Division o f A g r i < u I t u r a I Sciences S V UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL E x p e rime n t S f a Hon Extension Service '■\V^'f ;.■■■:■"' ■ ■..'.:^:^s ; t' : :.;'.'.;';---' CIRCULAR 441 A PROFIT IS POSSIBLE of $3 to $20 more per head for animals fattened by using the hormone stilbestrol. Results here reported indicate that at a cost of approximately 15 cents per animal (only one injection in each case) treated cattle gained Vi to 1 pound more a day than untreated cattle. THIS CIRCULAR TELLS what dosage of stilbestrol is needed to increase gains. It also gives information on the rate of gain, dressing percentage, carcass grade, feed consumption, and efficiency of gain. THE AUTHORS: M. T. Clegg is Instructor in the Department of Animal Husbandry, University of California, Davis. Reuben Albaugh is Extension Animal Husbandman, University of California, Davis. Horace T. Strong is Extension Animal Husbandman, University of California, Davis. H. H. Cole is Chairman of the Department of Animal Husbandry, University of California, Davis. OCTOBER, 1954 THE USE OF STILBESTROL in FATTENING CATTLE M. T. Clegg Horace T. Strong Reuben Albaugh H. H. Cole I ncreasing the productive efficiency of the livestock industry by the use of hormones shows great promise. Dinus- son, Andrews, and Beeson of Purdue University first showed that stilbestrol increased the rate of gain of cattle in the feed lot.* Our results in ten experiments involving 599 head of cattle indicate that beef steers on full feed in the feed lot, when implanted with 60 milligrams (5 small pellets) of stilbestrol (diethylstil- bestrol), gained about % pound more per head per day than did similar un- treated animals. The cost of the stilbestrol is approximately 15^ per animal. Only one treatment per animal is required. Furthermore, in these tests, the treated cattle utilized their feed more efficiently. Feed records show that hormone-treated animals used from 100 to 300 pounds less feed per hundred pounds of gain than those animals not receiving treatment. Although the total amount of feed con- sumed by the treated animals was in excess of that of the untreated controls, the additional amount was not sufficient * The effects of stilbestrol, testosterone, thy- roid alteration, and spaying on the growth and fattening of beef heifers. Jour. Anim. Sci., 9: 321-330. to overcome the far greater efficiency of gain. The net return was from $3.00 to $20.00 more per head for treated cattle. The slaughter carcass grades for the treated animals studied in these ten tests were slightly below those of the controls, but there was no significant difference in carcass yield between the groups. Exami- nation of the prime rib cut showed that the treated cattle carried less fat cover- ing. Within grades there was more red, lean meat in comparison to the amount of fat. This is desirable in any carcass. Slightly less marbling occurred in the "eye" muscle of the treated animals, but the difference was not great enough to affect the carcass grade materially. On the other hand the "eye" muscle ap- peared to be larger. These tests were conducted in Califor- nia during 1951 and 1952. Two of the experiments were run at the University of California Experiment Station at Davis, while eight were carried out in coopera- tion with ranchers and farm advisors in the field. The tests covered a wide range of climatic and feed conditions and in- cluded the area extending from Modoc County on the north to Ventura County on the south. [3] Compare the twelfth prime rib cut from an untreated steer (right) with the same cut from a treated steer (left). This is the point at which the front and hindquarters are separated. The "eye" muscle in this instance is larger in the treated steer and has less marbling; less fat covers the meat and the meat itself is slightly coarser in texture. These animals were used Both steers and heifers, almost exclu- sively of the Hereford breed, were used in these tests. The animals ranged in age from yearlings to two-year-olds. The grade and quality of cattle varied between groups, but within each test the quality and grade were comparable for treated and control animals. In all tests, weights were secured at the beginning and end of the trial. In most cases it was impossible to obtain individ- ual weights; therefore the cattle were separated into two uniform groups. One group was identified by tail bobbing or ear marking to differentiate it from the other. Average weights for each group were used to determine the difference in gain. Where possible, animals were in- dividually identified. Individual weights were taken, and individual gains were determined. This method helped to estab- lish the significance of the gains made. And these feeds Part of the cattle were full-fed in the dry lot, while in other tests they were grazed on irrigated pasture. Some of the animals on pasture were provided sup- plementary feed; in other tests no addi- tional feed was supplied. The feeds used in the dry lot varied somewhat as far as kind was concerned, but all animals re- ceived a balanced ration. They were fed concentrates at the rate of approximately 1% pounds for every 100 pounds of live weight. Hay was provided free-choice. Tables 1 and 2 give the general summary of each of the tests and show the age and number of cattle and the type of ration fed. In all cases these were prac- tical rations applicable to the region where the test was conducted. How stilbestrol was implanted The cattle were driven into a chute and restrained in a cattle squeeze. The stil- [4] X> £ X» :S £ £ £ £ X» XJ X x> x> x! x> in in eo oo m (NO-* in CO rH rH rH rH m C- 00 rH m * JO -* CN "«3 « Cfl 3 : i2 "5 >> % ' ^1 c^ 8 C^ •o XI Pi ^ "3 o e« XI Pi g is T3 fl O, £ '3 ■« >» xi «i J- >; efl aj «2 S hO ■— 4 cS ct3 fl 2? 2 a e w C O. co "E < o 1 ^ o. i » s 23 J= < o < o o > *: o d S O r5 -a «2 O xi .tS M o PJcjO oo in t- o» ^ ' \?» tH ^( rH co eo ^ '3 >• «8 00 CN CN CO CO rH O 1-g •as O ti_i os oo in k> c4 — ' ■ rH ■a a) - -h\ rH "3 rH «■ IM ■ ■ a. M "C c • a ■g q ■« p . s O b*. 3 c 8 cS fl Cfl >» p. p '1 :1 = I SJil O CQ M U P3 2 •"2 : M co &S 4, « CO CO ^S 4 >> co e3 X! CO .« .*» c ■H a> S « V o M M U 5 =2 a S £ § « ■te *s s is o m Ph u .2 * J3 « JS S3 o jS M S S 5 "8 V CO ._£ hi) 4" "SS5 ^ fl ^» in OS «tf OS T}l O rH t- CO CO CS *■ 3" ho oo' 00 > e3 N eo eo' ^c 00 cs ^ °2 O rH 5 -0& * c 0.3 o «s rH rH rH rH CO CO e pfH O a > !? *5 '3 Is IS in eo M in in m CN OS 00 00 00 OS OS o CO rH rH CN 00 CN CO oo' p. O P rH rH rH rH rH rH rH CN ri rH rH rH ■o CD "3 c £.75 -3 CB ed T3 ho eo cn eo ih « ^ CO t CO t- CN OS t> CO CO 8 eo ic c4 CN 00 OS m «o tN eo OS CO rH CN w o cn eo rH CO CN CN CN CN* c a> £ -o Tj» Tt m in o o rH y-^ m m t- t- m m a 1 d fl » Q £ CO «0 eo eo t- t> OS OS rH rH o o rH rH *4- iH tH rH rH rH rH rH rH a (A c t>0 o o O O O O O O "S "C "S T! ;* ;* S > "u T es r* t* S* a ca < rH X t« >H H Eh H Eh >* >H H Eh H H .- "C 3 J; 8 XI o o o o o o O O in ■«* CN O o o *0 r-t rH ,j» -4< CN CN Tt< Tf eo eo eo eo a. H E fe CO "3 1 u CO & s ■■ CO in T3 0) CO M V cS CO IH 3 CO V 8 l- : * 23 4> — •c to -c w - •c CO 8« ■c eg ■S- t tn — TJ .3 "55 o a K2i 2 S a, >H CO OS co > 03 ^o 02 *c o o O 3 -a ! i J9 £ ► * o o CO 2 02 "5 '3 P 02 o co 02 t3 E cd el •|H > 5? ,2 bB ^ "E < o *■ o u c D 1 1 a eS OT a 9 1 .2 « * "- rH « 2 02 « «4H _ . *^ ex? CO bo d o -d CO a ' CD c3 £ > CO iX) 02 ^ n 1 1 o '3 u 0) o IS C 1 O >> tH o I 02 >» a • CO © * 1 * ? ^ 1 1 ?"5 £ co £ o) £ 02 %m (h a) M 0) fx a tH 0) H 5"E I P < 3 "c 5 p CO 1 - w ft 02 O 4 02 o i 02 P 2 a p- efl e« J3 cs d 13 Oh CO Ph CO Pm CO Ph CO CO s 1. M 3 4- S3s CO rH to t> o t> O l> o ca CO s CM CO t> 00 o to cm" cm Q. < TJ a 4) o *- s i!l CO tH t> oo t> U3 i-i iH £ lO OS 00 iO CO ■«* ■ os a: to l> t- CO en oo "3 IA > 5 fe T* ^ t- t> io ir: t- l> DO 1 # c s H be *5 O CO CO CM CN 00 « 1-i T- CM C< 1 Q°^ tH tH o CO *3 c a O o o o o o 1 bo < *E 'C £ » *>h 7h s* & o >* }* Eh Eh >H J* H Eh a E "3. | M a> I i u o o O O t> oo tO LC TS • to w '3 o M -Q "3 02 a ►- CO os tH CD OS 02 O Ol M CD 02 tH 0) 02 1 '55 d ^ Jh O 03 o « 7* >- ** « 2 5 rf O 03 CO tH -*J 1 m 9 a B -a ea ^ C 05 O g 03 g fl « 9 3 o S -5 O Eh C, O >H Tj O Ji «§ O h * o O Eh O O Eh ■S u ■" o O CO s 02 Eh bestrol was administered with a poultry pellet implanter. This simple instrument, pictured here, is easy to operate and is inexpensive. In the first eight experiments the 5 pellets were placed under the skin of the neck. In the last two tests (Alameda steers and University of California steers) the same number of pellets were placed subcutaneously in the top of the ear. The ear is preferred over the neck re- gion as a location for implanting these pellets. The reason is that when the ani- mal is slaughtered the ear is removed with the hide; this eliminates the possi- bility of any pellets remaining with the edible portion of the meat. It appears that the amount of material made available to the body is the impor- tant thing in hormone treatment; that is, it should be neither too high nor too low. There are indications that excessive doses may decrease gains and in addition cause many undesirable effects, to be discussed below. Other effects of stilbestrol treatments Stilbestrol, the synthetically produced hormone used in these studies, is an estrogen very similar to the female sex hormone normally secreted by the ovaries. Both steers and heifers displayed distinct symptoms as a result of this treat- ment. Some developed high tail heads. Some of the groups showed moderate to excessive riding for the first two weeks. All treated animals, both heifers and steers, had enlarged mammary glands and elongated teats. These symptoms in the majority of the cattle on test had sub- sided materially by the time of slaughter. In the heifers, teat and udder develop- ment 90 days after implantation was com- parable to that seen in late gestation in beef cattle. At slaughter time the udders of some of the treated heifers contained considerable milk. The first signs of hor- monal activity as judged by the latter symptoms occurred several weeks later with cattle on pasture as compared to those in the feed lot. Some difficulty was had with vaginal prolapse in the treated heifers. This usu- ally occurred about 8 to 10 weeks follow- ing the implantation of stilbestrol. In one group of heifers on irrigated pasture where the rate of gain was below normal, no trouble with prolapse occurred. The A pellet implanter; pellets are shown in the cardboard container. Right— technique used for implanting stilbestrol subcutaneously in the ear of the animal. 7] reason for prolapsed vaginas is not well understood, but certainly the estrogen ad- ministration precipitated the condition. Prolapsed vaginas are not uncommon in untreated, pregnant cattle. Because of this difficulty with vaginal prolapse as well as the fact that gains made by treated heifers on full feed averaged only about .15 of a pound more than the gains made by the untreated controls, it is not recommended that heifers be treated with stilbestrol (see Table 1). Stilbestrol-treated cattle which grazed on irrigated pasture without heavy sup- plementary feeding did not make any significant increase in gain over the con- trol groups. This fact was established in three tests conducted in Sacramento, Co- lusa, and Modoc counties. On the other hand, in Tehama County, when two-year- old steers on irrigated pasture were sup- plemented daily with an average of 5 pounds of rolled barley per head per day plus cereal hay free-choice, they made a more significant gain than those animals not treated with hormones. This rate of gain over a period of 121 days was .57 of a pound per day more than the untreated group (see Graph 1). Results of these tests indicate that cattle on pasture alone do not eat sufficient feed to obtain enough total digestible nutrients per head per day to make gains capable by this treatment. Another interesting observation was noted in the Sacramento County test. In this trial the cattle were individually iden- tified and then individually weighed every 30 days. The greatest gain in the treated group of steers was made by the "medium" and lower-grade cattle. These differences may not be significant, be- cause not enough animals were in the test to provide an accurate comparison. The pituitary and adrenal glands of the treated animals were larger than those Graph 1. Supplemental Feed on Pasture Is Necessary to Get Higher Gain from Treated Animals Average gain per animal ''' s ■ ■■■ Control I . /' /■""' Supplemented ^ ^p 3-4 lb. grain 9f _ per head per day. fM / / M J Supplemented per day M Jf 5 lb. grain per head. I Jr Hay self-fed. _ // // / / / / SACRAMENTO STEERS f TEHAMA STEERS - 120 150 Days on feed NOTE: Supplemental feeding of Sacramento steers began at 120 days. The Tehama steers were supplemented throughout trial. [8] Table 3. Comparison of Carcass Grade and Dressing Per Cent of Treated vs. Untreated Steers Number of animals Carcass grade Dressing per cent Prime Choice Good Commercial Alameda Treated Controls Kern Treated Controls Santa Barbara Treated Controls Tehama Treated Controls U. C. Davis Treated Controls Ventura Treated Controls 20 20 44 45 30 32 34 36 10 10 30 30 per cent 2 20 3 23 per cent 70 80 77 94 53 84 47 56 90 80 90 77 per cent 30 20 23 4 47 16 50 44 10 7 per cent 3 59.3 60.1 61.0 61.0 59.6 60.1 60.4 59.8 61.3 61.9 60.5 60.6 of the control cattle. Although the average weight of the thyroid gland of the treated steers was slightly heavier than the con- trols, the increase was not significant. On the other hand, in heifers the thyroids of treated animals were smaller than control glands. This difference, however, was also not significant. The foregoing find- ings help to substantiate the suggestion that the growth stimulation observed in the treated animals is due to an increased secretory activity of the pituitary gland. Table 3 shows the slaughter data col- lected in six of the tests where the ani- mals had been fattened in the feed lot. There was little difference in the dressing percentage between the animals receiving the stilbestrol and those of the control groups; nor was there any difference in the percentage of shrink in the hot and cold carcass weights between the two groups. However, the percentage of choice-to-good animals was slightly lower in the treated cattle as compared to the control groups. The lower carcass grades in the treated groups were due mainly to less fat cover- ing over the carcass. The meat in some cases looked dark red and slightly coarse, and the carcasses were a little heavy over the shoulder and neck regions. The car- casses from animals with raised tail heads were not so attractive to the grader and appeared to be lighter in the loins. In general, treated-steer carcasses in these tests seemed slightly "staggy" and were not very popular with some packers. The rounds of treated steers, however, ap- [9] peared somewhat larger than those of the control animals. In spite of the lower carcass grade in the treated groups, rate of gain, which ranged from % to 1 pound per head per day more for feed-lot cattle, was enough to increase the net profit significantly. In those tests where feed consumption was recorded, feed utilization was more efficient in the treated group (see Table 1, page 5.) The treated animals ate slightly more feed per head per day, but required from 100 to 300 pounds less feed for each 100 pounds of gain. Two factors are seem- ingly responsible for this increased gain — namely, increased appetite and greater efficiency of feed utilization. Therefore, if rate of gain can be increased and at the same time the amount of feed needed to produce a pound of meat can be decreased, the use of stilbestrol to Table 4. Individual Differences in Grade of Steers in University of Cali- fornia Experiment Station Test at Successive Stages of the Trial Date graded and type of grade Steer number 4/16/52 5/15/52 U.S. Slaughter 6/14/52 U.S. Slaughter 6/30/52 U.S. Slaughter 7/7/52 U. S. Feeder U. S. Slaughter U.S. Carcass Treated group 19 Good Commercial Commercial Good Choice Choice 20 Choice Commercial Good Good Choice Good 3 Choice Good Good Choice Prime Choice 17 Choice Good Good Choice Prime Choice 10 Choice Good Good Choice Choice Choice 9 Choice Good Good Choice Choice Choice 13 Choice Good Choice Choice Prime Choice 6 Good Commercial Good Choice Choice Choice 15 Choice Good Good Good Choice Choice 5 Choice Good Good Choice Choice Choice Average . Choice Good Good Choice Choice Choice Control group 12 Choice Good Commercial Choice Choice Choice 14 Choice Good Good Good Choice Prime 8 Choice Good Good Choice Choice Choice 18 Choice Good Choice Prime Prime Choice 16 Good Commercial Good Good Choice Choice 1 Choice Good Good Choice Choice Prime 11 Choice Good Good Good Choice Choice 4 Choice Good Good Choice Choice Choice 2 Choice Commercial Commercial Good Good Choice 7 Good Commercial Good Choice Choice Choice Average . Choice Good Good Choice Choice Choice [10] bring about greater beef production looks promising. The Pure Food and Drug Administra- tion has not approved the use of stil- bestrol (for other than research pur- poses). To avoid contamination of the edible portion of the carcass the material was implanted in the ear of the cattle. Excellent results were secured from the ear method of implantation, a detailed discussion of which is presented here. One of two tests began in May, 1952, at the Station at Davis. A total of 20 two-year-old steers were involved in this experiment. These animals, which were grade Herefords weighing an aver- age of 893 pounds, were bought from a feed lot and had been on feed for a short time. It was estimated that they were being fed about one-half of a full-feed ration at the time of purchase. Each steer was individually identified and was weighed and graded at the beginning and end of the test. Weights were also ob- tained every 14 days during the test. Table 4 presents the U. S. Feeder, U. S. Slaughter, and U. S. Carcass grades of these steers at the beginning, at two-week intervals, and at the end of the test. Ten of these steers were implanted with 60 milligrams of stilbestrol subcutane- ously in the ear. The remaining 10 steers were used as controls. Both groups were fed the same ration, but they were maintained in separate lots in order to record accurately the feed they consumed. During the first half of the feeding period they were fed a con- centrate ration composed of barley, beet pulp, and cottonseed meal. This ration was hand-fed in open troughs twice daily. The steers ate approximately 1% pounds of concentrates per hundred pounds of live weight during the latter part of the trial on full feed. In the first half of the trial, the steers received approximately as much concentrates as roughage. Dur- ing the last half of the trial the concen- trates were increased until they were re- ceiving approximately 60 per cent con- centrates and 40 per cent roughage. The roughage consisted of % alfalfa hay and % grain hay. At the end of 70 days these cattle had acquired sufficient finish for slaughter. The steers in both groups graded the same, had similar dressing percentages, and brought the same price per hundred weight. Pounds gain per day Graph 2, Gain Per Day of Individual Steers Fed 70 Days Steers Treated with 60 mg. Stilbestrol vs. Steers with No Treatment University of California Test lihi. iiiiii Each bar is an individual animal urn iiiii TREATED NOT TREATED [11] Carcass of an untreated steer (left) compared with that of a treated steer. Both graded choice. Untreated carcass is not so full in the neck and seems to be slightly better covered over the ribs- one of the best indications of the marbling in the lean. Untreated carcass also has more internal During this period the average gain of the treated steers was 3.67 pounds per head per day, while that of the controls was 2.49 pounds. (See Graph 2.) A study of the carcasses indicates that the treated steers did not have either as much external fat-covering over the loin or as much internal covering in the rib region as did the control animals. The crest of the neck of the treated carcasses was more prominent than on the con- trols. The "eye" muscle of the treated steers was larger than that of the con- trols; and although it was not quite so well marbled in the treated animals, the fact that there was less fat covering would seem to make it desirable from the standpoint of less waste. Under the supervision of the Univer- sity of California Farm Advisor of Ala- meda County a similar test using 40 steers which graded "good" was con- ducted during the summer of 1952. These cattle weighed approximately 950 pounds at the beginning of the test and were on feed for a total of 91 days. The treated group gained during that period an average of 2.64 pounds per head per day, while the controls gained 1.96 pounds per head per day. The dress- [12] fat— not wasteful from the standpoint of consumers. Pictures above are outside views of carcasses on opposite page. Note untreated steer (left); crest of neck is smaller and tail is less elevated. Treated steer (right) is well covered but looks a little light in the loins and heavy at crest of the neck. ing percentage of the two groups was the same, and there was no significant dif- ference in the carcass grades. These cattle were fed a balanced ration composed of ground barley, prunes, corn, molasses, cottonseed meal, volunteer oat hay, and alfalfa hay. When the cattle were on full feed, they were receiving ap- proximately 60 per cent concentrates and 40 per cent roughage. It took 1,261 pounds of feed per hundred pounds of gain for the treated animals, compared to 1,644 pounds for the controls. In both of the tests where the estrogen was implanted in the ear, the symptoms of excessive riding and raised tail heads were not so evident as they had been in previous trials where the pellets were im- planted in the neck. The greater age of the cattle in these trials probably ac- counts for this difference. There was con- siderable teat development in the treated animals, but it had almost entirely re- ceded by the time the animals were slaughtered. The treated cattle appeared on the hoof to be fatter and better finished than did the controls; however, they were not so neat and trim, because of rather heavy necks and elevated tail heads. [13] This untreated steer (above) gained 2.93 pounds per day for 70 days on full feed in the dry lot. The carcass graded prime. Note the neatness, trimness, and quality of the steer. The steer below gained 3.52 pounds per day for 70 days after treatment with 60 milligrams of stilbestrol. He looks fatter than the untreated animal, but not so neat and trim. He graded choice. [14] Summary of Findings 1 . Beef steers on full feed treated with 60 milligrams of stilbestrol gained about % pound more per head per day than did similar untreated animals. The cost of this treatment was approximately 15 cents per animal. A single treatment of five 12-milligram pellets of stilbestrol im- planted subcutaneously in the ear gave the best results. Heifers treated with stil- bestrol did not gain so rapidly as did steers (see Graph 3) . 2. It took from 100 to 300 pounds less feed for 100 pounds of gain in the treated group. 3. Carcasses from treated animals re- turned $3.00 to $20.00 more than did untreated carcasses (see Table 5) . 4. The carcass grade of treated steers was slightly lower than that of the con- trol animals, but the yield was the same for both groups. 5. Beef heifers and steers not supple- mented with concentrates and hay on irrigated pasture did not make signifi- cantly increased gains when treated with stilbestrol. 6. Treated beef heifers on full feed in the dry lot had some difficulty with vaginal prolapse. Therefore, it is not rec- ommended that heifers be implanted with this hormone. 7. Cattlemen who plan to use stilbestrol to increase meat production should un- derstand that approval for its use in this manner has not been secured from the Pure Food and Drug Administration. Researchers at other stations have re- ported results which indicate that only minute amounts (.01 mg/gm dried meat) of hormone are present in the meat of beef animals when treated with 60 mgs of stilbestrol and slaughtered after 140 days.* * Estrogenic activity of the meat of cattle, sheep, and poultry following treatment with synthetic estrogens and progesterone. Jour. Anim. Sci., 13:138-151. Graph 3. Comparison of the Effect of Hormone Treatment on the Gain of Heifers vs. Steers Average gain per animal 150 ^ / / / / / / / // I TULARE HEIFERS if SANTA BARBARA STEERS _ 120 150 Days on feed [15] Table 5. Comparison of the Value of the Total Gain Obtained by Treated vs. Control Animals Gain per animal Selling price per cwt. Value of gain Difference in favor of treated animals U. C. Steers Control 176 255 284 340 237 288 $31.50 $31.50 $35.92 $35.57 $34.02 $33.42 $55.44 $80.32 $102.01 $120.94 $80.63 $96.25 Treated $24.88 Ventura Steers Control Treated $18.93 Santa Barbara Steers Control Treated $15.62 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to express their ap- preciation to the following persons for their help in conducting these experi- ments and analyzing the data : University of California Extension Economist A. D. Reed, Berkeley; Farm Advisors Kenneth G. Baghott (Modoc County), Donald M. Smith and Carl Rimbey (Tehama County) , Albert Kolb (former Farm Ad- visor in Colusa County) , Walter Johnson (Alameda County), N. Burr Coryell (Santa Barbara County), Robert Brend- ler (Ventura County), Ray C. Geiberger (Sacramento County) , Roy Parker (Kern County) , Robert Anderson (former Farm Advisor in Tulare County) ; Cattlemen Maston Ramsey (Modoc County), Al Clark and Roy Carmichael (Tehama County), W. G. Wagoner (Alameda County), Al Zaniboni (Colusa County), Al Kuhn (Sacramento County) ; Cattle Feeders Sinton and Brown (Santa Bar- bara County) and Ben Overland (Tulare County) ; the Berylwood Investment Company (Ventura County) ; and the Kern County Land Company (Kern County). Cooperative Extension work in Agriculture and Home Economics, College of Agriculture. University of California, and United States Department of Agriculture cooperating. Distributed in furtherance of the Acts of Congress of May 8. and June 30. 1914. J. Earl Coke. Director, California Agricultural Extension Service. 15m-10,'54(A6812)A.A.