THE VALUE OF LIMITED GRAIN - HIGH ROUGHAGE '/ t

RATIONS AND CUD INOCULATION FOR

RAISING DAIRY CALVES

by

George Alfred Miller 1})

Thesis submitted to the Graduate 'acuIty of the

Virginia Polytechnic Institute

in candidacy for the degree ot

MASTER OF SCIENCE

in

DAIRY SCIENCE

APPROVED: APPROVED:

~ulture June, 1956

Blacksburg, Virginia

LlJ :505 V 3.55-Iq~ 1\ ~..f-I c.:(

I.

II.

III.

IV.

v. VI.

VII.

VIII.

IX.

x.

-2-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE SHEET • .. .. • • .. .. . .. .. · .. . .. . . TABLE OF CONTENTS .. • .. • • .. • .. • • •

TABLES ................. .. • • • .. •

.. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . FIGURES • .. ..

INTRODUCTION . . . .. . . .. . .. .. . . . REVIEW OF LITERATURE . .. .. . .. • • .. . THE I~WESTIGATION .. . .. . .. . .. .. . • •

A. Methods or Procedure .. .. • • •

.. ..

· ..

• •

.. . • •

• •

• • B. Results • .. .. . .. .. . .. .. . . . .

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS • . . . .. . . . . .. . SUMr~ARY • • .. .. .. •

CONOLUSIONS • • .. ..

. . . . . . . .. . .. .. ..

.. .. . . .. .. . . . .. . . ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .. • •

BIBLIOGRAPHY .. .. • ..

. . .. . ..

.. .. . .. . • • • • · ..

· . .. . · ..

VITA . .. . .. . .. .. .. . . . . .. .. .. . . . . APPENDIX .. . . . .. . . .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .

Page

1

2

3

.5

6

g

22

22

25

43

4S

51

5)

5; 61

6.3

Table 1.

Table 2.

Table ).

Table 4.

Table

Table 6.

Table 7.

Table S.

-3-

TABLES

Average Total and Daily Weight Gains of Experimental Calves by Groups ••••• • • • • • •

Analysis ot Variance ot the Dirferences in Body Weight Gains

• •

• •

Average Total Daily Increase in Height at Withers of Experi­mental Calves by Groups • • • • • •

Analysis of Variance of the Differences in Increases ot Height at Withers • • • • • • • • •

Average Total and Daily Increase in Chest Circumference of Experimental Calves by Groups

Analysis of Variance ot the Differences in Increase or

• • •

Chest Circumference •• • • • • • •

Average and Daily Increase in Barrel Circumference ot Experimental Calves by Groups • • •

AnalYSis of Variance of the Differences in Increase of Barrel Circumference • • • • • • • •

Table 9. Average Total Feed Consumption. Average Daily T. D. N. Consump­tion and T. D. N. Per Pound Gain

Page

2.5

27

29

30

33

34

37

by Groups •••• • • • • • • • •• )8

Table 10. AnalysiS of Variance of the Dlr£e~ences in Total Digestible Nutrient Intake Per Day •• • • • • 40

Table 11. Analysis of Variance of the Differences in Total Digestible Nutrient Intake Per Pounj ot Gain • • • • • • • • • ~ • • • • • • 42

Table 12.

-4-

Initial Gain, Final Weight,Total Gain, and Daily Gain in Body Weight of Individual Calves Within Groups ••• • • • • • • •

Table 13. Total Increase and Daily Increase in Height at Withers for Individual Calves Within

Page

64

Groups • • • • • • • • • • • • • It 6;

Table 14. Total Gain and Daily Gain in Ohest Circumference ot Individual Calves Within Groups • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Table 15. Total Gain and Daily Gain in Barrel Circumference or Individual Calves Within Groups • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Table 16.

Table 11.

Total Feed Consumption, Total T. D. N. Intake, T. D. N. Intake Per Day and T. D. N. Intake Per Pound Gain tor Individual Calves •• • • • • • •

Summary of Body Weight and Body Measurements tor Individual Calves Within Groups at Monthly Intervals •• • • • • • •

66

61

68

69

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure J.

Figure 4.

-5-

FIGURES

Mean Changes in Body V/eight ot Experimental Groups Compared with Ragsdale Standards ••

Mean Changes in Height at Withers of Exnerimental

• • •

Groups Compared with Ragsdale Standards • • • • • • • •

Mean Changes in Chest Circumference of Experimental Groups

Mean Changes in Barrel Circumference ot Experimental Groups

• • • • • • •

. .. . . • • •

Page

28

32

35

35

-6-

I. INTRODUCTION

Approximately five or six million calves are

raised annually in the United States to replace cows

removed or lost from dairy herds for various reasons.

In certain intensive dairy areas where cheap forages

are not available it may be more economical to buy

replacement stock than to raise them, although the

ma.jority of dairymen in this country :rind it advan­

tageous to raise their OWlI herd replacements. The

farmer is vitally interested in a system ot feeding

which will give acceptable results as tar as growth

and development of the calf are concerned and yet is

economical and simple to follow.

If the introduction of roughage into the calfts

ration at an early date results in early development

of the reticulo-rumen. this would conceivably result

in a substantial saving to the dairyman since it would

be possible to raise the calf with a minimum amount of

high-priced concentrates and liberal quantities ot

fora.ge. It would appear from previous work that high

roughage feeding can be used to an advantage in

raiSing herd replacements. Also, some work indicates

-7-

that it may be possible to encourage the utilization

of forage at an early age by introducing into the calf

rumen microorganisms from mature, healthy animals. On

the other hand, several workers have reported no added

benefits from cud inoculations.

The objectives of this study are (1) to further

evaluate the high roughage system ot raising dairy

calves and (2) to determine the value of cud inocula­

tions under practical calf raising conditions.

.8-

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE I

A revi~~ of the literature revealed that con­

siderable work has been conducted on different feeding

systems in search for satisfactory ways of raising

herd replacements economically.

The early work on nutrition of calves has been

adequately reviewed by Savage and Mccay(43). No

attempt will be made here to review all of the vari­

ous phases of calf nutrition but rather to mention

those studies directly related to the ratio of rough­

age to concentrates in the calf's ration, the use of

cud inoculations in calf raising. and the effect of

feeding during the early life of the calt on sub­

sequent production and reproduction.

Ratio of Roughage to Grain in Rations (orDain Calves

Harshbarger and sal1sbury(16) tested rations con­

taining from 55 to 94% roughage and reported above

normal gains on all rations except the one containing

the highest level ot hay. The ration containing 70~

hay produced the largest rate ot gain and required

the least amount ot total digestible nutrients

(T.D.N.) per pound gain.

-9-

Gardner and Stutt(14) reported no statistically

significant differences in body weight (from birth to

16 weeks of age) when calves were fed on dry teed

mixtures containing roughage levels ot 0, 20, 40, and

60~. All of the calves exceeded the Ragsdale Standard

with those on the 40% roughage ration making the great­

est average gain.

Pounden and Hibbs(37,3g) observed that charac-

teristic types of organisms present in the rumen ot

dairy calves were influenced by the ratio of hay to

grain red. even to the extent that those microorgan­

isms associated with hay ingestion were generally absent

in rumen samples taken from calves on a straight grain (20 21) ration. Hibbs.!S!.!. ' showed that increasing the

amount of grain red in relation to hay progressively

decreased what they have referred to as "Hay Group II"

bacteria. Langemann and Allen(28) stated that micro­

bial changes taking place in a calf's rumen can best

be attributed to changes in the diet.

Conrad and HibbS(?) reported that the utilization

ot cellulose and protein was markedly in£luenced by

the proportion ot grain to hay in the ration and that

cud inoculation apparently increased the digestibility

-10-

of protein when low protein, poor quality hay was fed.

Hibbs at a1. (21) observed in rumen-inoculated calves --that as the amount of grain was increased in proportion

to the amount of hay red, increasingly greater weight

gains, T.D.N. intake, efficiency of feed utilization,

and per cent of protein digested occurred.

Based on a limited number ot observations, Warner

!£ !!.{49} reported that calves on a roughage-calf

starter diet had about 2 1/2 times the stomach capacity

as those ted milk alone or calf starter only. Flatt (11)

~ !!. noted that the reticula-rumen capacity of

calves on dry feed was greater than that of calves on

a milk diet.

According to Willard(51), increased consumption

of hay by calves may be effected by a decrease in grain

allowance or by an increase in hay allowance.

Porter and Kesler(34) indicated that grass silage

can be used as a sole roughage for young calves, but

Bender(3) reported that even older heifers made sub­

normal gains on a winter feeding ration composed of

all the grass silage they would consume with a minimum (46)

ot three pounds of bay daily. Sykes ~ !!_ also

reported a marked subnormal rate of growth when good

-11-

quality wilted alfalfa silage replaced hay as a sole

source of nutrients, and an improved growth rate was

observed when a limited amount of hay was red with the

silage. However, the gains were still below normal­

Sykes!1 !l.(46) did obtain satisfactory growth in

dairy heifers in a limited milk and grain feeding

system when high quality alfalfa hay was the only

forage fed. Animals in all three groups of this

experiment were limited to 400 to 500 pounds ot grain

from birth to eight months of age.

Hawkins and Autrey!1?) reported that grass red at

the rate of one pound per head dally increased T.D.N.

intake but did not affect feed utilization or rate ot

gains in young calves. Murley at !1.(31) noted that

calves which received bay beginning at nine weeks ot

age consumed greater quantities than those receiving

hay from the second week of age. This is not in

agreement with observations made by Musgrave

~ !!.()2) who reported greater consumption of both

alfalfa and prairie bay when it was red from birth

rather than starting at eight weeks of age.

Hibbs ~ !!.(22} reported that calves on high

roughage pellets exceeded Ragsdale Standards by

-12-

approximately 24% and feed consumption was greater

especially at earlier ages than was obtained when

loose hay was fed. Work conducted by Gardner and

Akers'l) indicates higher daily gains when hay 1s

ted in a pelleted form. Calves fed on pelleted hay

cons~~ed more hay and correspondingly less grain than

calves that were ted long (baled), chopped, or ground

hay. The calculated T.D.N. values per pound of grain

were similar tor all groups, however.

Hibbs ~ !1.(lg) found that in a high roughage

system tor raising calves there was no advantage in

feeding a complex calf starter compared to a simple

low protein concentrate mixture. Krauss and Monroe(27)

and Jacobson ~ !!.(25) reported equal performance ot

calves fed a'simple ration when compared with those ted

a complex ration.

The Use of Cud IgocuNation in Calf Ra!_inC

Uzzell at al.(4g) observed that the stomach and --small intestines of calves were devoid of protozoa at

birth and that calves appeared to acquire more species

of protozoa as they advanced in age.

Huhtanen.!! .!!. (24) and Bryant !l!!!. (6) reported

that different type organisms were found in the rumen

-13-

of young calves than in mature animals. Huhtanen

~ !!.(24) stated that nine organisms ,characteristic

of calves' rumens almost never occur in the rumen of

healthy adult cattle on a balanced ration. The adult

types start to occur in the calves as early as two

months of age depending on the ration ted and become

lllore predominant as the animals grow older. Two

types of bacteria occurred in ruminants of all ages.

Bryant ~ !!.(6) reported that by nine weeks or age

the pred01l11nant types of bacteria were chiefly those

found in mature animals. These workers found that

many kinds ot rumen bacteria typical of mature

animals became established in very young calves

raised under relatively isolated conditions, but

that a full compliment of protozoa was not established

until the calves came in direct contact with older

animals. Lengemann and Allen(2g) found that protozoa

became established in two to three month old dairy

calves under routine conditions of feeding and manage­

ment. Furthermore, rumen contents from calves in this

age group had similar phYSical characteristics as

materials from the rumen of more mature animals.

-14-

Pounden and Hibbs(j6,38,39) reported that micro­

organisms became established in the rumen of young

calves earlier by cud inoculation than by natural

means. Conrad et al.(8) stated that cud inoculation --aided in providing microorganisms that digested cellu­

lose somewhat more efficiently than did microorganisms

which became established in uninoculated calves. These

workers also observed that inoculation of calves with

cud material from adult animals stimulated hay con­

sumption at an earlier age than when no inoCulations

were given.

Pounden and Hibbs(35,39) reported that calves

which received cud inoculations had a better physical

appearance than those that were not inoculated. In

one experiment the calves received milk to seven weeks

of age, fairly good qua.lity hay red ad libitum and a

simple grain ration. In the other, the ration was not

stated. These workers(38) further observed this eon­

dition in calves on a diet of milk and alfalfa hay but

this difference was not apparent in groups that

received grain.

With cud inoculated calves fed on a high roughage

system, Hibbs!! !!.(lS.19) found no benetit from

-15-

feeding vitamin B12 supplement, by extending the milk

feeding period beyond seven weeks, or from adding

penicillin or molasses to the ration.

In a study of the effect of aureomycin supplemen­

taotion to calves on a high roughage ration, Hibbs

~ y. (20) found that aureomycin increased growth

rate, withers height, feed intake, and efficiency ot

feed utilization. However, atter termination of

aureomycin feading both gro\ith and efficiency of £eed

utilization declined below the levels of the controls

50 no prolonged benefit resulted. Aureomycin feeding

practically eliminated the establishment of certain

"Hay Group II" bacteria in the rumen. Increasing the

amount of grain fed in relation to hay progressively

decreased "Hay Group II" bacteria. From limited

observations, McGilllard!! !!.(30 ) reported that

calves given rumen inoculations after termination or aureomycin feeding (at 35 days) gained faster than

calves which had been aureomycin fed but were

uninoculated.

Conrad!! !!.(9) measured volatile tatty acid

concentrations and pH of rumen contents of cud inocula­

ted and uninoculated calves red high roughage pellets

-16-

and reported no significant difference in total vola­

tile acids; however, uninoculat~d calves had a lower

level of butyric acid, a higher level of propionic (21)

acid. and a higher rumen pH. Hibbs ~ .!!_ found

that the hay to grain ratio had no effeet on the

ratty acids content of rumen inoculated calves. Rumen

pH increased with advancing age but was maintained at

a lower level in calves fed the larger amounts of

grain. (33) (23)

Pelissier!! !!. and Holter reported that

cud inoculation ot young dairy calves produced no sig-

nificant difference in feed consumption. growth, health.

or appearance. Neither was there any effect on rate ot

increase of hay consumption nor on the total amount

consumed. Holter(2;) further reported that calves on

a high roughage ration made lower gains than control

animals during a 16-week feeding period but gained at

a comparable rate during the latter part of the experi-(.33)

ment. Pelissier stated that periodic rumen

studies revealed no real differences in bacterial

population between the inoculated and uninoculated

calves. Ackerman and F1ke(l) reported that calves

red varying proportions of calf starter and mixed hay

-17-

did not benefit froXt cud inoculations. Rumen samples

taken from inoculated and unin.oculated calves usually

showed similar microorganisms, including protozoa, by

the time the calf was eating appreciable amounts ot hay •

. Effect of F:eeding DqrinBi Ear:1ILife of the Calf on

Subsequent Ptoduction aqd Reproductio~

The ultimata goal in raising dairy calves is to

produce animals_ that will attain optimum production

throughout a long lifetime. "The possibility exists

that the optimum lifetime performance may not be the

result of the maximum rate of attainment of adult body

size - - - ,"(43). McCay!! !!.(29} reported that

rats \~ilose gro\V'th was severly retarded in early 11fe,

by caloric restrictions only, had a longer life span

than those which grew rapidly under ad libitum feeding.

On the other hand, Sherman!! !!.(44) reported that

high levels of feeding ot laboratory animals favorably

affected length ot life and vitality of the offspring

even when the rate of growth w'as not materially

affected. Waters(50), as cited by Savage and McCay,

found that a constancy in body weights of calves may

mean that the skeleton continues to grow while other

parts, such as muscle, may decline. By permitting

-18-

periods of alternate growth and retardation, Waters

observed a tendency tor the body to compensate by

growing more rapidly after periods of retardation.

In 1942, Savage and MeCay(43) stated) ffThe great­

est need today is for establishing the interrelation­

ships between the diet of the calf, the rate of growth,

the diet ot the cow and lifetime performance." The

need still exists today for this type of information;

however, some work along this line has been done and

considerable research is in progress in this country

and abroad.

Davis and Willett(lO) found no relationship

between the rate of growth or calves up to two years

or age and the amount or milk produced in the first

lactation or the lifetime production ot the animals.

Turner(47} found, in a study of 2700 Guernsey

records, that when age was held constant there was

an increase of 20 pounds of butterfat for every 100

pounds increase in body weight. Gaines(l2) stated

that higher production of larger cows does not indi­

cate that they are more efficient producers than

smaller ones and that the theoretical coe£fieient

-19-

of err1ciencyot production decreases 'with increasing

weight.

Swanson(45) using identical twins found that heavy

feeding throughout the period of growth prevented the

normal development of milking ability in the animals.

The udders of the heavily-fed twins had less secretory

tissue and contained considerable amounts of fatty

tissue. (41) Using three levels ot feeding, Reid found

that heifers on a low plane of nutrition (6;%

MOrrison's Standards) had a slightly higher mean

production of milk and fat in both first and second

lactations than did heifers that were fed 100 and

140% of Morrison's Standards. No marked effects on

reproductive performance were observed. Heifers on

the low level of nutrition appeared to conceive with

greater ease than those on the high plane ot nutri­

tion. Estrus was first observed in the low level

heifers at 15 months of age; in the normal fed group

at 11 months of age; and in the high level group at

nine months of age.

New Zealand workers(2) reported that 170 records

made by heifers on a high plane of nutrition froll

-20-

birth averaged 346 pounds of butterfat as compared

with 339 pounds tor animals that were on a low plane

ot nutrition from birth until first calving and then

changed to a high nutritional level. Heiters on a

high plane or nutrition until calving and then

placed in a low level of feeding averaged )13 pounds

ot butterfat while those on a low plane ot nutrition

throughout 11te averaged )00 pounds of butterfat.

The above results were obtained on a forage diet

alone.

Joubert(26) reported no statistically significant

ditterences in the subsequent production of twin

heifers raised on a low or high plane ot nutrition.

Heiters on the low plane ot nutrition started oft at

a lower level or production but maintained a much

greater persistency. Delayed puberty was observed

in the animals on the low nutritional plane.

Richter(42) as cited by Reid, attri~uted delayed

heat in heifers to lack of feed.

Bonnier and Hanson(4) have done extensive work

on the effect of level ot feeding on growth and sub­

sequent production using monozygotic twins as experi­

mental animals. They reported that at 27 M9nths of

-21-

age animals which had been raised on a "high-line"

nutritional level (30% above normal) averaged 1006

pounds in body weight compared with 753 pounds for

their mates fed on a "low-linen nutritional lavel

()O% below normal). The milk production for these

animals as reported later by Bonnier ~ !1.(;), was

8027 pounds for the "high-line" group and 766) pounds

for the "low-line" group_ This was the average of

17 lactation records in each group.

Bonnier ~ !!.(S) stated,_ "In the case a heifer

is fed at an intensity level which 1s lower than that

corresponding to her ceiling of growth of weights and

1f this low feeding is administered trom an early age

to the movement of first calving, then she has at

calving a certain amount of growing capacity unused.

The effect is, then when enough feed is given after

calving a growth rate is attained which enables the

cow to overcome a certain portion of he~ earlier

retardation in growth rate but at the same time her

milk yield does not reach its ceiling."

-22-

III • THE INVESTIGATION

This study was initiated to obtain growth and

feed consumption data on dairy calves fed four dif­

ferent feeding regimes in order to further evaluate

a high roughage system of raising dairy calves and

to determine the value of cud inoculation under prac­

tical calf raising conditions~

A. Method of Procedure

Thirty-two heifer calves, eight Jerseys, eight

Guernseys, and sixteen Holsteins, from the Virginia

Polytechnic Institute dairy herd were used in this

investigation. Experimental treatments were imposed

through tour months of age. The calves were taken

from their dams atter they had received one feeding

of colostrum milk, placed in individual stalls and

hand-fed the dam's colostrum at the rate of one pound

per ten pounds of body weight, divided into two feed­

ings daily, for the first three days. \ihole milk was

fed at the same rate from tour through 60 days of age.

The calves were placed on the experiment at four

days of age and allotted at random (within breeds) to

the following treatments according to a pre-designed

schedule:

-23-

Group A Fed hay free-Ght)ice and a simple grain

ration free-choice with a four pound daily maximum

(control).

Group B I~ed hay free-choice but grain \vas

restricted to one-half (by weight) of the amount of

hay consumed.

Group C Fed similar to calves in Group A except

that they were inoculated with fresh cud material at the

approximate ages of 5, 10, 15, and 21 days.

Group D Fed similar to calves in Group B except

that they were inoculated tKJ'ith fresh cud rnaterial at the

approxL'llate ages of 5, la, 15, and 21 days.

Fresh cud material was taken from one or more

healthy dairy cows that were on normal rations and

given immediately to calves that were to be inoculated

on that particular day_ The cud was placed on the

posterior portion of the ealf's ton,gue.

ffhe calves were housed in indi vidual stalls at the

Experimental Calf Barn. One side of the barn was used

for calves that did not receive inoculations while the

calves that were inoculated occupied the other side.

Calves in~he lat'tar group had solid partitions between

them in order to prevent cross inoculation by natural

means.

-24-

Allor the calves received a simple grain ration

composed o£ 600 pounds ground eorn. ;80 pounds ground

oats, 4S0 pounds wheat bran, 200 pounds soybean oil

meal, 20 pounds salt, and 20 pounds steamed bonemeal.

The calculated total protein and T. D. N. content of

this grain mixture was 15.5 and 71.7%, respectively.a

Fair to good quality non-legume hay and some

alfalfa hay was ted during this study. Feed consumption

data were obtained on a daily basis for all calves.

The calves were weighed and measured at the begin­

ning of the experiment and at weekly intervals there­

after. Body weights were recorded in pounds. Observa­

tions on height at withers, chest circumference, and

barrel circumference were recorded in triplicate. These

values for each body measurement were averaged and the

averaged values were used in the analYSis of the data.

Body weight gains and increases in height at

withers were compared with Ragsdale Standards(40 ) by

groups on a weighted basis because or the difference

in number of each breed within each group.

a Per cent protein and T. D. N. calculated from I~rrisonts Feeds and Feed1n~. 21st edition. MOrrison pUDlishlng Co_, it aca, New York.

-25-

Blood samples of each calf were taken weekly from

the first to the sixteenth week; however, these were

not made by the author and results are not a part of

this study.

A statistical analysis of variance, according to

methods used by Goulden(lS), was made to measure the

significance of growth rate and feed utilization dif­

ferences.

B. Results

1. Comparison of growth rates by groups.

a. Gains in body weight

The average nwn~er of days on experillient,

average initial and final weights, and average total

and daily gains in body weight are summarized in

Table 1.

Group

A B C D

TABLE 1

Avera~e Total and Daill Weight Gains ~

EXRerimantal Calves ~ Groups

Average Number Average weifhts Ave rase of Days on InItIal , naI '1'0 til Experiment lbs Ibs Ibs

l 19·i 72.2 216.5 144.) llg. 75.1 193.0 117.9 11e.4 69.8 201.1 131.4-118.6 68.5 191.6 123.1

Gains Dally Ibs

1.21 0.99 1.11 1.04

-26-

The average daily gains varied from 0.99 pounds

for the calves in Group B to 1.21 pounds for the Group

A calves with the gains for the calves in Groups C and

D falling in between these extremes. The uninoculated

calves (Groups A and B) made an average daily gain of

1.10 pounds compared to 1.07 pounds for the calves

which were inoculated with fresh cud material (Groups

C and D). The oalves in Groups A and C that were not

restricted in grain consumption gained 1.16 pounds per

head daily whereas those restricted in grain feeding

(Groups B and D) made an average daily gain of 1.02

pounds.

The analysis presented 1n Table 2 reveals that the

differences due to ration effects were not statistically

significant. A highly significant difference between

breeds was observed; however, this difference 1s not or major concern here since the primary objective of this

study was to evaluate the effect of feeding and manage­

ment on the growth and development of young calves.

The breeds x rations interaction, which is ot greater

importance in this analYSiS, \iTas not significant.

-27-

TABLE 2

Analysis ~ Varianc~ B! ~ Differences

in Body Weight Gains

Sum ot Degrees Mean Source ot Variations Squares ot Square F Freedom

Breeds 18209 2 9104.;0 21.03**

Rations 2087 .3 695.67 1.61 Cud Inoculated va

Uninoculated 63 1 6).00 .1; Restricted va

Unrestricted Grain 1610 1 1610.00 ).72

Ration Interaction J.a.14 1 414.00 .96

Breeds x Rations Interaction 1506 6 2;1.33 .58

Error 8657 20 432.8;

Tota.l 30461 31

** Highly significant

The mean changes in body weight were plotted at

monthly intervals and compared with the Ragsdale

Standard(40). These data are presented in Figure 1.

The average initial weight tor all groups, except

Group B. were below the Ragsdale Standard; however,

Group A calves equaled or exceeded the Standard after

two months of age. The other groups all remained below

en (.)

z ::> o a..

z

i 190t-

!

!

I L60~

I I

70

.... _._-,-_. __ .

GROUP A

GROUF B

GROUP C

GROUP 0

-28-

~ ___ ,_,_~ __ ~_ RAGSDALE STANDARDS

! l

/ I

/ / / /

I

/ / /1 /1// Ii

I' / '/ I'

I /_/

b /f I j '/ /~

~ /..

I t. ______ _ · ----~----------~~-----------~D o I '2 '3 4 MONTHS OF AGE

FIGURE I. MEAN CHANGES IN BODY WEIGHT OF EXPERIMENTAL

GROUPS COMPARED WiTH RAGSDALE STANDARDS.

-29-

the Standard throughout the four-month period, although,

the gains made by the calves in Gl'OUpS C and D approxi­

mately paralleled the Standsrd since the average weights

of these calves were four- to ten pounds, respectively,

belo\<{ the Standard at the start five to seventeen

pounds, respectively, below the Standard at four months

of •

b. Increase in height at withers.

The average total and daily increase in

height at \'V1.thers by groups arepres'ented in Table 3.

3

Average ~otal ~ Dai1X Increase 1n Height !!

Withers Qf EXEerimental ~alves ~ Groups

Group Average Height at lNithers Average Increase

Initia,l Final Total Daily in. in. in,. in.

A 27.9 34.8 6.9 .0579 B 27.g 33.5 5.7 .0484 C 27.3 34.1 6.8 .0572 D 27.2 33.3 6.1 .0516

The average total increase varied from 5.7 inches for

Group B calves to 6.9 inches for those in Group A. The

cud inoculated calvas made an average daily increase in

-30-

height at withers of .0544 inches compared with .0532

inches for the uninoculated calves.

The average total and daily increase in height at

withers for calves unrestricted in grain feeding were

6.84 and .0576 inches, respectively_ The restricted grain

red calves made corresponding gains of 5.93 and .0500

inches, respectively_ Differences in the increase between

the calves on the restricted and unrestricted grain feed­

ing were highly significant. As shown in Table 4 all of

the other ration effects were non-significant.

TABLE 4

Anal~si,s .2! Va.riance .2! the Dirference.

~~ Increase 2! Height !! ~1thera

Sum of Degrees

Mean Sources ot Variance of Squares Freedom Square

Breeds 36312.38 2 18156.19 Rations 48274.,g 3 16091.46

Cud Inoculated va Uninoculated 861.1) 1 861.13

Restricted VB Unrestricted Gra.in 44253.13 1 44253.13

Ration Interaction 3160.12 1 3160.12

Breeds x Rations Interaction )03)0.12 6 5055.02

Error 108628.00 20 5431.40

Total 223544.88 31

** Highly significant

F

3.34 2.96

.16

g.15** .;8

.93

-31-

The mean changes in height at withers by groups are

sho\~ in Figure 2 in which the Ragsdale Standard is also

plotted for comparison.

These data reveal that the control calves exceeded

the Ragsdale Standard for most of the experimental period.

They did fall below at three months of age. All of the

other groups failed to equal the Standard. Group B

calves were above the Standard initially and the mean

. gain for this group approximated the Standard rather

closely until the calves were two months of age, after

which'time the average increase was well below the

Standard.

c. Chest circumference

The average increase in chest circumference

1s summarized in Table 5. The total increase was essen­

tially the same for all groups with calves in'Group A

making slightly greater gains than the other three

groups.

36

(j) :3 3 I..IJ J: <..> Z

z

t-­J: l.?

I..IJ 30 r

27

__ . ________ GROUP A

GROU P 8

GROUP C

GROUP 0

RAGSDALE STANDARDS

o 2 3 MONTHS OF AGE

FIGURE 2. MEAN CHANGES IN HEIGHT AT WITHERS OF EXPERIMENTAL

GROUPS COMPARED WITH RAGSDALE STANDARDS.

-33-

TABLE;

Average Total ~ Oat11 Increase !g ~hest

qircu.rnference .Q.f ~x.Eerimental Calves .2I Grou;es

Average Chest Circumference Group 'In! tia! Fina!

AV$rage Increase fotal Dalfy

A B C D

in. in.

28.9 28.3 28.2 27.6

in. in.

11.9 11.1 11.2 11.0

.0997

.0939

.0944

.0932

The average daily increase in chest circumference

for cud inoculated and unlnoculated calves was .0939 and

.0968 inches, respectively_ Restricting the amount of

grain fed had no appreciable effect on the increase in

chest circum.terence (average daily increase of .0936

tor the restricted calves compared with .0971 for the

unrestricted calves).

It is shown in Table 6 that none of the differences

due to rations were statistically significant. Differ­

ences between breeds were again highly Significant

whereas the breeds x rations interaction was non-

significant, as was observed in the case of body weight

gains.

-34-

TABLE 6

Analysis .2! Variance Qf the Differences .!!!

Increase Qf Chest Circumference

Source of Variance

Breeds

Rations Cud Inoculated vs

Uninoculated Restricted va

Unrestricted Grain

Ration Interaction

Breeds x Rations Interaction

Error

Total

Sum of Squares

307602.25

24504.53

6050.00

8450.00

10001).e 53

127974.72

408306.50

868)88.00

*. Highly significant

Degrees of

Freedom

2

:3

1

1

1

6

20

;1

Mean Square

1538011.25

8168.17

6050.00

8450.00

10004.53

21329.12

20415.33

F

7.53**

.40

.30

.41

.49

1.04-

Figure 3 shows the mean change in chest circumference

for the groups. The rate of increase for all groups was

approximately the same; however, the average chest cir­

cumference of the control calves was greater initially

and they retained this superiority throughout the experi­

mental period.

-35-

40 en GROUP A LIJ :I: U GROUP B Z

z 36 GROUP C

bJ GROUP 0 (,)

z I w 0= 32~ w La.. ::! :::> (.)

0: (..)

28

-_._-_ ..... __ ._-----'--o 2 3 4

AGE IN MONTHS

FIGURE 3. MEAN CHANGES IN CHEST CIRCUMFERENCE OF

EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS.

________________________________________________ ~h_

~2 GROUP A

(f)

w GROUP B :r: (,)

z GROUP C

z 44 GROUP 0 LLJ (.) Z LLJ a: L&J u.. ~ 36 ::J (,)

a:: ()

28 , . 0

AGE IN MONTHS

FIGURE 4. MEAN CHANGES IN BARREL CIRCUMFERENCE OF

EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS.

-36-

d. Barrel circumference

Average total and ~aily increase in barrel

circumference by groups ara summarized in Table 7.

Group

A B C D

TABL~ 7

Average Tota.l .!lli! uail! Increase .in Barrel

Circumference 2f EXEerimental Calves Bx Groups

Average Barrel Circumference Average Increase

Initial Final Total Daily in. in. in. in.

29.1 52.9 2).8 .1989 29.0 50.3 21.2 .1790 28.8 50.2 21.4 .1805 28.5 50.0 21.5 .1812

It can be seen that the average daily gains varied

f.rom .17901nches for calves in Group B to .19~9 inches

for the Group A calves with the gains for the calves in

Groups C and D falling in between these extremes. The

average daily increases in barrel circumference for the

cud inoculated and uninoculated calves were .1809 and

.1890 inches, respectively. Calves restricted in grain

feeding averaged .1802 inches daily increase compared

with .1898 inches for calves unrestricted in grain

feeding.

-37-

None of the above ration differences ware statis-

tiea11y significant. This analysis is presented in

Table 6. The interaction between breeds and rations was

not significant but the difference between breeds was

again highly significant.

TABLE g

Ana1lsis 2! Variance ~ 1h! Differences

in Increase of Barrel - .- Circumference

Sum of' Degrees Mean Source ot Variance Squares of Square F Freedom

. Breeds 930180.00 2 465090.00 9.39**

Rations 214037.59 3 7l345.g6 1.44-Cud Inoculated vs

Uninooulated 57715.03 1 57715.03 1.17 Re8tr~cted va

Unrestricted Grain 74208.78 1 74208.76 1.50

Ration Interaction 8211).78 1 82113.78 1.66

Breeds x Ration Interaction 45014.ga 6 7502.48 .15

Error 990739.00 20 49536.95

Total 2179971.47 31

** Highly significant

-38-

Figure 4 shows graphically the mean changes in barrel

circumference at monthly intervals. The increase in mean

barrel circumference was greatest for the control group

with the other three groups gaining at essentially the

same rate.

2. Feed consumption. and efficiency of reed

utilization.

The average total feed consumption, daily T. D. N.

consumption, and T. D. N. per pound ot gain are sum­

In.arized in Table 9.

TABLE 9

Arlerage ~otal Feed Consumption, Daill T. D. N.

qonsumption, s.ru! T. D. rJ. Per Pound .2.!!a .!2.l GrouRsa

Group Average Feed Average T. D. N. Consumption Consumption

ltilk Grain Hay Total Per Day Per POlmd Gain

Ibs Ibs Ibs Ibs Ibs Ibs

A ;16.0 189.0 260.8 350.0 2.93 2.43 B ;14.0 119.4 245.9 292.4 2.46 2.48 c 501.4- 177.7 258.7 338.; 2.86 2.58 D 473.4 1.34.8 . 281.4- 314.; 2.6; 2.55

a T. D. N.·calculated from MOrrison's Feeds and Feedins, 21st edition. MOrrison Publishing Co., Ithaca, New York.

-39-

It was sho"l-m t,hat the average total milk consumption

of the Group A calves was 516.0 pounds which was 2.0,

14.6, and 42.6 pounds more tha.n that consumed by Groups

B, OJ and D, respectively. Average total grain oon­

sumption varied from 119.4 pounds tor Group B to 189.0

pounds for the control group. It can be seen that the

calves in Group D consumed more total hay on the average

than did the calves in the other groups; however, the

differences in hay consumption between groups was not

great.

As shown in Table 9, the Group B calves consumed

less total T. D. N. and less T. D. N. per head daily

than any of the other groups. The average T. D. N. con­

sumption per head daily for inocula'ted and uninoculated

calves was 2.76 and 2.70 pounds, respectively_ This

difference \vas not statistically significant (Table 10).

-40.

TABLE 10

A.nalxsls ~ Va~1ance Q! the Differences !!

Total Digestib~e Nutrient Intake Per Day

Sum ot Source of Variance Squares

Breeds 58773.38

Rations 10)35.38 Cud Inoculated vs

Uninoculated 231.13 Restricted VB

Unrestricted Grain 8778.13

Ration Interaction 1326.12

Breeds x Rations Interaction 12)gg.12

Error 38602.00

Total 120098.88

** Highly Significant * Significant

Degrees Mean of Freedom Square

2 29386.69

:; 3445.13

1 231.13

1 8778.13

1 1)26.12

6 2064.69

20 1930.10

.31

F

15.2.3**

1.78

.12

4.55* .69

1.07

The average daily T. D. ~T. consumpti"n for the

calves restricted in grain feeding was 2.56 pounds.

whereas, the unrestricted calves consumed 2.90 pounds

daily. It is shaWl! in Table 10 that this difference was

significant at the 5% level. Breeds differed sig­

nificantly in the amount of T. D.. N. consumed daily;

-41-

however, the interaction between breeds and rations was

non-significant.

Efficiency of utilization, as measured by

average pounds of T. D. • consumed per pound of gain

in body t'leight is also .sl yen in 'rable9. The control

calves were slightly more efficient ill the utilization

of feed; however, there were no pronounced differences

among the groups in this respect. Cud inoculation

apparently did not increase the efficiency of feed

utilization. The pounds of T. D. N. consumed per pound

of gain was 2.h5 for the uninoculated and 2.57 for the

inoculated calves.

The differences in efficiency of feed utilization

for calves on restricted and unrestricted feeding were

small (2.52 va 2.50).

It is shown the analysis presented in Table 11

that none of the differences in feed utilization due to

rations were statistically significant.

-42-

TABLE 11

Analrsis ~ Variance Q£ ~ Difrerene~~ in Total

Digestible Nutrient Intake ~ Pound .2! Q!!!!.

Source ot Variance Sum ot Degrees Mean Square8 ot Square F

Freedom

Breeds 10698.13 2 5349.07 9.)6** ,;

Rations 1649.38 .3 549.79' .96 Cud Inoculated va

Uninoeul8,ted 1471.53 1 1471.53 2.57 Restricted va

Unrestricted Grain .~ .- 69.03 1 69.03 .• 12

Rations" Interaction \ 108.82 1 108.82 .19

Breeds x'Ratlons Interaction 2466.99 6 411.17 .72

Error 114.32. ,0 20 571.63

Total 26247.00 31

** Highly significant

-43-

IV. DISCUSSION OF RESULT~

The results of this study show that cud inocula­

tions did not significantly increase growth rate or

efficiency of feed utilization in young dairy calves.

This is in general agreement with the results of

Pelissier!! !!.{3J) and Holter(2;) who reported that

cud inoculation produced no significant differences in

feed consumption or growth of young calves, and also

those of Ackerman and Fike{l) who reported that calves

did not benefit from cud inoculations. On the other

hand, they may be considered to be at variance with

the observations of the Ohio workers()5,J9) who

reported a better physical appearance of calves which

received fresh cud material from mature, healthy

animals.

It seems logical to assume that under practical

management conditions the young calf becomes inocu­

lated naturally at an early age by direct contact with

older animals. through the ingestion of feed and

bedding, and possibly from certain airbourne organisms.

Even though reasonable care was taken in this study to

keep the inoculated and un1noculated calves separated,

-44-

the possibility of cross inoculation occurring cannot

be entirely eliminated.

Although this investigation did not entail a study

of the effect of cud inoculations on the establishment

of the microorganisms of the reticula-rumen, it seems

desirable to mention some of the studies which have

been made in this connection.

In the work of Pelissier{3J) no real differences

were found in the bacterial population of the rumen

between inoculated and uninoeulated calves. On the

other hand, Pounden and Hibbs(36,3e,39) reported that

microorganisms became established earlier in the rumen

of young calves by cud inoculation than by natural

means. Huhtanen!!!!. (24) and Bryant.!! .!!.. (6) have

found different types ot organisms in young calves

than in mature cows. The investigations ot several

workers(20,21.28,37,J8} have demonstrated that the

microbial populations of the young calf's rumen 1s

influenced by diet.

It is reasonable to assume that if mature types

of organisms could be established in the young calf by

cud inoculation, as suggested by Conrad ~ !!_ (g) and

-45-

Hibbs!1 ~.(lg) the calf could make better use of high

roughage rations and thus make more economical gains.

Restricting grain 'intake by feeding only one-half

as much grain as hay consumed (by weight) depressed

daily gain, increases in height at withers and in

barrel circumference. Chest circumference was not

adversely affected by restricted grain feeding. All

of these differences except those associated with

withers height were found to be non-significant. These

data agree essentially with those of Holter(2;) who

reported that calves on high roughage rations made

lower body weight gains than control calves during a

l6-week feeding period.

The average daily T. D. N. intake of the restricted

and unrestricted grain red calves was 2.56 and 2.90

pounds, respectively_ This difterence was siginficant

at the 5~ level of probability. Differences in effi­

ciency of teed utilization were small and non-signifi-

cant.

The observation that the unrestricted grain ted

calves made significantly greater increases in height

at withers than the restricted calves and yet there were

no essential differences between the two groups with

-46-

respect to weight gain, heart girth, or barrel circum­

ference is difficult to explain. Several possibilities

exist. In view of the work by Hibbs et al.(21) and --Conrad ~ !!.(1), the apparent greater skeletal develop-

ment of the unrestricted calves may have been due to

increased intakes of digestible energy and protein by

these calves. However, there is no good reason to

believe that such a condition would effect only skel­

etal development and not result in an increase of soft

tissue also.

Another possibility is that since the restricted

calves did not receive any grain until they were con­

suming at least one-half pounds ot hay per day, these

animals may have suftered from an insufficient intake

of phosphorus and/or a calcium-phosphorus imbalance

during early life. Sinc~ the hay used in this study

was of inf~rior quality it appears reasonable to assume

that it was dericient in phosphorus content. Thus, the

major souree of this mineral for the calves restricted

in grain feeding was the milk. The likelihood that one

or more of the minor elements may have been involved

cannot be completely eliminated; however, since our

knowledge ot the animal's needs for these minerals

-47-

is so meager, no definite statment oan be made con­

cerning them.

Willard(Sl) has reported that increased hay oon-

sumpti·')n by calves may be affected by a decrease in

the grain allowance. This would seem logical and such

occurred in this study. However, it was observed that

the calves which were restricted in grain feeding and

uninoculated consumed less hay than any of the other

calves. The grain:hay ratio or the unrestricted and

restricted grain fed calves was approximately 1:1 and

1:2, respectively_ Since no differences were noted in

the pounds ot T •. D. N. consumed per pound ot gain

between the two groups, it is indicated that the calves

utilized the high-roughage ration just as efficiently

as the 1:1 ration.

While there were no statistical differences

between rations for gain in body weight, all groups

gained below the Ragsdale Standard except the control

group. This adds support to the statement of Hibbs

at !!.(18) that high quality, palatable forage is

fundamental to the success of raising calves on a

high roughage program.

-48-

v. SU)tr~RY

Thirty-two female calves of the Jersey, Guernsey,

and Holstein breeds were allotted e,t ra.ndom (within

breeds) to the following treatments:

Group A - Fed hay free-choice and a simple

grain ration free-choice \1fith a tour pound daily maxi­

mum_ (control).

Group B - Fed hay free-choice but grain was

restricted to one-half (by weight) of the amount of

hay consumed.

Group C - Fed similar to calves in Group A

except that they were inoculated with fresh cud

material at the approximate ages of 5, 10, 15, and

21 days.

Group D - Fed similar to calves in Group B

except that they were inoculated with fresh cud

material at the approximate ages of 5, 10, 15, and

21 days.

The experimental treatments were imposed from four

days of age through four months of age. All calves

were fed whole milk at the rate of one pound of milk

per ten pounds of body weight daily through 60 days

-49-

of age. The grain fed was a simple mixture and the

hay was fair to good quality non.legume and some

average quality alfalfa. The daily feed consumption

of all feeds was recorded.

Body weight, height at withers, chest circum­

ference, and barrel circumference of each calf was

obtained at the beginning of the experimental period

and at weekly intervals thereafter. The calves were

housed in individual pens throughout the experimental

period.

All data were subjected to statistical analysis.

In addition, body weight gain· and increase in height

at withers were compared with the Ragsdale Standards.

Neither growth rate nor efficiency of feed utiliza­

tion was improved by cud inoculations. Neither did cud

inoculations materially affect hay oonsumption.

Differences between the growth rate of calves

restricted and unrestricted in grain feeding varied

in their significance. Differences in body weight

gain, increase in chest and barrel circumferences,

and efficiency of feed utilization were not signifi­

cant. Average daily total T. D. N. consumption was

significantly greater for unrestricted calves than

-50.

for those restricted in grain feading. The calves

unrestricted in grain feeding made significantly

greater increases in height at withers than the

restricted calves.

Only the control calves equaled or exeelled the

Ragsdale Standard in body weight gain or increase of

height at withers.

-51-

VI. CONCLUSIO~IS

Under the conditions of this study, the following

conclusions seemed justified:

1. Cud inoculations did not improve rate ot

growth or efficiency of feed utilization in calves

through four months of age. Consumption ot hay was

not materially increased by cud inoculations.

2. Thus. it is concluded that cud inoculation is

of no economic value under practical calf raising con­

ditions.

3. Calves restricted in grain feeding did consume

more hay than unrestricted calves; however, the increase

was not great. Efficiency of feed utilization, as

measured by the pounds of T. D. N. consumed per pound

of gain was essentially the same tor calves on a

grain:hay ratio of 1:2 (restricted grain feeding) as

those on a 1:1 grain:hay ratio (unrestricted grain

feeding) •

4. Skeletal growth, as determined by height at

withers, was adversely affected by restriction or grain in the feeding program.

-52-

5. Calves fed one pound of whole milk per ten

pounds of body weight daily up to 60 days of age, and

a simple grain ration made satisfactory growth when

grain was fed free choice (with a four pound daily

maximum) and hay of average or better quality was fed

free choice.

6. Thus, it is indicated that a substantial

monetary saving in the raising ot herd replacements

may be effected by the use of a simple grain ration

instead of high priced commercial calf mixtures.

-53-

The writer wishes to acknowledge his sincere

appreciation and gratitude to the follo-w'"ing persons

for their invaluable assistance and supervision

throughout the conduct of the work reported in this

thesis:

Dr. W. A. Hardison, for his assistance in planning

the study, and whose guidance, constructive criticisms,

and invaluable assistance was greatly appreciated.

Dr. G. C. Graf, for making the facilities avail­

able for the study, and for his critical evaluation of

the manuscript and cooperation which made this study

possible.

Professor P. M. Reaves, ~ho'se sincere interest,

helpful suggestions, and encouragement were greatly

appreciated.

Professor R. A. Sandy and Dr. N. R. Thompson for

advice and encouragement given from time to time.

l:JIr. J.1t G. Hampton and other Virginia Polytechnic

Institute students who worked with this experiment, for

their assistance and splendid cooperation.

-54-

Mrs. E. J. Buyalos and ~~6. E. P. Ellison for

the typing of the manuscript and thesis.

Austin, my wife, whose patience and encourage­

ment during the conduct of this work is gratefully

acknowledged.

-55-

VIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Ackerman, R. A., and Fike, J. E. Methods of Feeding and Rumen Inoculation as They Affect Growth and Development of Young Dairy Calves. J. Dairy Sci., jg:607 (aba). 1955.

2. Annual Report, Animal Research Division of the New Zealand Department of Agriculture: 20-21. 1954-1955.

Bender, C. Feeding Grass Silage. Sta. Bull., 695. 1942.

N. J. Agr. Expt.

4. Bonnier, G. and Hansson, A. Studies on MOnozygous Cattle Twins. V. The Effect of Different Plans of Nutrition. on Growth and Body Development or Dairy Heifers. Acta ~r1culturae Sueeana.) 1: 170-205. 1945-1946.

5. Bonnier. G., Hansson, A., and Skjervold, H. Studies on Monozygous Cattle Twins. IX. The Interplay or Heredity and Environme,nt on Growth and Yi,ld. Acta Agriculturae Suecana, ): I-57. 1948·1949.

6. Bryant, M. P., Small, Nola, and Burkey, L. A. The Development of the Flora and Fauna in the Rumen of Growing Calves. J. Dairy Sci., )6: 607 (aba). 1955.

7. Conrad, H. R., and Hibbs, J. W. A High Roughage System tor Raising Calves Based on Early Rumen Development. III. The Effect ot Rumen Inocu­lations and the Ratio of Hay to Grain on Digestion and Nitrogen Retention. J. Dairy Sct., 36: 1326-1334. 195).

Conrad, H. R., H1bbsL J. W., Pounden, W. D., and Sutton, T. S. The Effect of Rumen Inoculations on the Digestibility of Roughage in Young Dairy Calves. J. Dairy Sci., 33: 565-592. 1950.

-56-

9. Conrad, H. R. J Hibbs t J. \~., Vandersall, J. H., and Pounden f • D. Volatile Fatty Acids and pH in Rumen Contents of Cud-inoculated and Uninoculated Calves Fed High Roughage Pellets. J. Dairy Sci., 3a: 607 (aba). 1955.

10. Davis, H. P., and Willett, E. L. Relation Between Rate of Growth and Milk a.nd Fat Production. J. Dairy Sci., 21: 637-642. 1938.

11. Flatt, W. P., Warner, R. G., and Grippen, C. H. In Vivo Reticulo-Rumen Volumes of Young Calves as Affected by Age and Diet. J. Animal Sci •• 14: 1202·1203 (aba). 1955.

12. Gaines, W. L. Size ot Cow and Efficiency of Milk Production. J. Dairy Sci., 14: 14-25. 1931.

13. Gardner, K. E., and Akers, W. T. The Eftect of the Physical Form of Hay Upon Hay Consumption and Growth of Young Calves. J. Animal Sci •• 14: 120)-1204 (aha). 1955.

14. Gardner, K. E., a.nd Stuff, G. S. Roughage: Concentrate Ratios for Young Dairy Calves. J. Dairy Sci., 36: 60. (abe). 1953.

15. Goulden, C. H. Methods ot Statistical Analysis. 2nd ad. John Wiley and Sons, Ine., New York, N. Y. 1952.

16. Harshbarger, K. E., and Salisbury, G. W. The Effect of the Proportion of Roughage in the Ration on the Growth of DairY Heiters. J. Dairy Sci., 32: 715 (abs). 1949.

17. Hawkins, G. E. , Jr., and Autrey, K. M. Effects or Feeding Grass and of Sanitation on Growth of Young Dairy Calves Under Two Systems ot Management. J. Dairy SCi., 39: 196-203. 1956.

-57-

19. Hibbs, J. W., Pound en , W. D., and Conrad, H. B. A High Roughage System of Raising Calve. Based on the Early Development of Rumen Function. I. Effect ot Variations in the Ration on Growth, Feed Consumption and Utilization. J. Dairy Sei., 36: 717-727. 1953.

19. Hibbs, J. W., Conra~, H. R. t and Pounden, W. D. A High Roughage System of Raising Calve8 Based on the Early Development of Rumen Function. II. Growth, Feed Consumption and Utilization by Calves Fed a 3:2 Ratio or Hay to Grain With or Without Molass •• or Penicillin Supplement. J. Dairy Sci., 36: 1319-1325. 1953.

20. Hibbs, J. W. t Conrad, H. R., and Pounden, W. D. A High Roughage System ot Raising Calves Based on the Early Development of Rumen Function. V. Some Effects of Peeding Aureomycin with Different Ratios of Hay to Grain. J. Dairy Sci., 37: 724-736. 1954.

21. Hibbs, J. W., Conrad, H. R. f Pound en , W. D., and Frank. Norma. A High Roughage System ot RaiSing Calves Based on the Early Develop­ment of Rumen Function. VI. Influence ot Hay to Grain Ratio on Calf Performance Rumen Development, and Certain Blood Changes. J. Dairy Sci., 39: 171-179. 1956.

22. Hibbs, J. W., Conrad, H. R., and Vandersall. J. H. Performance ot Dairy Calves Raised on High Roughage Pellets. J. Animal Sci •• 14: 1208 (abs) • 1955.

23. Holter, J. A. Comparison of Different Dairy Calt F.eding Systems. Proc. 19;4 Cornell Nutr. Cont. tor Feed Mfre., 53-59. 1954.

24. Huhtanen, C. N., Saunders, R. K., and Gall, L. S. Some Differenoes in Adult and Inlant Rumen 'lora of Cattle on Practical Rations. J. Animal Sci., 10: 1049 (abs). \ 1951.

26.

27.

29.

30.

31.

32.

Jacobson, N. L., Allen, R. S., and Bell, M. R. The Effect of Various Feeding Systems on Growth and Certain Blood Constituents of Dairy Calves. J. Animal Sci., 10: 1051 tabs) • 1951.

Joubert, D. M. The Influence of Winter Nutri­tional Depressions on the Gro~~h, Reproduc­tion and Production of Cattle. J. Agric. Sci., 44: 5-66. 1954.

Krauss, W. E.) and Monroe, C. F. Simple Versus Complex Grain Mixtures in Dairy Rations. IV. Heiter Calves Raised for Replacements and Veal for Slaughter. Ohio Agr. Exp. Sta. Bimonthly Bull., 31: 97-99. 1946.

Langemann, F.W., and Allen, N. N. The Develop­ment of Rumen Function in the Dairy Calt. I. Some Characteristics of the Rumen Contents of Cattle of Various Ages. J. Dairy Sei., 38: 651-656. 1955.

McCay, C. M., Maynard, L. A., Sperling, G., and Barnes, L. L. Retarded Growth, Life Span, Ultimate Body Size and Age Changes in the Albino Rat Atter Feeding Diets Restricted in Calories.' Jour. Nutr., 181 1-13. 1939.

McGilliard, A. D.! Ronning, M., Berousek, E. R. t and Norton, G. L. The Influence of Aureomycin and Cud Inoculation on Growth of Dairy Calves. J. Dairy SCi., 35: 493 (aba). 1952.

MUr1ey,W. R., WaughL R. K.) Edwards, J. R., and Whisenhunt, M. H~ Response of Dairy Calves to a Simple VB Complex Starter with and without Hay to Eight Weeks. Prac. Assoc. So. Agric. Workers, Louisville, Ky. 1955.

Musgrave, S. D., Wil11amSi

J. B., Norton, C. L., and Gallup, W. D. A la1ta vs Prairie Hay tor Dairy Calves. J. Dairy Sci., 38: 416-419. 1955. I

)6.

37.

.39.

40.

41.

-59-

Pelissier, C. L., Slack, S. T., Trimberger, G. W., and Loosl!, J. K. Cud Inoculation ot Dairy Calves Fails to Improve Growth. Farm Research. Cornell Univ. Agr. Expt. Sta., 20: 15. 1954.

Porter, G. H., and Kesler, E. 14. The Value of Grass Silage in the. Diet of the Young Dairy Calf. J. Animal 501_, 13: 1010 (abs). 1954.

Pounden,w. D., and Hibbs, J. W. The Development ot Calves Raised Without Protozoa and Certain Other Characteristic Microorganisms. J. Dairy Sci., 33: 639-644. 1950.

Pounden, w. D., and Hibbs, J. 1l1. The Influence ot Pasture and Rumen Inoculation on the Estab­lishment of Certain ~ticroorganism8 in the Rumen of Young Dairy Calves. J. Dairy Sci., 32: 1025-1031. 1949.

Pounden, W. D., and Hibbs, J. tll/. The Influence ot the Ratio ot Grain to Hay in' the Ration of Dairy Calves on Certain Ruman ltlcroorganisms. J. Dairy Sci., 31: 1051-1054. 1948.

Pounden, • D., and Hibbs, J. tAl. The Influence ot Ration and Rumen Inoculation on the Estab­lishment of Certain Microorganisms in the Rumen ot Young Calves. J. Dairy SCi., 31: 1041-1050. 1948.

pounden! w. D., and Hibbs, J. W. Some Possible Re ationsh1ps Between Management, Fore­stomach Contents and Diarrhea in the Young Dairy Calt. J. Dairy Sci., 30: Sa2-583 (aba). 1947.

Ragsdale, A. C. Growth Standards for Dairy Cattle. Mo. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bull. 336. 1934.

Reid, J. T. Effect of Several Levels of Nutrition Upon Grot~h, Reproduction and Lactation in Cattle. Prec. 195) Cornell Nutr. Cont. for Feed Mtrs., 88-96. 195).

-60-

42. Richter, J. Die Sterl1itat des Rinds. Verlagsbuchhandlung von Richard Schoetz. Berlin. 1926. (Cited by Reid, J. T. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc .• J 114: 158-164. (1949) •

43 •. Savage, E. S., and McCay, of Calves; A Review. 595-650. 1942.

c. M. The Nutrition J. Dairy Sci., 25:

44. Sherman, H. C., Campbell, H. R. J and lAnford, C. s. Experiments on the Rela.tion of Nutrition to the Composition of the Body and Length of Life. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 25: 16-20. 1939.

4S. Swanson, E. tv. Heifers... Watch Your Diet 1 Hoard t S Dairyman, p. 287. liIarch 25, 1955.

46. Syke., J. F., Converse, J. T., and Moore, L. A. Comparison or Alfalfa Hay and Alta1fa Silage as Roughage for Growing Dairy Heifers in a Limited r~lk and Grain Feeding System. J. Dairy Sci., 38: 1246-1256. 1955.

47. Turner, C. The Relation Between Weight and Fat Production ot Guernsey Cattle. J. Dairy Sci., 12: 60-73. 1929.

48. Uzzell, E. r,~., Becker, R. B., and Jones, E. R •• Jr. Occurrence of Protozoa in the Bovine Rumen. J. Dairy Se1., 32: 606-811. 1949.

49. Warner, R. Gel Bernholdt, H. Fei Grippin, C. H., and LooS i, J. K. The In! uano. of Diet on the Development of the Ruminant Stomach. J. Dairy Sci. ,)6: 599 (abs). 1953.

50. Waters, H. S. The Capacity of. Animals .to Grow Under Adverse Conditions. Soc. Prom. Agr. Sei. Frac., 29: 71-96. 1906. (Cited by S~vageJ E. S., and McCay, C. M. J. Dairy Sci., 25: 59,-650. 1942}.

51. Willard, H. S. Hay Consumption ot Holstein Oalves. J. Dairy Sci., 21: 15)-160. 1938.

-61-

IX. :a!.A

Name -- George Alfred lllIil1er

Birthplace --- Oatlands, Virginia

Date of Birth --- June 24, 1926

Schools Attended:

Lueketts Elementary School; Lucketts, Virginia September, 1932 to June, 1936

Purcellville Elementary School; Purcellville, V1rginia--- September, 1936 to June, 1937

Bluemont Elementary School; Bluemont, Virginia --­September, 1937 to J~e, 1939

Round Hill High School; Round Hill, Virginia --­September, 1939 to June, 1940

Aldie High School; Aldie. Virginia --­September, 1940 to January,1942

Lincoln High School; Lincoln', Virginia --­January, 1942 to June, 1943

Virginia Polytechnic Institute; Blacksburg, Virginia --- September, 1948 to June, 1952

Degrees Received:

Bachelor of' Science, Dairy Husbandry, 1952 Virginia Polytechnic Institute; Blacksburg, Virginia

-62-

Experience:

Dairy Herd and Farm Work, Charles R. Hope and Son, Purcellville, Virginia

June, 1943 to September) 1948 Su~~er work, 1949-1951

Dairy Herd 1flork, lJepartment of Dairy Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute --­

September to June, 1949-1952

Da~ry Herdsman, Charles R. Hope and Son June, 1952 to April, 1953

Dairy Herdsman, Department of Dairy Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute

April, 1953 to June, 1956

Member of:

Holstein-Friesian Association of America

American Dairy Science Association

Alpha Zeta

Block and Bridle Club

Virginia It.-II Club All-Stars

-63-

x. APPENDIX

TABLE 12

Initial Weight, Fina~ Weight, Total Qs!n, and Daill Q!!n I in BodX Weig~~ of Individual Calves Within Groups

I

Group Herd Breeda Initial Final Total Daily Number "leight Weight Gain Gain of Calt lbs lbs Ibs Ibs

A 1863 H 87 239 152 1.27 A 1879 H 88 262 174 1.50 A 1902 H $4 2S6 202 1.70 A 1911 H 76 226 150 1.23 A 18S8 J 46 1.34- 88 .75 A 1937 J 47 .150 103 .e6 A 1923 G 80 243 163 1.36 A 1946 G 70 192 122 1.01

B 1866 H 92 224- 132 1.07 B 1878 H 85 202 117 1.01 B 1900 H 108 272 164 1.42 B 1910 H 88 230 142 1.21 B 1867 J 48 104 ;6 .47 B 1901 J 56 146 90 .76 B 1909 G 72 180 lOS .92 B 1945 G 52 196 134 1.11

c V355 H 76 199 123 1.03 C 1872 H 95 270 175 1.46 c 1904 H 87 284 197 1.66 c 1936 H SO 222 142 1.21 c 1884 J 51 1;6 105 .sg c 1954 J 50 155 105 .91 c 1908 G 61 154 93 .81 c 1952 G ;8 169 111 .92 , D 1869 I

H 82 224- 142 1.23 D 187l H 90 237 147 1.27 D 1899 H 102 306 204 1.71 D 1912 H 70 194 124 1.02 D 1875 J 48 122 74 .63 D ' "1930 .. J 44 130 86 .72 D 1931 G 51 152 101 .g3 D 1944 G 61 168 107 .91

a H == Holstein J == Jersey G =- Guernsey

-65-

TABLE 13 Total ~ DailI Increase in Height !& Withers

f.Q! Individ.u~ Calve~ vlithin Grou:Qs

Group Herd Breed Height at Withers Number

Initial Final Total Daily of Calf Increase Increase

in. in. in. in.

A 1863 H 27.9 35.0 7.1 .0589 A 1879 H 28 • .3 25.7 7.4 .0635 A 1902 H 29.7 37.6 7.9 .0661 A 1911 H 27.$ .3 5. 2 7.4 .0607 A 1858 J 24.6 30.8 6.2 .0532 A 1937 J 25.9 32.; 6.6 .0552 A 1923 G 29.7 )6.5 6.8 .0564-A 1946 G 29.0 35.0 6.0 .0493

B 1866 H 30.0 35.2 5.2 .0428 B 1878 H 27.9 34.5 6.6 .0569 B 1900 H .30.2 36.6 6.4 .0559 B 1910 H 29.4 34.8 5.4- .0460 B 1$67 J 24.6 2B.2 3.6 .0303 B 1901 J 25.8 32.0 6.2 .0524-B 1909 G 28.0 33.4 5.3 .0453 B 1945 G 26.3 33.3 7.0 .O5~3

c V355 H 27.3 34.9 7.6 .0633 c 1872 .H 29.4 35.9 6.5 .0542 c 1904 H 29.1 36.5 7.4 .0623 c 1936 H 26.g 34.9 6.1 .0524 C 1884 J 25.6 31.g 6.2 .0521 C 1954 J 24.3 )2.1 7.8 .0672 c 1905 G 27.3 32.3 5.0 .O~22 C 1952 G 26.5 34.0 7.5 .0020

D 1869 H 2$.7 35.0 6.3 .0548 D 1871 H 2$.9 35.3 6.4 .0554 D 1$99 H 29.8 37.8 8.0 .0670 D 1912 H 27.2 33.6 6.4 .0522 D 1875 J 25 • .3 30.7 5.4 .0458 D 1930 J 25.5 30.) 4.9 .0398 D 1931 G 25.) 31.2 5.9 .0481 D 1944 G 27.1 32.9 5.8 .0490

-66-

TABLE 14

Total ~ Daily ~ !s Chest Circumference

g! Individual Calves Within Grou~8

Group Herd Breed Chest Circumference Number

Initial Final 'rotal of Calt Daily Gain Gain

in. in. in. in.

A 186)- H 31.3 41.7 10.4 .0868 A 1879 H 29.9 43.2 I).) .1111 A 1902 H 29.8 46.6 16.8 .1415 A. 1911 ,H 29.6 41.8 12.2 .0998 A 1858 J 26.2 33.8 7.6 .06;5 A 1937 J 26.0 36.3 10.3 .0864 A 1923 Q, 29.2 41.5 12.3 .102g A 1946 G 29.0 41.2 12.2 .1006

B 1866 H 30.2 42.4 12.2 .0995 B 1878 H 29.0 39.0 10.0 .0862 B 1900 H 31.8 43.7 11.9 .1037 B 1910 H 29.8 43.0 13.2 .1135 B 1867 J 25.) 33.2 7.9 .0660 B 1901 J 26.0 36.7 10.7 .0897 B 1909 G 28.) 37.7 9.4 .0798 B 194, G 26.1 39.7 13.7 .11)0

c V35; H 29.2 40.0 10.8 .090) c 1872 H JO.1 42.7 12.6 .1049 c 1904 H 30.1 44.2 14.1 .11SA,. e 1936 Ii 30.0 40.7 10.7 .0912 C 1884 J 2;.8 37.2 11.4 .0960 C 1954 J 2;.; 36.8 11.3 .0973 C 1908 G 27.7 36.4 8.7 .0754 c 1952 G 27.2 37.1 9.9 .0819

D 1869 H 29.8 41.6 11.8 .1030 D 1871 H )0.7 42.) 11.6 .100; D 1899 H )0.5 45.) 14.8 .1246 D 1912 H 29.1 41.1 12.0 .098lt. D 1875 J 24.3 33.0 8.7 .0735 D 1930 J 25.0 34.4 9.4 .0792 D 1931 G 25.7 ;;.8 10.1 .0826 D 1944- G 27.1 37.1 10.0 .0847

-67-

TABLE 15

Total ~ Dail! ~ iu Barrel Circumferenoe

.2.f Indiv~uual Calves Within qrouE1!,

Group Herd Breed Barrel Circumference Number or Calt Initial Final Total Daily

Gain Gain in. in. in. in.

A 186,3 H 31.9 53.8 21.9 .1826 A 1879 H 29.7 54.$ 25.1 .2169 A 1902 H 29.0 58.9 29'.9 .251' A 1911 H 30.4 54.7 24.3 .1ge~ A 1858 J 25.2 45.3 20.1 .1723 A 1937 J 24·.7 46.0 21.3 .1774 A 1923 G 30.9 56.7 25.8 .2153 A 1946 G 31.3 52.8 21.5 .1777

B 1866 H 30.7 ;2.4 21.7 .1762 B 1878 H 30.3 49.9 19.6 .1689 B 1900 H 31.5 55.3 23.8 .2069 B 1910 H 30.4- 56.2 25'.g .2204 B If!67 J 25.2 42.4 17.2 .1438 B 1901 cJ 26.3 11,5.7 19.4 .1632 B 1909 G 29.6 50.0 20.4 .1731 B 1945 G 28.1 50.1 22.0 .1818

G V355 H 29.4 L,.e.2 18.g .1563 c 1872 H 29.8 54.1 24.3 .2028 c 1904 H Jo.e 59.6 28.8 .2416 c 1936 H 31.4 53.8 22.4- .1915 C 1884 J 25.9 45.3 19.4 .1631 c 1954 J 27.4- 45.8 18.4 .1584 c 1908 G 28.7 47.5 IS.8 .1637 c 1952 G 26.9 47.0 20.1 .1660

D 1869 H 29.5 52.5 23.0 .2000 D 1971 H 31.0 53.6 22.6 .1947 D 1899 H 32.8 5g.7 2,.9 .217g I) 1912 H 29.8 52.0 22.2 .1824 D 1875 J 25.6 42.3 16.7 .1419 D 1930 J 25.2 43.9 18.7 .1576 D 1931 G 26.3 47.2 20.9 .1715 D 1944 G 27.8 49.6 21.8 .1850

-68·

TABLE 16 Total Feed Consumption, T. D. N. Intake f2t Day ~

T. D. N. Intake Per Pound Gain f.Q1: Individual Calvesa

. Group Herd Breed Feed Consumption Total Digestible

Number Nutrient Intake of Calf Milk Grain Hay Total Per Per Pound

Day Gain lbs lbs lbe 1be lbe lb.

A 186) H 574 232 lS; 353 2.94 2.32 A 1879 H 608 201 276 382 3.29 2.19 A 1902 H 732 228 296 431 ).62 2.1) A 1911 H 540 149 345 368 ).01 2.45 A 1858 J 335 120 113 197 1.6E! 2.24 A 1937 J 327 16) 223 2S2 2.35 2.74-A 1923 G 525 276 283 425 3.;4- 2.61 A 1946 G 4gg 143 36; 364 3.01 2.99 B 1866 H 585 131 267 323 2.6) 2.45 B 1878 H ,g6 126 258 315 2.71 2.69 B 1900 H 784 151 34i! 410 3.56 2.,0 B 1910 H 612 109 216 2g6 2.44 2.01 B 1867 J 276 67 138 162 1.35 2.89 B 1901 J 434 100 196 240 2.02 2.67 B 1909 G 471 III 224 269 2.2g 2.49 B 1945 G 366 161 320 335 2.77 2.50 c V);; H 528 160 228 314 2.62 2.55 C 1872 'H 648 224- 356 444 ).70 2.54 c 1904- H 639 250 295 431 3.62 2.19 C 1936 H 596 133 299 342 2.92 2.41 C 1884 J 349 255 172 304- 2.55 2.90 c 1954 J 373 150 267 301 2.60 2.87 c 1909 G 421 160 148 257 2.23 2.76 C 1952 G 461 120 306 314- 2.60 2.S3 D 1869 H 532 151 ;09 350 3.04 2.46 D If!71 H 631 148 )01 )60 ).10 2.45 D 1899 H 751 198 409 469 3.94 2.)0 D 1912 H 468 124- 270 298 2.44 2.40 D 1675 J 315 112 229 ,246 2.08 3.32 D 1930 J 339 85 195 214- 1.80 2.48 D 1931, G 333 137 314 310 2.54 3.07 D 1944 G 419 123 225 269 2.28 2.;1

a T. D. N. calculated from MOrr1son 1 sFeeds ~ Feeding, 21st edition. MOrrison Publishing Co_, Ithaca, New York.

TABLE 17

Slmmar.t 2! ~ Weigbt and ~ Measurements !2!: Individual Calves Within Groups .!1,Monthlz Intel'Yala

Group Herel Bree4 Weight (lba) a.t following Height at withers (in.) a.t .' <heAJ1&ircum1'erence (in.) at Barrel c1rcum1'er:enee I (in.) at, !

Number aontha of &Ie following months of age following J80Dtha of age tollov.ing montJaa of age of C&lt

0 1 2 .3 4 0 1 2 .3 4 0 1 2 .3 4 0 1 2 .3 4

A 1863 a 87 10) IS1 1.8; 239 '21.9 29.0 ,32.2 32.5 .35.0 31., 31.9 36.3 .39.9 41.7 )1.9 34.3 42.0 49.5 5).8 A 1879 a sa 104 156 192 262 28.3 29.7 32.) 33.9 35.7 29.9 31.8 36.1 )8.4- 4).) 29.7 32.2 39.0 47.9 54.8 A 1902 H SJ. III 164- 213 2" 29.1 31.1 33.2 3;.4 31.' 29.8 3).' }8.2 41.3 46.7 29.0 35.4 42.1 ;1.2 ;8.9 A 1911 I 76 92 lJO 174 226 21.8 28.9 )1.3 32.5 35.1 29.6 .31.S 35.0 39.1 41.7 )0.4- 32.3 4-0.0 48.9 56.3 A 18S8 tI 4.6 ~O 74- 90 134 24.6 25.9 27.6 28.4 30.8 26.2 26.4- 29.1 JO.1 3.3.8 25.2 29.0 3).2 37.7 45.3 A 1937 J 1+7 52 68 102 lU 25.9 26.8 21.6 29.1 31.4 25.9 27.) 28.7 32.) 35.3 24.7 27.7 31.3 41.0 4;.4 A 1923 G 80 100 lJJ+ 177 24., 29.7 )1.1 3.3.4 )4.3 36.; 29.2 31.5 35.3 38.1 u.s .30.9 36.6 41.9 so. It 56.8 A 1946 G 72 aa ll; 1S0 180 28.9 30.2 32.7 )2.7 34.4 29.1 3{).8 35.4 36.4 39.0 )1.4 .34.8 40.9 48.6 49.9

B 1866 II 92, 95 1)6 170 217 30.0 29.8 )2.0 .33.2 35.2 30.2 )0.8 35.3 39.1 U.4 .30.8 32.5 40.8 48.1 S2.1 B lSTS H as 100 .1.44 164 202 27.9 30.6 )2.3 33.1 )J..; 29.0 31..2 35.0 37.0 39.0 )0.' 32.5 36.0 ·4;.9 49.' Ii 1900 H lOS 134 18<1 224 2:12 30.2 31.7 )4.., .34..5 ,6.6 '1.8 34.0 38.1 41.7 43.7 )1.; 35.8 4.3.2 52.8 s;., B 1910 H 88 lOS l.3' 178 230 29.5 30.8 .32.4 33.8 .31+.8 29.8 ".1 36.6 39.0 43.0 30.4 )1.9 39.' 48.1 ;6.2 B 1867 - ItS 51 6, 72 104 24.6 2;.6 26.2 21.1 28.2 2;.) 2,.; 27.1 29.1 33.2 25.2 26.; .31.3 3;.8 42.4 B 1901 .J So 66 90 ll3 146 2;.8 21.1 29.4 30.4 )2.0 26.0 28.9 )1.0 3).) 36.7 26.) ,2.1 35.1 41.7 4;.8 B 1909 Q 72 81 III l44 180 28.0 28.4 )0.; 31., 33~4 28.3 29.6 3.3.0 35.8 37.8 29.6 )l.e 38.0 41..5 so.o B 1945 G ;1 60 89 123 167 26.) 27.2 :l9.2 31.' 32.6 26.2 21.1 )2.2 .33.3 37.2 27.' 30.; 36.7 44.0 50.0

0 V)" H 16 9) 13J 154 199 27.) 29.1 :Sl., '2.9 )4.9 29.2 :;1., JIt..S 37.2 40.0 29.4 ,32.3 37.8 1t4.4 4S.2 C l872 H 9; llJ 16, 199 210 29.4 ,1.1 )3.2 34.1 ".9 )0.1 )2.' 38.4- )8.8 42.7 29.8 ,32.; 41.0 50.2- SIt.1 C 190tt H tfI 11.' 16la. 210 284 29.1 )0 • .3 '3.1 34.4- )6.; 30.1 )2., 37.8 40.0 4It..2 30.8 36.0 42.3 51.1 ;9.6 c 1936 H so 9S 142 180 222 28.8 30.5 )2.2 33.4 )4.9 30.0 .31.4 ".5 31.7 40.7 )1..4- 32., 40.8 ;1.7 53.S 0 l8a4 J 51 02 89 ll.8 150 2J.o 26.9 28.4 30.) 31.8 25.8 27.2 30.7 33.8 37.3 2;.9 30.) 34.6 42.8 4S.' e 19S4 .J .50 So 86 115 14; 21,..3 26., 28.2 30.1 33.8 25.5 27.0 30.0 33.1 36.8 27.4 29.5 35.2 41.6 41+.' c 1908 G 61. 10 as 120 154 'ZI .• ) 28.4- 29.6 ".2 32.) 27.8 29.1 )1.2 34.2 .36.4 28.1 30.' )4.8 42.8 47.' C 1952 G sa 68 96 123 164- 26.5 28.0 29.5 31.S 33.0 27.2 28.4 31.2 lJ.J. 38.1 26.9 32.) 36.0 1+3.0 47.8

.D l869 H 82 91 136 166 221+ 28.7 29.6 31.4 '2.~ 35.0 29.8 30.5 )4.7 .36.6 41.7 29.5 30., 38.) 46.4 S2., D 1871 H 90 104- lS2 190 237 28.9 30.1 )2.6 .3.3.9 .3;.3 )0.7 )2.9 )6.5 ')8., 42.' )1.0 33.8 39.8 49.2 ;3.6 D 1899 B 102 l3J.. 192 240 .306 29.8 30.9 33.8 35.9 37.8 3O.S 3S.9 39.8 44.1 4;.) )2.8 39.1 43.2 S.3.0 S8.8 Il 1912 H 70 80 112 152 182 2'1.2 27.8 )0.0 31.' 32.7 29.1 )0.7 34.3 31.8 40.; 29 •• 32.5 36.7 47.8 52.3 J) 181; i 48 52 78 94- 122 as.) 27.4 28.2 28.8 30.7 24 • .3 2;.; 29.8 29.9 33.0 2;.6 27.5 34.6 40.; 42.3 D 19.30 J 44 54 76 104- 1)0 2;.S 26.0 21.8 29.7 30.) 2;.0 27.l. 28.8 32.0 )i..4 25.2 29.1 35.; 42.1 43.9 1) 19'1 G Sl sa 7' 120 148 2.5.3 26.7 21.6 .29.4 30.8 2;.8 26.1 29.8 )2.' );.8 26., 28.1 33.8 4.3.2 48.' D 1944- G 61 72 100 120 154- 27.1 28., 29.9 30.8 32.2 21.1 28.; 32.' )2.9 )6.) 27.8 3l.2 37.4 43.1 47.2