xt7qjq0ssh1c https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dipstest/xt7qjq0ssh1c/data/mets.xml   Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station. 1963 journals 131 English Lexington : Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Kentucky Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station Progress report (Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station) n.131 text Progress report (Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station) n.131 1963 1963 2014 true xt7qjq0ssh1c section xt7qjq0ssh1c   `
g;¤>"»VV:.V -
  ·,*’·. ‘ A   .   , . 4
V  ·V V V V.VVJ:;V°f*V4 =V·¤-V     . ·V .·.· V V1 .V   . i~ ·; · .. .V . ..
€—V   .‘ , . , -..4,wJ. ?¢~g»-;§.V.V¤: VV . ., 4— . ·     V   .V* » :11VV ._,. 1   V
 V` V A V. `V A  ;§::`·7.i‘¥fY VV     V V AV       ’¤,=4;A  Y} :?‘=..:;.Ii;Ei.T?S  V   
  -_ . V V~  >·g¤s;y4.;=jV·r.·.i4   VV, _— .4 4· .   . ;   V   7.   =·..:4·,VV,;.gg¢·.  .r{;4*> " 4 ;,   ,_.V
T- ,. ·r., J - .V<¤—¢.Vz.-VV  w:=VZ·~‘ {Ai' V. V J   JV? 2;  .   .     M   — V? ...f~&
    V . ‘ VV V ’!V.*.=.,% ,·1·  ··—.v 5 V ‘.r· if. ,~ V — · VV.;  ;.V-V..j=;.»;j__,;~V·fVV;'.;;..5,¤;..§- ¢<·f=§;V:gV..·!_ V · L. 
:1,..Vf   . ~ y<.~V;,{ V  V..—` » · ·V'»;‘¤VV1."Z;T.V,.I ’‘’· ·V·VV. QV ,·.·.   .· .. ~ .;;j 
.   ' — — \ ·   · ‘·¤ x§;?V*’ ·;.`VV.     · ·4 5;.*4. S     Vi ,, _j,·.' .1   V·(·   V _4 ,_.·1‘·’»-Q   _;‘ —· -   * ‘
¤V;.;. _ _ .,,, ,     V V_V44 -_.,· P 74.;     ,.   V,/, _ V gi} 
V,—. V, el , , .   _V...;%¤ _ iff;   _, ·`.V _~_, · ‘;• VV J" ..,~VIt?· *4 V   L",   ~4/IK), "·>:j  ; ' _.f, _F;,“_;_4;z" 514 VVQ! .\ V _ 2,:*- 
  · V  —L·A‘ `   .V·VYAL  4TV.·VFA·?.i   ’A ‘ - QZ 
  Z ·`·V   V-VV VV ’      i;L~V‘ 4 , ‘.,¤Q‘u='>.?’ gf"? - '`A‘ ' V—;      VV V  
Ei.;   ` V   A   _‘  -e§;;g¤;4 .··—  ;»Q;»;-;¢‘,'4_4`V¤;r}’_V ‘ . , ·4 i`54§?i
  '. X"; V=:·>*.‘¢?;  {};w;·V»"Vi“,} · *·.:-¤#·‘ V- ‘. V . V   -V‘,;fV·.¢..3w»’V’V*"YV‘  ‘%,Z¤V:VV;=1_FS,  =""¥ ‘ 4 V .*,1
. - . . . V .» V. ¤i{..·>§é;?,>2?‘ ·•€}{£;...VV.;·:;r    ..; V V   ·.·:Vs\£="`**‘$gy etij g _»>jV·V · .. . . 4_ . __;
:, —V ‘ V   ·V;1,;;d}»4—." L{;';"j%‘i`V·V:·   .-`···.f€-ri·V,,:  V J   ..5*7/EV '. VQ,1{—‘i‘;f°;fV ‘ »·3.  
  1 “'  ."j>:L·.>,;   J.    .   V"·‘*,   —·»— ·°   V V 1;%
V VV ` .V VV V ="Z(V‘°v"?V i.»·€‘· V:.»~J:j¢_.Vs V·ji-'.;,V   ;‘.;:_—   V. ' VV · · ,» ; , - . . _V.V
V, V 4·,4r;-,»£;=;#.V  , ·.4‘..;;Vi»; .v,v,   ._7-·z~,,.,¢;· V _ V.4—;,`.. V .  . .   V »V*
2 _ - V V _4  ;=»j·;=;_V  i_»;32V;;;:».;$VV;-;.;§·-;_—j;;V ·~$,.2.r~VV.;-.;;:3      · —‘—/ ‘ . 4_ V ‘ [VV 4 44;
V ,   V<*-V·T.·;1   V .       4 4-   , _ :;  V V · . . 4 · ··;
  .»‘. 2 ><,_·;‘¢ ~.V..iQ{z?T;?   gVV,V·;—; 4.·V,V1;¥;"~.;y,»   · . ‘ » V . · 4 ·‘ V *2 V
— V   »4f4¤%;z;:>§;;.·  ¤;=}).Vi.;>· :.>.2..V,:.  4} -"     . . -- V! ¤V~
VVV . . ·- , .,   J.  F? -t  V..g~` ;_·=V y-1; ’ %;~ _V]·'44f..{’.V.V·g . _ ._‘_,g.;_gj V i . VV 4 _ V .3
‘· V Vix-   k;»”AZ'3§fj3¤;.•_ Vi;./...;=·y   .V».;;»} -V -4.;;;,,:4 4- .   . . _     . I ,. V
. 4   }"’VV—V‘i$`I*!”?i§~L£V‘<‘  é3f*`f/.i*'°Ai::¥.."=   . A A-"V-i¥·.’.`Vf?V AZ   . .1 . ¥':.-  
° — ' 29 V=V   ‘e:V2.¥¥I’:V·‘   .       V. Q Vit ,3 4 V V VV . ··=_· 1 J-.
JV V . ‘     ` V V . V   A VA .   VV ` ·    
· V _, VV ,2.    - .fd?1{e;&»V€ 7;*} !=» . r V .V ‘*. 4 V ; ¤ V. · V = ·: .V.
' ~ i;·V·V»L‘VV‘ 1,,:3;. - ’ , ;‘€>V5”’w1**§£?§1;—';;!  . ‘ , 'V `r`‘     -‘ ‘   " A V · V ' V '
V . I ·V’f, l,·(4§_5gj·g·V$?`)¤‘   V Vi   V_ V . :,_.‘.j V,— V ¤/VV_ · .; . A V V; .
·:— V . , . V · I .1 VVVV2;2 V »·.*r* . ··A*',;*’E}·, J 14, -, ~:2·;»;.-.       .V V VV V. I ~`
\ V .    w /V; 4   . 4 ’
— 4 .:,, -- ·Vi2._VV;V V 4Vie<;.4§>gz·_;¢ ‘   ’·=   F   = 1_  4 _ 4 _ V- .V
, VV _   ;V  .4_:2»VV4·4·_V  V V 3 V   V . , V. ,_
V 4     _;‘V- 1 r., .V :-4 ;gL-   .   ._ 4 . V .
  `‘‘’ V— VV  V, . . . ,V   V jf,4· .» V 4 .
A'   ' , I -A A A   .¤ .V '. ’A ; AAVAA,"A»’;‘ .‘ V’Ai   '.A A ' , ' V *
  ‘ 2 U' · I` V      >»_·v 1::5 , VV.·;.‘_  5 V V V
,fV . A. A X ‘ X V. L   ·`‘. ·li'·_§V?¤`,`{§';`;i1-,;VVZ>V   ‘
.- A — T V - . V. .V   V`     V%' fAVr.V. j'   ·
  VV V V.   ,,_‘ U , · ,V1.*,V ' ‘VV‘,_‘f__V_V;>\. _    . > V'
V_ 4 V V  _.. ’     _ V, 44   V   V, Vg-jh i_ ‘‘V’ V _   _ .
V VV   1   V J V,   A V··. 25*7 ;Vi·¢/F   · ` V 2 LV Q 4“ 4V:
' V. V ,.V. ‘ V ‘ .‘ ‘·‘ V .‘ J  "   A; f' V   AC [ ‘ ·' V ‘V V·’
. {V V .   ,4   ;,44.]V  41;.1       . 44j; »· VV   » V - 4
A ._    ~4 ,  "V';4    V4: ‘_ _. I   V.] . [ll *V._ VV   A   ..V V ’ I, . :4   - I
V V . .`  ,`,“. Aly }.   ” A   4   . . . V ‘ j'-;`;"     .   ‘ V. -  V
. V V 1.VT V **V.V=‘    ‘     .V A` .'J¢   JV . V V ’V .   ·'A
- ·    *,  ..V )_.V V:  _   _~ . ·. ’.‘_ ; _ V» .V,·;.'V . V _ .V -4 VA ,'j, ·_. V . __·,’:
` ;4V_ V. J  "  V_V VV   V ';V_V_ V VV         V · ,   V •’.·  ,, VA _V _ V V   ` V
V   ‘ vi V   V: VV   , ;.V_,F_   yi 4'V/J     V   _·IV: LV   V V   I   .
»   V . —VV¤_;¢#€i»;g,.   4· ,  ,- V V . 1. .   I ,.· . V ·‘ *,_;:4 J V V 41: .
· V   Ai3xV.L.<·&V4=;§;—;.5L.V ;VV“.1=·   LV;.4 v ff     V V V_   4V ·1     V V4 _,. . V ·
V V . .   ’ V  "  »‘‘‘ 412;, ’ ‘‘‘  V k     V/i V     V VV   z V ¤ : V V .V SV .-
`   A -4 .'V. ~ 1 ,·,VV-’ A »`¢;>'E· .V   .’ ;.fV» ·» ‘ V -   ·;- ‘ s V».VLV · `V .jL· -. V `V ,‘ ·4
      VV`’ V 7   ¢`VVV JA ‘   ° ;!V.»’ 4VVJ ·’.·     V'
. . 4 4V* i.. VV A •,VV_   _ H ' · _ ·._; V 4» V _ VV   M · j'- V, 4 ,, V‘— 4 V
.V ' A 4`; ·   .   4.4'_   ·   . JV, _·.‘ . L ... 4 _ . . `_     . ._   ..;: V{,_.._: _
Q 4 ’ .· ;V  tV_·V2;;..¤;,~.V,   V ';A ·   _V .A; . V V ;·. ° V   V '#;V V,:[·i'_VY  
A V V ‘,g[’;;jV¤;'4`SipL.};ATj.·‘-ZV’.V[QQ T4     .· ` _` . _ - ; VV V V4 Z '_¤V/,VA'4V.’»V.f._!4i‘“{‘.Q.fg_VV4V
V _   ·._V4V_»LV·.~·._ V   ·-. · _ V . , _,4 -, 4, V ,' .V__,V_V ,14;  
  . · 4 . V   V ’V‘- V V'   VVVVX.   ·· 1%. . V·.V VV V. ’ VV     .2*** A·V’VV’,¤.V¤  
,   V - V ··f*7V*.’·§’ r!?·`VV ,. .,   ,V,'¢_‘V VV AV , ' . . V -   1 ;*,` V "¤":»*.-VK
. V V 4) ,;4V , lVV~‘Vy~V·*:; {V _V 4_'._; V .   . VV -‘ V 4 V »VV I ._ ·.p: V I. _._·iV.
.       4;;; .V_V     —_V V V 4 ,V _ V 4 ,, __ _ V __ ._ V V _ VV   VVAV;. #1.  
.V VV Q Z   5- .V-°‘     _;   .4   . I VV     T V';*V';_·/VV‘,=.‘V·‘.,}V·.V·
‘, 4 ’ ‘V, VVVV , '   r '.   It V Vi A V- ' ' V " V · · ·' V . . V    VV V·   .;V_·.
A   ‘A'A V ‘ A A   " V :V JV V .2 .V*  
. V_ .   AGRICULTURAL  ' AA    AA’A  A A V  AA V   AA A    
=   V   ·V   ic:V· ..V,;·. J. V .1     1
{ ”-   VV V ·.,V;..V »..y.V V .  VV VV L V
FI.} ,4··‘i_‘ V. '·:V,  ; V; V  VVV;, »
  , V ,   ’ __ ·ii;}Vy·/;     L.» V_j _
  4 Vt ._ ’ .4»»<»yVV;`_r ;..‘ _» V   .
  V V ‘ A, . VAV"VZA¤‘C'¢’7.j*  ·» V
;'f‘\f· 4   V ;_V·¢v ZA. , /.·· , '  
Y 4 _ A   A `   4  JA '
  . V   *;V7 .V T  ·’.V   ‘ V P
VV .— 4   . __;Vy     V YOQYGSS Repgyf  
VV V “ 4 -..;‘ V s. .<`V‘     V VVAV   . 4 (mms Code 2)
  ‘,. ;   VV    !·‘4     ;_'j;_.‘V ZT
’ , » , · 4, J 4.··· ~` ’-·"4
  . -;*fA;.;#;. '.·.%.V~V=» 4§.,· V..-   ML.; _ 4,
4;,/A._ V   MXVV I an V _V V. V 03;;; , .

 I PROGRAM FOR I'963 ANNUAL LIVESTOCK FIELD DAY I I c I “
LEXINGTON II y PRINCETON I I I I -I
July I7 I963 _ >I July I9, I963 _I I f I,  
" · C . , I I
S Morning, i * Morning I _I 4 I
I Chairman ·· C. F . Buck V . I Chairman ·· S. IJ . Lowry s I I -
Coldstream Farm " ConducteId tours LivestockIFarm, West KenItucky Substa··I I I - '
showing beef, sheep and swine tion. Conducted tours.-showing  
research will start at regular- E I I · beet, sheep and swine research » i
intervals beginning at 9 a.m. will start at regular intervals be* { - I
(EST). Last tour starts at IOa.m. _ ginningat 9 a.m. (CST). L-ast I I .,4
· gg tour startssat IO a.rn. R I   » S I_ Ig
Noon _ g Noon B , II   I I  
Lunch A Lunch I L I _ U V ~
Courtesy oF G. W. Gardner, Bluegrass Courtesy of Farmers Elevators, Inc. II C I   I V
Stockyards, Lexington and Field Packing Company, .
· Owensboro u * _
Afternoon · , I I I
I I
Chairman " W. P. Garrigus C
· I:I5 Address ·· "Kentucky's Livestock Future" Mr. Burl St. Clair 4*
Past President, Kentucky g s ·
Farm Bureau M i` _
Falls of Rough ‘

 KENTUCKY
' ANIMAL SCIENCE RESEARCH REPORTS
, 1963
PROGRESS REPORT 131
(Filing Code 2)
]ULY 1963
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

 CONTENTS
Page
SHEEP SECTION »
Performance of Ewes on Wilted and Corn Preserved Alfalfa
Silage ——————————-————-————-—————-——-—---——--—-——------—————- 5
Creep Feeding of Lambs on Pasture —-————-————--———————-----—--—- 7 I
Creep Rations for Lambs --—---————————---———-—-——-——-————-—-—--— 9 ·
West Kentucky Substation Ewe Performance and Creep Feeding I
Trials —-—---—--————-—-——————--—--————--—---—-—--—-———-—--—-— 12
Southdown, Southdown—Hampshire Crossbred, and Hampshire
Rams as Sires of Spring Lambs —-——-—-———-——--——-——---——--—-—- 15
ANIMAL NUTRITION SECTION
Influence of Ruminal and Abomasal Fistulation on Digestion —-—-—-——- 17
Influence of Glucose Drenching on Acid Base Components of Ex-
tracellular Fluids of Sheep —-——————-—-————-—-———--———-———-—---— 20
In Vitro Destruction of Vitamin A by Abomasal and Ruminal .
Contents ————-——--——-————--———--—-——————---———-————-—-—-—-—-- 24
Utilization of Purified Soy Protein and Zein by Wethers When Given l
Orally or Into the Abomasum ————--———-———-————-—-—-—-————————- 25
Effects of Physical Forms of Corn on Acetate, Propionate and Butyr-
atc Levels of Rumen Contents of Steers —-————--——————————————— 27
Influence of Tapazole and Iodinated Casein on Carotene Disappearance '
from the Ligated Rat Intestine —————————————-—--—————————-————- 29
Influence of Ration on Hydrogen Ion Concentration and Buffering _
Capacity of Sheep Saliva ———-—————————————————————————--—————-- 31
SWINE SECTION
Feed Additives for Early Weaned Pigs ——-——-———————-—————————————— 33
Feed Additives for Growing Pigs —-————-———-—-—————-————-—---——-- 34

 Page
SWINE SECTION (continued)
’ A Comparison of Concrete and Slatted Floors for Growing—Finishing
_ Pigs ——————-———————-—-—————————————————————--—— — ---———--——-—- 36
‘ Feeding High Level Terramycin to Bred Sows --—————-——————--—-——— 37
The Effects of High Levels of Calcium in a Corn—Soybean Ration
n Upon the Incidence of Parakeratosis in Growing Swine ————————--- 38
Effects of Phytic Acid Upon the Incidence of Parakeratosis in
' Growing Pigs —-——————————-———--—————--——-—-—————-———————-——— 40
The Effects of Various Additives When Added to a Corn—Soybean
 · Meal Diet Containing 1% Calcium ———————————-—---——---—————-——— 41
_ Hampshire Swine Herd Performance Record Project -—-————-——————— 42
MEATS SECTION
 i Carcass Evaluation of Lambs from Selected Sires ———-—-———-——-—-—— 45
V Effect of Sire. Breed and Sex on Carcass Characteristics
y of Beef Cattle ————-—-——————————————————-————————-——-————————— 47
Physical Composition of Pork Cuts and Relative Cut Out Per-
centages of Pork Carcasses from Three Different Weight
» Groups of Hampshire Littermates ——————————-—————————-—————-—— 49
l`  Quick Aging of Hams ———————————————-————————-—-——————————-————— 52
p Consumer Survey on Cooking Fats in Lexington, Kentucky —-———————— 55
GENETICS SECTION
` Sperm Production in Rabbits after Injecting Progesterone or
‘ Progestogens —————————————~——————————-————-—————————————————— 59
` Selecting for Earlier Lambing Date in Purebred Southdown
Sheep -———————— ~ ———————-————————————————————————————————————— -- 00
Effect of Heat Stress Upon Sheep Ova Prior to Ovulation ———»—-— ——————— G1
Summer Semen Characteristics of Yearling Southdown Rams ———————— G2
l
Induction of Reproductive Activity in Anestrous Ewes by Use of
/ Oral Progestogens and Pregnant Mare Serum -—————————-——————— 64

 Page
BEEF CATTLE SECTION
Choice Slaughter Beef from Grain on Grass ———---——----——-—-—————— 65 · 
Tylosin and Stilbestrol for Beef Steers on Pasture With and
Without Grain ———~————————————————-——-———---—-—--—-——-—-—-—-— 69 '
Effects of Vitamin A, Trace Minerals, Alfalfa Meal, Molasses,
Mixed Supplement and Urea on Feedlot Performance of T ~
Beef Steers Being Fed Ground Ear Corn and Distillers Dried
Grains with Solubles (DDG/S) ————---—————————-———————-———-—- —- 74
Effect of Size and Hardness of Pellets for Wintering Beef Calves
on Soybean Hulls —————————————-———————————-——-——-———-——-——-——— 79
Tranimal, Vitamin A and Stilbestrol Implants for Steers Being `
Fattened in Drylot —-—-——-————-—-——————-———-————————--—-—-—--- 81
Effect of Stilbestrol Implants on Subsequent Feedlot Performance
and Carcass ————————--———-——————--——————-——-——-——----—-————— 84 "
Effect of Increased Soybean Meal and Oral Stilbestrol on Steer W 
Performance —————————--———-———-—————————-—————-—-———-—-————— 86
Effects of Free Choice and Force Feeding Minerals —-——-——————-———- 88 `
The Effects of a New Tranquilizer on Intransit Shrinkage and ,
Subsequent Gain of Beef Feeder Steers ————————————————————————— 91 I -
l
” »
\

 -5-
SHEEP SECTION
` PERFORMANCE OF EWES ON WILTED AND CORN PRESERVED ALFALFA SILAGE
P. G. Woolfolk, C. M. Reese and D. Turner
University of Kentucky
'C Fifty-three blackface western ewes were fed in drylot from December 13 to
March 24 in a comparison of alfalfa silage preserved with 150 pounds of corn per
. ton, wilted alfalfa silage and a control alfalfa hay—shelled corn ration. All lots
were fed 0.5 pound of shelled corn daily per ewe during the trial. Ewes in the
silage lots were fed 1.0 pound of alfalfa hay daily in addition to all the silage they
. would consume. Bonemeal, salt and ground limestone was available to all lots.
. Lambs were creep fed a mixture of 89% cracked yellow corn, 10% soybean meal
and 1% Aureomycin Crumbles. All lots were run together when turned to pasture;
_ first on small grain and later on permanent bluegrass pasture.
Results are summarized in Table 1. As in last year‘s silage trial, ewes were
quite heavy with lamb when initial weights were taken; consequently, all lots showed
. ewe weight losses. Again as in previous work, corn-preserved silage more nearly
maintained ewe weights and produced fleeces that averaged 0.6 pound heavier. How-
ever, this beneficial effect was not evident in lamb weights. Most rapid lamb gains
occurred in the wilted silage lot. The differences were small, and no trend in this
direction has occurred in previous work. Either method of silage preservation ap-
, pears to be satisfactory. The addition of 150 pounds of corn per ton to silage is
lp costly; where wilting is feasible this probably should be the preferred method.

 -6-
Table 1 - Summary of Results A
A
Control Wilted Corn—preserved U .
Alfalfa Alfalfa Alfalfa
Hay Silage Silage V .
1 {
» Number of ewes 18 17 18 _ A
Av ration, lb
Silage --—— 8. 94 9. 21 \
Alfalfa 4.09 1.00 1.00
Shelled corn .50 .50 . 50
Av ewe weights, lb A
Initial, Dec. 13 181. 9 179.3 175. 3
Final, Mar. 24 146. 5 163.2 164. 6 _
Weight loss 35. 4 16.1 10. 7
Fleece weights 8. 8 8. 8 9. 4
Number ewes lambing 15 15 18
Number lambs raised 22 23 26
Birth weight of lambs, lb ` .
Singles 10.4 9.2 9.4
Twins 8. 0 8. 6 8. 2 ,
28-day weight of lambs, lb
Singles 29. 2 29. 0 25. 2 , ’
Twins 20.5 23.6 21.8
56-day weight of lambs, lb ’
Singles 47. 5 47. 4 43. 6 _A
Twins 34. 9 38. 6 37.1
100-dav weight of lambs, lb
Singles 66. 5 73.1 65. 2
Twins 57. 9 65. 4 59. 9
 

 -7-
CREEP FEEDING OF LAMBS ON PASTURE l
  P. G. Woolfolk, E. G. Holbert and O. D. Hawkins
University of Kentucky
The second year of a trial designed to determine whether lambs should be con-
tinued on creep feed when turned to pasture was completed in 1962. On April 18 a
A ‘ group of 135 suckling spring lambs were allotted according to sire, age and whether
single or twin to either of two treatments as follows: Lot 1 — control, no creep on
‘ , pasture; Lot 2 — creep fed on pasture a ration consisting of 78. 5% cracked yellow
corn, 20% soybean meal and 1. 5% Aureomycin Crumbles. Prior to allotment, all
. lambs had been running together along with their dams and had been creep—fed the
_ same ration used in the trial. The two groups were rotated on pasture, and manag-
ment was the same. Lambs were sold as they reached market weight and finish. On
July 16 all lambs on hand were weaned and continued on their respective treatments.
Ten lambs from Lot 2 and 34 lambs from Lot 1 were turned together on September 24
and finished on the Lot 2 ration. All remaining lambs were sold on October 17, in-
cluding some from Lot 1 that had not reached optimum market weight.
_ Results are summarized in Table 1. Two lambs died in Lot 1 and one in Lot 2.
Table 1 — Summary of Results, April 18, 1962, to Marketing
 
Lot 1 Lot 2
Control, No Creep Creep—Fed
on Pasture on Pasture _
Number of lambs on test 67 68
1 Number of lambs marketed 65 67
Av number of days on test 155 130
Av initial weight, lb 46. 1 45. 2
6 Av market weight, lb 84. 3 92. 0
Av gain per lamb, lb ,38. 2 46. 8
_ Av daily gain, lb 0. 25 0.38
Av marketing date Sept. 20 Aug. 26
Av daily feed per lamb, lb EM . 05 1. 04
~ Av total feed per lamb, lb Q 7. 75 135. 2
Av market price per cwt. $19. 78 $21. 78
Av market value per lamb $16. 67 $20.04
Av feed cost per lamb }3/ .22 3. 85
Returns per lamb over feed $16. 45 $16. 19
 
§/ All feed after allotment up to market, including that used to finish control lambs
remaining after September 24
V 12/ Cost of ration, $2. 85 per cwt. l

 -8- A
Creep-fed lambs gained 52% faster and were marketed 25 days earlier and 8 pounds `
heavier on the average than control lambs but returns over feed cost were slightly
higher for the control lambs. This is in agreement with last year's work with the · .
same flock. Costs other than creep feed were not considered in this summary. The -
increase in daily gain due to creep feeding of 0. 13 pound per day was not enough to
offset the cost of the extra pound of feed consumed daily by the creep—fed group. Al- ‘ —
though creep feeding on pasture will generally move lambs to an earlier and stronger l
market, response in rate of gain must be greater than obtained in this trial for the i  
practice to be profitable. In recent years much emphasis has been placed on supple-
mental grain feeding for finishing spring lambs. This trial reveals the high cost _ i
that may be involved in use of grain for lambs on pasture. Since lambs can be l
finished to top grades on pasture alone, perhaps a more profitable alternative is
to strive for high quality and good management of both pastures and lambs.
n

 -9-
CREEP RATIONS FOR LAMBS J
` C. M. Reese and P. G. Woolfolk
University of Kentucky
The third year of a lamb creep feeding project was completed in 1962. Five lots
of 17 or 18 pregnant blackface-cross western ewes each were assigned to this trial as ·
— * follows: Lot 1 - control, no creep; Lot 2 - simple creep mixture, 89% cracked yel-
low corn, 10% soybean meal and 1% Aureomycin Crumbles; Lot 3 — complex creep
_ mixture, 56. 5% cracked yellow corn, 30% soybean meal, 5% alfalfa meal, 5% sugar,
1. 5% bonemeal, 1% trace-mineralized salt and 1% Aureomycin Crumbles; Lot 4 - shel-
. led corn-linseed meal mixture, 85% shelled yellow corn, 14% linseed meal and 1%
_ Aureomycin Crumbles; Lot 5 - complete pelleted mixture, 55% alfalfa meal, 24% ground
oats, 9% ground yellow corn, 5% soybean meal, 5% molasses, 1% trace mineralized
salt, 0. 5% deflourinated phosphate, 0. 5% ground limestone plus 20 grams of Aureo-
mycin included per ton.
Ewes in all lots were fed the same alfalfa hay, alfalfa silage, and shelled corn
ration from December 13 to April 7 in drylot. Creep feeding of lambs was started on
_ January 26. Lambs were run with their dams on pasture and continued on creep treat-
ments during the period from April 7 to May 29. During this and the following periods,
lambs were sold as they reached market weight. On May 29 all remaining lambs were
weaned and continued on their respective treatments until July 9 when all groups were
run together on pasture and fed the simple grain mixture until the last group was sold
_ on September 11. During the pasture phase of the experiment, all lots were rotated in
an effort to remove variability due to forage. Permanent pastures made up pre-
dominately of bluegrass were grazed.
Results are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. As in previous year's work, creep
feeding increased rate of gain. Control lambs on no creep failed to make satisfactory
gains during the drylot period and the period after weaning. They made only fair
gains during the final finishing period but did make gains comparable with other lots
when first turned to pasture. Among the creep rations, gains were superior on the
» simple and complex mixtures. The shelled corn and complete pelleted rations were
consumed at lower levels, which probably accounts for the slower gains on these two
treatments. In agreement with previous results, cost of gain on the complex mix-
l ture was high and gains were not appreciably better than those on the simple mix-
ture. Cost of supplemental feed was lowest for the control lambs since they were fed
only during the final period, but it should be stressed that these lambs were marketed
4 from 34 to 65 days later than lambs on the simple creep. Work on this project is
being continued for one more year.

 -10-
Table 1 — Summary of Lamb Weights
Control Simple Complex Shelled Complete I  l_
No Creep Creep Creep Corn, LSM Pelleted
Number of ewes 18 17 17 17 18 >
Number of ewes ¤ l
lambing 16 17 15 15 15
Number of lambs 1
raised 24 20 22 21 24
Av birth weights, lb ‘ `
Singles 9.5 9.6 10.5 9.4 7.8 V
Twins 8.3 8.1 8.6 8.2 7.9 ..
Av 28-day weights, lb · _
Singles 27.7 29. 8 31.3 28.7 23.0
Twins 21.8 24.0 24.2 22.5 21.2
Av 56—day weights, lb
Singles 43.2 51.6 53.7 48.0 41.7   .
Twins 33.9 41.3 41.0 36.7 37.4
Av 100—day weights, lb I
Singles 65.0 77.7 81.7 73.7 66.0
Twins 54.3 67.5 67.8 61.9 60.2 ·
Av mzirket weight, lb .
Singles 87. 3 94. 8 94. 0 91. 5 88. 0
Twins 87.5 87.6 90.4 88.5 87. 5 ' A
Ay market nge. days
Singles 171 137 124 138 166
Twins 203 138 146 164 186

 -11- _
Table 2 — Summary by Periods ` I
" Control Simple Complex Shelled Complete
Corn, Pelleted
. LSM
Av daily feed intake per lamb, lb
Drylot, Jan. 26—Apr. 7 ———— 0.70 0.86 .0.74 0.55
. To weaning, Apr. 7-May 29 —--— 0.72 0.95 .0.54 0.39
After weaning, May 29—July9 ———— 2. 24 2. 53 .1. 33 .35
Combined lots, July 9—Sept. 11 1.38 1.38 1.38 .1.38 1.38
Av daily gain, lb
Drylot, Jan. 26—Apr. 7
Singles 0. 57 0. 71 0. 73 0. 67 O. 55
. Twins 0.42 0.59 0.57 0.56 0.51
To weaning, Apr. 7-May 29
Singles 0.51 0.50 0.57 0.56 0.55
Twins 0.56 0.55 0.57 0.50 0.48
After weaning, May 29-July 9
Singles 0. 06 0.42 ———— 0.25 0.48
Twins 0.16 0.50 0.46 0.25 0.18
Combined lots, July 9—Sept. 11
Singles 0.27 0.52 ———— ———— 0. 28 ,
· Twins 0.33 ———— 0.45 0.49 0.36
_ Complete trial, Jan. 26—Sept. 11
Singles 0.46 0.62 0. 67 0. 59 0. 48
4 Twins 0.39 0.57 0.56 0.49 0.43
Feed per 100 lb gain, lb 44 130 168 133 126
Feed cost per 100 lb gaing/ $1.17 $3. 44 $6. 70 $3. 70 $4. 02
3/
Simple creep, $2. 65/cwt.; Complex creep, $4.04; Slielled corn—LSM creep, $2.80;
Complete pelleted creep, $3. 50

 -l2-
WEST KENTUCKY SUBSTATION EWE PERFORMANCE AND
CREEP FEEDING TRIALS
P. G. Woolfolk, J. R. Overfield and S. J. Lowry » _
University of Kentucky .
Two groups of blaekface Colorado ewes and a group of Montana ewes were used .
in trials at the West Kentucky Substation during 1961-62. Group 1 Colorado ewes had · (
originally been wintered in 1956-57 at a high level of nutrition (3.6 lb alfalfa hay) and l _
Group 2 ewes at a low level (2. 4 lb alfalfa hay). The Montana ewes were 2- and 3-year- _
olds added to the flock in 1959 and 1960. All ewes were bred to Hampshire rams, and ·
their feeding and management were the same.
In the third and final year of a creep feeding trial, lambs were allotted according
to type of dam and whether twin or single to either or two creep rations as follows: (1) T `
90% cracked yellow corn, 10% soybean meal plus 50 grams of Aureomycin per ton of _ l
mixture; (2) 67. 5% cracked yellow corn, 25% soybean meal, 5% alfalfa meal, 1. 5%
bonemeal, 0. 8% salt, 0. 2% trace minerals plus 50 grams of Aureomycin per ton.
When the two groups went to pasture they were rotated every 2 weeks. Unsold lambs —-
were weaned and turned together on July 14. They were held on pasture until mid-
August and then fed creep ration No. 1, first along with alfalfa hay and later on Ladino
clover pasture. L
Ewe performance is summarized in Table 1. Montana ewes lambed earlier than
either of the Colorado groups and yielded heavier fleeces. The low level Colorado
group yielded the lightest fleeces. as has been the case in previous years with this
group. Lamb production was not greatly different for the three groups. _
A summary of creep feeding results is shown in Table 2. As was true for work
during two previous years, the simpler creep ration was equal in value to the more I
complex ration. This is in agreement with work at the U. K. Coldstream Farm where ‘
a simple corn-soybean meal mixture has proven satisfactory as a creep ration for
lambs.

 H -13-
J Table 1 — Summary of Ewe Performance
L
V ` - Blackface Colorado Ewes Montana U
» High Level Low Level Ewes
 
Number of ewes, fall 1961 16 13 27
- Initial number ewe lambs, 1956 28 28 --
A v Average lambing date Feb. 16 Feb. 17 Feb. 6
 _ Lambs sold per ewe 0. 94 1. 23 1. 11
Average 56-day lamb weights, lb
Singles 47. 2 54.0 50. 5
7 Twins 39. 6 41. 2 34. 9
·' Average age marketed, days 182 171 187
Average market weight, lb 96.0 91. 8 97. 0
. Average market price per cwt $21. 70 $22. 80 $22. 20
Average market value per lamb $20. 83 $20. 95 $21. 54
Average dressing percentage 54. 4 53. 8 53. 1
4 Average carcass grade Low Prime Low Prime Low Prime
Average fleece weight of ewes, lb 8. 66 8.04 9. 76
 

 -14-
Table 2 — Summary of Creep Feeding Results V
  .
Corn Corn, Soybean Meal, -
Soybean Meal Alfalfa Meal, Minerals , U
Number lambs marketed 30 31 ‘ ,
Average 56-day lamb weights, lb A V
Singles 51. 4 49. 8 3
Twins 36. 8 40. 3
Average age marketed, days 189 174 if
Average market weight, lb 97. 7 93. 2 A
Average market price per cwt $22. 13 $22. 33 l
Average market value per lamb $21. 61 $20. 82
Creep fed cost per lamb $1. 99 $ 1. 93
Creep feed cost per 100 lb gain $ 2. 44 $ 2. 66
Average dressing percentage 53. 6 53. 6 » U ‘
Average carcass grade High Choice Low Prime ,
 

 " -15-
. SOUTHDOWN, SOUTHDOWN-HAMPSHIRE CROSSBRED, AND HAMPSHIRE
RAMS AS SIRES OF SPRING LAMBS ·
` P. G. Woolfolk, L. H. Boyd, C. M. Reese, M. A. Slaughter
E. G. Holbert and O. D. Hawkins
University of Kentucky
During the years 1959-62, 13 Southdown, 4 Southdown—Hampshire crossbred and
. · 4 Hampshire rams were bred t0 crossbred western ewes for commercial spring lamb
production at the U. K. Coldstream and Eden Shale farms. Some of the rams were
_ used more than one year, and several of the rams were used onboth farms, making a
total of 34 sire groups involved in this summary. Each year ewes were allotted to
rams according to age and type and later allotted to wintering trials according to age,
A _ type and sire group. This makes it possible to compare sires on the basis of per-
formance of their lambs.
g Summarized results are shown in Table 1. This includes performance data of
lambs actually raised but does not include reproductive performance of ewes or rams.
Number of lambs per ewe and average age of ewe are included to aid in interpre-
ration of results. At the Eden Shale Farm, crossbred rams sired slightly faster
gaining lambs that reached market sooner. At the Coldstream Farm, Hampshire-
· h sired lambs gained fastest, and results on Southdown and crossbred—sired lambs
were similar to those at the Eden Shale Farm. Since more Southdown rams were
used in earlier years of the trial, their lambs may have been penalized some owing
to the slightly younger average age of dam (as noted in the table.) At Coldstream
, this may have been somewhat compensated for by fewer lambs per ewe as compared
with the two other groups. An inspection of the data within years when all three
types of rams were used indicates the same general trend in differences noted here
and lends support to the conclusion that this summary in an accurate estimate of
relative performance of lambs sired by these three types of rams.

 -16-
Table 1 — Summary cf Data cn Lambs Sired by Scuthdown, S0uthd0wn—Hampshire Cross-
bred and Hampshire Rams
Ram Used Scuthdcwn Crcssbred Scuthdewn Crcssbred Hampshire ·
Number of rams 6 2 ll 2 4 · _
Number 0f years 3 2 4 2 2 7 A 1
Number of sire groups 8 4 14 4 4 _ V
Number cf lambs 211 111 338 101 104
Av number lambs per ewe 1. 7 1. 7 1. 5 1. 6 1. 7 l
Av age 0f dam, years 1. 8 2. 4 2.0 2. 8 2. 8 J
Av birth date Feb. 6 Jan. 27 Jan. 26 Jan. 18 Jan. 22 U
Av lamb weights, lb
Birth 8.9 9.7 8.5 9.4 9.1
28-day 21.4 22.5 21.6 24.0 23.9
56-day 34.2 35.4 35.4 40.2 40.6
100-day 55.5 59.0 56.1 63.5 66.2 l
Market 85. 9g/ 89. 6 86. 312/ 88.1 89. 4 A l
Av market age, days 205 200 173 159 154
Weight per day cf age , A
at market. lb .42 .45 .50 . 55 . 58
a/
g/ Market data calculated cn 191 lambs.
— Market data calculated cn 234 lambs; 89 lambs were used in a parasite ccntrcl ex—
pcrimcnt. The remaining lambs failed t0 reach market.

 ...17..
- ANIMAL NUTRITION SECTION
INFLUENCE OF RUMINAL AND ABOMASAL FISTULATION ON DIGESTION
B. W. Hayes, C. O. Little and G. E. Mitchell, Jr.
_ University of Kentucky
Fistulas have been widely used as investigational aids in studying the nutrition of ruini-
` nants. It has been assumed that fistulated experimental ruminants perform as normal intact
animals. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the influence of ruminal and
. abomasal fistulation on nutrient digestibility in beef steers.
One set of dizygous twin steers of Hereford and dairy breeding and three sets of mono-
zygous twin Angus steers that weighed approximately 950 pounds each were used in a series
of digestion trials. A digestion trial was conducted with one steer selected at random from
each set of twins After the incorporation of plexiglass cannulae into the rumen walls of the
same steers, another digestion trial was conducted to ascertain any influence of fistulation
on digestion. The remaining intact twins were included in this trial. Then a second operation
was performed on each rumen—fistulated steer to insert a plexiglass cannula into the abomasum.
Each of the intact steers was also fitted with a rumen cannula. Another digestion trial was
‘ then conducted to determine the nutritional status of the steers. Recovery periods of at
· least 3 weeks were allowed after each surgical operation. . Each digestion trial included a
preliminary feeding period of at least 10 days and a 7-day collection period during which
time each steer received 12 pounds of a complete pelleted ration daily. The steers were fed
twice and watered once each day. Ingredient composition and proximate analysis of the ration
are presented in Table I.
L Differences between paired data were analyzed statistically by the "Student's" t— test.
Results of the digestion trials, in the form of apparent digestion coefficients. are
shown in Table 2 Only three of the four sets of twins were included in the comparison
between steers with fistulas in both the rumen and abomasum and their rumen—fistul ated
twins because one of the steers expelled the abomasal cannula immediately prior to the
collection period of the final digestion trial. No statistically significant differences were
. observed in any of the comparisons. Apparent digestion of the complete pelleted ration
was not adversely affected by fistulation.

 _l8-
Table 1 - Pelleted Ration Used in Digestion Trials V
 
Ingredient Percent S 6
 
Oat mill feed 52. 5 ·
Alfalfa meal 5.0
Molasses 5.0 _
Soybean oil meal 15.0
Ground corn 20. 0
Ground limestone 1. 0
Dicalcium phosphate 1.0
Salt 0. 5
Total 100.0
Proximate analysis
Dry matter 86.94
Crude protein 11. 34
Ether extract 1. 68
Crude fiber 17.16
Ash 7. 26
Cellulose 20. 27
Gross energy (kcal per gram) 3. 879 ‘
 
Vitamins A and D were supplemented according to NRC
requirements. ‘

 -19-
_g Table 2 — Effect of Ruminal and Abomasal Fistulation on Apparent Digestion Coefficients
 
Average Digestion Coefficients I
' 5 Ruminal Fistulation Abomasal Fistulation
- Ruminal +
1 ` Ruminal Ruminal Abomasal
Fraction Intact Fistulation Fistulation Fistulation
 
A Comparisons between twin steers a
» Dry matter (%) 51.9 53. 5 57.0 57