UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE 
 
 AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 
 
 BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 
 
 THE RELATIVE EFFICIENCY OF 
 
 SPAYED, OPEN, AND BRED HEIFERS 
 
 IN THE FEED LOT 
 
 G. H. HART, H. R. GUILBERT, and H. H. COLE 
 
 BULLETIN 645 
 
 December, 1940 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 PAGE 
 
 The 1938 feeding trial 4 
 
 The 1939 feeding trial 10 
 
 Discussion 15 
 
 Conclusions 18 
 
 Acknowledgments 19 
 
THE RELATIVE EFFICIENCY OF SPAYED, OPEN, 
 AND BRED HEIFERS IN THE FEED LOT 2 
 
 G. H. HAKT, 3 H. R. GUILBEET, 4 and H. H. COLE 5 
 
 In cattle-feeding operations, opinions have differed on the relative 
 efficiency of spayed, open, and bred heifers. Interest was stimulated by 
 Cole's 8 demonstration of superfecundity and superfertility in rats 
 treated with mare gonadotropic hormone. Success was not attained with 
 adult females so treated, although the average size of their litters was 
 larger than in the normal colony. When young rats 21 to 31 days old 
 were treated and bred, the number of implanted fetuses was extraor- 
 dinary, reaching in one case 28. Among the 288 immature rats used in 
 these experiments, 38 per cent of those sacrificed had more than 20 fe- 
 tuses implanted, while the largest number of living young born was 17. 
 The excessive pregnancy burden placed on these very young female rats 
 was carried with an apparent increase in body growth. 
 
 Cole and Hart 7 studied further the effect of pregnancy and lactation 
 on growth in the rat. According to their data, pregnancy stimulates 
 skeletal and tissue growth in this species beyond that found in nonbred 
 littermate controls. This occurred even during the first pregnancy in 
 females precociously matured by the injection of mare gonadotropic 
 hormone. These enhanced gains continued at a fairly constant rate for 
 the first six pregnancies. Nursing litters of four to six young did not 
 retard the rate of gain over the nonbred controls. 
 
 The increased growth rate of these immature animals during preg- 
 nancy was accompanied by and dependent upon an increased food con- 
 sumption, which was evident by the second day after conception. In 
 continuing similar studies on pseudopregnant rats, Hart and Cole 8 found 
 
 1 Eeceived for publication June 17, 1940. 
 
 2 The investigational work reported herein, being financially supported under a 
 Bankhead- Jones project, became cooperative with the Bureau of Animal Industry, 
 United States Department of Agriculture. 
 
 3 Professor of Animal Husbandry and Animal Husbandman in the Experiment 
 Station. 
 
 4 Associate Professor of Animal Husbandry and Associate Animal Husbandman in 
 the Experiment Station. 
 
 5 Associate Professor of Animal Husbandry and Associate Animal Husbandman in 
 the Experiment Station. 
 
 6 Cole, H. H. Superfecundity in rats treated with mare gonadotropic hormone. Amer. 
 Jour. Physiol. 119:704-12. 1937. 
 
 7 Cole, H. H., and G. H. Hart. The effect of pregnancy and lactation on growth in 
 the rat. Amer. Jour. Physiol. 123:589-97. 1938. 
 
 8 Hart, G. H., and H. H. Cole. Studies on the cause of increased growth during 
 pregnancy. Soc. Exp. Biol, and Med. Proc. 41:310-13. 1939. 
 
 [3] 
 
4 University of California — Experiment Station 
 
 that the gains caused by repeated pseudopregnancies were at nearly the 
 same rate as secured in animals going through normal pregnancy. 
 
 The long-established practice of spaying heifers has been gradually 
 declining. Breeding heifers to prevent the disturbance in feed lots inci- 
 dent to heat periods has become widely practiced. Ostertag 9 at Stuttgart, 
 Germany, reported experiments showing that bulls up to two years of 
 age produced meat more efficiently than castrates of the same breed. 
 
 Gramlich 10 and Gramlich and Thalman 11 reported data on spaying, 
 sex, and age as factors in cattle feeding. They concluded that heifers 
 made the most desirable beef carcasses at 8 to 15 months of age and that 
 if the animals were marketed at these earlier ages there was little oc- 
 casion for spaying. In three direct comparisons with spayed and open 
 heifers, two with yearlings and one with calves, the average daily gain 
 was 2 pounds for the open against 1.8 pounds for the spayed. The food 
 required for 100 pounds of gain was 10 per cent greater for the spayed 
 groups. There was also a difference in the dressing percentages — 59.1 
 per cent for the open against 57.3 per cent for the spayed groups. The 
 conclusion was reached that spaying, while not highly important for 
 the feeder, may still be of some value to the ranchman, in managing 
 his herd, by preventing pregnancy in heifers that are to be sold for 
 slaughter. 
 
 The desire to obtain further data on the questions discussed in the 
 foregoing paragraphs, particularly in relation to feed-lot operations, 
 resulted in the experiments discussed in this paper. Over a period of 
 years, about one fourth to one half of the heifers are required for re- 
 placement, and the remainder are available for slaughter. 
 
 THE 1938 FEEDING TRIAL 
 
 It was planned to carry concurrently in the feed lot, spayed, open, and 
 bred heifer groups. Despite some difficulty in locating open heifers in 
 the fall, when the animals were purchased, 37 head of yearlings were 
 obtained in October, 1938. Most of these originated in northern Arizona 
 as calves; the others were natives. The purchase weight after a 3 per 
 cent shrink averaged 571 pounds per head. At purchase the heifers were 
 on wheat stubble containing little or no grain ; and their food supply 
 
 9 Ostertag, E. von. Veterinary science in relation to public health with special 
 reference to the production and distribution of meat. Keports for the General Meet- 
 ings, 11th Internatl. Vet. Congress, London 2:257-72. 1930. 
 
 10 Gramlich, H. J. The effect of spaying in beef production. Amer. Soc. Anim. 
 Prod. Proc. 1926-27:213-16. 
 
 11 Gramlich, H. J., and E. E. Thalman. Sex and age as factors in cattle feeding. 
 Nebraska Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 252:1-55. 1930. 
 
Bul. 645] Relative Efficiency of Heifers in the Feed Lot 5 
 
 was probably lacking certain dietary essentials, notably vitamin A, pro- 
 tein, and total energy intake. They had been losing weight and were very 
 thin on arrival at the University Farm on October 15, 1938. As a group 
 they received 300 to 400 pounds of chopped barley straw containing 
 30 per cent molasses with alfalfa hay. They did not eat well on arrival 
 and lost additional weight. A tuberculin test was given ; and at the time 
 of reading the test on October 20, they were weighed individually and 
 divided according to weight and grade as follows : 
 
 Lot 1: To be bred; 13 head (5 good, 4 low good, and 4 medium) ; average weight, 
 537 pounds. 
 
 Lot 2: To remain open; 11 head (4 good, 4 low good, and 3 medium); average 
 weight, 540 pounds. 
 
 Lot 3: To be spayed; 13 head (6 good, 3 low good, and 4 medium) average weight, 
 536 pounds. 
 
 At this time they were also numerically branded, with a caustic brand- 
 ing fluid, for identification. One animal was removed because rectal ex- 
 amination showed her to be pregnant. 
 
 The following day, October 21, the cattle were started on the pre- 
 liminary feeding period. The straw was omitted, and they were grad- 
 ually brought on feed by increasing the percentage of concentrates. At 
 the end of the 24-day preliminary period they were averaging 14 pounds 
 daily of a combination containing 60 per cent of alfalfa molasses meal 
 and 40 per cent of concentrate mixture. The alfalfa meal contained 25 
 per cent of molasses ; and the concentrate mixture consisted of 50 per 
 cent of rolled barley, 40 per cent of dried molasses beet pulp and 10 per 
 cent of hot pressed cottonseed meal. The changes in proportion of alfalfa 
 molasses meal and the concentrate mixture during the 118-day experi- 
 mental period are shown in table 3. The first alfalfa available was pre- 
 pared on the University Farm. It was coarsely chopped into about 1-inch 
 lengths and mixed with molasses. On January 25 a new source of this part 
 of the ration became necessary, which consisted of much finer-chopped 
 alfalfa molasses meal, passed through a hammer mill with a ^-in.-mesh 
 screen. 
 
 The lot-3 animals were spayed on October 25. All recovered in normal 
 time and were gaining weight at the end of the preliminary period. 
 
 The animals tentatively placed in lots 1 and 2 were carefully paired 
 with respect to grade and weight in order to breed whichever one of a 
 pair that came into estrum first. This arrangement resulted in getting 
 the required number of animals for lot 1 pregnant in the shortest time. 
 
 Breeding began on November 1, and all animals for lot 1 became preg- 
 
6 University of California — Experiment Station 
 
 nant except no. 24. This heifer did not again manifest heat after the 
 first breeding on November 28 and her nonpregnant condition was not 
 ascertained until time of slaughter. Table 1 gives the weight of the 
 uterus with contents, and the weight and crown-rump length of the fetus 
 of each animal at the varying stages of gestation. 
 
 During the preliminary period four heifers in each lot were trained 
 to be enclosed in individual pens at feeding time. The remainder of the 
 animals in each lot were fed as a group. Individual feeding was planned 
 in order to more accurately record the time of increase in appetite of 
 
 TABLE 1 
 
 Breeding and Pregnancy Data of Lot-1 Animals, 1938 Trial* 
 
 Animal no. 
 
 Date 
 bred 
 
 Date 
 rebred 
 
 Days 
 pregnant 
 
 Weight of 
 
 uterus and 
 
 contents, 
 
 pounds 
 
 Weight of 
 fetus, 
 pounds 
 
 Crown- 
 rump length 
 
 of fetus, 
 centimeters 
 
 5 
 
 Nov. 12 
 Nov. 7 
 Nov. 1 
 Jan. 17 
 Nov. 2 ' 
 Nov. 14 
 Nov. 14 
 Nov. 28 
 
 Nov. 11 
 Nov. 5 
 Dec. 4 
 Nov. 1 
 Nov. 2 
 
 None 
 None 
 None 
 Feb. 4 
 None 
 None 
 Dec. 7 
 None 
 
 None 
 None 
 None 
 None 
 None 
 
 131 
 136 
 142 
 
 47 
 141 
 129 
 106 
 Not 
 pregnant 
 
 132 
 138 
 109 
 142 
 141 
 
 17.3 
 
 17.8 
 
 21.8 
 
 1.3 
 
 20.3 
 
 17.7 
 
 7.2 
 
 0.5 
 
 16.0 
 
 20.2 
 
 8.0 
 
 20.0 
 
 13.9 
 
 2.7 
 3.7 
 4.4 
 
 3.6 
 2.8 
 1.1 
 
 2.7 
 4.2 
 1.0 
 3.4 
 2.1 
 
 28.5 
 
 8 
 
 32.0 
 
 9 
 
 23.0 
 
 10 
 
 2.3 
 
 15 
 
 33.0 
 
 16 
 
 30.0 
 
 18 
 
 21.5 
 
 24 
 
 
 25 
 
 28 
 
 29.0 
 33.5 
 
 32 
 
 21.5 
 
 34 
 
 32.5 
 
 39 
 
 25.5 
 
 
 
 The animals were killed on March 23, 1938. 
 
 pregnant heifers compared with open and spayed, if this occurred. The 
 concentrates and roughage were fed mixed in definite proportions and 
 were the same for each lot. This procedure simplified feeding according 
 to appetite, yet assured the same quality of feed for all animals. 
 
 Individual feeding of cattle has its complications, and this trial proved 
 no exception. In lots 1 and 2 the animals fed individually gained on the 
 average less per day, consumed less food, and required more feed per 
 100 pounds' gain, than the group-fed animals. In lot 3 there was prac- 
 tically no difference. Water was not provided in the individual pens, 
 whereas animals in the group-fed lots frequently drank water during 
 feeding. 
 
 The cattle were weighed on three successive days at the beginning of 
 and on two successive days at the close of the experimental period ; the 
 averages of these weights were used as beginning and final weights. Table 
 
Bul. 645] Relative Efficiency of Heifers in the Feed Lot 
 
 TABLE 2 
 Weights and Gains of Individual Animals, in Pounds; 1938 Trial 
 
 Animal 
 no. 
 
 Beginning 
 weight 
 
 Final 
 weight 
 
 Total 
 gain 
 
 Average 
 daily gain 
 
 Lotl 
 
 25* 
 
 39* 
 
 9 
 
 10 
 
 15 
 
 16 
 
 18 
 
 24 
 
 28 
 
 32 
 
 34 
 
 Average 
 
 577 
 650 
 528 
 593 
 548 
 507 
 673 
 573 
 546 
 517 
 662 
 491 
 589 
 
 573 
 
 733 
 904 
 688 
 775 
 805 
 745 
 953 
 840 
 720 
 680 
 895 
 720 
 835 
 
 791 
 
 156 
 254 
 160 
 182 
 257 
 238 
 280 
 267 
 174 
 163 
 233 
 229 
 246 
 
 218 
 
 1.32 
 2.15 
 1.35 
 1.54 
 2.12 
 2.02 
 2.37 
 2.26 
 1.47 
 1.38 
 1.97 
 1.94 
 2.09 
 
 1.85 
 
 Lot 2 
 
 3* 
 
 563 
 516 
 
 750 
 730 
 
 187 
 214 
 
 1.58 
 
 12* 
 
 1.81 
 
 26* 
 
 569 
 604 
 638 
 672 
 
 725 
 755 
 
 888 
 925 
 
 156 
 151 
 250 
 253 
 
 1.32 
 
 40* 
 
 1.27 
 
 19 
 
 2.11 
 
 20 
 
 2.14 
 
 22 
 
 584 
 
 843 
 
 259 
 
 2.19 
 
 23 
 
 520 
 
 755 
 
 235 
 
 1.99 
 
 29 
 
 542 
 
 725 
 
 183 
 
 1.55 
 
 33 
 
 507 
 
 743 
 
 236 
 
 2.00 
 
 38 
 
 542 
 569 
 
 723 
 
 778 
 
 181 
 209 
 
 1.53 
 
 Average 
 
 1.77 
 
 Lot 3 
 
 11* #•■ 
 
 13* 
 
 511 
 592 
 567 
 627 
 508 
 549 
 551 
 573 
 657 
 506 
 520 
 594 
 453 
 
 554 
 
 715 
 855 
 795 
 815 
 695 
 698 
 868 
 780 
 900 
 653 
 780 
 868 
 625 
 
 773 
 
 204 
 263 
 228 
 188 
 187 
 149 
 317 
 217 
 243 
 147 
 260 
 274 
 172 
 
 219 
 
 1.73 
 2.23 
 
 14* 
 
 1.93 
 
 27* 
 
 1.59 
 
 2 
 
 1.59 
 
 6 
 
 1.26 
 
 7 
 
 2.68 
 
 17 
 
 1.84 
 
 21 
 
 30 
 
 2.06 
 1.24 
 
 35 
 
 2.20 
 
 36 
 
 2.32 
 
 37 
 
 1.46 
 
 Average. 
 
 1.86 
 
 The individually fed animals are marked with an asterisk. 
 
8 
 
 University of California — Experiment Station 
 
 2 gives these weights, with total gain and average daily gain individually 
 of the animals in all the lots. Table 3 shows the average weights for each 
 30 days and the entire 118 days, including average daily gain and ration 
 
 TABLE 3 
 
 Weights, Daily Gains, and Feed Consumption, in Pounds, of All Lots 
 
 in 1938 Trial 
 
 Feeding period 
 
 Average 
 initial 
 weight 
 
 Average 
 
 final 
 weight 
 
 Average 
 daily 
 gain 
 
 Average daily 
 ration 
 
 Alfalfa 
 
 molasses 
 
 meal 
 
 Concen- 
 trates 
 
 Feed per 100 pounds 
 gain 
 
 Alfalfa 
 
 molasses 
 
 meal 
 
 Concen- 
 trates 
 
 Total 
 
 
 
 Lot 1 (13 head) 
 
 
 
 
 573 
 
 654 
 
 2.70 
 
 10.0 
 
 6.7 
 
 322 
 
 248 
 
 654 
 
 704 
 
 1.64 
 
 12.0 
 
 8.0 
 
 734 
 
 490 
 
 704 
 
 743 
 
 1.32 
 
 9.8 
 
 9.8 
 
 742 
 
 742 
 
 743 
 
 792 
 
 1.72 
 
 9.0 
 
 10.0 
 
 531 
 
 587 
 
 573 
 
 792 
 
 1.85 
 
 10.3 
 
 8.6 
 
 556 
 
 467 
 
 568 
 
 799 
 
 1.96 
 
 10.6 
 
 9.0 
 
 542 
 
 456 
 
 587 
 
 775 
 
 1.60 
 
 9.4 
 
 7.9 
 
 607 
 
 507 
 
 First 30 days 
 
 Second 30 days 
 
 Third 30 days 
 
 Last 28 days 
 
 Entire period (118 days). .. 
 
 Group-fed (118 days) 
 
 Individually fed (118 days) 
 
 620 
 1,224 
 1,484 
 1,118 
 1,023 
 
 998 
 1,114 
 
 Lot 2 (11 head) 
 
 First 30 days 
 
 Second 30 days 
 
 Third 30 days 
 
 Last 28 days 
 
 Entire period (118 days).. . 
 
 Group-fed (118 days) 
 
 Individually fed (118 days) 
 
 569 
 
 648 
 
 2.65 
 
 10.0 
 
 6.7 
 
 379 
 
 253 
 
 648 
 
 702 
 
 1.78 
 
 11.6 
 
 7.8 
 
 653 
 
 435 
 
 702 
 
 738 
 
 1.21 
 
 9.7 
 
 9.7 
 
 801 
 
 801 
 
 738 
 
 778 
 
 1.43 
 
 9.1 
 
 10.1 
 
 641 
 
 703 
 
 569 
 
 778 
 
 1.77 
 
 10.0 
 
 8.6 
 
 572 
 
 482 
 
 572 
 
 800 
 
 > 1.93 
 
 10.7 
 
 9.0 
 
 554 
 
 470 
 
 563 
 
 740 
 
 1.49 
 
 9.2 
 
 7.7 
 
 618 
 
 519 
 
 632 
 1,088 
 1,602 
 1,344 
 1,054 
 1,024 
 1,137 
 
 Lot 3 (13 head) 
 
 First 30 days 
 
 Second 30 days 
 
 Third 30 days 
 
 Last 28 days 
 
 Entire period (118 days)... 
 
 Group-fed (118 days) 
 
 Individually fed (118 days) 
 
 554 
 
 633 
 
 2.63 
 
 10.1 
 
 6.7 
 
 385 
 
 257 
 
 633 
 
 692 
 
 1.96 
 
 12 3 
 
 8.1 
 
 627 
 
 418 
 
 692 
 
 727 
 
 1.17 
 
 9.9 
 
 9.9 
 
 •849 
 
 849 
 
 727 
 
 773 
 
 1.62 
 
 9.4 
 
 10.3 
 
 578 
 
 639 
 
 554 
 
 773 
 
 1.86 
 
 10.4 
 
 8.8 
 
 565 
 
 475 
 
 546 
 
 763 
 
 1.84 
 
 10.6 
 
 8.9 
 
 576 
 
 485 
 
 574 
 
 795 
 
 1.87 
 
 10.1 
 
 8.4 
 
 553 
 
 448 
 
 642 
 1,045 
 1,698 
 1,217 
 1,040 
 1,061 
 1,001 
 
 with the feed consumed per 100 pounds' gain. Corresponding data are 
 given for the group-fed and the individually fed animals. 
 
 The animals were sold on March 14, 1939 ; but actual slaughter was 
 delayed until March 23. Table 4 gives the data on individual live weight, 
 the carcass weight, warm and cold, together with the dressing percentage 
 figured on the cold-carcass weight. 
 
Bul. 045] Relative Efficiency of Heifers in the Feed Lot 
 
 TABLE 4 
 
 Slaughter Data, 1938 Trial 
 
 Animal no. 
 
 Final 
 weight, 
 pounds 
 
 Selling 
 weight, 
 pounds 
 
 Warm -carcass 
 weight, 
 pounds 
 
 Cold-carcass 
 weight, 
 pounds 
 
 Dressing 
 
 percentage, 
 
 cold 
 
 Lot 
 
 5 
 
 8 
 
 9 
 
 10 
 
 15 
 
 16 
 
 18 
 
 24 
 
 25 
 
 28 
 
 32 
 
 34 
 
 39 
 
 Average 
 
 733 
 904 
 805 
 745 
 953 
 840 
 720 
 680 
 688 
 895 
 720 
 835 
 775 
 
 791 
 
 703 
 867 
 773 
 715 
 
 691 
 653 
 660 
 859 
 691 
 802 
 744 
 
 760 
 
 436 
 483 
 455 
 418 
 523 
 463 
 401 
 388 
 400 
 508 
 405 
 452 
 460 
 
 421 
 465 
 439 
 404 
 504 
 447 
 388 
 376 
 387 
 486 
 389 
 445 
 443 
 
 430 
 
 53.6 
 56.8 
 56.5 
 55.1 
 55.4 
 56.1 
 57.6 
 58.6 
 56.6 
 56.3 
 55.5 
 59.5 
 
 Lot 2 
 
 3 
 
 750 
 730 
 888 
 925 
 843 
 755 
 725 
 725 
 743 
 723 
 755 
 
 778 
 
 720 
 701 
 
 852 
 888 
 809 
 725 
 696 
 696 
 713 
 694 
 725 
 
 747 
 
 434 
 403 
 502 
 525 
 480 
 406 
 426 
 419 
 412 
 400 
 458 
 
 442 
 
 417 
 388 
 483 
 507 
 464 
 392 
 403 
 403 
 399 
 387 
 442 
 
 426 
 
 57.9 
 
 12 
 
 55.3 
 
 19 
 
 56.7 
 
 20 
 
 22 
 
 23 
 
 57.1 
 57.3 
 54.1 
 
 26 
 
 57.9 
 
 29 
 
 57.9 
 
 33 
 
 56.0 
 
 38 
 
 55.8 
 
 40 
 
 60.9 
 
 
 57 
 
 
 
 Lot 3 
 
 2 
 
 695 
 698 
 868 
 715 
 855 
 795 
 780 
 900 
 815 
 653 
 780 
 868 
 625 
 
 773 
 
 667 
 670 
 883 
 686 
 821 
 763 
 749 
 864 
 782 
 626 
 749 
 833 
 600 
 
 742 
 
 403 
 410 
 463 
 404 
 473 
 450 
 463 
 516 
 479 
 360 
 429 
 474 
 366 
 
 438 
 
 392 
 396 
 445 
 390 
 456 
 432 
 442 
 494 
 465 
 350 
 411 
 454 
 356 
 
 422 
 
 58.8 
 
 6 
 
 59.1 
 
 7 
 
 53.4 
 
 11 
 
 56.8 
 
 13 
 
 55.5 
 
 14 
 
 56.6 
 
 17 
 
 59.0 
 
 21 
 
 57.2 
 
 27 
 
 59.5 
 
 30 
 
 55.9 
 
 35 
 
 54.9 
 
 36 
 
 54.5 
 
 37 
 
 59.3 
 
 Average 
 
 56.9 
 
 
 
10 University of California — Experiment Station 
 
 At the end of the trial the slaughter animals graded somewhat lower 
 than the feeders, as follows : 
 
 Lot 1 : 1 good, 4 low good, and 8 medium. 
 Lot 2 : 2 good, 2 low good, and 7 medium. 
 Lot 3 : 1 good, 5 low good, and 7 medium. 
 
 The carcass grades were comparable with those of the finished animals, 
 although five were removed from the cooler before they had been graded. 
 
 THE 1939 FEEDING TRIAL 
 
 In 1939 the experiment was repeated, using 40 head of yearling heifers 
 from a different source. These animals came from New Mexico as calves 
 and had been on a Madera County range for about one year. The range 
 was dry, and the animals were even thinner than those purchased the 
 previous year, though of considerably better breeding. They arrived at 
 the University Farm on August 12, 1939 ; as a group they were given, 
 between arrival and August 15, 1,790 pounds of alfalfa hay and 160 
 pounds of concentrates. 
 
 As in the first experiment, each of the animals was branded. On Au- 
 gust 13 and 15, when individual weights were taken, the average weight 
 was 482 pounds. On the latter date the heifers were graded and divided 
 into three lots as nearly equal as possible on the basis of both weight and 
 grade, as follows: 
 
 Lot 1: To be bred; 14 animals (4 good, 6 low good, and 4 medium); average 
 weight, 477 pounds. 
 
 Lot 2: To remain open; 13 animals (4 good, 4 low good, and 5 medium) ; average 
 weight, 485 pounds. 
 
 Lot 3: To be spayed; 13 animals (3 good, 6 low good, and 4 medium); average 
 weight, 484 pounds. 
 
 The lot-3 animals were spayed on August 19, and all recovered from 
 the operation in normal time. Ten had a recently formed corpus luteum 
 in one ovary, showing that they were having estrual periods, whereas 
 the ovaries in the other three were inactive. 
 
 It was desired to have the animals in lot 1 as far advanced in preg- 
 nancy as possible at the time of slaughter. Breeding was therefore 
 started at once, no. 1 being bred on August 23. This animal, like no. 24 
 in the 1938 trial, did not become pregnant to this service, never came in 
 heat again, and her nonpregnant condition was ascertained at time of 
 slaughter. Some difficulty was experienced in getting all the animals 
 bred. They had been paired with animals in lot 2 for breeding, as in the 
 previous year, but no exchange of animals was made. It was felt that the 
 early appearance of estrum might be evidence of more thrifty condition 
 
Bul. 645] Relative Efficiency of Heifers in the Feed Lot 
 
 11 
 
 and thus give advantage to lot 1 if transfers were made. At the time of 
 slaughter, 9 animals were pregnant 150 days or more ; 4 varied from 
 75 to 125 days ; and 1 was open (table 5) . The average weight of the uteri 
 and ovaries of the open heifers in lot 2 was 0.57 pound, whereas that of 
 the uteri alone in the spayed heifers in lot 3 was 0.15 pound. 
 
 The same concentrate mixture was fed throughout the trial, made up 
 as follows : rolled barley, 50 per cent ; dried molasses beet pulp, 40 per 
 cent; hot pressed cottonseed meal, 10 per cent. A good quality of baled 
 alfalfa hay produced on the University Farm constituted the sole rough- 
 
 TABLE 5 
 
 Breeding and Pregnancy Data of Lot-1 Animals, 1939 Trial* 
 
 Animal no. 
 
 Date bred 
 
 Date rebred 
 
 Days pregnant 
 
 Weight 
 
 of uterus and 
 
 contents, 
 
 pounds 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 9 
 
 Aug. 23 
 Aug. 23 
 Sept. 17 
 Sept. 17 
 Sept. 5 
 Aug. 25 
 . Aug. 31 
 Sept. 17 
 Aug. 31 
 Aug. 27 
 Sept. 2 
 Sept. 4 
 Sept. 17 
 Sept. 17 
 
 None 
 
 None 
 
 None 
 
 Dec. 1 
 
 None 
 
 None 
 
 None 
 
 Nov. 5 
 
 None 
 
 None 
 
 None 
 
 None 
 
 Oct. 13 
 
 Nov. 12 
 
 Not pregnant 
 175 
 150 
 
 75 
 162 
 173 
 167 
 101 
 167 
 171 
 165 
 163 
 124 
 
 94 
 
 0.5 
 
 26.0 
 25.0 
 
 12 
 
 19 
 
 20 
 
 2.5 
 25.5 
 
 28.5 
 
 21 
 
 26.0 
 
 22 
 
 6.5 
 
 28 
 
 22.0 
 
 29 
 
 30.5 
 
 31 
 
 23.0 
 
 33 
 
 36 
 
 21.5 
 10.0 
 
 37 
 
 4.5 
 
 
 
 * The animals were killed on February 14, 1940. 
 
 age. This change was made because evidence from the previous year 
 indicated that the very fine-chopped roughage might have influenced 
 rumination and appetite. No animals were fed individually, because of 
 difficulties encountered in this procedure the previous year. Throughout 
 the trial, concentrates and roughage were fed separately. The latter was 
 always in excess, the hay mangers being cleaned out at regular intervals 
 to remove coarse stems of alfalfa and foreign material ; and the weigh- 
 back was recorded. The concentrates were increased very gradually, to 
 avoid throwing the animals off feed. It was desired not to have the ani- 
 mals overfinished at the end of the trial, the length of which was fixed 
 by the desire to have gestation well advanced. During the preliminary 
 period the concentrates were gradually raised from 1 to 4 pounds per 
 head daily. Bringing animals to full feed from dry range feed when they 
 are very thin is necessarily slower than when they come from green 
 pastures in reasonably good feeder condition. 
 
12 
 
 University of California — Experiment Station 
 
 TABLE 6 
 Weights and Gains of Individual Animals, in Pounds ; 1939 Trial 
 
 13 
 
 3 
 
 14 
 
 2 
 
 35 
 
 38 
 
 30 
 
 23 
 
 8 
 
 11 
 
 32 
 
 24 
 
 Average 
 
 Lot 1 
 
 19 
 
 578 
 572 
 612 
 553 
 556 
 543 
 528 
 537 
 510 
 537 
 515 
 513 
 508 
 468 
 
 538 
 
 777 
 933 
 973 
 835 
 915 
 865 
 883 
 873 
 832 
 883 
 807 
 825 
 802 
 788 
 
 857 
 
 199 
 361 
 361 
 282 
 359 
 322 
 355 
 336 
 322 
 346 
 292 
 312 
 294 
 320 
 
 319 
 
 1.33 
 
 20 
 
 2.40 
 
 12 
 
 2.40 
 
 28 
 
 1 88 
 
 31 
 
 2.39 
 
 5 
 
 2.15 
 
 9 
 
 2.37 
 
 36 
 
 2.24 
 
 22 
 
 2.15 
 
 33 
 
 2.31 
 
 1 
 
 1.95 
 
 21 
 
 2.08 
 
 29 
 
 1.96 
 
 37 
 
 2.13 
 
 
 2.12 
 
 
 
 Lot 2 
 
 10 
 
 598 
 603 
 565 
 578 
 555 
 573 
 510 
 530 
 525 
 510 
 483 
 512 
 473 
 
 540 
 
 922 
 968 
 882 
 917 
 855 
 832 
 873 
 862 
 828 
 712 
 723 
 817 
 712 
 
 839 
 
 324 
 365 
 317 
 339 
 300 
 259 
 363 
 332 
 303 
 202 
 240 
 305 
 239 
 
 299 
 
 2.16 
 
 18 
 
 2.43 
 
 4 
 
 2.11 
 
 39 
 
 2.26 
 
 27 
 
 2.00 
 
 16 
 
 15 
 
 1.73 
 2.42 
 
 40 
 
 2.21 
 
 25 
 
 2.02 
 
 17 
 
 1.35 
 
 7 
 
 1.60 
 
 26 
 
 2.03 
 
 34 
 
 1.59 
 
 Average 
 
 1.99 
 
 Lot 3 
 
Bul. 645] Relative Efficiency of Heifers in the Feed Lot 
 
 13 
 
 On September 11, 12, and 13, the animals were weighed individually 
 for average weights. The final period started on September 12 and con- 
 tinued for 150 days to February 9, 1940. At the beginning of the final 
 period the animals in lot 1 averaged 538 pounds ; lot 2, 540 pounds ; and 
 lot 3, 531 pounds. The slightly reduced average of the lot-3 animals at 
 
 TABLE 7 
 Weights, Daily Gains, and Feed Consumption, in Pounds, of All Lots 
 
 in 1939 Trial 
 
 Feeding period 
 
 Average 
 initial 
 weight 
 
 Average 
 
 final 
 weight 
 
 Average 
 daily 
 gain 
 
 Average daily- 
 ration 
 
 Alfalfa 
 hay 
 
 Concen- 
 trates 
 
 Feed per 100 pounds, 
 gain 
 
 Alfalfa 
 hay 
 
 Concen- 
 trates 
 
 Total 
 
 Lot 1 (14 head) 
 
 First 30 days 
 
 Second 30 days 
 
 Third 30 days 
 
 Fourth 30 days 
 
 Fifth 30 days 
 
 Entire period (150 days) 
 
 538 
 
 616 
 
 2.60 
 
 13.9 
 
 5.5 
 
 534 
 
 212 
 
 616 
 
 663 
 
 1.60 
 
 13.5 
 
 7.6 
 
 860 
 
 486 
 
 663 
 
 715 
 
 1.73 
 
 12.4 
 
 9.0 
 
 721 
 
 521 
 
 715 
 
 794 
 
 2.63 
 
 10.4 
 
 10.9 
 
 395 
 
 416 
 
 794 
 
 857 
 
 2.09 
 
 6.5 
 
 13.4 
 
 313 
 
 644 
 
 538 
 
 857 
 
 2.12 
 
 11.4 
 
 9.3 
 
 535 
 
 438 
 
 746 
 1,346 
 1,242 
 812 
 957 
 973 
 
 Lot 2 (13 head) 
 
 First 30 days 
 
 Second 30 days 
 
 Third 30 days 
 
 Fourth 30 days 
 
 Fifth 30 days 
 
 Entire period (150 days) 
 
 540 
 
 612 
 
 2.40 
 
 14.3 
 
 5.5 
 
 593 
 
 229 
 
 612 
 
 672 
 
 1.99 
 
 14.2 
 
 7.6 
 
 712 
 
 383 
 
 672 
 
 713 
 
 1.36 
 
 12.2 
 
 9.0 
 
 900 
 
 663 
 
 713 
 
 771 
 
 1.94 
 
 9.8 
 
 10.9 
 
 503 
 
 565 
 
 771 
 
 839 
 
 2.26 
 
 9.3 
 
 13.4 
 
 410 
 
 594 
 
 540 
 
 839 
 
 1.99 
 
 12.0 
 
 9.3 
 
 600 
 
 467 
 
 1,095 
 1,563 
 1,069 
 1,005 
 1,067 
 
 Lot 3 (13 head) 
 
 First 30 days 
 
 Second 30 days 
 
 Third 30 days 
 
 Fourth 30 days 
 
 Fifth 30 days 
 
 Entire period (150 days) 
 
 531 
 
 605 
 
 2.40 
 
 13.8 
 
 5.5 
 
 562 
 
 226 
 
 605 
 
 656 
 
 1.71 
 
 13.1 
 
 7.6 
 
 767 
 
 447 
 
 656 
 
 694 
 
 1.27 
 
 11.9 
 
 9.0 
 
 935 
 
 711 
 
 694 
 
 743 
 
 1.64 
 
 9.6 
 
 10.9 
 
 584 
 
 667 
 
 743 
 
 799 
 
 1.88 
 
 4.3 
 
 13.4 
 
 226 
 
 716 
 
 531 
 
 800 
 
 1.79 
 
 10.5 
 
 9 3 
 
 588 
 
 521 
 
 788 
 1,214 
 1,645 
 1,251 
 
 943 
 1,109 
 
 this time was probably caused by the spaying operation. Table 6 gives 
 the beginning and final weights, with total gain and average daily gain 
 of the animals in all the lots. Table 7 gives the average weights and daily 
 gains for each 30 days and for the entire 150 days of the animals in each 
 lot, including the average daily ration and feed consumed per 100 
 pounds' gain. 
 
 The final period terminated February 9; and the animals were 
 
14 
 
 University of California — Experiment Station 
 
 TABLE 8 
 Slaughter Data, 1939 Trial 
 
 Animal no. 
 
 Final 
 weight, 
 pounds 
 
 Selling 
 weight, 
 pounds 
 
 Warm-carcass 
 weight, 
 pounds 
 
 Cold-carcass 
 weight, 
 pounds 
 
 Dressing 
 
 percentage, 
 
 cold 
 
 Lot 1 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 9 
 
 12 
 
 19 
 
 20 
 
 21 
 
 22 
 
 28 
 
 29 
 
 31 
 
 33 
 
 36 
 
 37 
 
 Average 
 
 4 
 
 7 
 
 10 
 
 15 
 
 16 
 
 17 
 
 18 
 
 25 
 
 26 
 
 27 
 
 34 
 
 39 
 
 40 
 
 Average 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 11 
 
 13 
 
 14 
 
 23 
 
 24 
 
 30 
 
 32 
 
 35 
 
 38 
 
 Average 
 
 807 
 865 
 883 
 973 
 777 
 933 
 825 
 832 
 835 
 802 
 915 
 883 
 873 
 788 
 
 857 
 
 775 
 830 
 848 
 934 
 746 
 896 
 792 
 799 
 802 
 770 
 878 
 848 
 838 
 756 
 
 517 
 520 
 484 
 582 
 459 
 555 
 484 
 502 
 503 
 472 
 534 
 497 
 516 
 470 
 
 507 
 
 500 
 500 
 467 
 565 
 443 
 539 
 468 
 487 
 486 
 455 
 517 
 481 
 500 
 455 
 
 490 
 
 64.53 
 60.21 
 55.09 
 60.48 
 59.38 
 60.17 
 59.09 
 60.97 
 60.62 
 59.09 
 58.85 
 56.74 
 59.66 
 60.14 
 
 59.64 
 
 Lot 2 
 
 723 
 922 
 873 
 832 
 712 
 
 817 
 855 
 712 
 917 
 862 
 
 839 
 
 847 
 694 
 885 
 838 
 799 
 684 
 929 
 795 
 784 
 821 
 684 
 880 
 828 
 
 805 
 
 538 
 446 
 538 
 536 
 492 
 441 
 605 
 515 
 496 
 501 
 430 
 553 
 523 
 
 509 
 
 522 
 432 
 520 
 522 
 477 
 426 
 585 
 500 
 481 
 482 
 416 
 536 
 506 
 
 492 
 
 61.64 
 
 62.24 
 
 58.74 
 
 62.28 
 
 59.72 
 
 62.32 
 
 62.95 
 
 62.90 
 
 61.32 
 
 58 72 
 
 60.86 
 
 60.88 
 
 61.14 
 
 61.21 
 
 Lot 3 
 
 840 
 
 857 
 807 
 765 
 775 
 808 
 788 
 790 
 732 
 795 
 737 
 867 
 832 
 
 823 
 775 
 734 
 744 
 776 
 756 
 758 
 703 
 763 
 708 
 832 
 799 
 
 767 
 
 506 
 499 
 494 
 470 
 468 
 476 
 482 
 457 
 439 
 470 
 441 
 510 
 
 477 
 
 493 
 482 
 479 
 456 
 452 
 462 
 469 
 441 
 425 
 457 
 425 
 493 
 473 
 
 462 
 
 61.13 
 59.55 
 61.82 
 62.09 
 60.75 
 59.56 
 61.99 
 59.20 
 60.47 
 59.87 
 61.19 
 60.19 
 60.22 
 
Bul. 645] Relative Efficiency of Heifers in the Feed Lot 15 
 
 weighed individually on February 8, 9, and 10, to secure the average 
 final weights. The selling weight was taken in the morning before feed- 
 ing, and a 4 per cent shrink allowed. Each group was hauled by truck 
 to a nearby slaughterhouse and killed on successive days — lot 3 on 
 February 12, lot 2 on February 13, and lot 1 on February 14. Table 8 
 gives the final weight and slaughter data of the individual animals. 
 
 At the end of this second trial the slaughter animals were well finished 
 and graded higher than the feeders, as follows : 
 
 Lot 1 : 2 choice, 9 top good, 1 good, and 2 medium. 
 
 Lot 2 : 4 choice, 4 top good, 2 good, 2 low good, and 1 medium. 
 
 Lot 3 : 2 choice, 5 top good, 3 good, and 3 medium. 
 
 The carcass grades, which compared reasonably well with those of the 
 finished animals, were as follows : 
 
 Lot 1 : 4 choice, 4 top good, 3 good, and 3 medium. 
 
 Lot 2 : 4 choice, 2 top good, 2 good, 1 low good, and 4 medium. 
 
 Lot 3 : 2 choice, 5 top good, 3 good, and 3 medium. 
 
 DISCUSSION 
 
 Nonpregnant heifers, no. 24 in the first trial (1938) and no. 1 in the 
 second trial (1939), are included in the averages of their respective 
 groups. If they were removed from the calculations the average daily 
 gain of lot 1 in the first trial would have been 1.88 pounds instead of 
 1.85 pounds and the average weight of the uteri 15.1 pounds instead of 
 14.0 pounds. In the second trial the daily gain with no. 1 omitted would 
 have been 2.14 pounds in place of 2.12 pounds and the weight of the 
 uteri 19.4 pounds instead of 18.0 pounds. It is evident therefore that in- 
 clusion of these two nonpregnant animals does not materially change the 
 results and avoided the doubtful procedure of correcting feed consump- 
 tion on the basis of the average consumption of the lots, had they been 
 removed from the calculation. 
 
 The breeding of the animals in the 1938 trial was not such as to make 
 the most desirable quality of feeders. They were rather fine-boned and 
 light-muscled. They went on feed fairly well, but after the first 60 days 
 the gains were unsatisfactory. According to some unpublished observa- 
 tions, animals as thin as these, especially those coming to the feed lot 
 from dry ranges deficient in certain dietary essentials, must be brought 
 to full feed slowly. During the third 30-day period, when gains were 
 most unsatisfactory, the change from coarse to finely ground alfalfa 
 was made. To judge from observations on the time, frequency, and dura- 
 tion of rumination at this period, the heifers were not ruminating so 
 
16 University of California — Experiment Station 
 
 much as would have been expected in animals on whole alfalfa hay. The 
 marked fineness of the alfalfa meal fed from January 25 to the end of 
 the feeding period probably caused or enhanced this condition. Appe- 
 tite was capricious, and slight increases in feed resulted in lower intake 
 with considerable weigh-back. Thus the feed required per 100 pounds' 
 gain in the third 30-day period was very high, and the individual daily 
 gains were low. 
 
 Parasitic infestation was also manifested at this time. With the change 
 in the chopped alfalfa, some of the animals developed scours. Number 
 18 in lot 1 passed bloody feces for a week beginning January 27, and 
 examination showed the cause to be infestation with coccidiosis. The 
 feces of all the heifers were examined to determine the extent of this 
 condition. Only a few animals were discharging coccidia, and no. 18 
 showed no further symptoms. Half of the animals showed slight infes- 
 tation with the microscopic stomach worm Trichostrongylus. The ex- 
 tent to which these parasites affected gains and feed utilization cannot 
 be determined. Infestation was, however, distributed through all the lots. 
 
 During the fourth 30-day period, feed intake and appearance indi- 
 cated that the animals had attained about as much finish as economy 
 and their quality justified. It was decided, therefore, to close the experi- 
 ment although most of the animals had not attained more than medium 
 slaughter condition. The slaughter data show no significant differences 
 in the dressing percentages of the three lots. 
 
 In the 1939 trial the animals were never off feed, and the concentrate 
 mixture was finally raised to 15 pounds per head daily. They made satis- 
 factory gains, finished well, and produced carcasses of high quality. 
 The lower rate of gain during the third 30-day period was perhaps 
 caused by a rather heavy infestation of warbles that were emerging 
 from the backs of the animals at this time, with accompanying local irri- 
 tation and swelling. The pregnant lot was further advanced in preg- 
 nancy than in the previous year. This condition was desired in order to 
 ascertain whether increased appetite and gains would be manifested by 
 heifers more advanced in pregnancy than those of the 1938 trial. 
 
 The concentrates consumed by all the lots were constant, although 
 more would have been supplied to any group if the feed would have been 
 consumed. Toward the end of the 150 days and at the time of feed in- 
 creases earlier in the trial, 3 hours or more were required for all the con- 
 centrates to be consumed, although the feed was always gone before 
 the next feeding time arrived. To accomplish this result, hay consump- 
 tion varied somewhat. A reduced quantity of fresh hay was placed in 
 the mangers of any group when concentrates were slow in being cleaned 
 
Bul. 645] Relative Efficiency of Heifers in the Feed Lot 37 
 
 up. Excess hay, however, was always present in the mangers of all 
 three groups. 
 
 For the 150-day period, hay consumption was greatest in lot 2, averag- 
 ing 0.6 pound per animal daily over the amount consumed by the ani- 
 mals in lot 1, and 1.4 pounds more than in lot 3. These differences are not 
 significant. The data confirm the findings of the previous year — namely, 
 that pregnancy even in the more advanced stages does not increase ap- 
 petite in cattle. 
 
 Hay, concentrates, and total feed consumption per 100 pounds' gain 
 were lowest in lot 1. Concentrates and total feed per 100 pounds' gain 
 were lower in lot 2 than in lot 3, the latter being definitely the highest, 
 though hay consumption per 100 pounds' gain was slightly higher in lot 
 2 than in lot 3. 
 
 These data on live weights together with the accompanying higher 
 average daily gain in the lot-1 animals, seemed to indicate somewhat bet- 
 ter utilization of feed in the pregnant group. That there was no differ- 
 ence, however, in carcass gain or efficiency of feed utilization is shown 
 in the following paragraph. 
 
 The average weight of the pregnant uteri of lot-1 animals in the first 
 trial was 14 pounds (table 1) and in the second trial 18 pounds (table 5) . 
 This constitutes approximately the difference in the average live weight 
 of the animals at the end of the trials. The carcass weights of the lot-1 
 and lot-2 animals in each trial were about equal. The difference in live 
 weight and apparent gains is therefore due to the weight of the gravid 
 uteri. As the weight of the gravid uteri including the amniotic fluid, 
 even in animals advanced as far as 175 days in pregnancy, is very largely 
 made up of water, the extra weight of the pregnant animals on the same 
 amount of feed is thereby explained. If the live-weight gain is corrected 
 for the uterus and its contents, then the feed required for 100 pounds' 
 gain in lot 1 becomes practically the same as for lots 2 and 3, in both 
 trials. In the second trial the difference in daily gain between lot 2 
 (open) and lot 3 (spayed) approached statistical significance. In the 
 first trial, however, the gains were similar and when both trials are con- 
 sidered there are no statistically significant differences between any 
 of the lots. 
 
 The dressing percentage (calculated as in the first trial from the sell- 
 ing weight and the cold weight as the carcasses were sold from the cooler 
 after hanging 7 to 14 clays) was 59.64 per cent for lot 1, 61.21 per cent 
 for lot 2, and 60.62 per cent for lot 3. 
 
 The pregnant uteri and ovaries of lot 1, including the one open ani- 
 mal, averaged 18.0 pounds against 0.57 pound for those of lot 2 and 0.15 
 
18 University of California — Experiment Station 
 
 pound for the lot-3 animals. This slight difference in dressing percentage 
 of the three groups, compared with the considerable difference in weight 
 of the uteri and ovaries, substantiates similar data of the previous year. 
 Here, then, is evidence that, in well-finished heifers, advanced pregnancy 
 (150 to 175 days) does not reduce the dressing percentage materially. 
 
 Animals advanced in pregnancy show mammary gland development 
 when a cross section is made of the udder. When pregnancy extends 
 beyond the fifth month, a soft place is present over the milk cistern at 
 the base of the teat. Leakage of secretion commonly extends down the 
 carcass for a distance of 6 to 18 inches after 24 hours in the cooler, and 
 this fact is used as a trading argument against the desirability of such 
 carcasses. On open and spayed heifers no mammary development is 
 noticeable on cross section of the udder, which appears to be a solid 
 mass of fat. 
 
 It is interesting that the only open heifer in lot 1 had the highest 
 dressing percentage of the entire 40 animals, being 1.58 per cent higher 
 than its nearest competitor, animal 18 in lot 2 with 62.95 per cent. This 
 heifer was bred early and never came in heat again, though a bull was 
 placed in the corral every afternoon until January 15. On the other 
 hand, a very similar case, no. 24 of the pregnant lot the previous year, 
 showed no such advantage in dressing percentage. 
 
 The activity of unbred heifers in riding each other at estrual periods 
 is particularly noticeable in the early stages of feeding in dry lot, no 
 doubt because of the stimulating action of high food intake. As fattening 
 progresses, this behavior becomes less marked; and toward the end of 
 the feeding period the only evidence of a heifer's being in heat may be 
 her failure, at times, to step up to the feed bunk with the other animals 
 in the pen. 
 
 CONCLUSIONS 
 
 The data from these two feeding trials confirm those from other 
 sources : no advantage accrues from spaying heifers that are going into 
 the feed lot. 
 
 Activity of open heifers in riding each other at estrual periods is not 
 serious. It becomes reduced as finish approaches and is not involved in 
 feed consumed or in cost per hundred pounds of gain. 
 
 Pregnancy in cattle does not cause increased appetite or food con- 
 sumption. Neither does its existence up to the fifth or sixth month 
 seriously affect the dressing percentage in reasonably well-finished 
 heifers. The slight increase in weight of pregnant over open ainmals 
 is due to the increase in weight of the gravid uterus. This consists largely 
 
Bul. 645] Relative Efficiency of Heifers in the Feed Lot 19 
 
 of water, and the change can thus take place without significant differ- 
 ences in food intake. 
 
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 
 
 The writers acknowledge the kind assistance of Dr. Morris Stewart, 
 Division of Entomology and Parasitology, in making the parasite studies 
 of the animals in the 1938 trial; and also that of Mr. Robert Squibb, 
 technical assistant in Animal Husbandry, in carrying on so carefully 
 the feeding operations in both trials. 
 
 13m-2, '41(8721)