CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATI ON BULLETIN 832 Seasonal changes in chemical composition of range forages and their effect on the nutrition of grazing animals have been investigated by many workers. Animals grazing on predominantly grass-range forage are likely to have nutrient deficiencies during the dry-feed season. Producers of weanling ewe lambs are inter- ested in keeping them thrifty, growing, and producing a good clip of wool, but some- times this presents problems. Development of the esophageal-fistula technique for obtaining samples of what livestock eat has helped with these problems by increasing our knowledge of feed consumed on the range and thus suggesting nutrient supple- ments for optimum production. This bulletin is a summary of 7 years of investi- gation to determine the amount and kind of feeds, as well as the frequency of feeding, for proper supplementation of weanling lambs grazing on dry annual-range forage. MAY, 1967 THE AUTHORS: W. C. Weir is Professor of Animal Husbandry in the Experiment Station, Davis; D. T. Torell is Specialist in the Experiment Station, Hopland Field Station. INTRODUCTION In the winter of 1951-52 trials conducted were unsupplemented. The supplemented at the Hopland Field Station, located in and unsupplemented animals differed sig- the inland northern coastal area of Cali- nificantly in performance. The two groups fornia, indicated that ewes responded to grazed the same pastures but on an ap- supplementation with a mixture of cot- proximately 28-day change-over rotation ; tonseed meal and salt. In the summer and thus it is possible that not all of the ob- fall of 1953 lambs were supplemented served difference was due to the supple- with cottonseed meal and salt while others mentation alone. SUPPLEMENTAL FEEDING OF SHEEP GRAZING ON DRY RANGE PROCEDURE In the study reported here, sheep were grazed as a common flock, so that all lambs had equal access to annual range feed. The flock was gathered in mid- morning, brought to a barn on the edge of the two pastures being used, and then sorted through a cutting chute into the appropriate treatment groups. At the barn they were group-fed supplements; water and salt were available in feeding pens as well as in pastures. After a few hours all lambs were turned back to pasture as one flock. Initially the lambs were gath- ered every day, but after 1956 lambs were gathered Mondays through Fridays only. Lambs were fed from the first of July until the first week of December each year — this will be referred to as the "sup- plemented period." After the supple- mented period all lambs were treated as one flock and grazed on other parts of the Hopland Field Station in accordance with feed availability. This period — referred to as the "recovery period" — terminated at shearing the following spring. At shearing the lambs were again weighed and measured. The period from July until the following May will be referred to as the "combined period." Range forage at the Hopland Field Sta- tion consists of a wide variety of annual grasses, legumes, and broadleaf herbs. Depending upon rainfall and tempera- ture, the plants germinate in the fall, 1 Submitted for publication May 18, 1966. grow little during most winters, and then grow and produce well through the spring months. The feed dries and matures dur- ing May and June so that only mature dry forage is available to the grazing animals by July. Adequate dry feed is usually available but is of limited nutri- tive value. The chemical composition of the forage actually consumed was measured by the use of esophageal-fistulated sheep as sam- pling animals. Grazing sheep will select and consume material which is higher in prote : n and lower in crude fiber than the forage obtained by hand clipping; figure 1 shows the protein content of forage selected by the sheep. (Complete chemi- cal analyses of the samples obtained are presented in appendix table 1.) The for- age was sampled at approximately monthly intervals from July through No- vember in various years. Protein content usually ranged from 4% to 7% per cent, with only occasional values above 7% per cent during July, August, and September. In 1959 an early rain followed by good growing weather produced green feed in September, with a marked increase in protein content of forage available through the latter half of that year. Early rains also produced green fall feed in 1956 and in 1957. In 1958, 1960, 1961, and 1962 protein content of the forage was never above 7.7 per cent; most of the time it was below 6 per cent and on some occasions below 5 per cent. [3] 21.0 19.5 18.0 16.5 15.0 13.5 12.0 10.5 9.0 7.5 6.0 4.5 3.0 1.5 . ■ . o ■ X - X - o X • o. * x D o ▲ A •O 1 1 1 1 i X = I956 1957 •=I958M 0=I958H = 1959 I960 A = I96I D = I962 Fig. 1. Protein content of range forage collected from experimental pastures by esophageal- fistulated sheep, 1956 through 1962. M = moderately grazed. H = heavily grazed. Performance of Unsupplemented Lambs Body and wool weights of unsupple- mented lambs are the best indication of the effect of environment on the animal. In all trials, 17 to 36 control animals were carried as an unsupplemented flock; fig- ure 2 shows the year-to-year body weights of these animals. In 1956, 1957, 1959, and 1962 the control lambs gained from July to December; in 1958, 1960, and 1961 the control lambs lost with varying degrees of severity during the supple- mented period. From December to May the lambs gained weight, but their final weights in May reflected the losses or gains during the July to December period. The average grease wool produc- tion for the year ending in May also re- flected wide seasonal variations. In 1956 and 1957 wool production averaged 8 pounds; in 1959, 6.4 pounds; and in 1962, 7.4 pounds. When there was body- weight loss during the supplemented pe- riod there was a correspondingly lower wool production. Wool production aver- aged 5.4 pounds on heavily grazed pas- tures in 1958, 6.2 pounds in 1959, 5.6 pounds in 1960 and 5.5 pounds in 1961 on moderately grazed pastures. The rela- tionship of performance during the sup- plemented period to the protein content of the forage collected is rather striking. In 1959 following the early rain there was an excellent growth of fall feed; in [4] Fig. 2. Body weights of unsupplemented (control) lambs during the supplemented and recovery periods during the trials from 1956 through 1962. M = moderately grazed. H = heavily grazed. 1957 there was green feed in November and early December, and in 1956 green feed was available somewhat later. The average date of the first effective rainfall was October 23, although such rainfalls occurred over a period of 8 weeks. In 1958, 11 per cent of the control lambs on the heavily grazed pasture died during the supplemented period, and 6 per cent died during the recovery period. In 1961, one lamb died of malnutrition during the supplemented period. Al- though some minor death losses did occur in other years, they could not be attrib- uted directly to the nutritional regime and therefore have been discounted. De- tailed performance of the lambs is shown in appendix tables 2 through 15. Per- formance of the control lambs will be used as base data and the performance for all groups will be compared with that of the control group by year. These con- trol lambs were subjected to somewhat more stress than lambs which would be grazing similar pastures under normal range conditions. They were gathered, sorted, and held in the barn even though they were not supplemented. They are suitable base animals for comparison with the treated groups, because they received exactly the same treatment except for the supplemental feeding. Amount of Range Forage In the first two years' trials there was always adequate dry feed available to the lambs. The third year half of the lambs grazed a pasture with adequate dry feed, and the other half was placed in a pas- ture which had been previously grazed to [5] reduce the amount of dry feed available (the latter group has been labeled the "heavily grazed treatment group") . Both control groups lost weight during the supplemented period, with a loss of 11.7 pounds for animals on heavily grazed pas- ture and 5.6 pounds for those on moder- ately grazed pasture. Lambs receiving supplements gained 3 pounds more in the moderately grazed pasture than in the heavily grazed when the supplement v/as cottonseed meal, and 2.8 pounds more when the supplement was alfalfa pellets. Thus, any supplementation program must assume that there is adequate dry feed available for the animals and that sup- plement is being used only to increase the utilization of the dry range forage. (Appendix tables 5 and 7.) Supplemental Feeds Feedstuff's available for use in supple- menting low quality range forage are genenerally of four types. (All of the fol- lowing analyses are on a 100 per cent dry- matter basis.) High-protein plant materials. Cot- tonseed meal and soybean meal are high in protein, medium to low in fiber and lignin, and are good sources of energy. The material used varied from 46.2 to 58.2 per cent protein, and from 2.8 to 13.8 per cent crude fiber. (Appendix table 16.) Grains. Barley was used as a high- energy, low-protein feed. The barley varied from 9.6 to 12 per cent protein, and from 4.3 to 6.9 per cent crude fiber. Hay. Alfalfa of high quality obtained specifically for these trials was used as a medium-protein, high-fiber feed. The im- portance of the quality of the alfalfa used was extensively studied through the years. Full-bloom alfalfa contained about 20 per cent protein, whereas most of the other alfalfa analyzed varied from 21.5 to 26 per cent protein. The crude fiber content was low for hay, running from 21.5 to 26.1 per cent. Alfalfa was fed in pellets and in wafers (this will be dis- cussed more fully later) . Synthetic chemical supplements in a carrier. Urea containing 42 per cent nitrogen, and diammonium phos- phate containing 21.4 per cent nitrogen and 27 per cent phosphorus, have been tested as supplements to ruminant rations. The use of these inorganic salts as substi- tutes for natural protein offers consider- able promise for reducing the cost of ru- minant rations. Molasses-dried beet pulp was selected as a carrier for the urea and the diammonium phosphate in the 1962 trials. CRUDE PROTEIN CONTENT OF VARIOUS SUPPLEMENTS Per cent Supplement protein Soybean meal 50.1 to 58.2 Cottonseed meal 46.2 to 55.2 Alfalfa, dehydrated: Bud stage maturity 23.8 to 26.0 Full bloom maturity 19.8 to 20.2 Commercial 21.5 to 23.9 Alfalfa, sun-cured: Pelleted 23.1 Wafered 24.2 Barley 9.6 to 12.0 Beet pulp 7.8 [6 EFFECT OF SUPPLEMENTS ON ANIMAL GAIN Supplemented Period, July to December Cottonseed meal at the 0.5 pound-per-day level consistently produced increased gains during the supplemented period (table 1). In all cases the difference in response from that of the control animals was highly significant. In 1958 when the controls lost weight, the cottonseed meal response was even greater than in the two previous years. In later years when the cottonseed meal was provided at the 0.25 pound-per-day level, it still produced in- creased gains over the unsupplemented lambs (P<0.01). Soybean meal was an excellent supple- ment at 0.214 of a pound per day — this furnished the same amount of protein as 0.5 of a pound of alfalfa pellets. There was no difference in the gain during the supplemented period between the lambs receiving protein in the form of soybean meal and those receiving equal amounts in the form of alfalfa pellets in 1959. In 1960, when soybean meal was fed once and five times weekly, there was a slight advantage for feeding five times over once weekly, but there was no difference when gains on soybean meal and alfalfa pellets or wafers were compared. Animals fed alfalfa pellets consist- ently showed gains over control animals (P < 0.01). Increases ranged from 4.6 pounds in 1957 for lambs on moderately grazed pasture supplemented with the full-bloom, lower-protein pellets, to 19.4 pounds in 1958 for lambs on heavily grazed pasture supplemented with the bud-stage, high-protein pellets. In this latter case it is likely that when the dry forage was limited there was also an en- ergy response to the alfalfa pellets: cot- tonseed meal in that year, fed at the 0.5 pound level, produced even greater gains over the control than did the alfalfa. In 1961, when the level of feeding was re- duced to 0.25 pound of alfalfa pellets either once or five times per week, the gain over the controls was similar for both the 0.25 pound and 0.50 pound level as well as for 0.25 of a pound of cotton- seed meal. When the alfalfa level was in- creased to 1.0 pound per head per day the gain was significantly greater. Appar- ently, the feed value of alfalfa as a range supplement is directly proportional to its protein content. Lambs supplemented with a mixture of one-half cottonseed meal and one-half barley consistently gained more than did the unsupplemented controls. The level of gain was not as high as that obtained by cottonseed meal alone, but was higher than that produced by barley alone. As expected, the mixture was intermediate in value between the two feeds fed sep- arately. Although barley produced increased gains over the controls it was the least efficient of the supplements tested. In 1956 and 1957 the half-pound of barley produced gains of the same magnitude as the full-bloom alfalfa pellets. In 1956 the cottonseed meal, cottonseed meal and barley mix, and bud-stage alfalfa all pro- duced significantly higher gains than did barley. In 1957 cottonseed meal alone, and cottonseed meal and barley mixture, both produced significantly higher gains than did barley. In 1959 barley was fed at 0.352 of a pound per day to provide equivalent energy to that available in a half-pound of alfalfa pellets. Although in- creasing the gains over the unsupple- mented controls, barley produced the low- est gains of any of the supplements. In 1960 barley was increased to 0.7 of a pound per lamb per day to furnish ap- proximately twice the energy available in alfalfa meal — at that level it produced gains of the same magnitude as those pro- [7] Table 1 INCREASED BODY AND WOOL WEIGHTS OF SUPPLEMENTED ANIMALS Supplement (pounds per day) Weight superiority of supplemented to control animals Year Body weight End of supple- mental period As yearlings Yearling grease fleece Cottonseed meal: 0.50 0.50 . 50 (moderately grazed) . . 0.50 (heavily grazed) 0.25 (5 feedings per week) . 0.25 (1 feeding per week) . 0.24 Soybean meal: 0.214 0.214 (5 feedings per week) 0.214 (1 feeding per week). Alfalfa pellets, dehydrated: (bud stage maturity) 0.50 0.50 0.50 (moderately grazed). . 50 (heavily grazed) Alfalfa pellets, dehydrated : (full bloom maturity) 0.50 0.50 (commercial) 0.50 (5 feedings per week) . 0.50 (2 feedings per week). 0.50 (1 feeding per week) . 0.453 (salt limited) Alfalfa pellets, dehydrated : (commercial) 0.25 (5 feedings per week) . 0.25 (1 feeding per week) . 0.50 (1 feeding per week) . 1.00 (1 feeding per week) . Alfalfa, sun-cured: 0.5 pelleted (5 feedings per week). 0.5 pelleted (1 feeding per week). , 0.5 wafered (5 feedings per week). Cottonseed meal and barley: 0.25 + 0.25 0.25 + 0.25 Barley 0.50.. 0.50.. 0.352. 0.7... Molasses-dried beet pulp: 0.24 0. 19 + 11.1 per cent urea 0.09 + 20.3 per cent diammonium phosphate 0.25 + 4.1 per cent diammonium phosphate 0.16 + 3.8 per cent diammonium phosphate and 9.4 per cent urea 1956 1957 1958 1958 1961 1961 1962 1959 1956 1957 1958 1958 1956 1957 1959 1959 1959 1959 1961 1961 1961 1961 1960 1960 1960 1956 1957 1956 1957 1959 1960 1962 1962 1962 1962 1962 11.3** 11.4** 21.6** 24.6** 13.1** 13.9** 12.3** 12.8* 13.8* 10.1" 6.4** 15.1** 19.4** 6.6* 4.6* 14.2* 13.7* 11.1* 9.6* 10.9** 10.0** 11.8** 22.5** 12.0* 11.9* 11.2* 11.1* 8.5* 6.2* 4.8* 5.2* 12.6* 2.6* 2.1 1.3 4.8* 3.1* lb. 1.5 5.7 8.8* 8.5* 6.8* 7.0* 2.6 5.9* 3.2 0.6 5.0 3.1 4.8* 8.5* 1.8 2.9 6.3* 8.3* 4.3* 3.6 5.2 6.5* 4.7 9.5* 0.2 3.7 2.6 2.3 3.6 1.7 1.4 3.0 4.3 -0.7 0.3 -1.0 0.3 3.1 1.1 1.3* 2.5* 3.0* 1.0* 1.0* 1.0 1.1* 1.8* 1.5* 0.82 1.1** 1.50* 2.1** 0.6 0.9* 1.2** 1.5** 1.2** 1.2** 0.4 0.4 0.8* 1.7* 1.1" 1.3* 0.85 0.81* 0.24 0.1 0.6 1.2** 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.1 Significant at 5 per cent level. Significant at 1 per cent level. [8] duced by a half-pound of alfalfa pellets or 0.214 of a pound of soybean meal. Even 0.7 of a pound of barley per day furnished only 4.4 grams of nitrogen per day; this is lower than any level of cot- tonseed or soybean meal fed in the trials. Molasses-dried beet pulp was used as a carrier for urea in the 1962 trial. When fed as the only supplement at 0.24 of a pound per day it produced a slight in- crease in gain over the unsupplemented controls. The difference of 2.6 pounds was significant at the 5 per cent level. Adding either urea or diammonium phosphate to the beet pulp did not increase its effective- ness in producing gains in supplemented animals. None of the additives to beet pulp made it as valuable as cottonseed meal as a dry range supplement. The ad- dition of urea and diammonium phos- phate had an adverse effect on palatabil- ity, so that only the dried beet pulp which was supplemented with 4.1 per cent di- ammonium phosphate was consumed at the intended level. Recovery Period At the close of the supplemented period in December all lambs were placed in one flock and grazed in various pastures. In all years a marked increase in body weight was found during the period from December to shearing time, usually about May 1. Compensatory growth — the tend- ency of an animal which has been under- fed to increase its rate of growth beyond normal upon realimentation — was evi- dent in the growth rate of the control animals compared with those which had been supplemented. In all years those animals which gained least during the supplemented period made greater gains during the recovery period. Combined Periods The weight of most economic significance in the yearling ewe is found at breeding time (approximately 18 to 20 months of age) when ovulation rate is correlated with body weight. The effects of the sup- plements are shown in table 1 under the column labeled "As yearlings." Supple- mented animals were always larger than the unsupplemented controls at shearing time, except when feeding molasses-dried beet pulp and molasses-dried beet pulp plus 20.3 per cent diammonium phos- phate. However, variation was often such that differences were not statistically sig- nificant. Only under severely adverse con- ditions (such as in 1958) does it appear that supplementation has a practical effect on body size of yearling ewes at shearing. EFFECT OF SUPPLEMENTATION ON WOOL PRODUCTION The feeding of supplements during the 5-month summer and fall period consist- ently produced a grease wool increase of 1 to 2 pounds per sheep, which seems to be a reflection of both the amount and the protein content of supplement fed. Lower- protein feeds such as full-bloom alfalfa and barley were less effective in produc- ing wool. Increased wool production from barley was significant only when barley was fed at the rather high level of 0.7 of a pound per sheep per day. One-fourth of a pound of alfalfa pellets per day was insufficient to produce statistically in- creased wool weights. In those years for which data were available on clean fleece weight, the effect of supplementation was further demonstrated by increased pro- [9] duction of clean wool. In 1960 and 1961 staple length of the wool was affected by supplementation to a significant degree, but in 1959 and 1962 the differences were not statistically significant. Quality of wool was also affected by supplemental feeding: there was a much larger per- centage of cotted, broken, and tender fleeces from sheep which had been unsup- plemented. This places added economic significance on the effect of supplementa- tion on quality of wool produced. Wool production of ewes remaining in the flock was measured yearly through 1963. Only in one lot in 1961 was there a demonstrable carry-over effect for wool production in later years — this one let was the group which had received 1 pound of alfalfa hay per day during the supplemental period. In other words, dif- ferences due to supplementation will show up at the first shearing, but ordinarily such differences will have disappeared by the time of later shearings. EFFECT OF SUPPLEMENTAL FEEDING ON THE BODY MEASUREMENTS OF SHEEP To further study the effect of supplemen- tation on growth and development of weanling ewe lambs, a series of body measurements developed by Cassard et al. was recorded for the lambs. (Results of these measurements are shown in appen- dix tables 3, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 15.) Body measurements were taken following shearing in May of 1957 and 1958, but gain data are not available on the 1956 and 1957 ewe crop. In December, 1958, measurements were taken at the end of the supplemented period and again fol- lowing shearing, allowing a computation of gain in measurements between the end of the supplemented period and shearing. Starting in July of 1959, lambs were measured at the beginning of the supple- mented period, at the end of the supple- mented period, and again after shearing. This allowed computation of the gain in body measurements during the supple- mented period, during the recovery pe- riod, and during the combined period. Height at Withers There was so much variation within treat- ment groups that no significant differ- ences were demonstrated. This is under- standable in view of the fact that meas- urement depends to some extent on the manner in which the animal is standing at the time the measurement is taken. Length This measurement from the point of the shoulder to the pinbone at the tailhead did not produce significant differences for the combined period from July to the following May, but in some years it rein- forced the body weight measurement data. For example, in December of 1958 the controls measured significantly shorter than any of the treated groups followed by (1) the alfalfa-supplemented lambs grazing on the heavily grazed pas- ture, (2) the alfalfa lambs on moderately grazed pasture, (3) cottonseed meal on the heavily grazed pasture and (4) the cottonseed meal lambs on moderately grazed pasture. During the following re- covery period compensatory growth was evident, with the controls catching up with those that had grown more during the supplemented period. In the fall of 1959, during the supplemented period, the controls were shorter than any of the other lambs except the barley-fed lambs ; the alfalfa and soybean meal lambs were the longest. These differences disappeared [10] during the recovery period, and there were nonsignificant differences for the combined period. In the 1961 trial, 1 pound per head per day of alfalfa pro- duced greater length than all other feeds. The difference was significant in all groups except those fed cottonseed meal once a week. During the recovery period the lambs which had been fed the high level of alfalfa made significantly less length gain; consequently by the end of the combined period there was no sig- nificant difference. Heart Girth There was no difference due to supple- ments in May of 1957 or 1958, or for the combined periods in 1959, 1960 or 1962. During the recovery periods compensa- tory growth was again manifested, with a tendency to catch up on the part of those lambs which had grown least during the supplemented period. In the 1959 trial, the control group was followed by the barley group during supplementation, and all alfalfa groups were superior to the control and to barley. Again in the recovery period the control and barley lambs caught up, resulting in no signifi- cant effects in May. In 1960 the control lambs were smaller, with all the supple- mented lambs falling into a class larger than the controls. Again in the recovery period, control lambs overcame their dis- advantage with a resulting nonsignificant combined period effect. In 1961 heart- girth measurement showed increased gains resulting from the supplementation with 1 pound of alfalfa per day. All of the other supplements were intermediate between the high level of alfalfa and the control lambs. During the recovery period the gap between the control lambs and the supplemented lambs decreased, but in May the controls were still significantly smaller than the lambs which had re- ceived the 1 pound of alfalfa and those which had received 0.25 pound of cotton- seed meal five times weekly. In 1962 heart-girth measurements of lambs sup- plemented with cottonseed meal were significantly superior to the measure- ments of the controls and lambs supple- mented with beet pulp and diammonium phosphate plus urea, and with beet pulp with high levels of diammonium phos- phate during the fall period. The differ- ences disappeared during the recovery period, and there was no net effect in May. Chest Width Commencing in December, 1958, chest- width measurements were taken across the rib cage behind the shoulders. At this time significant differences were found between the controls and all treated groups, with the cottonseed meal lambs on the moderate grazing level showing greatest increase in chest width. In the following period compensatory growth was again shown, with controls catching up. Again in 1959 this measurement showed the difference between the unsup- plemented lambs and those receiving bar- ley, as compared with those receiving soy- bean meal and alfalfa. The barley and control lambs recovered sufficiently so that there was no net effect for the com- bined periods. In 1960, the chest width was smaller for the control lambs than for all the supplemented groups at the end of the fall period, but the controls caught up during the recovery period with a net nonsignificant effect. In the 1961 trial the 1 pound of alfalfa again demonstrated its superiority over the other treatments; the cottonseed meal and the half-pound of alfalfa meal per day also showed more effect than did the quarter-pound of alfalfa meal. During the recovery period most of the groups increased enough to fall into the same class, except that the 1 pound of alfalfa per day resulted in a wider chest width at the May measurements. In the 1962 trial there was no significant effect. Chest Depth The chest-depth measurement, taken from [in the top of the backbone to the bottom of the sternum, was also instituted in De- cember, 1958. Controls showed the shal- lowest chest, followed by alfalfa lambs on the heavy and moderate grazing level. Cottonseed meal on the moderately grazed pasture produced the deepest chest. During the following period the controls made the greatest recovery, fol- lowed by alfalfa lambs and cottonseed meal lambs. In 1959, controls and barley lambs were more shallow in the chest than were the hand-fed alfalfa lambs and the soybean meal supplemented lambs. There was no significant effect during the recovery period nor any net effect for the combined periods. In the 1960 trial there was no significant effect during either the supplemented or the combined periods, but during the recovery period the control lambs did make significantly more gain in chest-depth than did lambs which had received alfalfa pellets, barley, or soybean meal five times per week. Dur- ing the supplemented period in 1961, con- trols were significantly lower than the lambs fed the 1 pound of alfalfa meal and the quarter pound of cottonseed meal five times per week. Gains during the recovery period were not significant, but in May the controls were significantly smaller in this measurement than were lambs fed cottonseed meal five times per week and those fed the 1 pound of al- falfa. During the 1962 trial there were no significant effects. Summary of Body Measurements Body measurements tend to confirm body-weight data, and to further demon- strate the superiority of cottonseed meal and soybean meal as supplements for growing lambs even at low levels of sup- plementation such as a quarter of a pound per day. They confirm that barley is the poorest supplement investigated except (possibly) some of the synthetic prod- ucts. They further demonstrate that 1 pound of alfalfa pellets per day has a marked beneficial effect on the growth of weanling ewe lambs. Yearling Grade In connection with breeding studies underway at the Hopland Field Station all yearling ewes were graded on a phe- notypic grade similar to that used in the California Beef Cattle Improvement Pro- gram. For example, a 2+ is 90 per cent, a 2 is 87 per cent, etc. These grades were assigned by experienced sheep judges a few days after shearing. The results were analyzed for 1956 through 1960, but only in the spring of 1959 was a difference due to treatment detected. Following the rather severe winter treatment in the winter of 1958, visual grading corre- sponded exactly with the weight gain of these ewes the previous winter — that is, the controls which had been on the heavily grazed pasture had the lowest grades. They were followed by the con- trols from the moderately grazed pasture, then by the alfalfa-supplemented lambs from the heavily grazed pasture, the alfalfa lambs from the moderately grazed pasture, with the cottonseed meal supple- mented lambs grading the highest. Lifetime Production After shearing as yearlings, all ewes were placed in the station flock and subjected to the standard management for other sheep on the station. They were subjected to culling procedures normally followed in a good livestock operation, and reten- tion was based on individual record of production as well as appearance and thriftiness. Mature Live Weight Weight of the ewes at the start of the breeding season in early August was selected as the indicator of normal weight — this weight was least affected by lamb production. (These weights are shown in appendix tables 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, and 12 as gain from one year to the next.) Comparing August body weights [12] of ewes in the flock and then reporting the change as "gain" or "loss" elimi- nates the problem of culling effect on the average live weight of the flock. Figures 3 and 4 show the live weight pattern along with wool production of two of the groups of ewes. Figure 3 shows a year in which the controls gained weight during the supplemented period; figure 4 shows a year (1958) when some controls died during the supplemented and recovery periods. Supplementation usually had no permanent effect on lifetime size, and under comparatively favorable conditions in 1956, 1957, and 1959 no differences were detected in gains following cessation of trials. The controls which were unsup- plemented on the heavily grazed pasture in the winter of 1958 made the largest gain from August, 1959, to August, 1960, indicating that they had not made their compensatory growth. The same is true for 1960, when there was no difference in gain from shearing to first breeding nor during the first lambing year — but controls made significantly greater gains during 1962-63. In the 1961 group the differences between the cottonseed meal groups in 1962-63 cannot be explained by present data. Lamb Production Data have been reported on number of lambs weaned and average pounds of lamb produced per ewe remaining at lambing (lamb production of these ewes is shown in appendix tables 3, 6, 7, 9, 11 and 13). To get a figure for statistical analysis, the 120-day weight of single lambs produced was calculated and ana- lyzed. Examination of the ranking of the lambs produced per ewe does not indicate any consistent treatment effect — the 120- day weights of single lambs were not sig- 130 NO SUPPLEMENT 1/2 lb COTTONSEED MEAL 1/2 lb ALFALFA PELLETS JULY DEC. MAY AUG. MAY AUG. MAY AUG. MAY AUG. MAY AUG '56 '56 '57 '57 '58 '58 '59 '59 '60 '60 '61 '61 Fig. 3. Body and wool weights of ewes from the 1956 supplementation trial. Supplementation took place from July to December, 1956. After 1956 all groups were treated alike. Wool weights are shown by the drop each May. [13] if DEC. MAY AUG. MAY AUG. MAY AUG. MAY AUG. MAY AUG '58 '59 '59 '60 '60 '61 '61 '62 '62 '63 '63 Fig. 4. Body weights of ewes from the 1958 heavily grazed group. Supplementation took place from July to December, 1958. After 1958 all groups were treated alike. Eleven per cent of the un- supplemented flock died during the supplementation period, and 6 per cent during the recovery period. Wool weights are shown by the drop each May. nificantly different and no pattern could be detected. Apparently the level of sup- plementation does not have a lifetime effect on lamb production. Wool Production No effect of supplementation on wool pro- duction could be detected beyond the shearing at yearling age. Energy Content of the Lamb Carcass and the Wool To assess body composition changes tak- ing place, representative lambs were slaughtered at the beginning and end of the supplemented period and following the recovery period in 1959, 1960 and 1961. Eight or nine representative lambs were slaughtered initially and then four or five lambs from each of three treat- ment groups were slaughtered at the end of each of the following periods. Lamb carcasses were weighed in air and in water and the specific gravity calculated. Using procedures and formulae presented by Meyer and by Garrett it was possible to calculate the percentage fat in the carcass and the energy value of the car- cass and the wool. (Table 2 shows the per cent fat in the carcasses.) The differ- ences in the fat content of the carcasses in 1959 and in 1960-1961 dramatically demonstrate the differences from year to year. An exceptionally good feed year occurred in 1959, but 1960 and 1961 were poor feed years. In 1959, control lambs managed to retain their fat stores while those fed barley and soybean meal actually increased their fat percentages during the supplemented period. By the following May lambs from all three treat- [ 14 o ID N O) M W Kl OS >0 O O rt M ^H CM CM lO -H -H © lO CO •*i lO 10 OJ t^ ^J< t^ ^ t^.' s £ < o h N IN a 9 C tf S O a O £ «< O S N » « s S S £2 <-H -3< OS *> t>- t- t- CO co o» o co OS CO f t^ CM CM CM 00 oo 00 CM CM o o o O CO CO lO CO CO CO o >o oo CM on ■*f t— 1ft CM CM CM lO - co co l~ t>- N 00 00 in -& »o CO CO CO lO >C lO CM -* lO — i CO CM © © 2 -2 % £ « 02 S 53 £ ^fflffl a> a> S fc n cq ments were fat. All of these lambs were graded "choice" at slaughter time. In 1960 and 1961, however, the controls lost some of their fat stores during the sup- plemented period, as did even the supple- mented lambs in the 1960 supplemented period. The low fat percentages in the carcasses in May of 1960 and 1961 are somewhat surprising, but again the car- cass grades tend to confirm the observa- tion in that in 1961 all lambs slaughtered in May graded utility except one graded cull. In 1960 slightly more than half were graded utility, whereas the others were graded good — this despite the fact that all lots had made excellent gains during their recovery period from December to May. Evidently these gains were very low in fat content. Acting on the assumption that slaugh- tered lambs were representative of their treatment groups, the percentage of "cor- rected carcasses" determined on the slaughtered lambs was applied to the live weight of the average lamb in each lot. (A corrected carcass is one containing 20 per cent fat, 15.8 per cent protein and 1250 kilocalories per pound.) Thus it was possible to calculate the megacalories of energy in the carcass of the average lamb in each treatment group. In 1959 the lambs continued to store energy in the carcass through the trial, and there was a considerable accumula- tion of fat in the carcass by May. In 1960 all of the lots lost energy during the sup- plemented period; by May neither the controls nor the soybean-supplemented lambs had recovered the energy in their carcass with which they started the pre- vious July. The barley-supplemented lambs had more than recovered their original carcass energy, but the data do not appear consistent inasmuch as the barley lambs actually had less energy in their carcass at the end of the supple- mented period than did the soybean lambs. In 1961 all treatment groups again lost energy in the carcass during the sup- plemented period, and had not recovered their loss by May despite the fact that they were growing rapidly. Wool con- tains a considerable fraction of the energy in the living sheep, particularly during the period of the year when it is in full fleece, and so the energy in the wool is also shown in table 2. The assumption was made that all lambs were producing wool at the rate of 8 pounds per year from the date they were shorn as lambs until they were started on trial. In both the supplemented and recovery periods it was assumed that they were producing wool at a daily rate necessary to produce the fleece that was shorn from each lot at the end of the recovery period. By December about 20 per cent of the energy of the carcass and the wool was in the fleece and by May about 30 per cent of the energy was in the wool, particularly in the thinner lambs in 1960 and 1961. When the energy in the carcass and in the wool is combined a clearer picture of the energy storage evolves. In 1959 all groups increased greatly in energy, with twice as much energy stored by May as was present in the lambs at the beginning of the trial in July, 1959. In 1960 and 1961 there was some net storage in both years by the end of the recovery period, but it was of much smaller magnitude than that in 1959. Table 2 shows the actual values ; table 3 shows the percent- age increase over the initial weight and energy. Table 3 also compares weight and energy change with initial weight or energy composition. At the end of the re- covery period in 1959, when the lambs were gaining and were fat, data indicate that body weight markedly underesti- mated the gain in actual energy. In 1960, when the controls lost weight during the supplemented period, the same relation- ship was demonstrated by the energy cal- culations. Data for 1960 indicate that the weight at the end of the recovery period in May overestimated the energy storage at that time. In 1961, when all lots were showing losses of weight, energy data in- [16] Table 3 ENERGY AND WEIGHT CHANGES COMPARED TO INITIAL WEIGHT OR BODY COMPOSITION* July to December July to May Supplement (daily) Energy Weight Energy/ weight ratio Energy Weight Energy/ weight ratio per cent per cent 1959: 22.5 45.5 53.5 -17.1 4.6 6.0 -14.4 4.3 10.8 9.5 17.2 27.8 -16.9 0.7 2.2 -22.7 - 8.5 - 5.7 2.4 2.7 1.9 1.0 6.5 2.7 0.6 -0.5 -1.9 102 110 113 15.6 37.7 22.3 7.7 9.2 19.3 61.3 67.8 71.2 33.4 41.7 37.1 9.1 16.5 19.5 1.7 0.352 lb. barley 1.6 0.214 lb. soybean meal 1960: 1.6 0.4 0.70 lb. barley 0.9 0.6 1961: None 0.251b. alfalfa 0.8 0.6 1.0 * Percentages shown are increases over initial weight or energy composition. Minus signs indicate decreases from initial weight or energy. Table 4 EFFECT OF SUPPLEMENTS WITH VARYING NITROGEN CONTENTS ON BODY AND FLEECE-WEIGHT GAINS Supplement Amount fed per day A verage nitrogen supplemented per day Average body weight gain over controls Average grease fleece increase over controls Soybean meal Cottonseed meal Alfalfa Cottonseed meal and barley Barley Beet pulp -4-11.1 per cent urea -1-20.3 per cent diammonium phosphate + 4.1 per cent diammonium phosphate + 43 . 8 per cent diammonium phosphate and 9.4 per cent urea lb. 0.214 0.25 0.50 0.25 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.352 0.50 0.70 0.24 0.19 0.09 0.25 0.16 gm. 7.7 7.3 15.8 3.9 7.4 15.7 10.0 2.5 3.6 4.4 1.2 4.6 2.0 2.1 lb. 12.2 11.5 17.2 10.4 11.4 22.5 5.2 5.5 12.6 2.6 2.1 1.3 4.8 3.1 lb. 1.5 1.0 2.0 0.4 1.2 2.6 0.83 0.6 0.2 1.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.1 [17] dicate that the alfalfa and cottonseed meal supplemented lambs were actually mak- ing slight gains in energy storage. The data for May, 1961, also show that live weight overestimated slightly the storage of energy in the carcass and the wool. Nitrogen Need per Day Table 4 shows approximate levels of gain over the controls, and average increase in fleece weight with varying levels of supplement and varying intakes of nitro- gen per day. Responses obtained per unit of nitrogen with the beet pulp and its synthetic supplements seemed quite dif- ferent from those obtained with the nat- ural feeds. Labor Saving and Supplementation In most of the trials discussed here the sheep were gathered 5 days a week and hand-fed supplement — the cost of labor for such feeding would obviously be a deterrent to supplementation under most range operations. The use of salt as an appetite inhibitor in alfalfa pellets, and less frequent feedings, were both investi- gated as economy measures (salt-meal mixtures had been used routinely for sev- eral years at Hopland) . From July 21 through October 18, 1959, when salt in alfalfa pellets was used as an inhibitor, the average daily intake of feed ranged from 0.302 pound daily the first 2-week period to 0.595 during the third 2-week period. From October 19 to 29, salt was increased to 20 per cent with a resulting feed intake of 0.270; from October 30 through December 8, with green feed available, salt was reduced to 10 per cent, with a resulting feed intake of 0.513. Thus, it is possible to limit the intake of self-fed alfalfa pellets by the use of salt but the variable intake (depending upon feed available and season) creates prob- lems. The most practical solution would appear to be to set a salt percentage of 15 to 20 per cent and let the intake vary. As to the increased interval between feedings of alfalfa pellets, in 1959 there was no difference in gains between groups fed once, twice or five times per week. In 1960 there was no difference between the groups fed once and those fed five times per week. However, with 0.214 pound of soybean meal per day the lambs gained a little more when fed five times a week rather than once a week. In 1961 when sheep were fed a quarter of a pound of cottonseed meal per day five times per week, and one time per week, there was no difference in response; this was also true when alfalfa pellets were used at the same rates. When feeding the full sup- plemental ration 1 day per week, all of the feed was consumed within 3 days re- gardless of supplement used. Accordingly, it is believed that supplementation of ewe lambs may be safely done by feeding the supplement only once per week. Palatability of Supplements All of the supplements of natural feedstuff variety were palatable to the lambs, al- though the barley, cottonsed, and soybean meals were somewhat dusty and caused some discomfort. Pelleted feeds were palatable to most lambs as soon as they became accustomed to them, although there was an occasional problem with choking (no fatalities resulted from this, however) . The real palatability problems ap- peared in 1962 when molasses-dried beet pulp was supplemented with urea or di- ammonium phosphate. The intended level of supplementation was a quarter pound per head per day but only those lambs receiving pelleted molasses-dried beet pulp, or beet pulp plus 4.1 per cent diam- monium phosphate, consumed the in- tended amount of supplement. When 11.1 per cent urea was added to the supple- ment, only 0.19 of a pound was consumed on the average. When 3.8 per cent di- ammonium phosphate and 9.4 per cent urea were added, only 0.16 of a pound per day was consumed. When 20.3 per [18] cent diammonium phosphate was added, less than one-tenth of a pound was con- sumed per day. In these trials consump- tion was based on group feeding; since 1963, facilities have been available for individual feeding, and wide variations in intake have been noted. From a prac- tical standpoint, however, the group aver- ages are still meaningful. Efficiency of Supplements Because of difference in amounts of pro- tein in various supplemental feeds a com- parison of efficiency is useful in deter- mining which feed is most economical, and this may be obtained by dividing pounds gained by pounds of crude pro- tein consumed. Lambs receiving 0.5 of a pound per day of cottonseed meal (CSM) gained more weight than those receiving 0.5 of a pound per day of alfalfa. This is ex- plained by the fact that CSM may con- tain as much as twice the crude protein present in alfalfa. By dividing gain by amount of crude protein this variable was eliminated and alfalfa was shown to be more efficient per unit of protein than CSM. However, when equal amounts of protein were fed in the form of alfalfa, CSM, or soybean meal (SBOM), alfalfa was superior only one year in three. It would appear then that efficiency is greater when smaller amounts of protein are fed. This was also found to be true when alfalfa pellets were fed at various levels during 1961: efficiency was 1.38 with 0.25 pound per day of alfalfa pellets, 0.671 with 0.50 pound per day, and 0.640 with 1 pound per day. Moir has suggested that a small amount of supplemental feed stimulates microorganisms in the rumen, and these then stimulate the animal to eat more range forage. However, as the amount of supplement is increased, a point is reached where it is not only sup- plementing but replacing range forage. Efficiency of a supplement is also af- fected by the condition of pasture avail- able. During 1958, when one pasture was heavily grazed and the other moderately grazed, efficiency of both alfalfa pellets and CSM was greater in the heavily grazed pasture. It is likely that the addi- tional feed furnished the animals in the moderately grazed pasture was actually replacing some of the range forage. EFFECT OF GRAZING PRESSURE ON EFFICIENCY* Cottonseed Grazing Alfalfa meal pressure (0.5 lb.) (0.5 lb.) Efficiency Moderate 0.778 0.578 Heavy 1.000 0.659 * Pounds gain per pounds crude protein con- sumed. Alfalfa pellets were tested for three years (see text table which follows) . The first year (1959) the pellets were fed once a week to one group, twice a week to a second group, and five times a week to the third group. Alfalfa appeared to be more efficient when fed five times a week during all three years, but the differences were slight in 1960 and 1961. SBOM and CSM were tested only one year, therefore the results of these two supplements are not considered conclusive. In 1960 soy- bean meal appeared to be more efficient when fed five times a week, whereas in 1961 cottonseed meal was slightly more efficient when fed once a week. EFFECT OF FEED INTERVAL ON EFFICIENCY* Feedings Soy- Cotton- per Alfalfa bean seed week meal meal Efficiency 1959 I960 1961 1960 1961 1 0.738 0.660 1.138 0.510 0.818 2 0.910 5 0.943 0.666 1.241 0.710 0.771 * Pounds gain per pounds crude protein con- sumed. The protein content of alfalfa pellets varies considerably with stage of matu- rity at time of harvest (see next text [19] table) . In both years the bud-stage alfalfa was slightly more efficient than the full- bloom alfalfa. Since sheep can consume only so much feed, a bulkier supplement such as the full-bloom alfalfa may be re- placing range forage. EFFECT OF ALFALFA MATURITY ON EFFICIENCY* Stage of maturity Bud Full bloom Efficiency 1956 1957 0.515 0.466 0.461 0.419 * Pounds gain per pounds crude protein con- sumed. In an attempt to study the relationship between supplemental nitrogen intake per day and gain during the supple- mented period, an analysis of covariance was run between grams supplemental nitrogen per day and pounds gain over the controls. The reduction due to regres- sion was highly significant (P < 0.01), the value of b = 0.783 with standard error of estimate of 4 per cent. The regression formula for estimating increased gain over unsupplemented controls is Y — 0.783 X + 4.69, where X = grams of ni- trogen intake per day in the supplement, and Y = increased gain over unsupple- mented controls during the season in pounds. ECONOMICS OF SUPPLEMENTATION Results of 7 years of supplementally feed- ing ewe lambs on the range indicate that major benefits are reduction of death loss in poor feed years, avoidance of weight loss during the supplemented period, and increased quantity and improved quality of wool. As there appears to be no carry- over effect in body size or in lamb or wool production in subsequent years, the cost of the supplement must be justified in the production of improved wool and improved thriftiness of the ewe lambs during the weanling year. If a producer can obtain alfalfa pellets for 50 dollars per ton or 2% cents per pound, and if he wishes to supplement at a quarter-pound per day, his feed cost would be about six- tenths of a cent per day. If it is necessary to supplement for 150 days, his total feed cost per sheep would be about 90 cents. If he increases wool production by 1 pound and sells the wool for 60 cents per pound he has therefore paid for about two-thirds of the feed cost of the supple- ment. In general it appears that the in- creased wool production will probably pay for about half of the feed cost of the supplement. The shorter the dry-feed sea- son during which supplementation is nec- essary, the less will be the feeding costs. No allowance has been made in these cal- culations for the cost of labor in handling the feed. These studies were conducted with ewe lambs, but the same principles would apply to "growing out" feeder wethers. If the cost per pound of crude protein in a supplement when divided by the esti- mated efficiency of the supplement is less than the selling price per pound of lamb, it might be economical to hold the feeder lambs for the extra gain. Lamb price fluc- tuations, value of dry range feed, and labor costs should also be considered. SUMMARY Weanling ewe lambs grazing on low- protein, dry annual range responded to a [20] wide variety of supplemental feeds. Most effective as supplements were high-protein meals — cottonseed meal and soybean meal. Alfalfa pellets made from high- quality dehydrated forage were also ef- fective in preventing weight losses and increasing wool production. A mixture of half cottonseed meal and half barley was less effective than cottonseed meal alone. Barley and molasses-dried beet pulp were the least effective supplements used. The addition of urea and diammonium phos- phate to molasses-dried beet pulp intro- duced palatability problems which need further clarification. One-quarter pound per sheep per day of alfalfa, cottonseed meal, or soybean meal appears to be the practical minimum level at which to sup- plement. Through compensatory growth unsupplemented lambs tended to over- come their handicap and become as large at maturity as those which were supple- mented during their weanling year. There was no lifetime effect on either lamb or wool production following the year of supplementation. Response to supple- mentation of both body-weight gain and increased wool production was related to the nitrogen provided by the supplement. The intake of supplement can be success- fully limited by the addition of salt to the supplement. Another labor-saving prac- tice is the feeding of the supplement once, rather than five or seven times, per week. Carcass composition studies show that body- plus wool-weight changes tend to underestimate the changes in energy stor- age and loss taking place in yearling sheep. Data indicate that the increased wool clip resulting from supplementation will pay approximately half of the feed cost of the supplement used in these trials. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Appreciation is extended to the American Dehydrators Association for their generous support of this work. Credit is also given to Mr. S. L. Stovall of Spreckels Sugar Com- pany for making the molasses-dried beet pulp available for the 1962 trial. The authors also express deep appreciation to the staff of the Hopland Field Station for their help in conducting these trials; to Mr. Luther Jones and Mr. John Dobie of the Agronomy and Agricultural Engineering Departments, respectively, who were most helpful in obtaining, processing, and describing the alfalfa used in these trials; to Dean J. H. Meyer and Professor G. E. Bradford for their advice and help in various aspects of the work; and to Dr. D. L. Palmquist for his assistance while Mr. Torell was on sab- batical leave. The authors particularly wish to thank Mr. J. Fielder and his personnel at the Dixon Dryer Company for their help and patience in obtaining appropriate alfalfa samples for these studies. REFERENCES Allden, W. G., and R. S. Young 1964. The summer nutrition of weaner sheep: Herbage intake following periods of differential nutrition. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 15(6) : 989-1000. Allden, W. G. 1959. The summer nutrition of weaner sheep : The relative roles of available energy and protein when fed as supplements to sheep grazing mature pasture herb- age. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 10(2) : 219-36. [21 Bradford, G. E., W. C. Weir, and D. T. Torell 1961. The effect of environment from weaning to first breeding on lifetime pro- duction of ewes. J. Anim. Sci. 20(2) : 281-87. Cassard, D. W., P. W. Gregory, W. C. Weir, and J. F. Wilson 1956. Environmental factors affecting body dimensions in yearling Hampshire ewes. J. Anim. Sci. 15(3) : 922-29. Coop, I. E. 1964. Liveweight, flushing and fertility. Sheep Farming Annual, Massey Univ., New Zealand. 122-32. Donald, C. M., and W. G. Allden 1959. The summer nutrition of weaner sheep : The deficiencies of the mature herb- age of sown pasture as a feed for young sheep. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 19(2) : 199-218. Garrett, W. N., J. H. Meyer, and G. P. Lofgreen 1959. The comparative energy requirements of sheep and cattle for maintenance and gain. J. Anim. Sci. 18(2) : 528-47. Gordon, A., and A. W. Sampson 1939. Composition of common California foothill plants as a factor in range man- agement. Calif. Agric. Exp. Sta. Bui. 627: 1-95. Guilbert, H. R., G. H. Hart, K. A. Wagnon, and H. Goss 1944. The importance of continuous growth in cattle. Calif. Agric. Exp. Sta. Bui. 688: 1-35. Guilbert, H. R., and G. H. Hart 1951. California beef production. Manual 2 (I-V) . Calif. Agric. Exp. Sta. Hart, G. H., H. R. Guilbert, and H. Goss 1932. Seasonal changes in chemical composition of range forage and their relation to nutrition of animals. Calif. Agric. Exp. Sta. Bui. 543: 1-62. Heady, H. F. 1956. Changes in a California annual plant community induced by manipulation of natural mulch. Ecology 37 (4) : 798-812. Heady, H. F., and D. T. Torell 1959. Forage preference exhibited by sheep with esophageal fistulas. J. Range Mgmt. 12(1): 28-34. Heady, H. F. 1961. Ecological research findings on the annual grass type at the Hopland Field Station. Calif. For. and Forest Products No. 24: 1-4. Meyer, J. H. 1962. Removing sources of error in lamb feeding experiments. J. Anim. Sci. 21(1): 127-31. Meyer, J. H., W. C. Weir, and D. T. Torell 1962. Response of immature sheep to partial starvation. J. Anim. Sci. 21 (4) : 916-23. Moir, R. J., and L. E. Harris 1962. Ruminal flora studies in the sheep. X. Influence of nitrogen intake upon ruminal function. J. Nutr. 77(3) : 285-98. Torell, D. T. 1954. An esophageal fistula for animal nutrition studies. J. Anim. Sci. 13(4) : 878-84. Torell, D. T., and W. C. Weir 1954. Supplemental feed for ewe lambs. Calif. Agric. 8(12) : 8-16. [22] Van Dyne, G. M., and D. T. Torell 1964. Development and use of the esophageal fistula: A review. J. Range Mgmt. 17(1): 7-19. Van Dyne, G. M., and H. F. Heady 1965. Botanical composition of sheep and cattle diets on a mature annual range. Hilgardia 36(13): 465-92. 1965. Dietary chemical composition of cattle and sheep grazing in common on a dry annual range. J. Range Mgmt. 18(2) : 78-86. Weir, W. C., and D. T. Torell 1953. Salt-cottonseed meal mixture as a supplement for breeding ewes on the range. J. Anim. Sci. 12(2) : 353-58. 1959. Selective grazing by sheep as shown by a comparison of the chemical com- position of range and pasture forage obtained by hand clipping and that collected by esophageal-fistulated sheep. J. Anim. Sci. 18(2) : 641-49. Wilson, P. N., and D. L. Osbourn 1960. Compensatory growth after undernutrition in animals and birds. Biol. Rev. 35(3): 324-63. Winchester, C. L., and P. E. Howe 1955. Relative effects of continuous and interrupted growth on beef steers. USDA Tech. Bui. 1108:1-34. [23] Appendix Table 1 CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF RANGE FORAGE COLLECTED ESOPHAGEAL FISTULATED SHEEP (Expressed on dry-matter basis) BY Date Pasture Number of collections Protein Ether extract Crude fiber Lignin 1956 August 14 September 5 October 2 October 31 November 20 December 5 1957 August 6 August 28 September 25-30.... October 31 December 5 1958 Moderately grazed: July 17-18 August 20 September 18 October 10 November 19 Heavily grazed: July 17-18 August 20 September 18 October 10 November 19 1959 August 13-14 September 4 September 29 October 30 November 25 and 30 1960 July 27 August 25 September 21 October 21 December 13 1961 July 25 August 25 September 21 October 21 November 14 1962 August 28-29 October 18, 19,22*.. per cent 6.7 6.5 8.0 12.1 16.1 6.0 6.7 7.4 15.5 19.5 7.7 6.6 6.9 5.8 5.5 7.2 6.4 7.5 5.6 5.5 7.1 6.6 15.2 10.0 8.5 6.1 6.4 5.5 5.5 7.1 7.2 6.1 4.9 4.9 6.3 5.9 6.4 1.04 1.78 .96 1.96 2.02 1.55 1.50 1.88 1.17 3.47 3.49 1.5 1.7 2.4 1.9 1.8 1.5 1.9 0.9 1.7 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.2 1.6 1.3 1.3 6.8 28.3 26.9 29.0 32.0 26.6 26.1 30.5 30.0 33.9 22.8 20.6 30.8 28.8 31.3 35.1 34.7 27.5 29.0 31.1 35.9 34.9 27.0 8.7 10.6 10.8 9.6 16.3 15.9 14.9 10.7 12.2 12.3 7.6 5.9 11.9 11.7 11.1 10.2 11.1 12.3 10.8 12.5 9.5 12.6 8.6 10.6 10.2 9.9 9.6 9.4 10.8 12.2 9.8 9.9 11.5 11.6 Includes acorns. [24] a w o O H m g O G? m PQ & m Hr CU r < rv <^ *° W d — # § oo N C? CO N S 3 co © >o l^ eo O —i CO CO OO CM oo co 1 1 1 1 1 "v. oo # o os § ^h (M CO --N .—* - h » e 3 \ l-H —H — «! o lO OS OS c? i« CD !D ^M N >> o 03 -^ — CO O CO •* OS s OO "V. * w n m io n 1 1 1 1 1 .s oo '3 M CD M OO 2 09 s CO OS © .—> t^" ^ > o CO OS CM © OS ~ "5 CO CO i-H CM CM -h 00 # i? CO S W « O * oo — — CM — — CM 3 ^ 1> * to if CO "V. -o "5 * -3 t- OS » — *?. OO 1(5 H CO CO IS 3 c3 *" o "10 O) rt N w ^ -. 03 ^ CM CM CM CM CM <3 O > o ■4J — ' s-^ CO >> \ OS > o o o ^; a a .a xi j>> 00 00 O O O TJ" co ^ oo r^ r-i ^ 3 U 4JO >-5 £h CM C w 3 co a; d 09 .a o a o xi H W N * N 1- s M O! * t M Ol 3* CD a) *^ •< £v w 00 CO CM O O OS »•-•- e4 O N « « CO h N N r- N CO N t-> cy m -Q „Q a"o a * ^l 00 O M 00 N f) N IN N N 3 04 fc ^ >. ^ C CD -^ 03 a a -O o> s -3 "a a a J5 03 '3? S 3 a "3 "3 I 1 I > O 3 T3 "3 "g 33 CO CO ' ^— ' "g >. 3 3 o3 03 £ 3? o o £3 is (J "J * J 03 o3 o si o oSS C pq u o <1 <1 £ S c gas- «C 3 (-. ■aaS ^ o3 a t.gfl CO & c ^ O OJ II •3 V -^ en >s J3 03 03^3 o £ C« ? n £' S M 03 bB «c a-s 5.2-2 m'm 3 2,o <5fe. J Q 3 o T3 « d a CD s Ah- ncrea by uppl ment • 00 OS . co oo . . co CO ■ i-i OO • >/a a ■ in xt< : : **: CO • ■ OS o . . CO —' S^! as 1 s a • cq • oo "5 • -" 1 • • oo 1 .2 «2 d CO co a> t~ « CNI m 00 ^ Oi oo %* t^ t- t^ increase by supple- ment f ■ • «= "5 • CO oo : : *~! a> . OS **: • oo o • • CN t~ • • CO ■& . OS "5 1 I I ^ OS e s £ e © °1> ^ 1 * ■^1 t^ CT> oo id s§ (OWN CO oc -« ^ CD O s fc 6. fc o. 1 ■ 1! " ? 1 S i- ts a e a S-o as § ga • • o •>* • t~- CN • • t*> ^^ • • , otto d m and arle oo O "5 t>-° oo «5 OO CO CM "* • CM CN» • t~- : : fl • • o CO >> OS o O »C CO CO CO t? 3 pq (M CO O co CO l> i-H rl 00 I> 15 io -& 2 ad 00 CN -l -H CO t> bi si M M d d d d ,£5 ,o 2 ,o ,D j2 ^ jU fl fl SC- n w a ^^ CD 03 V c3 CP 03 09 j2 4t s remaini as weane of lamb 2 iap "S3 "? * s remaini bs weane of lamb 2 M '53 s g a a |jg ! s s i a % j$ »J3 " of ewe of lam weight of ewe of lam weight S3 -73 # S3 <- of ewe of lam weight q3 of ewe of lam weigh! CI • Si S3 » tn .s.s ! fc-fl ,£ £.5 X> X> M 3? x .Si? 1 S £ > - •2 -2 * b3 J3 a a a fe d d t> un ran a a S3 d d > a a S3 d d > CD > 55 5? ' •< ^H CO OS O N co co co o o 1 o 1 O O O 1 1 1 /• oo OS -^1 CN 00 oo 00 os t— t- t~ oo oo "0 CO O "0 o o 1 o 1 o o o 1 1 rt CO oo t~- ^H OS OS 00 OO 00 CO r-» 00 CO CO CO CO CO 1 o 1 ^ -H © 1 1 OS CO = 00 CO rt os oo oo 0O (O N CO oo oo Ol "0 CO 1 1 CO CO CO -H CO "■* OO OO CO OS 00 oo M N 00 CO »« OS CO CO -h CO •^ o o ^ W « H ^ CO CO 00 t^ CD 3g* 111 I sis 1 >> 5 T3 ♦, ^ '55 l— ' — ' J J a * a.2 "I"! s * g a o o o 2 I! 3 o 15 O * OO O t H « rt t~ U3 U0 © CO CO £ »^o^^^^-§ 5 ^^^^^^ a as to -«*••«»< »o ■>»< uo d Q 5? 5 s ; .b w "S W J w 03 fl 03 2ao| d|fc> is 3 8-2 ■g « s « 1 w .^ w o p o W H g o o» PQ t> 0Q £ a iJ <^ o MO t^ CD § a i-i D< Q «! o H W o I— I i Q O PQ H O <1 P4 > < CO CO — -~, ^^ --^ co ^-v oo CD OO oo t^ ^h co o CD oo co O i— i ^* CO CO oo O ^H ~H t-i \ CM ^H -H oo ^-s ^v -^ ^ Ol N H CD o +3 CT5 ** O N M (N CO CO CD oo >0 Tf 1 1 CO CO CM t^ 1 1 1 1 5 to 3 CD M \ CD CO •^< -H O ■* 3 oo ^H r-> CM ^^ C co co oo 03 —i un CO rt O »-c CP M oo o3 ^H t- t- o — t^ oo CO CM C^ CO CO CM o oo O CO »C O CO ■*»< CD CD N 0O tO •* \. OO T3 "5 OS S-sS~ O M< CD O0 CM O — © ~ CO »o CO CO a CM CM tM CM CM CM o b^s J3 .O J2 05 S Oi^oo X! 03 OS ej « a OO •«tl OS i— I »o CO j^ © t— 1C K3 N O0 3 §a^ OO H to ■* -5 a, M— « "tf -Q s-J-Sa ■*| co CO o oo »o co co >C CO CO lO t< to QJ^2 P 8 C c3 CO ■* ^h -^J. CO a C : : +3 0.43 a to 03 s r a J o ■ 3 o t3 93 03 > ^ to ^^ 1 5?! c3 C OJ fl o3 03 Tl O 23 S3 oJ S as o3 ■° o33 o ec o C < < to a> -Oj3 IS S'S 5 & 11 ^ ri H fl o oj .J 3> to h tf T3 — ' CB co -C<~ 3 o °3 tH a f|pO o -fi W3 9 n> - flxj i 8 a a ag O to -«£ to' CD 3 g, 03 .5^ tO a o D O w H co i— i O H P co pq D n & a o g «5 CO j5 oc g< »o a, 05 S t— I 03 gs P Q CO I— I < g V. CO 00 oo N N h 00 o ' — ^-^ ~— v_^ V_^ W f to CO CC tO N CM CO CO Tji Tti CO CO — i CO- CM un cf t^ «5 o n co h — »— i CM co o CT> o w oo own -U CO o © — ■ tO N 1C on \ 1 1 1 1 3 CO M 3 > 03 o CO 00 ^ K) C35 ^»< CM •* CD "O a 00 CO 3 03 .. ^~ 0) o i "a "a M CO 5» \ • CM — CM CM V o eg CO •^ CM N OS CO co O co O — CM CM CM CM CO CM CM 00 -o OS ^_ >o s O) "O » CO ID N 00 CM CM CM — CM CM p 00 00 CT CM t- 00 U0 * W CN «o co »o ■V. uo -d S3 S-ss., CO u J2 * X) jB CS N t^ ■>* Ol CC >> 03 J2 Ooo"5 * to a CO — i o — CM •- ^ CM -^ O > Coo to X ja OS « 1- M ~- o — c 3 on" 5 ^. © (^ C m o) n U a; \«5 CM — CM i-l ►-5 PS **"~* 00 3 '3 bO ? 09 i^Soo CO o «■ >c co a t- 05 1— « N N 1 ^ 1 <: 0) 'o i> m a N « ^i «•- w 3 (D N h r- i^ co > P-jS 03 co co cc CO CO CO > r CO CO cv CO CO Ui co co co 3 03 £ * > Eh 31 1 * -n ° ° — o O O < * O 3 o3 -b is o s •r; 3 £ =a : o oS S O O < a W §« 2 a-v 0) CO a 3^" Sc^| p : l K M >? a 'ssS * g oSH^ "a^g ^ cu rj .-4 cu £ bj ? a-- - s a g g o E s s 1 ° S'fe 3^ £ r-i h* t3 r 5 -^ 1 ^-3-t^ 5.S .soHS-g"! to w a ° ^ - S a|.s|.s-2 id y m in ^ fl Q H HH CM Pn p w o GO H P4 P CO Q «i P4 O O 3 o 1—1 H O P Q O Pn o o Q Ph 52 oj - * - e8 . JH -ij CO CO t^ CO « >> a b « b a CO 1 CN 1 •>* o 1 co "^ 1— 1 W 1 1 1 1 fe — is CD X 03 a t- •*»< o UO 43> o 1^ -* 1 co co oo t6 O0 CM ^h CM CM t^ 03 r-5 +» lO co rt . co t- ■* •* CS o CO CM CO 5 ad co oi U0 OS CO <• — V OS 1 o to 1 1 Co 1 1 >» Oi Oi S c3 T3 , S e o Ft CD 03 1-4 Oi CM OO 1 CO CM 00 OS 1 t^ t~- 00 OS © ■^3 1 CM CM <* CO CM CM «3 CO 1 CO t> T3 a o e. ^3 § 1 s » a a "*. CM lO >> ^ co h,£ a a> CO CO co © CM H ^ l-H °° 1 1 1 OS ° >— 1 -u i "3 b 5? b ^ 03 CO t- OS oo co co oo o co 435 O 00 oo r 9l> ft-o a CM 1-1 "* co CM CM t» t^ i-i CM l> ^ ^" 1 is- *> >/a b C3i ^ ■* »o CM 00 0) c ga 1-1 "> o 1 © uo a TO >> << rS CN1 00 b- ta 1>- C35 s — ' si OO CO oo o >C CM 00 CT © ^ 02 CM CO t» © ^H a- l-~ CO CM t> CM CM CC l> CM CM t- M bi) bfl r- B B u B X S3 IS a X ts a a £ a TO Xi £ a oj a X £ "2 a a "bo B "~Z a 'bo B 03 '(D "i3 ,3 "S £ '53 ao bfl bO B x o O B x o o B -r o o 1 1 s a £ ^ tr 5 5 .5? 1 s a | xi 9 5 bo *53 11 5 s rB M ► * ► ^ CD K ^ a 4* 15 r» rC >. >» CQ ^ >i >> to .£ >> >i 1 £ 03 o3 *o "c c3 ff3 ij "o *c S3 03 o X * O T3 * n CM i 3 si X) * o3 C a e £ S3 & u t- cc t-1 t- 4D a X X a e OJ CG ' bO ^2 03 g S3 " B S > o- 3 p > 4 > -= 3 B > 4 > -3 £ ^ < <3 55 ^ <3 <1 X z *< o r-- 05 oo O t- OS eo CO CO o o o o o o 1 o 1 lO OS GO •<*< CO «— ' l^ o •■* S ,_l t- CO O CO CO 00 CO »-« ' —l CJ o o o o o 1 o CI c a t-~ CM t- o ©> CM U3 '-' eo co oo OO 00 t^ CM oo CI SO 1^ o o O CO o> OS CO CI CM CO '"' o © o © o rt CM o o IS s i p >w a 3 OO r-l « CO IN o CO CO >o CO OO oo oo oo 1 eg CN« o t^ e CI »> OS «o « o o o o o ■H rt lO 00 00 oo oo CO U0 CO rt rt (M CM ~H CO >o o o o O cn >-i cm r^ © © © © © I o o o I I N OO CO O CO W «5 t^. CO v S3 a .-3 bfl . ^ c -o o a fe « 2 . * I 1-s w •* d . o ri "S o S "?2 £ *s % 5 a> m iiseig £ fc <3 £ fc <; * * » » * s3 j: j: ^j j: ££ o ja j3 ^ J ^ g _bf _M .60 M _bC ^ "53 "53 'cu 'o '55 fl £ & £ & £ S 0) 0) o> o « ^S CO CO CO tc cc & cu I- fc. 1- u tsO bfi bfi bt) O h N CO >2. J> J 3 j a* '£ « S «3 w CD CO JC g tn CD ADD fl) CD CD Appendix Table 7 LAMB AND WOOL PRODUCTION, YEARLING GRADE, AND MEASUREMENTS OF EWES SUPPLEMENTED IN THE 1958 TRIAL Item Moderately grazed pasture Control (no supple- ment) Cotton- seed meal (0.5 lb. per day) Alfalfa pellets (0.5 lb. per day) Heavily grazed pasture Control (no supple- ment) Cotton- seed meal (0.5 lb. per day) Alfalfa pellets (0.5 lb. per day) Number of ewes remaining at lambing. Number of lambs weaned Average lb. of lamb per ewe (120-day wts.) Average 120-day weight of single lambs (lb.)* Number of ewes remaining at lambing. Number of lambs weaned Average lb. of lamb per ewe (120-day wts.) Average 120-day weight of single lambs (lb.)* Number of ewes remaining at lambing. Number of lambs weaned Average lb. of lamb per ewe (120-day wts.) Average 120-day weight of single lambs (lb.)* Number of ewes remaining at lambing. Number of lambs weaned Average lb. of lamb per ewe (weaning wt.) Average 120-day weight of single lambs (lb.)* 1959 clean wool (lb.) 1959 grease wool (lb.) 1960 grease weight (lb.)*' 1961 grease weight (lb.)*. 1962 grease weight (lb.)*. 1963 grease weight (lb.)*. Heart-girth gainf Length-gainf Chest-width gainf Chest-depth gainf Height at withers gainf. Grade on 5/8/59. 29 22 55.7 73.5 24 31 92.6 79.5 10 8 53.6 70.0 88.1 73.9 3.4b 6.2 8.2 7.8 7.6 7.3 71.2b 3.7" 65.2a 4.1b< 15.7" 3.5b 22.7a' 4.7b 58.2 3.8 82.4ab 73.2 73.6 87.5 76.1 81.5 64.5 96.5 79.2 5.0* 8.7 8.4 8.3 8.2 8.4 80.7* -2.1a 70.8' 1.2= 18. 9^ 1.7a 25. 5'"' 2.9a 59.1 3.1 84. 6« laml production 1960 i.4 52.8 73.2 lamb production 1961 71.4 76.8 16 75.6 77.1 lamb production 1962 10 60.6 69.0 72.1 72.1 lamb production 1963 78.4 76.3 77.7 75.0 average wool production (lb.) 4.5 c d 7.7 8.2 7.9 8.0 7.5 2.9a 5.4 8.4 8.0 7.8 7.9 body measurements (cm.) 77.5«d _ .6ab 68.9 l >< 2.2a 17.7b< 2.1a 24.2b'c 3.7ab 59.5 3.0 68.0a 6.4d 64.3a 5.2" 15.1a 4.0b 22.1a' 4.6b 57.2 4.1 yearling grade (per cent) t I 83.9bc I 82.1a I 54.7 74.2 75.3 77.0 87.3 73.6 100 8.4 8.3 7.9 8.1 8.1 79. l d * -1.2» 70.1bc 1.4a 18.5"d 1.7ab 24.gc'd' 3.0a 30.3 2.8 83.5abc * Differences between groups are nonsignificant. f Initial measurement 12/8/58. Gain from 12/8/58 to 5/8/59. Minus signs indicate loss or decrease. X Yearling grade is visual grade (2+ = 90, 2 = 87, etc.). a.b,c,d,e Wool production, body measurement, or grade very significantly different (P < 0.01) if superscript is different. a'.b'.o'.d' Body measurement significantly different (P < 0.05) if superscript is different. M O P o ffl H < o P w W P cc Q O HH H Q HH* Ch P I re S ~ .' s OS 2 o - rH OS oo CI «* OS CO eo "*i .-* t^ o q oj a »o co2 2 » ' -.o Ml— I — < a rs a^a * N O Ol IO ^ t~- Tji OO OS ^* O * ffi Tf <)l Ifl I I I I I I t- t- I— O -*i CO • t^- OJ -h co co co r— c^i (N N N N *« .2 .2 *• p 2 11 o o V .2-2 ftj §lfl >> 73 |R d -^,2 ol > d tq o > CD CM IO IO ^ CO a; B ^-h CM U OO 00 t-h CO t~- CM t^ (^ IO N O OS t^ CO co CD o^s • a; "ft 02 oo ft ft 3 co S3 CD *> ,3 O EH S?a hH >> d rt Tf< rt rt ifl CO ^2 a Oi ?* CO OS 1 s £ s _C5 © o J3 1 3 S o o o 13:3 >> a A A tc 03 ►p 05 i-i rO 00 co rfS CO CM *d io" 13 S CO CM IO Oi s N ^ ^ t^ g 1^0 05 »d -£"* is B ^H ^H IO t~ a ^H rt kO co ^ t^ jt 1 —; < 0^5^ 00 to 00 CM Oi m H $SJS* ■**< ^H OO CO CD CO CO OO CM O 00 cm' ^H ^H »C t^ ,-1 1-H CO CO r-t i-H CO ^ «« ft a M-^ O S^^O? ^ OO co CO OO C35 ffc^S"* ■* IO CO ,_ lO CM O CM m n n 05 ^IftSft ^ ^ Ui CO H H 00 CO ^i O ft 'to £ a a ta CN oo IO 00 fl S § m eo t* CM ** CO ^H CO -H N IN C3 ° a QOB ^H -H l^ CO rt ^H O CI ^"^ CD r2 CD CD CD CD _^ CD d CD c CD "So a 03 CD 'co 03 S3 'Si 03 cu "co 60 ft 60 - 60 ft C ^ « O C T3 " O .a 73 « C I "3 CD CD ,0 co O 5 60 '53 *a ■«8 a CD CD ,ft co O '33 'a 'S a CD CD ^2 co O 5 "53 -i-> .ft CO >> X5 co >) ,0 oo >> CD a~g 03 CD SI 03 CD a -§ 03 G S3 £ -o * fe T3 * ? -C * CD J± £ CD S ^ CD -2 3 |g «-, o ^ O «« O O 60 O ft 5r! -2 fr! * <-i C O 60 O ft Si -2 fc a> '-' C mber o ambing mber o erage p CD or CD a CD co 111? 2 E « ill! 60 ^ 60 „ft I a F 03 3h 3 > > - 3 -3 3 > > -= 3 -^ 3 > > — fe y o CO ■* o © O O — i o o o ■^ vm CO- Oi t^ >o >— < CO ■*< T 1 01 t-i OS »0 CO CM ^H \ \ V. -a < lO kc t^. a •—1 < > ^Q r ilS? d «# cM O ■o „ o lO tJ< CM t^ c >>_CM Si < O ■* CO CM d M< O -«*< < CO TJ co co a> O © d i o d H O O 0*3 1 + w >> X> X XI o OS a l>. oo «o H CO 1^ Sec t< © CO d «- (M CO < •>* d CM UO ^Sa x j^ Zz X " s co A S'at? gg-g s»a g 2 i o o o £ poo 3 w c - «» ■«*< > § a, *e .*j ^^ X! CO CO IS "co o g 83 § e 8 § X oj to O 1— » CO d CO co S R "*! "*. J i-l y-i tM co oo co .-i CO »o ISa C3 e 10 §> (0 e co O ts X 3 a c3 CD B 0)£ 03 *- a a K © -t o J3 00 •- 05 CM CO d t^ 05 CO CM CM lO cl CN lO * (^ CM E^^"? ■*■ G ■«* d cn CC CN K d *3&®& CN »o -* 'opt-in 09 cn £ a-2 cc o- «: CO cc irt o- CO o§ a £N G cc If G C^ CN •>* d r ^^ I nc -c ■o a 1 ■ 1 c a. £ a C a c ■ 1 | c a £ a. c T c P - 1 * ' -o o s- ■- " 'S a 1 'i a p "s S a p 4 S S3 c £ i p c > CD P i a 1 a £ P p > a o a c X £ £ ^2 a- £ a p p > a > o a OJ a IS a 3 a o O i— a c 'p - CP o O - rr sc u "3 to co o a T3 a 03 fag 03 -3 i§2 8 -- o 03 £3 03 T3 (h s 00 o :/. — : 03o 03 3 ,3 V 0s c oa 3 s 3 03 o 1 a X o J2 Ol - - 3 ;: if "3 -5 a ft n> o 3 3 3 a 2 "3 o V 2* 3 d o a a 03 93 -a o -2 s 3 td 89,3 r, U 09 a 3 .SJU3-3 O o3 > 3 . cl 7,^ " -3 O a -3 |-3 Sfc! 7} > 0) H a ■J a > +3 c St a y >. 13 s a o a • 3<3 = 1 a - S3 03 T3 3*2 — d 3 r* a _ 03 s a a - a > 51 a? 3 — 53 .2 3 3 2 pq ■a 3 Ej c fl ja o P o w H o & P m pq P 02 Q O hH oa Z H S g PH H Ph & P 3 GO o CD OS O P Q i— i O H W o I— I >< Q O pq o > v fc JO - - XJ 5 a j3 J3 * «. « eOT ^ i-H ^v CN j2 oo o - oc rt OO -h s ■»» o tN ": tr. i-H O 00 8 lO CD (M i- "OWN OS ^ tN ^H ^ CNl CM i-H i-H i-H OS o tH C (M •** t^ i-H T_l T-H w O i- -ti i-< r-i eg 00 S A '3 M 09 cc t^ CD (^ ar oo 3 3 u: ■* ^f CD OS CO > <3 CO \ c O r- C 1 O »-H ^H 1 ++ T3 — i 43 ..CD J2 C<1 DC ■* er oo »- OC e 1*00 10 «-J oo > O b-5 o > o o <9 J3 J= XI J3 J5 X> CD W CC *n o o o'C"*^ c 00 05 1— os -4 ei 13 o So t^ t^ t^ t^ t-- t>. U 0Q 0JJ3 n * 1- 00 t^ OO N N 3— ' izj'S ">s O o3 >> 33 > « CC , ^ * _^ -3 ^ t "" fa d 09 | 03 t- ft a fc. 0, , c & ft ft 5x £ s ^ a s "? « iC ^ eoj 3 f s c c "S a | 5 03 V, ? & s >> c t- ^ a H a c "c c c C ' •• 03 t- 03 g " a) a •• 03 >-i ' "3 a ft £ 3J M hi d M M t- 2 .S .3 s <1 5* S 0> -'± > "g ftg-^B liuii O OJ0 03U3 3 © 3 OQ'ts'S fa Sg.SfooS^ © 03 ? »> o d d33.2?o v 00-(— c3 -S +» P >> a c ^&5 I— 1 o J 2 a 03 £ 03 —< t- CM x> OO ^ OO rt Tt< 1^^ n n w CO 1-H ^H 00 t>- l^ co £-t— O c UK a1 s^a c lO oo 00 0-° aj3 T-H l-H o rH J § a bB-^jO^ J2 i P 03 R 03 ^ 03 o m CO CO 00 oo OO -3 a On feedi per w (0.214 per d CM oo o 02 ©5 O "0 CO t^ 00 t^- CO CM ^ ^ »o 1-1 t— t- t^ a s „T3 CO Five feedings per week (0.214 lb. per day) Oi e »o os r- io i-i CO CO OS £ i-H Ci Oi CO i-H lO t^ e CJ o J5 00 CO T*< t>i oo 1 CO CO "o CJ ta 3 o - 3 o ca o c UK e 93 ncrease by supple- ment! i e cv I-l l^ C35 o Z : : cs> a « B £ o 03-^ T» ^ 1 a.g'ga JT JS ^ £ t- CM m io C35 a ■^1 ■* t- o3 ■ZZ*^ rt OO Tl< 1-H 00 10(0 -fi CO c t^ 00 CO K 3 F feei per (0. per i-H ^< CO t^ r «1 03 O 03^ 53 CM O- O CT> A CM i-i CO co On feedi per w (0.5: per d ■* 00 Tf O- O OS 03 Cft CO t^ 00 CO ,2 .-h co ir: ^H CO C^ ^ 'oS a 03 42 tn-M ^ 9 Five feedingi per wee (0.5 lb. per day © cc «5 CO CO »* 1-H 1-1 kO CC CO CO M CO h IC 1-H lO 1-- CO X' a- oc CO t- CM T»l O i-TJ « d CM CC O tr^ CD 5C 1* -f< 1C co © oo c- O Oi ** ■* >o t^ CM 6 l a i-H T-l ■«»< CC i-i co t^ ! ■^ g 1 03 a) 03 t- - 0) CO 03 o £ : # * bO a <*- M a. «_ * /— . a 's a s weaned of lamb weight o '3 a s weaned of lamb ] weight o £ c "^ CO CM CO 5° ^i- p, 03 03 t^ \ UO 0) a 03 3 a 1-1 CO 03 f lamb ounds 20-day 03 03 IN fc M bO "o MO a ^3 C *o fee o a ^-5 c '53 o 'S '? 03 £< .5 b 03 03 a bi .2 t! 03 0) c/ ^ c tj £ a mbe amb mbe erag erag mbe amb mbe erag erag 03 CO c3 03 _0 1 03 03 CO CO c3 u3 03 03 ^s CJ — < 3 > > — P -H P > > r- l- " fc £ <1 -H ~; o3 t^ CO *i •B^t3 «o o CO CO «^ ft lO CD . CO i-f— O o S >/3. "3 CO t» r-H r-l 00 — 1 © © + 1 © © © 1 1 1 HH TO > O CO ive dings week 14 1b. day) 1 a> s U5 c 1 to i-<— .Oi -c: o o o 03 JS -^> -« .8 * to © r-< CN O a % B « o o © ©' rH Cn 1 + 1 1 1 e Cfi es e CO «s CD,±ci -T-. C3 *3 'ive ding wee 51b. day oo o CM CO 3 *Sbsb «S a^ a >o 1 > CD fl CD-B 03 >o tc o ■f 0) On :eedi er w (0.51 ier d T CO ~ •a a -"ft u, 03 £3 o3 0D-M ,-N S3 ive ding wee 51b. day 3 oo o cr ^8bsb «Jh ft ft ia "o i-r? Contr (no suppl meni . e. a '« a 3 c 1 1§& -rt Co -2£g ass 3§u .S goo 55^ •a cd s-stjS* .a j -g 2 g a -g ° * a cd*: o3 s 3 03 S£<0 O k. O a CD ,\^2 >> a an if 1 " t3 CD ° >,CD 2 fl t, g^^fe a.s © „ ., XI X u u X s eg d xi xi d \ CO CNI CC CO t^ co CO 00 EC CO ~ o GO O «5 -f on C ■g CM CO •>* ■*)< co co CO CM 3 \ CM CM CM CM CM i-H CO w '3 3 00 o ! > O O +- tf «*J 3S V. ■* n w m r^ co CO w >> 5 H 03 CO M * N — CD § CNI t-- lO CO CO 10 co >o 02 SP ,-H — 1 rH p- 1-1 "^ £ 10 h- 1 > O O &cO o* w CO CM s. CO > OS x x x d N •* h Oi X X CO O GQ o'C^ cc M f! N U3 CM CM 3 9, cp — > Hj £ &=° Q Dh ^ " CO £ < c ■3 0) T3 £ ? +J CD 3 .."V. o s 3.2o cp i* a -3 cp ■"J XXX" U3 ■* (D - CO "5 , to o3.2 -£-° CC CM O CO Tt CO CO J CP-~ bfl 3 =S ec CO ■* N CC lO lO 0* < is r> t^ t^ I— 1- & 02 CO <-. CO ■^ 3 a J * t- N CO N CC o 3 — ' fc"S £ t— I « p p m £ »— 1 <1 o H ffi a a O ^^ 1— 1 >> -r- ^ "a >> o3 cS -0 TJ Z, b CP cp a a . i Q O 3 CO '0 cp a a cp t_ t ~ a cp a £ * * c w * £ £ CM »C "^ ^ ., PQ >> H c a ■ CM »C C Soo c »C CM M . O O ^-^ H S "« -^ X c , cc cp a CO g ^ C C t, .3 cp cp »i-a co S«3 cp « 00 a .cp o a'ti ^3 t* C co "« ^ y cd c cprls S'cP- ? cj£oO C ce©V 3 <» o^3 "" Sec 3 -c""3 P'Eg cp > 3 fP o3 ^ g a o3 g o 03 3 fo 3 a" -13 03-S M3>"o ^Sx^. a § ^ § 3 3 o o o -*J +i -tJ O y-4 CM CO "3 © C8 « !D O N Ol £ m d O ^ H •"■ *" < © © O 1-H ©' rt © _< ©' o 1 -3 co a M'ceja'S — — V A3 G i)S "5 o O _ M CO ,£! >> j= i d

. CD lO o •* o ■* 00 lO CO CO t-» CD rt CO CO © OO oi CD o w eo oo l-H >-H t- t>- IC O (DO © <~ a^a ^_ I 2- « «» ++ •)-+ co c ^ oo -^ © to 00 s"a cm' i- © © ©' One feeding per week (1.0 lb. per day) CD - 1 "5 >C CO S © © ©' ^, 1 1 DQ rO tt> ■» _ _S « Ce o, CO ■a a I One feeding per week (0.5 lb. per day) O o Q CM CO t^ M< - CO lO • "5 co < eo i tr S 3 g O O O o o ■* N 05 N 05 O ©' O © O © O >-h -1- c -1-2 © CO © -^ > > i-H ©' © C ■fel 1 1 bo.q'R X' 2) es rt 4 Q) — ■ C, i — i rr; o t~- C5 © OS ^* CO CO CM lO lO co So co CM O OO O IQ 00 t^ 02 CO ©' co' CO oo i— 1 r-l lO I>- iO «« a— a m^J .^v ^3 «. „, M co „Q >, Oi »o OS J3 d Ol OO i- IC ^ 05 © >0 CO -*i O -fi CO >ii oo oo 03 CO © CM CO oo T-* r-t IC t- i« S ISO 4) «*5 o,^ a OS OS ""a! ■S 2 "as c ^ a ® O Oi >0 O) y- »c CO ^h m r- •>• OO OO CO • t~ »o 1 bo a ,fi a a ^H 13b d S3 co '3 bO fe ^ * a 1 | ft M fe ,0 CO I« s ' £ ' £ co ^- «= e +»' a 2 « a * >g »c a j 5 a £ a c 3 c s t; co 1 u CO 1 g a S is . • © r ^ o £ a c «h «-c cu co cr 'g 3 5 1 3 1 ■I p > c 1 > a. c 0) a. a e 55 £ < D MX 2 £ 1 c I a a cfl £ C ,4 1 [3 'c 4 DQ G > < c ' s 2 o u 1 •a to 1-1 co ro oo o i-i ci d h d h I I »-i o o o I I lO N N N N I I O —I ,-H tfi r-H ^ — % g $ o to c< ro •o l-H OS e O 1 e 1 O o o - o -*" ++ ct> — t- — o o o © 05 CN CO CD tn m d M^3 ft *"* ,-. ^H OHH 1 1 a ~* ca ^ 9) CD a o co CO On feedi per w (0.25 per d oo CO *" CM -^ o O a 03^) .<-"<. J3 P c ©~< CO d t~ »o Fiv feedi per w (0.25 per d 5 O CM CN CD | i" 8 g 1 Of o ^ a CM CM rH 1 «5 CN I— On feedi per w (1.0] per d 1 OJ ? o CN O CN a) i tr $ 3 § £ C3> 1 1 1 a CC ^> ess 01 s> a 3 a 1 One feeding per week (0.5 lb. per day) a o 1 C8 CN J3 CM CN 2 cs 1 *< §S-a 8 3 CD s OC c CO CO o X! CN c 00 oc CC <= CO ,«lj)0« ^ a^ a > -D

o o> | «E a^ a Control (no supple- ment) J3 XI CC ir. CD a 1 CN TH a CD t: p c a E a a • J l - 5 » 1 c CD a a cc c e a a | 73 £ E a a a. 3 c 3 a "E a a PC o C as M CD 0,d .2 -^ >>cd CD £ O ft 73 am SSI a ° IV -a& O fa ft mo g'Sv §si fe O C3 0) m«3 -° fee m^, bl 8 2-a •s s a a-^ © V"^73 Sg >» S«a g a'fl o a.Sf'H !>>.§ o s a ft 1 IP? Appendix Table 14 AVERAGE BODY-WEIGHT GAIN DURING 1962 SUPPLEMENTATION TRIAL Average gains July 1902 to May 1963 Amount consumed (lb. per day) Number of lambs Average ini- tial weight of lambs Type of supplement Supplement- ed period Recovery period Combined period 7/62 to 12/62 12/62 to 5/63 7/62 to 5/63 1 Control (no supplement) 0.0 18* 71.3 I 4.9» 15.4<= 20.3 Cottonseed meal 0.24 20 70.4 12.3d 10.4" 22.9 Molasses-dried beet pulp (MDBP) 0.24 0.19 19* 19 69.6 70.4 7.5«>« 7.0 ab 12. l«b 13.6bc 19.6 MDBP and 11.1 per cent urea 20.6 MDBP and 20.3 percent diammonium phosphate. . . . 0.09 18 69.1 6.2*b 13.2abc 19.3 MDBP and 4. 1 per cent diammonium phosphate. . . . 0.25 19 70.1 9.4c 10.7a 20.6 MDBP and 3 . 8 per cent diammonium phosphate and 9 . 4 per cent urea 0.16 19 67.6 8.0 h c 15.3« 23.4 * One lamb missing on 4/12/63. f Values in this column are N.S. (not significantly different). a.b.c.d Values differ significantly (P < 0.05) if superscripts are different. [45 S a a g 3 § o ^ CO ,3r\ =3J3 >> *- ? « iC OO g t^ §, CN >* O © CO r « i tr m a a Sag CO i- t^ CN) ■* o c O © o © 1 1 A 05 ^> .<> 8-° o^i* t- cc ir. m o> >o C>5 OS iH © ^-73 a " !>• CT CC c © CO ■a a) i ir S S 52 o — t^ r~ o> co <-i T3 111 1-1 <= 1 o © © 1 0) 1 O ••^-s a °^.-o 5 '3°'. n c © CO O 00 c cc o •<«< 1^ co q3 a>o 9J og^a "o io £ ° aa rt< IT o- cc CD CO CC >o lf5 © fl Ji a*» cc * * c2 13 a ^ . • 13 >> * CD * 1 E a; c > -d ^ -C § « a » , g a © a 1 i CP O 11 > -2 3 •§ a; a o ft £ cc P3 o cc H u eo CO o> CD CD o 1 o 1 o 1 O 1 O . en CO lO CM co t~ «5 •& lO lO CO 00 rt* a- •<*< •* CD KS ■**< lO OS «o © 00 00 02 OC' s •fl CO 00 »o Tf o US CO © co © 1 CO © 1 © 1 1 o 1 co o 1 "5 1 co o 1 CN t~ !-■ «r^ CC OS f- •^ oc •^ CD ,-N c CO (^. EC >< ?_ ^CJ "Si 3 CJ t 3 t~ t^ •Is 5-, 1 02 co •<*< -T 1C 3 J o o O 3 £ o rH o V -» - o o 8 C3> p C 1 1 co 1 1 CO t 1 i <=> a it „ CO R k <3> 1 to if § 53 e ": | t^ o to -1- § o o c- o o r~ ^m ^ o EC c-. oo © ir >o o o 1 o 1 © 1 o 1 c a 1 o "5s lO r~ CM ■a t^ o CO CO Cf oc r^ EY CO o 1 CO EC no © EC K »o IQ o Tf CO »-< CO y. ir lO O 1 © 1 01 1 © 1 o ■ * CO © a J3 CO -t- 00 CO CO CN 1 EC SO „ oc X -.T O- (M « M _t< 1 - IC i i 3 GO 3 3 s s ? a — ?, c — fR z Tl a , a —: — rt X) a a — b T) V -ti a a ~ b — ri T3 3 S q 8 ft o a o a 1c o 'E CD ft "3 'J '3 B ft o ■s a> ft > 3 .5 CP ft IS a 3 ft 3 C -- 1 ft ft C a J C a ,0 a * a CO « U DQ M U c/. « U §2 .He 3 c 0) S 0) ft^ &c 3 a> o.22 13 o -^ a 3]