EFFECTS OF 51 memos... mosésfrem a: M MPLAN-rs oN 1N5 GMWTN . ' G?- was; A80 CARCASS GUM” Thu'u {9! the 999"“ of M :5 AMCHHGAN ST ATE COLLEGE 51 Home: Ganoway - 195.39] Joso'p 0-159 ‘ ' ‘ | ..._ --L_- ’44 v _ . _‘ L This is to certify that the thesis entitled Effects of Stilbesterol-Progesterone Implants on the Growth and Carcass Quality of Lambs presented by Joseph Homer Galloway has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Hester of Science degree in Animal Husbandry KQW I Major proféltr pm 0’17} / 915' 3 J . 71'. ir-r I Ty: re- .‘_ 1/ . - ‘6'. EFFE} TS 0F STIIBESTROL-PROGESTERONE HPULNI'S ON THE GROWTH AND CARCASS QUALITY OF LAMBS By Joseph.Homer Galloway M A THESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies offiMichigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Animal Husbandry 1953 IHEsze Laps/53 AC KNOW LEDGMEN’I' The writer wishes to express his appreciation to Professor L. J'. Bratzler, Associate Professor of Animal Husbandy for his guidance and helpml criticism in carrying out this study. He is also grateful to Dr. Joseph Meites, Professor of Physi- ology and Pharmacology for his assistance and enthusiasm and for providing the hormones for this experiment. He is indebted to his wife, Mildred, without whose encourage- ment and understanding this advanced work could not have been made. C23 #5,. \. a {J F“: Ls TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .................................................. Object of Study ....................... ...... .................. Review ochiterature: Historical ............................................... Effects of Estrogen on Laboratory Animals ................ Effects of Estrogen on Poultry ............:.............. Effects of Estrogen on Cattle ............................ Effects of Estrogen on Lambs ............................. Effects of Estrogen on Swine ............................. Effects of Estrogen and Progesterone on Cattle and Sheep.. Methods and Procedures ........................................ Results and Discussion: Feed Consumption and Daily Gain .......................... Dressing Percentage ...................................... Carcass Grade ............................................ Percent of Water in External Fat ......................... Carcass Composition ...................................... Conclusions ................................................... Bibliography eeeeeeeeeeoeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Appendix .....0.0..OOOO0OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O 11 12 14 18 25 25 30 32 45 46 5O Table I. Table II. Table III. Table IV. Table'V. Table‘VI. Table‘VII. Table‘VIII. Table IX. Table X. Table II. Table XII. Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6. INDEX TO TABLES AND FIGURES Formulae Used in Statistical Analysis ............. Effects of Stilbestrol and Progesterone on Growth Rate, Feed Consumption and Efficiency, Carcass Grade, and Dressing Percentage of Lamb ........... .Analysis of Variance of Weekly Feed Consumption .. Analysis of Variance of Daily Rate of Gain ....... Analysis of Variance of Total Gain in Weight ..... Analysis of Variance of Dressing Percent ......... of Percent Cooler Shrink .... Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance of Carcass Grade ............ .Analysis of Variance of.Percent of Moisture in the Fat ............................................. Analysis of'Variance of Percent of Bone .......... Analysis of Variance of Percent of‘Lean .......... Analysis of Variance of Percent of Eat ........... Graph Showing the Differences in Daily Body Weight Gains Made by Control and Hormone-Treated Lambs.. Loin End of 9-rib Racks from Control No. 806171 and TreatedNOo 415 OOOOOOOOOOO0.0.00.00.00.00... {Loin End of 9-rib Racks from.Control No. 420 and TreatedNo. 465 .00.0I..0.00000000000000000000000 Loin End of 9-rib Racks from Control No. 453 and TreatedNo. 426 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOO Loin End of 9-rib Racks from Control.No. 471 and Treated No. 421 .00....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Loin End of 9-rib Racks from.Control No. 433 and TreatedNo. 482 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO II Page 17 2O 21 22 24 27 28 29 51 33 35 23 37 58 39 4O 41 III Page Figure 7. Loin End of 9-rib Racks from Control No. 486 and heated 411 COO...OOOO0.00.00.00.00.00000000000. 42 Figure 8. Loin End of 9-rib Racks from.Control No. 484 and Treated474 .00...O0.0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 43 INTRODUCTION The population of the United States has been constantly increas- ing. Likewise, the number of livestock on farms has been increasing in order-that meat and.milk may be available for this human popula- tion. Despite this steady increase in animal numbers, the amount of arable land has remained static. In order to maintain these increases in livestock numbers, the animal hquandman has had to work hand-in- hand with the agricultural scientist, and has had to adopt new and more efficient methods of management for greater production. The principal role of livestock in the economy is to convert roughages and.grahlinto meet, for meat has always been considered the main food of progressive peoples. A plentiful supply of meat has been deemed necessary for a happy and virile nation. Dr. C. E. Thorns of The Ohio Experiment Station said, "While it is true that meat is an ex- travagantly wasteful food, viewed solely from the economic standpoint, it is also true that the ruling peoples of the earth are meat eaters, and the time is probably far in the future when in this country meat will be banished from.the tables of any but the improvident, even though further advance in its cost should take place.” There are many peoples in the world today who lack an adequate diet and who consider meet a prohibitive luxury. In the future, the United States may be called upon to help feed these peoples, at which time agricultural technology, science and animal husbandry will be taxed severely to supply adequate amounts of meat. -2- With an eye to greater production of meat coupled with economy of gain, agricultural scientists have been investigating the effects of steriod hormones on farm animals. It is the hope of these investi- gators that meat can be produced more economically and in greater. quantities by treatment with hormones and ultimately lower the price of meat to the consumer without financial loss to the farmer. -3- OBJECT OF THE STUDY In an effort to produce more meat per lamb with greater economy, agricultural scientists have been investigating the effects produced by steriod hormones. It has been demonstrated that estrogens produce greater efficiency of gain and greater increases in weight in lambs but cause lowered carcass quality. It has been observed that pregnant animals have more finish than non-pregnant animals, therefore, it was hypothesized that if a physiological environment resembling pregnancy could be produced artificially, treated animals would put on more fat. It was the purpose of this study to see if lambs treated with a combi- nation of estrogen and progesterone, both of which are secreted by pregnant animals in copious quantities, would produce carcasses of equal or higher quality more efficiently than untreated lambs. A. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Historical Before the beginning of the twentieth century very little was known about the physiology of reproduction, however, it was an often observed fact that women, as well as laboratory animals, gained weight as the result of pregnancy. It was assumed, by some scien- tists, that the fetus obtained nutrients from.the body of the mother. Others believed that all the nourishment for the fetus came from the food the mother consumed rather than at the expense of her own tissue. .Murlin (1910) studied the problem critically and observed that nitrogen retention wasa characteristic of the last half of pregnancy. He noted that in both dogs and rabbits, there was a net gain of nitrogen in the mother's body due to preg- nancy. Rowe et al (1930) reported that there was greater retention of nitrogen in pregnant than in non-pregnant women when both are fed an adequate diet. They observed that the nitrogen elimination via the urine during pregnancy was lowered but was still at a level superior to that of maintenance. Hart and Cole (1939) conducted experiments to see if pseudo- pregnant rats would increase in weight during subsequent pseudo- pregnancies. They found that pseudopregnant rats consistently gained at nearly the same rate as rats going thru normal pregnancy. From this they concluded that the fetal membranes did not influence the weight increase and so turned to consideration of the ovary for an explanation. They injected virgin rats with 3 mg. of progesterone daily to see if this would increase the appetite comparable to that of pregnant rats. Contrary to expectations, the appetite was not stimulated and the weight increase of the progesterone treated rats was greater than the controls. Kochakian (1946) reported thatffirnn.and Harrop (1937) found that alpha-estradiol had a relative potency of 700 compared to testosterone propionate with a potency of 25 in testing the ability of the hormones to cause retention of sodium.and water in the body. Kochakian also stated that alpha-estradiol caused retention of nitrogen in the body and caused changes in body weight. He con- .cluded that estrogens have protein—anabolic properties as reflected by the nitrogen retention that proceeds during pregnancy. 9 B. Effectsflgngstrogen on.Laboratory.Animals Spencer et a1 (1931) observed that young rats injected every other day with 40 Rat Units (R. U.) of female sex hormone prepared from pregnancy urine did not grow as rapidly as untreated control rats. Silberberg and Silberberg (1941) noted that estrogen accele- rated the aging of the epiphyseal cartilage, and that progesterone slightly stimulated the proliferation of the epiphyseal and articu- lar cartilage. Thus the two hormones were antagonistic in this respect. Hooker and Pfeiffer (1943) reported that rats injected with 85 micrograms of estrogen twice a week exhibited an immediate cessation of growth, followed by a recovery and then by persistent stunting, when compared to untreated rats. Despite the belief of most physiologists that estrogens inhibit -5- growth, Campbell and Turner (1942) reported that ovariectamized rabbits, injected with 100 I.U. of estrone daily for five weeks and 200 I.U. there after, grew more rapidly than untreated animals. However, it was observed upon dissection that the untreated ovari- ectomized rabbits were much fatter than the treated animals. C. Effects of Estrogen on.Pou1tgy The work of Lawrence and Riddle (1916) has shown that the blood of a laying hen has a much higher content of fat than the blood of a non-layer.~ Estrogen produced by the active ovary was believed to be responsible for this rise in blood lipids. Asmundson et a1 (1937) found that either pregnant mare's serum (150 R;U.), or pregnant mare's serum (150 R;U.) and estrin (500- 1000 R.U.), appeared to produce broader backs and shorter legs in pullets injected for 42 days than in uninjected birds or in birds treated with lower dosages. Lorenz et a1 (1938) observed that fat levels in the blood similar to those of laying hens could be induced in both male and female chickens by the injection of estrogens. High levels of blood lipids were associated with deposition of body fats. In 1943, Lorenz stated, ”The ability of admdnistered estrogens to produce lipemias in birds has been demonstrated, as well as the increased fat content of the liver, lung and muscle tissue of cock birds treated with estradiol benzoate. However the cost was too great to be practical, but with the production of diethylstilbestrol in large amounts it became feasible to use pellets implanted subcu- taneously." Cockerels treated with implants of diethylstilbestrol -7- had greater fat content than untreated birds. Striking differ- ences were noted in the color, composition and amount of abdomi- nal fat. There was also increased muscle fat in the treated birds. Growth was significantly effected by the treatment. Lorenz (1944) reported that subcutaneous implantation of diethylstilbestrol pellets resulted in increased fat deposition and tenderizing of the flesh in turkeys. Dimethyl ether of diethylstilbestrol was found by Thayer et a1 (1944) to be an extremely potent estrogen for fattening when fed to pullets. Significant hmprovements in fat grade and meat quality were obtained when levels ranging from.20.mg. to 100 mg. per pound of feed were fed for a three-week period. Jeep and Thayer (1944) noted that oral administration of estro- gen was not as efficient as pellet implantation, although treated birds receiving 25 to 240 mg. per day were heavier than untreated birds. Fbr fattening chickens, oral administration of various syn- thetic estrogens was found to be decidedly inferior to subcutaneous implantations of diethylstilbestrol pellets by Lorenz (194.5). Thayer et al (1945) found that the hmprovement of market quality in chickens by feeding diethylstilbestrol was small. The dimethyl ether of diethylstilbestrol proved to be more effective and efficient for adding to a fattening ration. The estrogens were more potent when mixed in the feed as an oil solution than when fed in tablet form. Fat was rapidly deposited in the body and.most of the body changes associated with a rapid rate of egg production in the female were produced in both sexes by the estrogen. The optimum estrogen level was 40 to 50 mg. of dianisylhexene per pound of feed for 3 to 4 weeks. Growth rate was unaffected, though body weight of cocks increased when the dosage was not too high. Lorenz (1945) reported that 15 mg. diethylstilbestrol pellets implanted subcutaneously in chickens caused marked increases in the fat content of muscle tissue and in the quality of depot fat. The meat quality of treated birds was noticeably improved, espe- cially in older birds. The growth rate was not greatly effected. Sykes et a1 (1945) observed that when diethylstilbestrol was fed to cockerels at a level of one mg. per day for periods up to 12 weeks, there was definite improvement in the market grade of the birds. This amount of the estrogen was deemed to be the minimum amount from.which detectable improvement might be expected, but was not suggested as the optimal dose. There appeared to be no advantage in extending the feeding period beyond six weeks. The age of the birds when estrogen feeding was started had no bearing on the effects of diethylstilbestrol. Lorenz and Bachman (1947) found that fat deposition may be stimulated by estrogens (dosages of 0.0038 to 0.01 percent of the diet) without developing lipemias. Weight for weight when adminis- tered orally, dienestrol diacetate and dianisylhexene were equally potent lipogeneous agents, even though the latter was a more potent oral estrogen by other criteria. Andrews and Bohren (1947) found that male chicks implanted with a 15 mg. pellet of stilbestrol had more fleshing, higher finish and superior overall market grade than untreated birds. The treatment significantly increased the fat content and reduced the moisture of the edible carcass. -9- Sturkie (1951) noted that estrogen (dienestrol diacetate) administered to chickens either by feeding at the level of 0.04 percent of the diet or by injections of 30 mg. at intervals of two weeks, increased the total plasma proteins more than 60 percent. However, when treated at lower levels (0.02 percent) the plasma proteins were not significantly elevated. D. Effect of Estrogen on Cattle Dinusson et al (1950) reported that 42 mg. of stilbestrol implanted subcutaneously had no effect on carcass grade or dress- ing percentages although treated heifers were slightly more "hooky" than the controls. Treatment, however, did significantly increase growth rate, feed efficiency, and feed consumption in beef heifers. _Andrews et al (1950) reported that yearling Hereford steers implanted subcutaneously with 60 mg., 120 mg., or 180 mg. pellets of stilbestrol, had considerably higher daily rate of gain and sig- nificantly greater feed efficiency than control steers. There were no apparent differences in carcass grade between the groups. Clegg et al (1951) noted that beef animals in the feedlot im- planted with 60 mg. of stilbestrol subcutaneously, made greater increases in body weight and greater gain per day than untreated animals. However, there was no significant difference between treated and untreated grass fed groups. Carcass grade at time of slaughter was poorer in the treated groups. E. Effects of Estrogen on Lambs Andrews et a1 (1949) reported that lambs treated with 12 and 24 mg. pellets of stilbestrol, implanted subcutaneously in the neck, had significantly greater daily gain than control lambs. Treated -10... lambs had greater efficiency of gain although feed consumption was similar for all lots. The dressing percentage and carcass quality were lowered by the stilbestrol treatment. Jordan and Dinusson (1950) investigated suckling lambs and found that 12 mg. of stilbestrol implanted subcutaneously neither increased the gain nor exhibited a dwarfing effect in either sex over a period of 91 to 105 days. .Jordan (1950) Observed that 12 mg. pellets of stilbestrol implanted subcutaneously in either 4-month old or Bémonth old feeder lambs significantly increased the rate of gain. Feed required per hundred pounds of gain was lowered by the treatment although the daily feed consumption was about the same for all groups.) There was a significant difference in carcass grade between the controls and the treated 4-month old lambs. In 8-month old lambs, the treat- ment consistently lowered the carcass grade. Pope et a1 (1951) reported that lambs treated with 15 mg. pellets of diethylstilbestrol per animal or in combination with 60 mg. of progesterone, made more rapid gains and required less feed per pound of gain than untreated controls. The carcass grades were lower and carried less finish than the controls. Wethers of the diethylstilbestrol treated groups had less external finish than the similarly treated ewes. Perry et a1 (1951) noted that the implantation of either 12 or 24 mg. of stilbestrol in the neck, significantly increased the gains of suckling lambs of both sexes on pasture with their dams. However, there were slight differences between the two levels of treatment. The treated lambs of both sexes showed mammary develop- ment during the first 28 days of the trial. -11- ZMeans et a1 (1955) reported that subcutaneous implantations of 12 or 24 mg. pellets of stilbestrol, or 12 mg. injections of dienestrol in an injectable base (Type A) significantly increased the rate of gain and feed efficiency of fattening lambs. However, carcass quality, as expressed by federal grades, was consistently lowered by the treatments. Andrews and Beeson (1955) found that the subcutaneous implan- tation of one 12 mg. pellet of diethylstilbestrol per lamb in the neck, scrotum or beneath the eye was equally effective in improving the rate of gain and feed efficiency. However, injection of 12 mg. of dienestrol per lamb in the neck, using two different injectable bases, did not produce measurable effects over a 70-day period. Lambs that were implanted in the neck were similar in carcass grade to the controls, but all others showed a reduction in carcass quality. F. Effect of Estroggns on Swine Brands (1950) studied barrows that received 500 mg. of iodi- nated casein and 50 mg.-of stilbestrol daily for 153 days. The treated pigs grew faster and utilized their feed more efficiently than control litter-mates. Carcass measurements indicated that the treated barrows had slightly higher dressing percentages, heavier carcasses, and less fat than the control pigs. Dinusson et a1 (1951) noted that stilbestrol implantation of 12 or 24 mg. pellets did not consistently stimulate gains in grow- ing fattening pigs. However, treated pigs gained more efficiently, as untreated pigs required 5.0 to 15.7 percent more feed per hundred pounds of gain. At the levels of stilbestrol used, many gilts had -12- prolapse of the uterus, and both sexes showed teat development and mild nymphemania. Pearson et a1 (1951) reported that 25 mg. of stilbestrol im- planted subcutaneously, followed in one month by another 25 mg. pellet, and in two months by a 50 mg. implantation in boars, gilts and barrows, had no effect on the feed efficiency and no material effect on dressing percentage, carcass grade or tenderness. Stil- bestrol implants did not effect gains in either barrows or gilts but did produce a growth-depression in young boars. Woehling et a1 (1951) observed that a 15 mg. pellet of stil- bestrol implanted in the back of growing-fattening swine had no _ effect on rate of gain, feed efficiency, feed consumption, dressing percentage, length of carcass, or finish. The only characteristic that was increased by etilbestrol implantation was seediness of the belly. G. Effects of Estrogen and Progesterone on Cattle and Sheep Snapp and Bull (1944) observed that bred heifers had better appetites and were less active than open heifers. When kept at the same level of feed consumption there was no significant difference in the rate of gain. However, the carcasses of the bred heifers had noticeably more finish than the Open heifers, indicating that pregnancy shortens the time required to obtain satisfactory market finish. Incidental to inducing lactation in sterile heifers by the use of stilbestrol and progesterone implanted in combination, Meites et a1 (1952) and Reineke et a1 (1952) found that the treated heifers gained between 200 and 500 pounds during the period of treatment. O'Mery et al (1952) observed that in two experiments, involv- ing 400 western lambs, the subcutaneous implantation of 12 mg. pellets of stilbestrol, caused greater rate of gain, greater econo- my of gain, greater moisture content of external fat, lower dress- ing percentages and lower carcass grades but greater profit per lamb due to less feed consumed per pound of gain and shorter time to reach market weight. They also noted that 60 mg. of progesterone implanted subcutaneously did not effect the rate of gain, economy of gain or carcass grade, when compared to control lambs. The com- bination of 12 mg. of stilbestrol and 60 mg. of progesterone im- planted subcutaneously in ewe lambs, produced significant differ- ences in daily gain and feed efficiency when compared to untreated lambs. The combination of hormones significantly lowered the dressing percentage and carcass grade in the treated lambs. -14- METHODS OF PROCEDURE Twenty spring lambs, averaging about five months of age, were taken from the college flock and placed in feedlots. They consisted of 11 Shropshire, 7 Columbia x Shropshires, and 2 Suffolk x Shropshires. The lambs were divided into two groups as equally as possible by weight, sex, type, and breeding. Group I constituted the control lot and re- ceived no implantations. The lambs in Group II received a 25 mg. pellet of diethylstilbestrol and a 250 mg. pellet of progesterone,* implanted subcutaneously in the neck at the beginning of the experi- ment. The lambs of Group II were implanted on December 20, 1951, and both groups were started on experiment on this date. Each lamb was weighed individually at the start of the experiment and every seven days until the end of the experiment. Both groups were fed a ration of cracked corn and alfalfa hay and had free excess to phenothiazine salt mixture and fresh water. Each group was started at the rate of 0.1 pound of corn per lamb, the amount being increased daily until the lambs were on full feed. The corn was fed twice a day and limited to the amount that would be eaten in a reasonable length of time. Hay was fed in the same feeders as the corn and was also fed twice a day. At the second daily feeding any unconsumed hay from the previous feedings was collected and weighed. The net amount of feed consumed was the total amount fed less the unconsumed portion and was recorded daily. Both groups were unshorn and had access to outside exercising lots as well as to sheltered feeding areas. One control lamb died -15- of toxic enteritis during the fourth week. In the sixth week a treated lamb died of pneumonia. In the eighth week another treated lamb died of parasitic infestation and pneumonia, while a control lamb was re- moved for unthriftiness. The results of the feeding trials were cor- rected for the smaller groups and the results of feed consumption and rate of gain are reported on the basis of eight lambs per group. The feeding trial was designed to be terminated when one of the groups averaged one hundred pounds or more. On the eighty-ninth day, the control group was slaughtered in the standard way, the hot weights recorded and the hot dressing percentages computed. The carcasses were chilled for forty-eight hours at 34° F. and again weighed. The cold carcass weights, cold dressing percentages, and percent- ages of cooler shrink were determined for each carcass. On the ninetieth day the treated group was slaughtered and treated in the same manner as the control group. The chilled carcasses of both groups were graded in accordance with U. S. Department of Agriculture standards. After the carcasses had been in the cooler for 48 hours, a nine- rib rack was removed from each carcass by the method described in U.S.D.A. Technical Bulletin 944. A tracing was made of the loin end of each nine-rib rack to show the relationship between the size of the rib-eye and the amount of external fat for‘each group. The total area of the fat and lean were measured by a planimeter and the percent- age of lean of the total area computed. Each rack was weighed to the nearest tenth of a gram, wrapped and frozen for future physical sepa- ration. .A sample of external fat from.each lamb was analyzed for moisture content. The determination of the moisture content of the external fat was made by the following method: The samples were -16- brought to a constant weight in a full vacuum at 75° 0. Two trials were run and the results averaged. In the first trial the fat samples were kept at 75° C. in a full vacuum by a Cenco High'Vacuum.pump for 23% hours. The moisture content was determined by difference. The samples were reheated at the same temperature under full vacuum for an additional 23% hours. The same method was used for the second trial, except that the time was 41 hours and the samples were not reheated. As time permitted, the nine—rib racks were removed from the freezer, thawed, reweighed and the percentage of freezer loss deter- mined. The racks were physically separated into lean, fat, and bone and ligament. From the percentages of lean, fat, and bone and liga- ment of each nine-rib rack, the composition of each corresponding carcass was determined by applying the estimating equations given in U.S.D.A. Technical Bulletin 944. A statistical analysis of the data was made using the formulae shown in Table I. Analyses of variance were calculated between the lots for total gain, carcass grade, percent cooler shrink, carcass composition of percent bone, lean, and fat, dressing percentages, daily rate of gain and feed consumption per lot. A.comparison test was made between the percentage of lean by the planimeter method and the percentages of lean by physical separation. Other data are pre- sented in tabular and chart form. -17- TABLE I FORWLAE USED IN STATISTICAL mil/SIS"! Analysis of'Variance: 8X2 - (§§)2 I Total Sum.of Squares N (SXl)2+ (8x2)2 .000 (SXD)2 - CT : Sum Of Squares n Between Lots F-test: C73 f—qugm (7.2 lg n Testing Between Two Correeponding¥Valuesz if? 21 ! *Snedecor, G.W., Statistical Methods. Collegiate Press, Inc., Ames, Iowa, 4th Ed. 1946. -18- RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Feed Consumption and Daily Gain During the feeding trial, there were two periods of unseasonably hot weather. The lambs of both lots were unshorn and the change in the weather caused both lots to go off feed. It was easier to bring the treated lambs back to full feed after these set backs. However, it was noted during the experiment that the treated lambs had better appetites than the controls. As shown in Table II, the treated lambs consumed 254 pounds of cracked corn and 502 pounds of alfalfa hay as compared to 332 pounds of cracked corn and 626 pounds of alfalfa hay per hundred pounds of gain for the control group. Calculated on a percentage basis, the treated lambs required about 20 percent less feed per 100 pounds of gain than did the control lambs. . There was no significant difference in weekly feed consumption as shown by Table III. Due to the fact that the lambs were not fed individually, it was not possible to analyze statistically the daily feed consumption. Likewise, it was not possible to analyze statisti- cally the average feed consumed per pound of gain as there was a loss for each lot during the weeks of unseasonal weather. means at al (1955) reported that lambs treated with.various levels of stilbestrol and with testosterone required significantly less feed per unit of gain than the controls. DiMary et a1 (1952) stated that all lambs treated with stilbestrol and ewe lambs treated with -19.. stilbestrol and progesterone required significantly less feed per 100 pounds of gain than the control lambs. They also reported that the feed consumption of the lots treated with stilbestrol alone or in com- bination was significantly higher than the control lot. Statistical analysis of the daily rate of gain (Table IV) showed that this difference was significant. This is in agreement with Andrews et al (1949), Jordan (1950), Perry (1951) and O'Mary (1952), all of whom found that stilbestrol alone or in combination produced Ian increase in rate of gain in feeder lambs. The average daily gain of the treated group was 0.42 pounds per lamb, while the control group gained 0.31 pounds per lamb (Figure l). The total gain per lamb for the treated group was significantly higher than that for the control group as shown by Table'V and Appen- dix B. .Comparison of initial and final weights, gain per lamb, average daily gain, feed consumption, and feed consumption per 100 pounds of gain are shown in Table II. Data for weekly feed consumption are shown in Appendix.A, and data for individual rate of gain are shown in.Appendix C. -20- TABLE II Erasure or STILBESTROI.AND PROGESTERONE ON GROWTH RATE, FEED CONSUMPTION AND EFFICIENCY, CARCASS GRADE, AND DRESSING PER- CENTAGE OF LAMBS Control Treated- Nlmber or lambs 0......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 8 8 Average starting weight (lbs.) ..’....... 66 65 Average final weight (lbs.) ............. 94 103 Gain/lamb(1b80) .OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 28 38 Average daily gain/lamb (11:3,) 0.31 0.42 Average Daily Feed Consumption (lbs.): craCked COI‘n .0000...00.900000000000000 1005 1.18 Alfalfa hay 0.0.0....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 1.96 2.12 Total .. 3.01 3.30 Feed per 100 Pounds of Gain (lbs.): CraCked corn .0000...OOIOOOOOCOOOOOOOOO 332 254 Alfalfa hay 000......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 626 502 Average Dressing Percent ................ 48.2 49.5 Number of Carcasses in Each Grade: High prime 0.0.0.0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCO O 2 Average prime.......................... 3 4 Low prime .OOCOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 3 2 HighCh01ce 000......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO l 0 Average Ch01ce .00...OOOOOOOOO'OOCOOOOOO 1 O -21- TABLE III ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE 0F WEEKLY FEED CONSUMPTION** Source D.F. 8.8. 11.3. 1' Total 25 468.56 Between Lots 1 55.69 55.69 1.86 Hithin Lots 24 454.87 18.10 F-value to be significant at the 5 percent level, 4.26 **See Appendix A. Difference between in to be signifi- cant, 5.52 -22- TABLE IV ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF DAILY RATE OF c41n*** Source D.F. 8.8. 11.8. 1“. Total 15 1,254.00 Between Lots 1 400.00 400.00 6.6* Within.Lots 14 854.00 61.00 F—value to be significant at 5 percent level, 4.60 * Significant *“See Apprend ix 0 -fffi- .mnamH powwoaplocouaon new Hoaucoo he come mcwmm onmfioz atop madam ca mmocmammMHv one wsHROSm guano .H easmfim .24... co .500 00 cm no 2. 00 «e mm c. O a _ _ _ q d d 00.0 TABLE V ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF TOTAL GAIN IN WEIGHT*** Source DJ. 3.3. 11.8. F. Total 15 1087.44 Between Lots 1 989.75 989.75 l4l.4** Within Lots 14 97.69 7.0 F-value to be highly significant at 1 percent level, 8.86 ** Highly significant ***See Appendix B Dressinngercentage The average dressing percent for the stilbestrol-progesterone treated lambs was 49.5 and the average dressing percent was 48.2 for the control lambs as shown by Table II. Analysis of variance of the dressing percent between the two groups did not show the difference to be significant as indicated by Table VI. This is not in agreement with onrdan (1950), O'Mary (1952), and.Means (1955) who reported that stilbestrol, alone or in combination, in general reduced the dressing percent in lambs. It was observed that the average cooler shrink for the treated group was higher than that of the control group. An analy- sis of variance of the percent of cooler shrink between the two groups, as shown by Table VII, revealed the difference to be significant. Note Appendix F for a summary of the slaughter weight, hot carcass weight, cold carcass weight, percent cooler shrink and cold dressing percentage of each lamb. Carcass Grade The carcasses of each group were graded by a panel of three experi- ,enced meat graders after 48 hours of chilling at 54° F. Each carcass was graded in accordance to U. S. Department of Agriculture standards to the nearest one-third grade. It was noted that collectively the treated carcasses were of higher quality than the control carcasses. In order to statistically analyze the differences between the two groups the grades were scored in the following manner: Low cull was given the value of one, and each succeeding one—third higher grade was increased by one point up to the value of 15 for high prime. Analysis of vari- ance of carcass scores between the treated and control groups revealed that there was a significant difference, as shown by Table VIII. Jordan (1950), OWMary (1952), and.Means (1955) reported that stilbestrol and a combination of stilbestrol-progesterone lowered the carcass quality and decreased the carcass grade in lambs. Snapp and Bull (1944) found that pregnant heifers had a higher degree of finish than open heifers. Since stilbestrol and progesterone are secreted in large quantities during pregnancy, it seemed possible that a combination of an estrogen and progesterone, in the right proportion, would be more physiological than estrogen alone for inducing optimal body growth and finish. This hypothesis would seem to be partially substantiated by this experrment. -27- TABLE‘VI ANALYSIS or “Rules or DRESSING mm m Source D.F. 3.8. 11.3. F. Total 15 79.75 Between lots 1 4.51 4.51 0.84 Within lots 14 75.24 5.57 F-value to be significant at 5 percent level, 4.60 ***See Appendix D -28- TABLE'VII ANALYSIS or VARIANCE 01“ PERCENT COOLER SHRINK*** Source DJ. 8.3. 11.8. F. Total 15 18.48 Between lots 1 5.76 5.76 6.55* Within lots 14 12.72 .91 F-value to be significant at 5 percent level, 4.60 * Significant ***See.Appendix E -29- TEBLE'VIII ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE or CARCASS GRADE1*** Source D.F. 8.8. 11.3. F. Total 15 16.00 Between lots 1 4.00 4.00 4.7* Within lots 14 12.00 .86 F-value to be significant at 5 percent level, 4.60 l. Carcass grades scored as follows: High prime - 15 High choice = 12 Prime I 14 Choice = 11 Low prime ' 13 Low choice 3 10 * Significant ***See Appendix G -50- Percent of Water in the External Fat Analysis of the data relative to moisture content of the external fat between the treated and control groups indicated that there was no significant difference, as shown by Table II; OIMary et al (1952) reported that lambs treated with stilbestrol had higher water content in the external fat than untreated lambs. .Examination of the data obtained from this experiment showed that the lambs treated with a combination of stilbestrol and progesterone had a slightly lower mean water percentage of external fat than the untreated lambs. -31- TABLE IX ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE 0F PERCENT OF MOISTURE IN THE FAT *** Source D.F. S.S. M.S. F. Total 15 27.92 Between lots 1 .02 0.02 0.01 Within lots 14 27.90 2.0 F-value to be significant at 5 percent level, 4.60 ***See Appendix.H -32- Carcass Composition Percent of Bone and Ligament Analysis of the percentages of bone and ligament of the carcass between the groups reveals that the differences are not significant. The percentages of bone and ligament of the nine-rib racks between the groups also showed no significant differences when analyzed statistically. The estimating equation, I = S.96+0.7sxfwae applied to the data obtained from.the nine-rib racks to give the percentages of bone and ligament in the entire carcasses. See Table I and Appen- dix I for summary of the data. Percent of Lean Analysis of variance of the percentage of lean of the car- casses indicated that the differences between the groups were not statistically significant although they approached significance, as shown by Table XI. The data obtained from the physical separa- tion of the nine-rib racks were treated by the estimating equation, Y a 21.22+0.656I} to give the percentages of lean in the entire carcasses. The controls had a mean of 50.7 percent lean compared to 48.4 percent lean for the treated carcasses. Percent of Fat Analysis of the percentages of fat of the carcasses between the groups showed that the differences were not statistically sig- nificant, as shown by Table XII. The average fat composition of the control carcasses was 50.8 percent while the average amount of fat in the treated carcasses was 54.0 percent. During physical separation of the nine-rib racks there was a loss of from 1 to 2 percent in weight due to evaporation of moisture l. U.S.D.A. Technical Bulletin 944. -34- TABLE XI ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF PERCENT OF LEAN*** Source , D.F. 3.3. 111.3. F. Total 15 118.54 Between lots 1 22.55 22.55 5.25 Within lots 14' 96.21 6.87 F-value to be significant at 5 percent level, 4.60 ***See Appendix J -36- from the lean and a certain amount of fat sticking to the trays. Although this loss was Slight and rather uniform for all speci- mens, a different technique might eliminate this difference. Figure 2 shows a comparison between the loin end of the nine-rib rack of No. 806171, a control lamb, and that of N0. 415, a treated lamb. The control lamb, No. 806171, weighed 46 pounds at the start of the experiment, 66 pounds at the end of the experi- ment, and dressed out at 45.2 percent with a grade of "choice”. The treated lamb of this pair, No. 415, weighed 52 pounds at the beginning, 79 pounds at the end, and dressed out 50.0 percent with a grade of "prime". Figure 5 illustrates the differences between the control lamb, N0. 420, which weighed 55 pounds at the start of the experiment and the treated lamb No. 465, which weighed 58 pounds. The control lamb of this pair weighed 85 pounds at the termination of the feed- ing period, dressed out 47.5 percent and graded low prime, while the stilbestrol-progesterone treated lamb, No. 465, weighed 105.5 pounds, dressed out 49.5 percent and graded prhme. The treated lamb had more finish and quality than the control lamb. Figure 4 shows the differences between control lamb No. 455, and treated lamb No. 426 that weighed 64 pounds and 62 pounds, respectively, at the start of the experiment. The control lamb finished at 98 pounds, with a dressing percent of 44.6, and a carcass grade of high choice. The treated lamb weighed 94 pounds at the end of the experiment, dressed out 52 percent, and graded high prime. Figure 5 illustrates the differences between a control lamb t ...; .mo... 3.4 mH- 0.- 7C 4.-. 4.x; .1 mhsmfim .M Lance France (I c .eeeeeaa 31oz .Hogpcoo ONES: :w chem: .rF c .eeeeene eme.ez .Heneeeo Mme.ez .e enamaa .eeeeene Hme.oz .Heneeeo Hee.ez .m enemas .eeeeene mme.ea .Heneeeo mme.ez .8 enemas .vopwoae HH4.02 .aoapsoo Nm4.oz .n easmfia .eeeeea 15.2 4228 43.2 .e enema and av "r i-F-zb" . ' 3 4 —IS 1‘ _ ~ , __ ‘4. . J '1 "41:1?!- ‘f-__ .2 '. Ta 10' r1; ;. "3" ,,_,r;-::‘ r'li‘i' .44- and a treated lamb, both of which weighed 67 pounds at the start of the experiment. Control lamb No. 471 weighed 99 pounds, and treated lamb No. 421 weighed 104 when the feeding trial was termi- nated. No. 471 dressed out 50.5 percent and graded prime, while No. 421 dressed out 50.0 percent and also graded prime. Figure 6 compares control lamb No. 455 which weighed 69 pounds at the start with treated lamb No. 482 which also weighed 69 pounds. The final weights were as follows: No. 455 weighed 89 pounds and No. 482 weighed 112 pounds. The dressing percent- ages were 52.7 and 47.9, respectively, and the grades were prime and low prime. Figure 7 shows the differences between control lamb No. 486 starting weight 70 pounds, final weight 94.5 pounds, dressing percent 46.7, grade, prime; and treated lamb No. 411, starting weight 70.5 pounds, final weight 101 pounds, dressing percent 49.5; grade, high prime. Figure 8 compares the nine-rib racks from control lamb 484, with a starting weight of 76 pounds, and treated lamb No. 474, with a starting weight of 74 pounds. Control lamb N0. 484 finished at 111.5 pounds, dressed out 47.7 percent and graded low prime. Treated lamb No. 474 finished at 125.0 pounds, dressed out 46.8 percent, and graded low prime. -45- CONCLUSIONS 1. The implantation of a 25 mg. pellet of diethylstilbestrol and a 250 mg. pellet of progesterone subcutaneously in the neck of 5-month old feeder lambs increased the rate of gain 0.11 pound daily over control lambs. The treated lambs averaged 10 pounds heavier than the controls at the end of the experiment. 2. Lambs treated with the hormones required about 20 percent less feed per hundred pounds of gain and had more hearty appetites than the control lambs. 5. Lambs treated with diethylstilbestrol and progesterone produced higher grading carcasses than untreated lambs and the differences were statistically significant at the five percent level. The treated lambs also had higher dressing percentages than the controls, but the differences were not significant. 4. Physical separation into lean, fat and bone and ligament revealed that the implanted lambs had more fat, less lean, and less bone and ligament, expressed as percentages of the carcass, than the control lambs. However, the differences were not statistically significant. -46- BIBLIOGRAPHY Andrews, F. N., W. M. Beeson, and C. Harper. The Effects of Stilbes- trol and Testosterone on the Growth and Fattening of 1949 Lambs. Journal of Animal Science. 8:578. Andrews, F. N., W.jM. Beeson, and F. D. Johnson. The Effects of Hormones on the Growth and Fattening of'Yearling Steers. 1950 Journal of Animal Science. 9: 677 (abs.). Andrews, F. N., and W. M. Beeson. The Effects of Various Methods of Estrogen Administration on the Growth and Fattening 1955 of Wether Lambs. Journal of Animal Science. 12:182. Andrews, F. N., and B. B. Bohren. Influence of Thiouracil and Stil- bestrol on Growth, Fattening, and Feed Efficiency in 1947 Broilers. Poultry Science. 26:447. Asmundson, V} S., C. An Gunn and.A..A. Klose. Some Responses of the Immature Female Fowl to Injections of Mare's Gonado- 1957 tropic Hormone and Eostrin. Poultry Science. 16 (1): 194. Brande, R. Stimulation of Growth Pigs by Iodinated Casein and 1950 Stilbestrol. British Journal of Nutrition. 4:158. Dinusson, W. E., F. N. Andrews, and W. M. Beeson. The Effect of Stil- bestrol, Testosterone, Thyroid Alteration and Spaying 1950 on the Growth and Fattening of Beef Heifers. Journal of Animal Science. 9:521. Dinusson, 3. E., E. W. Kosterman and M. L. Buchanan. Stilbestrol, Effect of Subcutaneous Implantation on Growing-Fatten- 1951 ing Swine. Journal of Animal Science. 10:885. Campbell, I. L., and C. W. Turner. Relation of the Endocrine System to the Regulation of Calcium Metabolism. Missouri 1942 Agricultural Experiment Station Research Bulletin 552. p. 102. Clegg, M; J., H. H. Cole and H. R. Guilbert. Effects of Stilbestrol on Beef Heifers and Steers. Journal of Animal Science. 1951 10:1074. Hankins, 0. G. Estimation of the Compoafiion ofoamb Carcasses and 1947 Cute. U. S. D. A. Technical Bulletin 944. Hart, G» H., and H. H. Cole. Studies on the Causes of Increased Growth.During Pregnancy. Proc. Soc. Expt. Biol. Med. 1959 41:510. Hooker, C. E., and C. A. Pfeiffer. 1945 Jeep, R. G., and R. H. Thayer. 1944 301118.11, R. M. 1950 Jordan, R. H., and W. E. Dinusson. 1950 Effects of Sex Hormones upon Body Growth, Skin, Hair, and Sebaceous Glands in the Rat. Endocrinology. 52:69. Oral Administration of Estrogens in Poultry. Poultry Science. 25:249. The Effect of Stilbestrol on Fattening Lambs. of Animal Science. 9:585. 19.11921 Effect of Stilbestrol on the Growth Rate of Suckling Lambs. Journal of Animal Science. 9:580. ' Kochakian, C. D. 'Vitamins and Hormones Vol. IV. Edited by R. S. Harris 1946 Lawrence, J. V., and O. Riddle. 1916 Lorenz, F. 1945 Lorenz, F. 1944 Lorenz, F. 1945 Lorenz, F. 1945 Lorenz, F. 1947 Lorenz, F. 1938 Means, T. M., F. N. Andrews and W. M. Beeson. 1955 Meites, Jo, E. P. Remake and C. F. Cairy. 1952 and G. H. Bachman. and K. V. Thimann. New York. p. 255. Academic Press, Inc. Studies on the Physiology of Reproduc- tion in Birds. 'VI Sexual Differences in the Fat and Phosphorus Content of the Blood of Fewls. American Journal of Physiology. 41:450. Fattening Cockerels by Stilbestrol Administration. Poultry Science. 22:190. The Influence of Diethylstilbestrol on Fat Deposition in Turkeys. Poultry Science. 25:458. The Fattening Action of Orally Administered Synthetic Eetrogens as Compared with.Diethylstilbestrol Implants. Poultry Science. 24:91. The Influence of Diethylstilbestrol on Fat Deposition andeeat Quality in Chickens. Poultry Science. 24:128. ' Lipemia and Fat Deposition in Response to Oral Administration of Synthetic Estrogens. ,Poultgy Science. 26:419. H., I. L. Chaikoff and C. Entenman. The Endocrine Control of Lipid Metabolism.in the Bird. II. The Effects of Estrin on the Blood Lipids of Immature Domestic Fbwl. Journal of 'Biologicel Chemistry. 126:765. The Effects of Hormones on the Growth and Fattening of'Lambs. Journal of Animal Science. 12:176. Introduction of Lactation in Dairy Cattle by Diethylstilbestrol-Progesterone Implants. Journal of Dairy_Science. 25:504. -43- Murlin, J. R. H8tabolism.of Development. II. Nitrogen Balance During Pregnancy and Menstruation of the Dog. 1910 American Journal of P_ysiology. 27:177. OlMary, C. G., A. L. POpe, G. D. Wilson, R. w. Bray, and L. E. Casida. The Effects of Diethylstilbestrol, Testosterone, and Progesterone on Growth and Fattening, and on 1952 Certain.Carcass Characteristics of western Lambs. Journal of Animal Science. 11:656. Pearson, A. H., H. D. Hallace, G. E. Combs, J. N. Stroud, and h. Roger. The Influence of Stilbestrol on Growth, Efficiency of 1951 Feed Utilization and Carcass Quality of Swine of Dif- ferent Sexes. Journal of Animal Science. 10:1080 Perry, T. E., F. N. Andrews and W. M. Beeson. The Effects of Stilbestrol on Suckling Lambs. 1951 Journal of Animal Science. 10:602. Pope, A. L., C. C. O'Hary, W. E. Batterman, R. H. Bray and L. E. Casida. The Effects of Certain Steriod Hormones on the Growth, 1951 Fattening and Carcass Quality of Heavy Lambs. Journgl of Animal Science. 9:681. Reineke, E. P., J. Meites, C. F3 Cairy and C. F. Huffman. Hormonal Induction of Lactation in Sterile Cows. 1952 Abstracts of 89th Annual.Meeting of American'Veterinary iedical Association, June 25 - 26. p. 90. Rowe, A. H., D. Gallivan, and H. Matthews The Metabolism of Pregnancy. IV. The Nitrogen.Metabolism. 1950 American Journal of Physiology. 95:592. Silberberg, M. and R. Silberberg. Effects of‘Hormones on the Skeleton offiMice, Guinea 1941 Pigs and Rats. Endocrinology. 29:475. Snapp, R. H., and 3. Bull. Effects of Pregnancy on the Quality of Beef. Illinois 1944 Experiment Station Bulletin 508. p. 451. Snedecor, G. W. Statistical.Methods. Collegiate Press, Inc., Ames, 1946 Iowa, 4th Edition. Spencer, J., R. G. Gustavson and F. E. d'Amour. Effect of Estrin Injections on the Growth Curve of 1951 ‘Young Rats. Proc. Soc. for Exp. Biol. and Med. 28:500. Sturkie, P. D. Effects of Estrogen and Thyroxine upon Plasma Proteins 1951 and Blood V01ume in the Fowl. Endocrinology. 49:565. -49- Sykes, J. F., J. A. Davidson, and F. N. Barrett. The Effect of Feeding Diethylstilbestrol to Cockerels. 1945 Poultry Science. 24:542. Thayer, R. H., R. G. Jeep and R..Penquite. Fattening Chickens by Feeding Estrogens. .Poultry 1944 Science. 25:555. Thayer, R. H., R. G. Jeep and R. Penquite. Fattening Chickens by Feeding Estrogens. .Poultry 1945 Science. 24:485. Thorn, G. W. and G. A. Harrop. The ”Sodium Retaining Effect" of the Sex Hormones. 1957 Science. 86:41. Woehling, H. L., G3 D. Wilson, R. H. Grummer, R. W. Bray, and L. E. Casida. Effects of Stilbestrol and Testosterone Pellets 1951 Implanted into Growing-Fattening Pigs. Journal of Animal Science. 10:889. -50- APPENDIX A ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF WEEKIX FEED CONSUMPTION Weeks Control Treated (lbs.) (lbs.) 1 15.6 15.6 2 15.1 14.8 5 18.9 21.5 4 21.0 22.9 5 20.6 22.5 6 19.9 25.0 7 20.9 24.0 8 21.1 27.5 9 25.7 25.6 10 25.0 25.8 11 25.8 50.1 12 24.6 28.2 15 19.7 18.2 if ‘1 20.6 22.9 2 C.T. : (.5..6_5_~_4) = 12,295.28 26 Total S.S. = 12,765.84 - C.T. = 468.56 8.3. Between Lots = 160,276.66 - C.T. - 55.69 15 S.S. Within Lots = 468.56 - 55.69 = 454.87 .-§§A§2- 3 1.86 434.87 24 In; I F-value to be significant at 5 percent level, 4.26 1 Difference between means to be significant at 5 percent level, 5.52 -51- ,APPENDIXCB ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF TOTAL GAIN IN WEIGHT Lamb Control Treated 1 50.0 - 50.5 2 20.0 27.0 3 24.0 37.0 4 52.0 52.0 5 28.5 45.5 6 55.5 49.0 7 24.5 45.0 8 20.0 54.5 if 28.1 57.5 C.T. = (513)2’ = 16,448.06 16 Total S.S. = 17,555.50 - C.T. = 1087.44 S.S. Between Lots = 159,502,50 - C.T. = 989.75 8 3.8. Within Lots = 1087.44. - 989.75 = 97.69 989.75 = l4l.4** 97.69 14 '# u F—value to be highly significant at 1 percent level, 8.86 *fnighly significant -52- .APPENDIXLC ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE 013' DAILY RATE OF cam Lamb Control Treated 1 54 54 2 22 5O 5 58 41 4 56 56 5 52 , 51 6 4O _ 54 7 28 48 8 22 58 I 51.5“* 41.5 C.T. = (584,-0.._0.) 2 = 21,516.00 16 TOtal SOS. = 22,570.00 - C.T. = 1.254000 S.S. Between Lots 3 175,728.00 - C.T. = 400.00 8 3.3. Within Lots 1,254.00 - 400.00 8 854.00_ T = 40..0___ = 6.6* 854 14 F-value to be significant at 5 percent level, 4.60 * Significant ***Calculations coded by' x100 -55- .APEENDIIID ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OFIDRESSING-IEECENT Lamb Control Treated 1 47.5 49.5 2 52.7 50.0 5 44.6 50.0 4 50.5 52.0 5 51.0 49.5 6 47.7 46.8 7 46.6 47.9 8 45.2 48.7 i 48.2 49.5 C.T. = (780.5)2 : 58,054.26 16 Total S.S. = 58,154.01 - C.T. = 79.75 8.3. Between Lots = 504,470.17 - C.T. ' 4.51 8 S.S. Within Lots 3 79.75 - 4.51 l 75.24 F = 4.51 : 0.84 15.2.4 14 F-value to be significant at 5 percent level, 4.60 -54- .APPENDIX E ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE 0F PERCENT COOLER SHRINK 1! Lamb Control Treated 1 1.5 4.0 2 1.0 2.5 3 5.5 4.0 4 4.0 2.1 5 1.0 1.0 6 1.9 1.8 7 5.4 1.9 8 1.7 2.0 I 2.2 2.4 C.T. 8 (37.1)2 = 86005 16 Tatal 3.3. = 104051 " COT. : 18048 3.3. Between Lots 3 754.55 - C.T. = 5.76 8 8.3. Within Lots = 18.48 - 5.76 = 12.72 F 3 M— : 6.55 * 14.22 14 Fkvalue to be significant at 5 percent level, 4.60 * Significant -55- .APPENDIX.F EFFECTS OF STILBESTROL AND PROGESTERONE ON SLAUGHTER WEIGHT HOT OARCASS WEIGHT, 001D OARCAss WEIGHT, PERCENT COOLER SHRINK, AND COLD DRESSING PERCENT _:———— —: .Percent Percent Lamb Slaughter Hot Carcass Cold Carcass Cooler Cold No. Weight Weight Weight Shrink Dressing Control: 1 81.0 59.0 58.5 1.5 47.5 2 84.5 45.0 44.5 1.0 52.7 5 95.0 45.0 41.5 5.5 44.6 4 95.0 50.0 48.0 4.0 50.5 5 102.0 52.5 52.0 1.0 51.0 6 108.0 52.5 51.5 1.9 47.7 7 91.0 44.0 42.5 5.4 46.7 8 65.0 29.0 28.5 1.7 45.2 if 89.7 44.4 45.4 2.2 48.2 Treated: 1 96.0 49.5 47.5 4.0 49.5 2 75.0 58.5 57.5 2.5 50.0 5 97.0 50.5 48.5 4.0 50.0 4 89.5 47.5 46.5 2.1 52.0 5 97.0 48.5 48.0 1.0 49.5 6 117.5 56.0 55.0 1.8 46.8 7 107.5 52.5 51.5 1.9 47.9 8 97.5 48.5 47.5 2.0 48.7 I 97.1 48.9 47.8 2.4 49.5 -56- AITENDIX G ANALYSIS OF‘VARIANCE OF'CARCASS GRADE*** Lamb Control Treated 1 ‘ 13 15 2 l4 l4 3 12 14 4 14 15 5 15 14 5 15 15 7 14 15 8 ll 14 i’ 13 14 C.T. ' (216)2 = 2,916.00 16 Total 3.8. 2 2952.00 - C.T. = 16.00 8.3. Between Lots = W - C.T. = 4.00 8 S.S. Within Lots = 16.00 - 4.00 = 12.00 12.419. 14 F-value to be significant at 5 percent level, 4.60 * Significant ***Carcass Grades scored as follows: High prime = 15 Low prime - 13 Choice . 11 Prime = 14 High choice I 12 Low choice I 10 -57- APPENDIX,H ANALYSIS OF VARIAME 0F PERCENT OF MOISTURE OF THE EAT Lamb Control Treated 1 5.8 5.7 2 5.4 6.9 5 4.5 4.7 4 4.6 5.8 5 5.6 5.2 6 5.1 6.5 7 5.9 4.6 8 9.2 3.9 ii 5.5 5.4 C.T. = (87.2)2 = 475.24 16 503.16 - C.T. I 27.92 Total 8.3. 3802.10 - C.T. = 0.02 8 8.3. Between Lots 3.3. Within Lots 27.92 - 0.02 3 27.90 F = _____.-°2 = 0.01 27.90 14 F-value to be significant at 5 percent level, 4.60 -58- APPENDIX I ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE 0F PERCENT OF BONE Lamb Control Treated 1 17.4 16.8 2 15.7 16.7 5 19.6 17.7 4 16.6 ' 16.1 5 15.6 17.7 6 16.4 17.1 7 15.6 16.5 8 25.7 16.8 i 17.6 16.9 C.T. . (276.00)2 = 4,761.00 16 Total 8.3. = 4,820.16 - C.T. = 59.16 S.S. Between Lots 2 58,101.52 — C.T. = 1.69 8 S.S. Within Lots : 59.16 - 1.69 = 57.47 57.47 14 F-value to be significant at 5 percent level, 4.60 APPENDIXCJ ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE 0F PERCENT OF LEKN Lamb Control Treated 1 55.0 46.9 2 46.0 48.7 5 55.1 45.4 4 47.2 49.6 5 51.7 48.4 6 50.8 50.2 7 47.9 49.5 8 54.1 48.4 i 50.7 48.4 C.T. = (792.7)2 g 59,275.55 16 TOtal 8.8. = 39,391.87 - C.T. = 118.54 8.8. Between Lots = 514,565.25 C.T. - 22.55 8 S.S. Within Lots : 118.54 96.21 F = 22.55 96.21 14 F-value to be significant at 5 percent level, 4.60 -50- .APPENDIX.K ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE 0F PERCENT OF EAT Lamb Control Treated 1 28.5 55.5 2 57.7 55.9 5 25.4 56.6 4 55.9 55.6 5 52.7 55.5 6 52.0 51.7 7 54.5 55.4 8 21.9 55.8 'i' 50.8 54.0 C.T. = (518.2)2 = 16,785.20 16 Total S.S. = 17,071.46 - C.T. = 288.26 8.3. Between Lots 3 154,588.20 — C.T. = 40.55 8 S.S. Within Lots 3 288.26 - 40.55 = 247.95 I = 40033 I 2.27 247.95 14 F-value to be significant at 5 percent level, 4.60 A IES “1111,1111“ 1,111,111 11111131111 "W