢ m.Hm sm.H 0.5m sm.fl o.oHN o.m0H mm o.mm w.©m 5.4m mm.m 00.4 H.Hm mm.H 0.45 eo.a o.HHN 0.0m ma «.3 p3 snap caoa a .950 -.ca .sm- -.aa .aw- A.:H- -.qa- swam Ana- Anav .9: Anav .9: .oz yam a as: a smofi x can ya. spOH «mam spasms yamxoam :0 mean eae\cama Hanan HdayaaH mam mum/How .H HmHOU 2H szaomm Rea 2o macaw-m nomgzoo aza.nma.~H o.mm H.m¢ ooom.m ommm. o.m o.m ms us.HH bs.HH o.ae ¢.H¢ NmHo.m mwmm. o.H o.H ms «N.NH mm.¢a m.sm m.sw mmmw.m mmam. o.m o.m so om.¢a >>.HH m.mw o.me omow.m maom. o.o o.m we os.~H mo.mH 0.04 s.a¢ oomm.m meow. o.m o.m ow Ho.mH ss.HH m.me o.dw cum-.4 mesa. o.m o.m mm wo.ma Hm.HH H.0m m.bm ooam.m omam. 0.0 o.m «H n¢oa peg ss.~a mo.HH w.mm «.mm Hmms.m mwwm. m.m m.m cam: ss.aa oo.HH s.ow s.am boa-.m wwwm. o.H o.H mm ow.mH mo.HH w.mm ¢.mm cam-.4 Hamm. o.m 0.4 mm mH.¢H mm.~H m.¢¢ o.m¢ owes.m emmm. o.m o.m mm wm.ma NN.OH w.sm 0.4m ewe-.m swam. o.m o.m pm mo.~a o4.HH s.om m.sm owmo.m Hmem. o.m o.m on mm.~H 5H.ma H.mm m.mw mome.m seem. o.m o.m mm mo.HH mo.mH m.bm o.He meow.v mnem. o.m o.m mm em.ma ww.oa m.mm «.mm ommw.e 05mm. o.m o.m m- aaa peg .uws ooa\:ew .ws coa\:sw Asmacam- Apgapmv -.ewv -.ewv .»3 nag ease Ama-av .oz Asmacam- pm: Apgapmv pm: you x so: a .5: snap-seam mgoom nap spo- mam Hmcohu< wcHthdz ohoom mun-aha: Aemsqay=00v szsomm Roa_zo mzommam acmezoo nz<_nmeu>oa <'¢>b-u3 CDCDLOCO 3 72 73 77 Mean aBarrows, 16% protein-treated. b Barrows, 16% protein-controls. -95- h L .mHoppaoonaHopopm Rod .mkohgdm n .empmmopuc-mpoua ew- .osoagmmm m.sa ¢.ma m.oH w.mH N.» m.¢ cam: m.mH s.om o.~H o.mH H.m H.m es 0.4H m.ufl ~.HH s.mH m.» 0 ms m.wH m.om o.oa H.mH w.o o m» «.5H N.¢H w.m m.~H o.m a.» so s.ma ¢.mH ¢.OH o.mH H.HH m.» we m.mH s.ua ~.HH m.¢fi o.m a.m oe m.ma o.HN 4.HH m.wH m.m m.o mm o.mH m.mfi H.0H o.mH o 0 ea «c- you n o.mH 0.0m N.m m.mH m.m m.m cam: m.ma o.ma m.m o.mH m.» 0 mm m.mH e.~m s.m m.HH a.» m.m we «.ma s.mm ¢.a m.oa m.m m.mH an H.oH o.oa m.oa m.aa 0 pm o.oH a.~m s.oH m.HH m.s c on o.ma m.ma w.m o.mH s.» e.m mm m.mm ~.>H m.m H.mH m.m 0 mm w.ma N.ma H.NH w.~a m.« o we ta yo.- Aev ARV ARV Ae- Aev ARV .oz Aswan-m- Apgapmv Aswan-av Apgapm- Aswan-av Aygapmv mam q-Hsaoao-> cafisnoaw-> a-asnaaunm, caasnOHo-m c-Hsnoammma _=MHsnmmw-ma Awosafiwzoov szBomm &0H 20 mROMMdm AOMBZOU nz< Qme¢mms .0. 0.00 0.00 0.0a 0.000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.000 50. m.Hm 0.00 0.HN 0.H0~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0a ms 0.00m 00. 0.00 0.00 0.Hm 0.000 «.0 0.0 H.HH 0.0H m» 0.000 00. 0.00 0.00 0.0a 0.000 0.0 0.0 0.0a 0.0a 00 0.0km 00. 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0a 00 0.000 00. 0.00 0.00 0.0a 0.000 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0a 00 0.00m as. 0.00 0.00 H.5H 0.000 0.5 0.0 0.0- 0.00 mm 0.500 00. 0.00 0.00 0.0H 0.500 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0a 0- 00a po- a. 0.0mm 00.H 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00m 0.0 0.0 0.0a 0.0a 00.: 0.0mm am. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.0 0.00 N.HH 00 0.500 mm.H p.00 0.00 0.00 0.H0~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.000 N0. «.00 5.00 0.00 0.000 0.» 0.0 0.0a m.HH 00 0.000 H0. «.00 «.00 0.0a 0.0sm H.w 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.000 00.H 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.5-0 5.» 0.0 H.HH 0.0H 00 0.0-m 00.H H.s0 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.0 a.» 0.0- 0.0H mm 0.000 0H.H 0.Hm 0.00 0.5H 0.000 0.0 0.0 0.0- 0.0 mm 0.0-m 00. 0.Hm H.00 0.00 0.000 H.0 0.0 0.0 m.HH 0H .00 00g -.000 A0.20V 000.0 nm._®j 0.0.0 A.ewv A0 .wsv A0 .wa- AR .ws- A0 .ma- .02 0000 «apnoea .0 .000 a 0:00 .0: Aswan-0v Asgaym- Aswan-00 AP-apmv 040 2088:: mo #:oEoH-TH .308...- E 35mm «.3 adhom do show no Eur-om Adena-H9053 szH-omm Rea 2o ESE-$- Aom-H-zoo 92¢. Ema-fian- .fl m.¢HmH o.meH be o.m m.m bo.¢H vb.Hm mo.mm w.w¢NH w.moOH mu o.m w.m oo.mH mH.¢m Hm.Hm m.wmmH «.mmfifi Nb m.m m.o m¢.¢fi ow.mm H¢.mm m.o¢mH c.0mHH be m.w 0.0 mm.mH mm.¢m mb.cm m.mme H.mwm m0 0.» m.m 0N.mH bH.H¢ mm.mv w.mmHH m.>mm 00 N.» m.m mH.¢H ob.om om.mm w.HHm m.amOH mm m.© w.o mH.mH 50.0m mm.Hm m.mwm H.mmw 0H n ¢.o Hw.mH mw.wm om.mm o.w>HH v.mon cam: m.b o.o mm.vH ow.mm wm.om w.©HmH m.meH ow m.m w.m mm.vH w¢.om wm.¢m a.m¢w ¢.me mo m.b o.w NN.©H o¢.wm om.bm H.0NNH m.meH mm o.o H.© om.mH mm.om 0N.mm ¢.O¢HH ¢.N¢m km o.m m.o om.bH ¢¢.mm «H.mm o.¢mmH o.N>NH om m.m m.m om.mH wm.bm ob.wv o.w©OH o.wmoa mm a.m m.m mw.ba mb.Hm om.oo m.mbm H.mmOH mm m.m 0.0 om.ba bb.vm mm.bm m.mmmH m.mmHH ma a