j anim sci 1970 hoffman 967 72

8/12/2019 j Anim Sci 1970 Hoffman 967 72

1/9

M. P. Hoffman and H. L. SelfYearling Steers

Shelter and Feedlot Surface effects on Performance of

1970, 31:967-972.J ANIM SCI

http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/content/31/5/967

and services, is located on the World Wide Web at:The online version of this article, along with updated information

www.asas.org

by guest on December 17, 2013www.journalofanimalscience.orgDownloaded from by guest on December 17, 2013www.journalofanimalscience.orgDownloaded from by guest on December 17, 2013www.journalofanimalscience.orgDownloaded from
http://http//www.journalofanimalscience.org/content/31/5/967http://http//www.journalofanimalscience.org/content/31/5/967http://www.asas.org/http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/http://www.asas.org/http://http//www.journalofanimalscience.org/content/31/5/967


2/9

SHE L T E R AND F E E DL OT SUR FAC E E FFE C T S ON

PER FO RMA NC E OF YEA RLIN G STEERS 1 2

M. P. HOFFMAN AND H. L. SELF a

Iow a S ta t e U n iversi t y A m es

WO important problems in Corn Belt

Feedlots are mud and temperature fluctua-

tions. The extent to which either or both can

modify the economic returns to cattle feeders

is not known. A project to determine the ef-

fects of overhead shelter and feedlot surface

was initiated in northwestern Iowa in the fall

of 1961. The three main criteria for evaluat-

ing effects were rate of gain, daily feed con-

sumpt ion and feed efficiency (kilograms of

feed per kilogram of live weight gain).

Materia ls and Methods

Twelve trials were conducted at the Allee

Experimental Farm, located at Newell near

the center of the northwestern quarter of

Iowa. The general pattern was to conduct the

winter season trials during the months of

November through April and the summer sea-

son trials during the months of May through

September. Except for the summer of 1963

and the winter of 1963 to 1964, two trials

were conducted each year.

Each of six lots, 10.7 m wide and 30.5 m

long, was oriented north and south, with a

surface gradient of 4 slope to the south.

A 3.6-m-wide service drive was provided

between each pair of lots (lots 1 and 2

equaling one pair, etc.). Each lot was en-

closed on three sides with five 0.95-cm

stranded cables on wood posts spaced ap-

proximately 2.7 m apart. Automatic waterers

were located so that each lot had access to

only one water bowl. Each lot contained a

self-feeder located near the service drive and

across the lot from the automatic waterers.

The south end of a barn, from which the

hay mow had been removed, provided shelter

with a dirt floor for lots 1, 2 and 3. The under-

roof area for each of the three sheltered

Iots was approximately 9.I4 m sq (83.6 m2).

1Journal Paper No. J-6495 of the Iowa Agriculture and

Home Economics Experimen t Station Ames Iowa. Project No.

1503.

Supported in part by funds suppIied by the Iowa Ready

Mixed Concrete Association.

a The authors wish to acknowledge the assi stance of D. F .

Cox in the statistical analysis; D. O. Hull F. W. Roth and

V. M. Meyer in the design and construction of the facilit ies

and N. Gay and C. E. Summers in the conduct of the experi-

ment.

Lots 4, 5 and 6 had only a board windbreak

2.13 m high across the north end of the lot.

Lots 3 and 4 were paved with concrete,

and lots 2 and 5 had an all dirt surface except

for a 3-m-wide concrete pavement across the

north end of each lot. Lots 1 and 6 had con-

crete only around the self-feeders and the

waterers in addition to the 3-m-wide concrete

pavement across the north end. Bedding was

not used in any of the lots at any time. The

surface space allowed per steer was sufficient

to avoid problems with excess manure ac-

cumulations except during wet weather. The

outside lot space was scraped as frequently

as necessary to prevent manure accumulating

to a depth of more than 5 to 8 centimeters.

The schedule varied depending upon type of

surface and moisture conditions. The area in-

side the shelter was cleaned according to need

and as weather and moisture conditions per-

mitted, usually only once but occasionally

twice during each trial.

The number of steers per lot per trial ranged

from 18 to 22, resulting in an average of

16.2 m 2 outside area per steer. An additional

4.2 m 2 of area under shelter was provided per

steer in lots 1, 2 and 3.

Temperature and precipitation data from

the U.S. Weather Bureau Station at Storm

Lake, approximtaely 19.3 km from Newell,

are presented in table 1.

Yearling cattle, predominantly of Hereford

and Angus breeding, were purchased and on

a group basis were allowed to regain their

original pay weight before being individually

identified, and before an average of two live

weights was obtained for a starting weight on

test. Weights were obtained at 28-day inter-

vals throughout the test period, with a few

exceptions due to weather or other factors.

The last of these periodic weights was taken on

the last day of the test and was used as the

final test weight to avoid excess handling im-

mediately prior to shipment for slaughter. At

the termination of the feedlot test period the

steers from this study were used in other

studies dealing with the effects of pre-

slaughter treatment on yield and carcass data

967

by guest on December 17, 2013www.journalofanimalscience.orgDownloaded from
http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/


3/9

968

HOFFMAN AND SELF

T A B L E 1. A V E R A G E M O N T H L Y P R E C I P I T A -

T I O N A N D T E M P E R A T U R E , S T O R M L A K E ,

I O W A 1 9 3 1 - 1 9 6 0 )

P r e c i p it a t io n A v g t e m p .

e m ) C )

J a n u a r y 1 . 88 - - 8 . 0

F e b r u a r y 2 . 62 - - 6 . 0

M a r c h 4 . 1 4 - - . 2

A p r i l 5 . 7 4 8 . 5

M a y 1 0 .1 3 1 5 .2

J u n e 1 1 .3 5 2 0 . 6

J u l y 9 . 4 7 2 3 . 5

A u g u s t 8 . 6 4 2 2 . 3

S e p t e m b e r 7 . 2 1 1 7 . 5

O c t o b e r 4 . 2 7 1 1 . 0

N o v e m b e r 3 . 3 8 1 . 2

D e c e m b e r 2 . 0 1 - - 5 . 2

which will be reported later. Starting and

final test weights and number of days on test

are shown in table 2.

The initial feed offered to the steers

a d

l i b i t u m

in self-feeders was a complete mixed

ration containing 65 ground corn cobs,

with the remainder made up of cracked corn

and a protein supplement fortified with vita-

mins and minerals to meet the National Re-

search Council (1963) requirements. The cob

level was lowered at the rate of 10 at ap-

proximately weekly intervals until the cattle

were on the ration they were to receive

throughout the remainder of the test. The

cob level did no t exceed 27 after the adapta-

tion period. The cattle were fed

a d l i b i t u m

at

all times from self-feeders.

All lots within each test were fed the same

number of days until visual appraisal indi-

cated that approximately 80~ of the cattle

T A B L E 2. A V E R A G E I N I T I A L A N D F I N A L

W E I G H T S A N D N U M B E R O F D A Y S O N T E S T

A v e r a g e A v e r a g e

i n i ti a l f i n al N u m b e r

S e a s o n w e i g h t w e i g h t o f d a y s

a n d y e a r T r i a l k g ) k g ) o n t e s t

W i n t e r

1 9 6 1 - 1 9 6 2 I 3 3 7 4 8 1 1 1 5

1 9 6 2 - 1 9 6 3 I I I 3 0 9 4 7 5 1 2 1

1 9 6 4 - 1 9 6 5 V 3 0 9 4 6 2 15 4

1 9 6 5 - 1 9 6 6 V I I 2 7 4 4 6 0 1 63

1 9 6 6 - 1 9 6 7 I X 2 8 1 4 5 4 1 5 2

1 9 6 7 - 1 9 6 8 X I 2 5 6 4 2 4 1 3 1

S u m m e r

1 9 6 2 I I 3 1 8 5 0 0 1 4 1

1964 IV 367 522 139

1 9 6 5 V I 2 9 3 4 7 2 1 4 0

1 9 6 6 V I I I 3 0 7 4 8 8 1 41

1967 X 277 482 147

1 9 6 8 X I I 3 1 5 5 0 7 1 4 0

in all lots would produce U.S.D.A. Choice

grade carcasses. This procedure resulted in

a range of 115 to 163 days on test for indi-

vidual trials. The wide range in length of trial

was because of variation in starting condition

of the cattle from one test to another and

the wide extremes in weather during indi-

vidual trials. The only segment available uni-

formly from all tests on gain, feed consump-

tion and feed efficiency was the first four

28-day weigh periods (112 days). Althougoh

the cattle on some tests were fed consider-

ably longer, it was decided that data through

the first 112 days would provide a critical

evaluation of the factors under test. The ef-

fects of shelter were studied in all 12 trials,

and the effects of surface were studied in the

first five trials. A preliminary analysis of the

data in the first five trials suggested that lot

surface was not having a significant influence

on performance and was not included as a

variable in the later tests.

Least-squares procedures and analysis of

variance for unequal subclass numbers were

used in the analysis of the data. The t-test

was used to test for differences between the

pooled means of all trials for each treatment

effect within each season. The difference be-

tween the pooled means for shelter in summer

and the pooled means for no shelter in sum-

mer was compared with the difference between

these two pooled means in winter by use of

the t-test.

Results and Discussion

R a t e o f G a in

Cattle with access to shelter

gained faster than cattle without shelter in

all trials, but this difference was significant

on a within-trial basis in only one winter

trial (Trial V, table 3). Pooling the data by

season resulted in a significant effect of shelter

in the winter (1.32

v s

1.15 kg; P~.01).

Williams (1958, 1959) found that cattle in

Canada in winter with access to shelter inside

a straw shed or wind protection by a 3-m-

high board fence on the north end of the lot

gained more rapidly than did cattle without

protection. Givens

e t a l

(1967) did not find

any difference in rate of gain for sheltered

and nonsheltered cattle under California win-

ter conditions. Observations in the trials here

in Iowa suggest that the different results in

California and Canada were probably due to

differences in the length and intensity of winter

storms in the two areas. Although it was not

possible for weigh dates to coincide with ex-



4/9

S H E L T E R , F E E D L O T S U R F A C E A N D S T E E R P E R F O R M A N C E

T A B L E 3 . E F F E C T O F S E A S O N A N D S H E L T E R O N A V E R A G E D A I L Y G A I N

9 6 9

W i n t e r

Season Season

a nd ye a r T r i a l S he l te r No she l te r a nd ye a r T r i a l

Summer

She lter No shelter

k g k g

W i n t e r S u m m e r

1961-1962 I 1.37 1.12 1962 II

1962-1963 II I 1.33 1.14 1964 IV

1964-1965 V 1.25 1.06 1965 V I

1965-1966 V II 1.30 1.21 1966 V II I

1966-1967 IX 1.32 1.13 1967 X

1967-1968 X I 1.32 1,23 1968 X II

Av erage 1.32 1,15 *

Difference 0.17

k g k g

1.47 1.36

1.16 1.05

1.36 1.31

1.34 1.26

1.46 1.41

1 3 8 1 3 5

1.36 1.29

0.07**

* P


5/9

970 H O F F M A N A N D S E L F

TABLE 5. EFFECT OF SEASON AND SHELTER ON DAILY FEED CONSUMPTION

Winter Summer

Season Season

and year Trial Shelter No shelter and year Trial Shelter No shelter

kg kg kg kg

Winter Summer

1961-1962 I 13.23 13.25 1962 I I 12.24 11.92

1962-1963 I I I 14.20 14.20 1964 IV 11.42 11.40

1964-1965 V 11.67 11.77 1965 VI 11.77 1 1 2 2

1965-1966 VI I 11.26 10.99 1966 VI I I 11.22 11.14

1966-1967 IX 11.11 11.16 1967 X 11.40 11.21

1967-1968 X I 10.98 11.33 1968 X I I 12.10 12.18

Average 12.08 12.12 11.69 11.51

Difference 0.04 0.18

c a n t l y a f f e c t d a i l y f e ed c o n s u m p t i o n i n a n y

o f t h e i n d iv id u a l t r ia l s t a b l e 5 ) . P o o l i n g t h e

d a t a w i th in s e a s o n i n d i c a t e d e s s e n t i a l l y n o

d i f f e re n c e b e tw e e n t h e s h e l t e r a n d n o n s h e l t e r

g r o u p s in w in t e r i n d a i l y f ee d i n t a k e 1 2 .0 8

v s . 1 2 .1 2 k g ) . Th e c a t t l e i n t h e w in t e r n o n -

s h e l t e r g r o u p h a d t h e s a m e g e n e t i c p o t e n t i a l

f o r w e ig h t g a in s a s t h o s e i n t h e s h e l t e r g r o u p

b u t l im i t e d t h e m s e lv e s t o a d a i l y f e e d i n t a k e

a p p r o x i m a t e l y e q u a l t o t h a t o f t h e s h e l te r e d

g r o u p . C l e a r l y , s o m e f a c to r r e l a t i n g t o a p -

p e t i t e o r t o t a l d i g e s t i v e - t r a c t c a p a c i t y w a s

o p e r a t i n g t o e f f e c t i v e ly e s t a b l i s h a n u p p e r

l im i t o n f e e d i n t a k e i n t h e n o n s h e l t e r e d c a t -

t le , d e s p i t e t h e i r o b v io u s n e e d f o r g r e a t e r

d a i l y e n e r g y i n t a k e . T h u s i t i s a p p a r e n t t h a t

c a t t l e h a v e a n u p p e r l i m i t o f c a p a c i t y f o r f e e d

in t a k e r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e i r r e q u i r e m e n t f o r a d -

d i t i o n a l n u t r i e n t s . I n g a l l s a n d S c a le 1 9 6 7 )

c o m p a r e d h e a t e d h o u s i n g w i t h o p e n - s h e d

h o u s i n g d u r in g t h e w i n t e r in C a n a d a a n d

f o u n d t h a t c a t t l e w i t h h e a t e d h o u s in g c o n -

s u m e d a b o u t 0 . 6 8 k g l e s s f e e d p e r d a y t h a n

c a t t l e i n o p e n - s h e d h o u s i n g w h e n b o t h g r o u p s

w e r e f e d f r e e c h o i c e a r a t i o n w i th a 9 :1

c o n c e n t r a t e - r o u g h a g e r a ti o . W i l l i a m s 1 9 5 9 ) ,

i n t e m p e r a t u r e s r a n g i n g b e t w e e n 7 C a n d

- - 3 7 C , o b s e r v e d a t e n d e n c y f o r f ee d i n t a k e

to d e c r e a s e a s t h e t e m p e r a tu r e d e c r e a s e d . Re -

s u l t s r e p o r t e d b y C a n a d i a n s M a c D o n a l d a n d

Be l l 1 9 5 8 ) s h o w e d t h a t f l u c tu a t i n g t e m -

p e r a t u r e s b e t w e e n - - 1 7 C a n d 7 C t e n d e d t o

in c r e a s e f e e d i n t a k e .

Th e p o o l e d m e a n s d id n o t d i f f e r s i g n i f i -

c a n t l y i n t h e s u m m e r , a l t h o u g h t h e r e w a s a

t e n d e n c y t o w a r d g r e a t e r d a i l y c o n s u m p t i o n

f o r s h e l t e r e d c a t t l e 1 1 .6 9 v s . 11 .51 kg) ,

w h i c h i s i n a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e o b s e r v a t i o n

n o t e d e a r l i e r t h a t c a t t l e w i th s h e l t e r in s u m -

m e r g a in e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y f a s t e r t h a n c a t t l e

w i t h o u t s h e l t e r . R a g s d a l e

e t a l .

1 9 5 3 , 1 9 5 4 ) ,

i n M is s o u r i , n o t e d t h a t r e l a t i v e ly h ig h a n d

l o w h u m i d i t i es a t t e m p e r a t u r e s b e l o w 2 4 C

d id n o t a f f e c t f e e d i n t a k e o f l a c t a t i n g c o w s ;

h o w e v e r , u p o n i n c r e a s i n g t h e h u m i d i t y a t

t e m p e r a t u r e s a b o v e 2 4 C , f e e d i n t a k e w a s r e -

d u c e d . S im i l a r f i n d in g s w i th t e m p e r a t u r e s

a b o v e 2 4 C h a v e b e e n r e p o r t e d b y o t h e r w o r k -

e r s W a y m a n e t a l . 1 9 62 ; D a v i s a n d M e r i l a n ,

1 9 6 0 ; J o h n s o n , Ra g s d a l e a n d Y e c k , 1 9 6 0 ) .

F e e d c o n s u m p t io n w a s s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d

t o t y p e o f s u r f a c e P ~ . 0 5 ) i n o n e w i n t e r

T r i a l V ) a n d in o n e s u m m e r T r i a l I V , t a -

b l e 6 ) . A n a ly s i s o f t h e p o o l e d d a t a f r o m

TABLE 6. EFFECT OF SEASON AND FEEDLOT SURFACE ON DAILY FEED CONSUMPTION

Winter Summer

Season Part Con- Season Part Con-

and year Trial Dirt concrete crete and year Trial Dirt concrete crete

kg kg kg kg kg kg

Winter Summer

1961-1962 I 13.11 13.28 13.33 1962 I I 12.10 11.97 12.17

1962-1963 I I I 14.20 14.20 14.20 1964 IV 11.40 11.34 11.50

1964-1965 V 11.48 11.91 11.77

Avera ge 12.93 13.13 13.10 11.75 11.66 11.84

* P


6/9

S H E L T E R, F E E D L O T S U RF A CE A N D S T E E R P E RF O RM A N CE

TABLE 7. EFFECT OF SEASON AND SHELTER ON FEED EFFICIENCY

971

Winter

Season Season

and year Trial Shelter No shelter and year Trial

Summer

Shelter No shelter

kg kg

Winter Summer

1961-1962 I 4.41 ~ 5.36* 1962 II

1962-1963 III 4.84 5.67 1964 IV

1964-1965 V 4.26 5.02* 1965 VI

1965-1966 VII 3.84 4.05 1966 VIII

1966-1967 IX 3.77 4.38* 1967 X

1967-1968 XI 3.76 4.14 1968 XI I

Average 4.15 4.77**

Difference 0.62

kg kg

4.12 4.29*

4.48 4.95

3.93 3.95

3.82 4.01

3.53 3.55

3.95 4.04

3.97 4.13

0.16 *

a Ki:ograans of feed per kilogram of gain.

P < . 0 5 .

H P~.01.

trials within season revealed no significant

overall effects of feedlot surface on feed in-

take. Shelter and surface did not interact

signif icantly to affect feed i ntake.

F e e d E i ~ c i e n c y

Shelter lowered the feed

requirements per kilogram of gain in all 12

trials (table 7) and significantly so (P ~. 05 )

in winter trials I, V and IX and summer

trial II. Pooling the data by season indicated

that feed efficiency over all winter trials was

4.15 kg for the shelter groups and 4.77 kg

for nonshelter groups (P ~. 01 ). Williams

(1958, 1959) found in Canada that cattle

fed a 50% grain and 50% pelleted roughage

ration required less feed per unit of gain when

protection was afforded by either a straw shed

or a 3-m-high board fence on the north end

of the lot. Givens

e t a l

(1967) observed in

California that cattle with shelter in winter

were only slightly more efficient than cattle

without shelter.

Th e pooled d ata for feed efficiency in sum-

mer indicated that shelter reduced the feed

required per kilogram of gain (3.97

v s

4.13

kg), although the reduction was not statis-

tically significant. The spread between the

pooled mean differences (0.62 v s 0.16 kg) in

winter and summer was significant (P~.01),

indi cati ng tha t shelter had a greater effect

upon feed efficiency in winter than in summer.

None of the five trials in which surface

was considered showed any significant effect

upon feed efficiency (table 8). Pooling the

trials by season did not reveal a significant

effect of surface on feed efficiency, although

the cattle on dirt in winter and those on con-

crete in the summer tended to be more effi-

cient. Shelter and surface did not interact

significantly to influence feed efficiency.

Shelter had a pronounced effect upon cattle

performance in the feedlot. Type of surface

had little observable effect upon the economi-

cally important traits; however, observations

during the first five trials indicate that ap-

proximately 30% as much labor and ma-

chinery time was required to remove manure

from and to maintain the lot when it was

paved with concrete as was required to clean

and m aint ain a lot with a di rt surface. For

this reason alone, concrete pavi ng was a justifi -

able investment.

TABLE 8. EFFECT OF SEASON AND FEEDLOT SURFACE ON FEED EFFICIENCY

Winter Summer

Season Part Con- Season Part Con-

and year Trial Dirt concre te crete and year Trial Dirt concre te crete

kg kg kg kg kg kg

Winter Summer

1961-1962 I 4.56 ~ 5.02 5.09 1962 II 4.22 4.26 4.14

1962-1963 II I 5.43 5.30 5.03 1964 IV 4.80 4.76 4.59

1964-1965 V 4.42 4.66 4.84

Average 4.81 4.99 4.99 4.51 4.51 4.37

a Kilograms of feed per kilogram of gain.



7/9

9 7 2

H O F F M A N A N D S E L F

S u m m a r y

S i x w i n t e r a n d s i x s u m m e r t r ia l s in v o l v i n g

1 ,4 1 5 y e a r l i n g s t e er s w e r e c o n d u c t e d t o s t u d y

t h e e f f ec t s o f s h e l te r a n d f e e d l o t s u r f a c e o n

r a t e o f g a in , f e e d c o n s u m p t i o n a n d f e e d ef fi -

c i e n c y .

S h e l t e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y in c r e a s e d r a t e o f g a i n

i n b o t h s u m m e r a n d w i n t e r , w i t h t h e g r e a t e r

e f f e c t o c c u r r i n g i n w i n t e r . S h e l t e r d i d n o t s i g -

n i f i c a n t l y a f f e ct f ee d c o n s u m p t i o n i n e i t h e r

w i n t e r o r s u m m e r , b u t d i d h a v e a s i g n i f i c a n t l y

b e n e f i c i a l e f f e c t o n f e e d e f f i c i e n c y i n w i n t e r .

T h e r e w a s o n l y a t r e n d t o w a r d i m p r o v i n g f e ed

e f f ic i e n c y w i t h s h e l t e r i n s u m m e r ; c o n s e -

q u e n t l y , s h e l t e r i m p r o v e d e f f ic i e n cy s ig n i f i -

c a n t l y m o r e i n w i n t e r t h a n i n s u m m e r . S u r -

f a c e d i d n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t r a t e o f g a i n ,

f e e d i n t a k e o r f e e d e ff i ci e n cy , a l t h o u g h p a v -

i n g d i d g r e a t l y e x p e d i t e t h e r e m o v a l o f m a -

n u r e a n d f e e d lo t m a i n t e n a n c e . S h e l t e r a n d

s u r f a c e d i d n o t i n t e r a c t s i g n i f i c a n t l y t o a f f e c t

r a t e o f g a i n , f e e d c o n s u m p t i o n o r f e e d

e f f i c i e n c y .

L i t e r a t u r e C i t e d

D a v i s , A . V . a n d C . P . M e r i l a n . 1 9 6 0 . E f f e c t o f c o n -

s t a n t e n v i r o n m e n t a l t e m p e r a t u r e s a n d r e l a t i v e

h u m i d i t i e s o n f e e d d i g e s t i o n b y l a c t a t i n g H o l s t e i n

cows . J . D a i ry Sc i. 43 :871. (Ab s t r . ) ,

D y e r , A . J . , A . K e n n e t t , H . V . W a l t o n a n d R . F i n -

l ey . 1968. Ca t t l e feed lo t fac il i ti e s and ma nag em ent

s tudy . Mis sour i Agr . Exp. S ta . Bul l . SR97.

D y e r , A . J . , H . V . W a l t o n a n d R . F i n l e y . 1967

C a t t l e f e e d l o t fa c i li ti e s a n d m a n a g e m e n t s t u d y .

Missour i Agr . Exp. S ta . Bul l . SR77.

G i v e n s , R . L . , S . R . M o r r i s o n , W . N . G a r r e t t a n d

W . B . H i g h t . 1 9 6 7 . I n f l u e n c e o f p e n d e s i g n a n d

w i n t e r s h e l t e r o n b e e f p e r f o r m a n c e . C a l i f o r n i a

Feed ers Da y Rep. 7 : 64 .

Inga l l s , J . R . and M . E . Sea le . 19 67. Da i ry bul l s

and s t ee rs in open vs . hea t ing hous ing . J . Ani t a .

Sci . 26:1467. (Abstr . ) .

J o h n s o n , H . D . , A . C . R a g s d a l e a n d R . G . Y e c k .

1 9 6 0 . E n v i r o n m e n t a l p h y s i o l o g y a n d s h e l t e r e n -

g ineer ing wi th spec ia l re fe rence to domes t i c an i -

m a l s . L I X . T h e e f f e c t s o f c o n s t a n t e n v i r o n m e n t a l

t e m p e r a t u r e s 1 0 ~ o r 2 7 ~ C . o n t h e f e e d a n d w a t e r

c o n s u m p t i o n o f H o l s t e i n , B r o w n S w i s s a n d J e r s e y

Calves . Mis sour i Agr . Exp. S ta . Res . Bul l . 786 .

M a c D o n a l d , M . A . a n d J . M . B e l l . 1 9 5 8 . E f f e c ts o f

l o w f l u c t u a ti n g t e m p e r a t u r e s o n f a r m a n i m a l s .

Da i ry Sc i . 20 :939. (Abs t r . ) .

N . R . C . 1 9 6 3 . N u t r i e n t R e q u i r e m e n t s o f D o m e s t i c

A n i m a l s , N o . 4 . N u t r i e n t R e q u i r e m e n t s o f B e e f

C a t t l e . N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C o u n c i l , W a s h i n g t o n ,

D . C .

R a g s d a l e , A . C . , H . J . T h o m p s o n , D . M . W o r s t e l l

a n d S . B r o d y . 1 9 5 3 . T h e e f f ec t o f h u m i d i t y o n

m i l k p r o d u c t i o n a n d c o m p o s i t i o n , f e e d a n d w a t e r

c o n s u m p t i o n a n d b o d y w e i g h t in b e e f c a tt l e.

Mis sour i Agr . Exp. S ta . Res . Bul l . 521 .

R a g s d a l e , A . C . , H . J . T h o m p s o n , D . M . W o r s t e l l

a n d S . B r o d y . 1 9 5 4 . T h e e f f e c t o f h u m i d i t y o n

m i l k p r o d u c t i o n a n d c o m p o s i t i o n , f e e d a n d w a t e r

c o n s u m p t i o n a n d b o d y w e i g h t i n c a t t l e . N u t r i -

t ion Abs t r . and Rev. 24 :450.

W a y m a n , D . , H . D . J o h n s o n , C . P . M e r i l a n a n d

I . L . B e r r y . 1 9 6 2 . E f f e c t o f ad libitum o r f o r c e -

f e e d i n g o f t w o r a t i o n s o n l a c t a t i n g d a i r y c o w s

subjec t to t empera ture s t res s . J . Da i ry Sc i . 45 :

1472.

W i l l ia m s , C . M . 1 9 5 8 . E x p e r i m e n t s o n b e d d i n g a n d

she l t e r for bee f ca t t l e . Mimeo. Saska toon, Sas -

k a t c h e w a n , U n i v e r s i t y o f S a s k a t c h e w a n , D e p t . o f

A n i m a l H u s b a n d r y .

W i l l ia m s , C . M . 1 9 5 9 . I n f l u e n c e o f w i n t e r c o n d i -

t ions on th e feed and wa te r in t a ke of feedlo t st ee rs .

J . Anim. Sci . 18:1177. (Abstr . ) .



8/9

Related Articles

enthttp://www.journalofanimalscience.org/contA related article has been published:

Errata

32/4/823.full.pdf//www.journalofanimalscience.org/content/http://www.journalofanimalscience.orghttp:

or:next pagethis article. Please seeAn erratum has been published regarding

http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/contenthttp://www.journalofanimalscience.org/contenthttp://www.journalofanimalscience.org/contenthttp://www.journalofanimalscience.orghttp//www.journalofanimalscience.org/content/32/4/823.full.pdfhttp://www.journalofanimalscience.orghttp//www.journalofanimalscience.org/content/32/4/823.full.pdfhttp://www.journalofanimalscience.orghttp//www.journalofanimalscience.org/content/32/4/823.full.pdfhttp://www.journalofanimalscience.orghttp//www.journalofanimalscience.org/content/32/4/823.full.pdfhttp://www.journalofanimalscience.orghttp//www.journalofanimalscience.org/content/32/4/823.full.pdfhttp://www.journalofanimalscience.orghttp//www.journalofanimalscience.org/content/32/4/823.full.pdfhttp://www.journalofanimalscience.org/http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/http://www.journalofanimalscience.orghttp//www.journalofanimalscience.org/content/32/4/823.full.pdfhttp://www.journalofanimalscience.orghttp//www.journalofanimalscience.org/content/32/4/823.full.pdfhttp://www.journalofanimalscience.orghttp//www.journalofanimalscience.org/content/32/4/823.full.pdfhttp://www.journalofanimalscience.org/contenthttp://www.journalofanimalscience.org/content


9/9

N E W S N D N O T E S

8 3

m e n t a l , c ol le g e a n d u n i v e r s i t y c o m m i t t e e s , a n d

r e s e a r c h a n d e x t e n s i o n a ct i v it i es . N o t a l l o f

t h e s e a r e e s s e n t i a l a s f a c t o r s i n c o n s i d e r a t i o n

f o r t h e a w a r d ) .

f . E x t r a - c u r r i c u l a r a c t i v i ti e s b e y o n d r e g u l a r

t e a c h i n g d u t i e s .

g . H i s s e r v ic e t o a g r i c u l t u r e a n d r e l a t e d i n d u s -

t r i e s .

2 . M a t e r i a l t o b e s u p p l i e d b y t h e n o m i n a t o r :

a , S i x c o pi e s o f a b i o g r a p h y o f t h e n o m i n e e .

b . S i x c o p i e s e a c h o f l e t t e r s i n s u p p o r t o f t h e

n o m i n e e f r o m n o t l e s s t h a n f iv e n o r m o r e t h a n

t e n c u r r e n t o r f o r m e r s t u d e n t s .

P r o c e d u r e s t o b e u s e d b y t h e se l e c ti o n c o m m i t t e e s

w i l l f o l l o w t h o s e p u b l i s h e d i n t h e J . A n i m . S c i . 2 7

1 9 6 8 ) : 2 7 3 - 2 7 5 .

E R R A T A

J o u r n al o f A n i m a l S c i e n c e , V o l u m e 3 1 , N o . 5 , p a g e 9 6 7 , S h e l t e r an d

Fee d lo f Sur face E f fec ts on Per fo rm ance o f Ye ar l ing S tee r s . A l l o f the

va lues fo r feed e f fic iency in tab les 7 and 8 , and the accom pany ing tex t

( p a g e 9 7 1 ) a r e to o s m a l l b y a f a c t o r o f 2 . 2 .

J o u r n al o f A n i m a l S c i e n c e , V o l u m e 32 , N o . I , p a g e 1 4 8 , S t a b i l it y o f

D ie thy ls t ilbes tr o l and Its E f fec t on Per fo rm ance in Lam bs . A t the en

of the fi rs t pa r agr ap h , the las t pa r t o f the sen tence shou ld r ead co var i -

an t ana lys is show ed the reg ress ion coef f ic ients to be s igni f icant ly d i f fer -

e n t ( P < . O I } .

j anim sci 1970 hoffman 967 72

Documents