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<
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