BEEF

CATTLE

IMPROVEMENT

A HANDBOOK FOR COUNTY AGENTS

t %, OEPT. OF AORICULTÜRI

WIIOWI AGRîClILnifîiL lIBRÄRy

MARI- )ni^<^

JHLT|£BUL(i£IMN

l^gÊÊÊi JBB^S ÊÊKÊ0Î ÊÊÊÊÊ^ ÊÊÊÊÊ^^ IHr IHr l^r ^v^ i^

ib Tcv

Federal Extension Service ^tU.S. U.S. pep»r*nrent of Agriculture^ Agriculture Fíen dbook Ko. 2 99 ^
CONTENTS p„3.

Introduction 1

Your Role in the County 2

State Leadership 2

Data Processing Centers 3

Central Testing Stations 4

The Use of Performance Data 4

National Registry Association Programs 5

Appendix 6

Extension Beef improvement Subcommittee, American Society of Animal Science:

W. W. Wharton—Chairman

Extension Specialist—Animal Science

Ohio State University

Frank H. Baker—Consultant

Extension Animal Scientist

Federal Extension Service

O. G. Daniel

Extension Livestock Specialist

University of Georgia

W. Dean Frischknecht

Animal Science Specialist

Oregon State University

Leo E. Lucas

Extension Livestock Specialist

University of Nebraska

C. Curtis Mast

Extension Livestock Specialist

Virginia Polytechnic Institute

J. W. Patterson

Extension Animal Husbandry Specialist

North Carolina State University

C. O. Schoonover

Extension Livestock Specialist

University of Wyoming
BEEF CATTLE IMPROVEMENT

A HANDBOOK FOR COUNTY AGENTS

^T ^T ^T Wr ^T^r ^^flT^

i^ t b)j FRANK H. 3AKER,

Emnsion Animal Scientist,

Federal Extension Service

INTRODUCTION

Beef cattle producers have long been important

clients of the Cooperative Extension Service. Their

problems concern Extension workers in most States.

Production efficiency and/or producti\e resource

utilization are important considerations in developing Extension programs in beef producing areas.

Adjusting the quality and quantity of beef available

to the consumer's needs is also important.

Beef cattle improvement programs ha\'e been designed by Extension workers and beef industry leaders to help producers recognize and select breeding

stock that will improve their overall production efficiency and the market value of their animals. Performance testing is one major tool. It emphasizes

the selection of breeding stock on the basis of records

that indicate—

1. inherited defects;

2. fertility;

3. nursing abihty;

4. growth rate;

5. feed efficiency;

6. carcass value;

7. soundness, style, and balance of conformation.

These beef cattle improvement programs must

conform to overall Extension educational procedure

as outlined in the following statement from "Cooperative Extension Service—Livestock Industry Relationships", approved by the Extension Committee

on Organization and Policy in January 1963.

"The Extension educational procedure is a

series of steps or events leading toward an end.

It emphasizes assisting people through educational means to :

1. Analyze the situation and define problems confronting them.

2. Appraise alternative solutions to a particular problem and indicate probable

consequences of each.

3. Provide information, through educational

means, which will enable people to take

action necessary to bring about the desired solutions.

"When the educational function has been effectively carried out, the people themselves will

have recognized a problem as their problem, will

have decided on what action they needed to take,

if any, and will have been committed to taking

this action.

"Cooperative efforts for exchange of information, development of procedures of policy, and

more especially mutual assistance in all educational programs are needed between the Extension Service, State and Federal agencies, and beef

industry firms or organizations.

"In conducting Extension educational work,

Cooperative Extension workers shall not engage

in commercial activities. In working with industry firms or organizations in various ways,

Cooperative Extension workers shall perform educational work in such a manner that it will not

be misconstrued as endorsement of the products or

services of a particular business or group. As

Extension cooperate? with industry firms and

organizations, the educational assistance shall be

equally available to competing firms and organizations. The general policy of the Cooperative

Extension Service, relating to commercial activities, is fully applicable to Cooperative Extension

Ser\'ice-Livestock Industry Relationships."
If an industry organization at either the State

or national level involves Extension workers in a program of mutual interest, Extension's role must be

clearly identified for and approved by the appropriate Extension administrator ( State Director for State

programs or Federal Administrator for interstate

programs). By cooperating with industry, Extension gains extra chances for educational work. In

planning these cooperative efforts. Extension workers

must resist being projected into service work. When

a program requires continuing "service work'', they

must plan to fund this ''program phase" from money

other than that appropriated for education.

YOUR ROLE IN THE COUNTY

County and area Extension workers must continue to play a key role in working with all groups

concerned if the United States is to reach the volume

of testing needed for genetic improvement in beef

cattle. State Extension staffs and national registry

organizations don't and probably won't have the

personnel needed to carry on improvement programs

without help.

The role you play will vary. The greater the local

importance of beef cattle, the larger your role will

be. For this discussion, assume that beef cattle,

especially cow-calf operations, are major factors in

the agricultural income of your area.

Your major role is to create an awareness of the

economic value of performance testing. Sometimes

county workers have initiated a beef improvement

program without discussing the use and value of

records. This can result in unsatisfied cooperators.

Breeders and producers should be fully aware of the

value, need, and use of accurate performance

records.

Develop the program around an educational program, not a service program. At first, considerable

time will be spent on the mechanics of testing. This

naturally will include the weighing, grading, record

forms, and computation procedures to be used. If

you expand the performance program in your area,

cooperators should be able to take care of the service

details of the program after a reasonable orientation

period. However, you should continue consultation

and educational assistance.

Placing responsibility for the mechanics of herd

performance testing on the breeder or producer frees

you for other things. You have time to emphasize

education and record evaluation. You can also

work with new cooperators and increase the scope of

your beef improvement program. The often-heard

complaint that there isn't enough time can be overcome if you develop your program to be educational,

not service-oriented.

The final factor in the success of the county beef

improvement programs is record evaluation. A program is no better than the use made of performance

records. Too often records are obtained but not

used or fully understood. Work closely with your

cooperators to see that all analyses and comparisons

useful to them are made whether the records are

manually or machine-computed. Never overlook

the extreme importance of using records to select

herd bulls. Much of this evaluation will have to be

done individually, but small meetings of cooperators

can be extremely useful.

Remember, the progress of a county program

should be measured by the improvement made in

the herds, not solely by the number of cooperators.

STATE LEADERSHIP

State specialists organize educational programs.

With the help of other Extension workers and a state

performance testing organization, they try to tell

cattlemen of the opportunities performance testing

offers.

The specialists are also responsible for developing

the mechanics of the testing program. Where records are centrally processed, the specialist supervises

record processing. Where central processing is not

used, the specialist is responsible for developing uniform record processing techniques. This includes

developing forms for herd enrollment, field records,

and processing.

The specialists' most important job is teaching

cattle breeders how to interpret records and apply

the results. This phase is too often neglected in the

maze of routine record processing and other educational duties. Publications, personal visits, training

of county personnel, etc., should be used to get record results used in breeding programs.
Pi'ogram operations can generally be supported

by an energetic state performance testing organization. This organization should be the focus of cattle

improvement interest, lead performance programs,

and promote educational actixities and improvement ideas.

To work best, the state organization must invoh c

all segments of the industry. Ha\'ing each breed

and both purebred and commercial breeders represented will insure a successful operation. The representatives serve not only as directors of the state

program but also as liaison with their own groups.

Close cooperation between the state organization and

breeder groups and organizations is vital to the

program.

The state organization develops policies and outlines programs to carry out performance testing

objectives. All phases of the program such as

preweaning, postweaning, and carcass evaluation

programs should be guided by this organization.

The specialist and/or other university staff members are technical advisors to the state organization

and developers of testing methods and techniques.

They are the voice of performance testing in their

State.

DATA PROCESSING CENTERS

One of the marvels of the century is electronic

data processing. This process has strengthened

beef cattle improvement programs and eliminated

thousands of hours of laborious hand work. It has

permitted Extension specialists to use their technical

training in counseHng cattlemen rather than in

being bogged down in data computation.

Working with a data processing center is similar

whether the service is sponsored by the university or

another organization. Knowing a computer's capabilities and capacities will keep you from becoming

lax in your efforts to get exact detailed information.

The computer can do only what it is "told to do."

In other words, the raw data you send to a computing center must be exactly stated and coded in computer language. At the high cost of machine operation, you cannot afford a wrong date that would

mean a costly rerun on 500-600 head of cattle.

All of them would have to be recalculated on the

basis of a\era.i;cs for the group, herd, breed, sex,

feed practice, etc.

People are most important to a computation center. Usually none of the personnel, from executive

to ke)-punch operator, knows livestock growth

habits. At the \ ery beginning Extension staff members, including sec retarial staff, should meet with

the "working staff" of the computing center to

establish understanding of the Beef Cattle Improvement program and the operating procedures. Even

minute details should be understood by everyone

concerned. The computer center staff should know

what raw data will be available and how it will be

collected. The output data anticipated by the Extension staff should be described in detail.

Assume nothing. For example, don't neglect

to give a full date such as February 17, 1965, as a

birth date and assume the key-punch operator will

know that this calf was born the same year that its

record is processed. Neither the operator nor the

machine knows this. Either the machine stops or

you get a large error in average daily gain.

This means someone must pay for a rerun at several dollars per minute.

Program efficiency is usually improved when a

competent member of the Extension staff (perhaps

a graduate student or a well-trained secretary)

checks the data sheets before and after processing.

When raw data sheets are incomplete this staff can

contact the breeder for additional information.

Examining the sheets after computation can prevent

the release of incorrect data. The release of miscalculated records discourages cooperators and is

poor pubHc relations.

Beef improvement program needs change and the

methods must be revised if the educational needs

of cooperators are to be met. This means changing

adjustments, coding, etc., as resultant data demands.

Be sure a change is right before making it. Changes

mean more trips to the computer center, orientation

procedures with all involved, and a total "debugging'' before all systems are ironed out and running

smoothly again.

The cost of machine operation makes it desirable

and necessary to carefully examine all data requested. Only information of benefit to the program, the cooperators, and the overall improvement

of cattle should be processed.
CENTRAL TESTING STATIONS

Good management, sound regulations, proper

financing, and breeder interest are essential to successful central testing stations. Most test stations

are organized or supported by State beef cattle improvement associations, although some are privately

owned and operated. In either case, Extension

workers gain extra teaching opportunities by working with test stations and their supporting organizations. Management and regulations are the two

areas in which most cooperation will be needed.

Sponsoring organizations often request official sanction ( as an unbiased party ) of weighing and reporting of results. Financing should be the responsibility of the sponsoring organization.

In the appendix, page 6, are procedures for

measuring traits of economic value recommended as

the basis for test station operation. Additional regulations and procedures will, of course, be necessary

for each station. Sound rules and regulations are

-> must. However, they should not be too detailed

or lengthy. A few sound rules are easier to enforce.

The test supervisor (who may be a specialist or

agent) should have authority to interpret and carry

out regulations. A small appointed or elected test

committee of three or four members can help make

major decisions.

The educational value of central testing stations

is of special significance in developing a beef cattle

improvement program. Other purposes of the stations are discussed in detail in the appendix. You

have a responsibility to use the educational value of

test stations to the best advantage. Avoid being

just a weighmaster. Use the test station to acquaint

producers with the advantages of overall performance programs. Emphasize within-herd improvement. Breeders can use central testing stations to

measure individual performance of single animals

or to progeny-test a particular sire. If used as a

progeny test, at least five offspring should be tested.

In many cases a breeder will wish to collect data on

all his bull calves, some at the test station and the rest

at home. This is desirable but the breeder should

also be encouraged to manage his bulls at home like

those on test.

Testing programs should not be regarded as contests, but rather as a way to get information that will

help breeders improve their herds. There will always be some within- and between-breed competition. If this can be kept friendly, the test station

will be more successful and you will be held in higher

esteem. Individual breeders will accomplish little

by participating in bull tests unless they follow a

complete testing program.

Testing will be most effective when all animals

have the same chance to express their true genetic

value. Remember that test gains are only part of

total performance. Weaning weight and lifetime

gain are two factors that should be included in reporting. Pretest environment may carry over into

the test period. Suboptimum pretest environment,

for example, may be followed by compensatory test

gains that don't reflect the animal's true genetic

abihty. By considering and reporting weaning data

and by averaging pretest and test data for lifetime

gain, you can account for all phases of the animal's

growth period. Pretest environment can also be

minimized by accepting animals within narrow age

ranges and as close to weaning as possible (see appendix). However, breeder variation in calving

dates is common in most areas. A simple plan is

to divide the test groups by ages. A maximum of

90 days per age group is a good idea; 60 days is even

better. These might be referred to as junior and

senior groups.

Refer to the appendix of this handbook for recommendations on pretest adjustment periods and test

length. Since test rations are subject to controversy

and available feed constituents will vary from area

to area, no other suggestions are offered. However,

the ration should be reasonably consistent from year

to year.

In most tests a sale follows completion of the test.

Sales should be handled by a committee of breeders

with bulls on test. The testing organization should

be responsible for the sale and financing, not you.

THE USE OF

PERFORMANCE DATA

Counseling beef cattle breeders is one of your

basic educational tools. Some of the most important counseling is done before a breeder weighs his

first calf. The new breeder must have a complete

understanding of what performance testing can and

cannot do for him. He must understand that it

can't replace good feeding and sound management
programs. He should realize: (1) It is only as

accurate as the dates and measurements taken ; ( 2 )

it is intended only to help select between cattle raised

on a given farm or ranch under the same environment and management practices, and should not be

used to compare cattle raised under other conditions;

and (3) the results come not from getting the facts,

but from using them in a sound selection and breeding system.

Encourage the breeder to keep a herd health

book—not an elaborate book, but just the usual

"snuff book" or ''little black book'' used to keep

breeding dates, calving dates and other herd information. In this book, have him note each incident

that might affect the performance of either the calf,

cow, or sire. Many shifts in performance can be

explained by pink eye, sore foot, calving problems,

etc., in the cow herd, and by scours, pink eye, sore

foot, injury, etc., in the calf crop. This "Uttle

black book" can be of untold \'alue in selling an all

practice performance testing program to a beef cattle producer. This is probably the first time he has

seen how many things affect production. It brings

home the old saying, ''It's the little things that

count."

Counseling breeders should not be a one-shot

proposition. It is a continuous and very \ital part

of the program. The first and one of the most

profitable counseling periods can be on a weigh day

if you can be present. This is the ideal time to set

the stage for future work. You and the breeder

have your source of information fresh on your minds

and still have a chance to take the important second

look. At this time you can discuss overall production items such as calving percentages, average

weight, average type score, general health and condition. Individual, group, and specific comparisons must wait on the processed records. While

you're talking, make notes to use in evaluating the

performance data.

The second counseling session should be by mail.

Return record evaluations with the analyzed performance data. Use your notes to point out information that might slip by the less experienced eye

of the breeder. Raise questions about points that

should be discussed later.

Encourage and, if necessary, help the breeder

organize his performance data so he can get the

most use from it. Encourage him to develop and

be familiar with the progeny records of each sire

relative to the herd average. Complete up-to-date

records make the data more meanin.gful and ease

future counseling on the overall selection program.

Plan at least one yearly farm counseling session

or a scheduled conference between the breeder and

you or the lixestock specialist to go over all the performance data and plan future herd improvement.

Use breed association meetings, conferences, field

days, and mass media to teach the industry the value

and potential of the beef cattle improvement programs. Encourage breeders to buy only animals

with acceptable records of performance and encourage all purebred breeders to enroll their herds.

NATIONAL REGISTRY

ASSOCIATION PROGRAMS

In most States, beef cattle improvement programs

are part of Extension s work. State Beef Improvement Associations and national registry organizations

cooperate in or sponsor beef cattle recordkeeping

programs. All the xarious programs available to

cattlemen are basically concerned with the same

items of economic importance. A breeder who can

remember all the details on reproductive efficiency,

weaning weight, grade, growth rate, freedom from

inherited defects, etc., for each of his animals may

not need to keep records; however, according to the

ancient Chinese, 'Taintest record is better than

fondest memor).''

Recent industry trends suggest a need for more

records. Breeders who choose to keep complete

herd performance and production records soon realize that there are many ways a complete system can

be developed. A complete herd record system includes : ( 1 ) Lifetime reproduction records on the

cows (giving the number, quahty, and weight of

calves, and other pertinent information in relation

to contemporaries) ; (2) preweaning growth record

of all individual animals (giving weight, quality,

and other important information); (3) postweaning growth record of all individual animals (i.e.,

yearling weight and quality score related to contemporaries) ; (4) a record of estimated carcass

value (from slaughter data for some individuals, or

from live animal appraisal with special instruments

i.e., sonoray, photogrammetry, etc., on all individuals) ; and (5) lifetime progeny records of bulls, including performance of a male and female offspring

(this should include carcass merit measurements).
A breeder can develop this complete herd record

system on his own or in cooperation with a unixersity-sponsored beef improvement program and/

or a registry association-sponsored program, i.e.,

breed association or performance registry e^roup.

There is no one best record system for all cattlemen.

Each must analyze the systems available and decide

what is best for him. Thus, you must be prepared

to work with cattlemen who use all types of recordkeeping systems. In each situation, you must comply with Extension policy on relationships with industry groups (see introduction).

A beef cattle breeder will be able to obtain a satisfactory record service by cooperating with the registry associations, with the Extension Service, or

through his own private record program. The performance of the cattle will probably be measured

essentially the same way in all of these systems. It

is also likely that data collected will be expressed in

essentially the same manner (see appendix). The

groundwork has been laid for data exchange among

these various recordkeeping systems. The breeders

who own the cattle can write their own tickets in the

use and exchange of records concerning their herds.

For example, upon breeders' requests, Extension

staffs often forward beef herd data to a registry association where it is recorded for the breeder. In

most cases, there will be a recording charge. Similarly, the registry associations give the universities

information for research and education. Information can also be exchanged among registry associations with permission from the breeders. The entire

industry' profits when public and private organizations cooperate and make maximum use of all data

collected.

Extension workers at all levels should be prepared

to work with all breeders who are participating in

beef cattle improvement programs sponsored by

either state or national groups. The primary objective of this Extension work is to help the individual breeder learn to make the most of the productive

resources he controls. Plan your educational programs so this type of assistance is available to all

beef cattle breeders.

APPENDIX

REPORT OF UNITED STATES BEEF CAHLE RECORDS COMMIHEE: RECOMMENDED

PROCEDURES FOR MEASUREMENT OF TRAITS OF ECONOMIC VALUE

Participants in the development of the report and in

committee activities were :

American National Cattlemen's Association—

Dudley Campbell, Secretary;

Performance Registry International—John J.

Heckman, Jr., Secretary, and Dale Lynch and

Jerry Litton ;

American Angus Association—Glen Bratcher,

Secretary, and Stanley Anderson ;

American Brahman Breeders' Association—

Harry P. Gayden, Secretary ;

American Hereford Association—Paul Swaffar,

Secretary ;

American International Charoláis Association—

J. Scott Henderson, Secretary;

American Polled Hereford Association—Orville

K. Sweet, Secretary;

American Shorthorn Association—C. D. (Pete)

Swaffar, Secretary;

International Brangus Breeders' Association—

Roy Lilly, Secretary, and Jesse Dowdy;

Red Angus Association of America—Sybil Parker,

Secretary, and C. T. Parker;

Santa Gertrudis Breeders' International—R. P.

Marshall, Secretary;

Cooperative Extension Service—Frank H. Baker,

Federal Extension Service; C. O. Schoonover,

Wyoming; C. C. Mast, Virginia; Melvin Bradley, Missouri; and W. W. Wharton, Ohio;

Agricultural Research Service—E. J. Warwick,

Chief, Beef Cattle Branch, USDA; Keith E.

Gregory, North Central Region Investigations

Leader; R. S. Temple, Southern Region Investigations Leader; and J. S. Brinks, Western

Region Investigations Leader.

Other organizations contributing ideas to this report

are the American Meat Science Association, Extension

Beef Improvement Subcommittee of the American

Society of Animal Science, and the Livestock Division,

Consumer and Marketing Service, USDA. No preference for (or discrimination against) any individual

breed of cattle or organization listed above or not listed

is intended by the Committee.
Introduction

The primary objectixe of this report is the achievement of greater uniformity of measurement procedures

and methods of expression of measures of performance

traits on beef cattle record of performance programs.

It is not the intent of this report to recommend a standard program appHcable to all segments of the beef

cattle industry; however, uniformity of terminology

and method of expression of measures of "key" performance traits is essential to rapid and accurate communication among individuals, organizations, and the

basic segments of the beef cattle industry.

Performance or economic traits of beef cattle include those that contribute to both productixe efficiency

and desirability of product. The traits of economic

value in beef cattle may be summarized by identifying

the interests of the different segments of the industry.

The commercial producer is interested in cows with

long productive li\ es that wean a high percentage calf

crop of heavy, high grading calves : the feeder expects

rapid and efficient feed lot gains; and the packer and

retailer are interested in the maximum amount of

edible portion per unit of live and/or carcass weight.

The consumer expects the edible portion to be tender,

flavorful and juicy.

Fundamental to the genetic improvement of all traits

of economic value in beef cattle is the measurement or

evaluation of differences between animals. The preferred measurements are those that give the most accurate estimate of the breeding value or genetic merit

of an animal relative to others in a herd. It is the

function of records to increase a breeder's knowledge of

diflferences between animals and thus increase the accuracy of his selections.

The systematic measurement of differences among

animals in the traits of economic value, the recording

of these measurements, and the use of the records in

selection will increase the rate of genetic improvement

in individual herds and thus in a breed and the total

cattle population.

Differences between animals are due to two major

causes, genetic and environmental. The observed or

measured performance of each animal in each trait is

the result of its heredity and the total environment in

which it is raised. Adjustments can be made for

known environmental effects such as age, age of dam,

and sex. By adjusting for these effects, a breeder can

rank individual animals more accurately on their estimated genetic worth for specific traits. In addition to

the environmental effects for which adjustments can

be made, there are many random or chance environmental variables which contribute to errors in estimating relative breeding values of animals based on their

own performance. The importance of some of these,

such as differences in fill at time of weighing can be

appreciably reduced by following appropriate and uniform procedures. The weighing ( onditif)ns should be

the same for all animals that are to be compared. In

central testing stations, it is recommended that initial

and terminal weights be taken on 2 consecutive days

following an overnight (12 hrs.) shrink without feed

and water.

The rate of improvement in a herd, breed, and

population is dependent on ( 1 ) the percentage of observed differences between animals that is due to

heredity (heritability), (2) the difference between

selected individuals and the average of the herd or

group from which they come (selection differential),

(3) the genetic association among the traits upon

which selection is based (genetic correlations), and (4)

the average age of parents when the offspring are bom

(generation interval).

Record of performance is useful primarily to provide

a basis for comparing cattle handled alike within a

herd and only secondarily for estimating differences

between herds or between groups treated differently

within a herd. This is because large environmental

differences due to location, management, and nutrition

are likely to exist between herds or different management groups within a herd. It is not possible to adjust

accurately for these differences. Genetic differences

between herds do exist but large environmental differences make the evaluation of such genetic differences

extremely difficult.

The principal features of effective record of performance programs are as follows :

1. All animals of a given sex and age are given equal

opportunity through uniform feeding and management.

2. Systematic written records are kept of all traits of

economic value on all animals.

3. Records are adjusted for known sources of variation, such as age of dam, age of calf, and sex.

4. Records are used in selecting replacements (bulls

and heifers) and in culling poor producers.

5. Nutritional program and management practices

are practical and compatible with those where

progeny of the herd are expected to perform and

are uniform for the entire herd.

Fertility and the various components which contribute to it have generally been found to be low in

heritability on a within-breed basis. For this reason, it

does not seem wise to give it major emphasis even

though fertility is the single most important economic

factor in beef cow herd production. Because of a

possibility that low fertility or sterility may be more

highly heritable than above-average fertility, it is recommended, however, that complete calving records be
maintained on all cows in breeding; herds and that records on fertility of bulls be maintained. Prospective

herd sires should not be saved from either sires or dams

of subnomial fertility. Replacement heifers should be

saved from such animals only if they are truly superior

in other respects.

How To Handle Records According to Sex of Animal

and in Relation to Contemporary Animals

Records of growth of individual animals {both prcand post-weaning) should be reported and/or published on the basis of each sex {within sex basis without

sex adjustments). In the case of sire, dam, and group

summaries where data are adjusted to a common sex,

the particular common sex used should be the option

of the organization sponsoring the program. However, the common sex (bull or steer) used in the adjustments should be clearly stated in all reports. If it

should be desirable to convert 205 day weight summaries from one common sex to another, calculations

should be based on a 10-percent difference between

bulls and heifers (with steers being 5 percent less than

bulls and 5 percent greater than heifers).

It is further recommended that for sire, dam and

group summaries all associations and organizations use

weight ratios computed on a within sex basis for

(1) adjusted 205 day weight {weaning) and

(2) adjusted 365 day weight {yearling) and 550

day weight {long yearling).

In dealing with records for herds in which numbers

are small, weight ratios should be computed after the

conversion of data to a common sex basis.

Weight ratios within sex groups are calculated by

dividing each individual's weight adjusted for age and

for age of dam by the average of its sex group and

expressing it as a percent of its sex group average.

Sire, dam, and group summaries are made by averaging the weight ratios of the animals involved.

Weight ratios should also be reported for individual

animals to provide for case of ranking individuals of

each sex in making selections.

Measurement of Weaning Weight (205 Days)

Weaning weights are measured to evaluate differences in mothering ability of cows and differences in

growth potential of calves. For best estimates of

genetic worth for weaning weight, it is necessary to

adjust individual calf records to a standard basis. It

is recommended that the standard basis be to 205 days

of age with a mature equivalent dam. The objective

of such adjustments is to arrive at the best estimate of

what a calf of a particular sex would have weighed at

205 days of age if its dam had been mature. It is also

recommended that weights be recorded when the calves

are between 160 and 250 days of age.

It is suggested that 205 day weights be computed on

the basis of average daily gains from birth to weaning.

This is accomplished by subtracting a constant of 70

pounds (or actual birth weight, if available) for birth

weight from actual weight, dividing by the age in days

at wcaninii, to obtain average daily gain, and multiplying the average daily gain by 205 and adding the 70

pounds that was subtracted initially for birth weight

(or actual birth weight). This provides 205 day

weight, unadjusted for age of dam and sex of calf.

This procedure is summarized by the following

formula:

Unadj. 205 day weight (lbs.)

^actual wt-70^^Q3^^Q

age m days

To adjust for age of dam, the following adjustment

factors are recommended.

Age of dam—

2 year olds—multiply computed 205 day wt.

by 1.15

3 year olds—multiply computed 205 day wt.

by 1.10

4 year olds—multiply computed 205 day wt.

by 1.05

5 throus^h 10 year olds—no adjustment

11 year olds and up—multiply computed 205

day wt. by 1.05

For selection purposes weaning weight should probably be considered in relation to weight of dam.

However, because of differences in condition, meaningful cow weights are so difficult to determine that it

seems impractical to include this as a recommendation

in record of performance programs at this time.

Weaning weight ratios (computed as previously

stated) of individual and for sire, dam, and group

averages should be reported and used in comparisons.

Measurement of Yearling Weight (365 Days) or

Long Yearling Weight (550 Days)

Yearling weight at 365 days or long yearling weight

at 550 days are particularly important parts of record

of performance programs. It is suggested that yearling weight be computed separately for each sex. When

365 day weights are used, it is recommended that they

be computed on the basis of average daily gain of each

animal in a time constant post-weaning feeding or

grazing period of at least 160 days immediately after

weaning.

The postweaning period should start on the date

weaning weights are obtained (i.e., actual weaning

weight is used as initial weight on test). Research

results show that the age of dam effects on 365 day

weight are of approximately the same magnitude as age

of dam effects at weaning. For this reason, it is desirable to add postweaning gains in a 160 day postwean8
ing period to weaning weight adjusted for age of dam

to arrive at adjusted 365 day weight. The following

formula is appropriate for computing adjusted 365 day

weight :

A j- Qcc j . actual final wt.—actual wn. wt. Adj. 365 day wt. = r ï ;

number days between weights

X 160 +wn. wt. (205 days) adj. for age of dam

The period between weaning and final weight should

be at least 160 days and final weight should not be

taken at less than 350 days of age. It is recommended

that the number of days between weaning and final

weight be the same for all animals of the same sex in a

herd. By use of this procedure, it is necessary to obtain only weaning weight and yeariing weight on each

animal. Also, all periods in an animal's life are accounted for, i.e., no "loafing" periods.

The procedure of using adjusted 365 day weights

as a measure of yeariing weight will apply primarily to

herds that develop bulls on a rather high le\'el of concentrate feeding starting at weaning time. For herds

that prefer to develop bulls more slowly, and with the

lower level of feeding more generally practical and

applicable for growing out potential replacement

heifers, a long yearling weight is suggested as an alternative to adjusted 365 day weights. This is accomplished by measuring growth rate in a period of approximately 345 days postweaning with weaning

weight and date being initial weight and date of postweaning period.

Adjusted long yeariing weight (550 days) for each

sex should be computed in the same manner as adjusted 365 day weight. Thus, the appropriate formula for computing adjusted 550 day weight would be:

A j- rrn 1 actual final weight — actual wn. wt. Adj.550day wt. = r ï—% —, number days between weights

X345 + wn. wt. (205 days) adj. for age of dam

Yearling weight rations (computed as stated on p.

8) of individual animals and for sire, dam, and group

averages should be reported and used in comparisons.

Central Testing Stations

Central testing stations are locations where animals

are assembled from several herds to evaluate differences in some performance traits under uniform

conditions. Present and potential uses of central testing stations include: (1) Determining the gaining

ability and conformation scores of potential seed-stock

herd sires as compared to similar animals from other

nerds; (2) determining the gaining ability and conformation scores under comparable conditions of bulls

being readied for sale to commercial producers; (3)

finishing steers or heifers scheduled for slaughter as

part of progeny test programs for growth and carcass

vTth rin rT '^"^"^^^"^^ ^^^1 to acquaint breeders

With record of perfonnance; and (5) estimating genetic differen( (^s between herds or between sire progenies m gaming ability, conformation, and carcass

characteristics.

It is important that the objectives of a central testmg station be clearly defined and procedures designed

to accomplish the objectives. Since specific objectives and procedures may vary with location, only general principles will be discussed here.

In beef cattle, nutritional level at one stage of life

usually has carryover effects on performance at later

stages. A poor feed supply in one period tends to be

followed by a period of increased or "compensatory"

gain when rations are increased. Conversely, a higher

than normal level of feeding will likely be followed by

a period of subnormal gains on a normal feeding regime. Following a compensatory period, good performance tends to be related to good eariy performance

and vice versa.

Since pretest levels of nutrition and management

usually diflFer from farm to farm or ranch to ranch, performance at a central test station may be influenced by

pretest environment. From one standpoint, this is a

serious disadvantage of central test stations since part

of the observed diflferences in performance at a station

w ill be due to pretest conditions. It w ill nearly always

be impossible to estimate the importance of these

eiïects. However, carryover herd environmental

effects will be less important than herd differences due

to environment had all animals been fed for a comparable period in the herds in which they were produced. From this standpoint, central testing stations

minimize herd environmental effects.

Bull buyers have to decide on ( 1 ) which herds to

buy bulls from and (2) which bull or bulls to buy

within a herd. If the bulls are raised and fed entirely

on the farm or ranch where dropped, the buyer has the

nearly impossible task of deciding how much of the apparent superiority or inferiority of bulls in a specific

herd is due to feeding and herdsmanship. Having

them handled for part of their lives under standard

conditions minimizes these eíTects and makes the task

of the buyer easier, whether he is buying commercial

bulls or herd sires for a purebred herd.

Similarly, if progeny test groups of steers from different herds are being fed out to determine the transmitting ability of the sires for growth rate, efficiency,

and carcass traits, sire comparisons are more accurate if

all progeny are fed under standard conditions for the

final feeding period.

Central tests are of limited usefulness for estimating

genetic differences between herds. If used, at least 5

to 10 head per herd should be tested annually for a
minimum of 3 years. The larger the herd size, the

greater the number will need to be to adequately sample the herd. The precision of the tests may be improved if five to eight progeny of each of two or more

sires from each herd are tested each year. This permits assessment of within-herd diíTerences to compare

with between-herd diflferences. Further, efforts

should be made to get a representative sample of animals from each herd on test or little real information on

herd differences will be accumulated. If central testing stations are used to estimate genetic differences between herds, it is recommended that samples of those

completing the evaluation be used in top-cross comparisons in commercial herds so that additional traits

can be measured and the precision can be increased.

If the purpose is to evaluate individual potential

sires, the number tested per herd or per sire is of no

importance; but everyone concerned with the test

should make a special effort to discourage betweenherd comparisons if numbers from each herd are small.

Preferably, bulls should be entered in this type of test

only if they meet rigid qualifications for preweaning

rate of gain, soundness, and conformation score.

If the purpose is solely to develop bulls and make

objective performance information available to prospective buyers, the number of bulls per herd or per sire

is immaterial. To be most useful, however, large

numbers should be fed at a single location so buyers

will have an adequate number from which to choose.

Tests of this kind would be most useful as a service to

small breeders, and if commercial-type feedlots were

used, large numbers could be fed.

Influences of pretest environment on test performance can probably never be eliminated but they can be

minimized by the following procedures :

1. Accept animals for test only within relatively narrow age ranges, preferably at or within one month

after weaning. Accept no animal over 305 days

of age at delivery. It would be desirable to have

available pretest environmental information such

as creep fed, pastured, condition score, etc.

2. Receive animals in relatively narrow time periods

and consider the period after delivery to be an

adjustment period. The adjustment period

could be used to get cattle on feed and should be

a minimum of 21 days prior to initiation of official test.

3. For initial weights on test and final weights off

test use the average of two weights taken on successive days after minimum of 12 hours off feed

and water before each weight.

4. Test rations that contain 60-70 percent concentrate and 30-40 percent roughage are adequate

for most conditions under which bulls are tested.

5. The customary 140-150 days on full feed should

be adequate on the foregoing concentrate rations

under these conditions.

6. Growth data reported in central testing station results should include ( 1 ) adjusted weaning weight

at 205 days (with weaning weight ratio) (2) daily

gain on test (with gain ratio) (3) adjusted 365

day weight adjusted by the same procedure presented in the section of this report on measurement of yearling weight (with 365 day weight

ratio) (4) actual weight per day of age at the

end of the test.

Central test stations will be of greatest educational

value if all concerned recognize that only a limited

number of traits can be evaluated in them and that at

best they are merely one phase of a complete performance evaluation program. One of the primary

measures of the effectiveness of central test stations

should be the impact they have for increased complete herd testing for all economically important traits.

Choices between herds are likely to be made on the

basis of many bits of information of which results from

central testing stations may be one.

Conformation Evaluation

Record of performance programs should include

traits that contribute to both efficiency of production

and desirability of product. The items of conformation which should be included in a record of performance program are those traits that contribute to

carcass desirability (thickness of natural fleshing or

muscling) and the structural soundness that may contribute to longevity. Thus, conformation is important

from the standpoint of both desirability of product and

productive efficiency. The items of conformation that

are important from the standpoint of carcass desirability are thickness of natural fleshing or muscling, particularly in the regions that produce the cuts of greatest value (back, loin, rump, and round) and the

amount of outside fat relative to muscular development. The items of skeletal structure that may contribute to longevity pertain to the correctness of the

basic architecture of an animal, i.e., back, neck, rump,

pins, legs, and feet.

All animals should be evaluated for conformation

when weaning weights and yearling weights are taken.

The major items of conformation probably can be appraised more critically at the time yearling weights are

taken.

In summary, the primary criteria in conformation

evaluation should be ( 1 ) structural soundness which

may be indicative of longevity, ( 2 ) thickness of natural

fleshing or muscling, and (3) thickness of outside fat.

Each of these items can probably be appraised more

10
critically in yearlings than in calves. Differences in

thickness of muscling or natural fleshing can be appraised best by close observation of the areas where the

least amount of outside fat is normally present. These

areas are the outside of the round or quarter and the

forearm.

Outside fat is a major factor in reducing yield of

trimmed retail cuts. Outside fat in excess of one-fourth

to one-half inch is trimmed off the retail cuts, and

thus is undesirable. Indicators of outside fat are fullness of brisket and flanks as well as evidence of patchiness around the tail head and over the loin.

It is well to remember that bulls of yearling age have

approximately 0.2 to 0.3 inch less outside fat than

steers when both are developed on a full feed of a high

concentrate ration. This difference should be considered when evaluating bulls. Thus, bulls carrying

an amount of fat less than that considered optimum for

steers are more desirable. Even though the fattest

bulls may not be excessively fat themselves they may

sire overfat steers.

Size or weight is a measure of growth rate and should

not be considered in evaluating conformation.

A scoring system for conformation may be simple or

it may be complex. A simple system should group animals of approximately equal desirability from a conformation standpoint; whereas, a more complex system should include independent scores for each of the

major items of conformation.

The following simple scoring procedure (with description ) is recommended for general use in Record of

Performance Programs.

Conformation

Score

17_16-15_

14-13-12-

11-10-9-

8-7-6_

5-4-3-

Description of Breeding Cattle

Cattle eligible to receive these scores have no more than minor faults in any

of the major items of conformation. Cattle in this category are basically

correct in their skeletal and muscular structure, are outstanding in muscular

development, and have optimum outside fat considering the manner in

which they have been developed. Beef character in abundance describes

cattle in this series. The top end of this series describes beef cattle of basically ideal conformation. Bulls in this series are strictly herd bull prospects

from a conformation standpoint and females eligible for these scores possess

the conformation desired for outstanding herd replacements.

Cattle eligible to receive these scores have no more than moderate faults in

their muscular and skeletal structure. Their muscular development is

usually less than outstanding but is average to superior. Skeletal structure is

basically sound. Cattle in this category should include a relatively high percentage of the animals in the better purebred herds. The top end of this

series represents the lowest end of herd bull prospects and the top end of

commercial bulls from a conformation standpoint. The top end of this

series describes superior female replacements for purebred herds, the middle

of this series describes good female replacements, while the bottom end describes the females that are no more than satisfactory as replacements m

purebred herds. The score of 14 describes superior commercial bulls; 13

describes good commercial bulls; and 12 describes satisfactory commercial

bulls from a conformation standpoint. The top end of this series represents

the practical top of commercial cattle. The lower end of this series includes

a reasonably high percentage of the better commercial replacements.

Cattle in this category may have moderate to severe faults in some items of

skeletal and muscular structure. Muscular development is usually average

to inferior. Females in this category should be sound enough in their skeletal

structure to peri^orm their function. A high percentage of the female replacements from average commercial herds would be in the middle and top

scores of this series. The lowest score in this series describes poor female

replacements for commercial herds.

Cattle in this category are usually decidedly lacking in beef character, may

have serious structural defects and may be definitely lacking m muscling.

Represented here are the extreme bottom end of beef cattle. ^ , ,

Extremely thinly fleshed cattle. Represented here are the thinnest fleshed

of dairy cattle.

n
Carcass Evaluation

The basic intent of carcass evaluation is to provide

as much information as possible about the carcass.

Two basic factors determine carcass merit—the proportion of the carcass that is edible and the indicators

of quality and palatability of the edible portion.

The interpretation and use of carcass evaluation in

breeding and management programs is subject to variability—variability dictated by diversification and

changing market demands.

Following are objective and subjective measurement

techniques used singly or in combination as indicators

of carcass merit:

1. Hot carcass weight minus 2-percent shrink.

2. Longissimus dorsi area at the 12th rib.

3. Fat thickness of the 12th rib at a point threequarters of the length of the longissimus dorsi

from the chine bone end.

4. Estimated percent kidney, pelvic, and heart fat.

5. Percent trimmed bone-in retail cuts from the

round, loin, rib, and chuck determined by actual

cut-out.

6. Percent trimmed boneless retail cuts from the

round, loin, rib, and chuck determined by actual

cut-out.

7. Trimmed round.

8. USDA quality grade to one-third of a grade and

desirably separate scores for marbling and the

other components of the grade :

(a) marbling

(b) texture of lean

(c) color of lean

(d) firmness of lean

(e) maturity

(f) texture of marbling

9. Wamer-Bratzler shear for estimating tenderness.

10. Taste panel for estimating tenderness and other

characteristics afïecting consumer appeal.

There are several methods of evaluating the beef

carcass. Some of these can be accomplished on the

ribbed carcass while others require further physical

modification of the carcass. This is true of both quantity and quality measures. The degree of carcass

modification necessary is often a factor which significantly influences the selection of the procedures to be

used in a carcass evaluation program. For this reason

the procedures have been grouped on the basis of

various degrees of carcass modification. Thus, in

planning an evaluation program, a breeder or organization should choose those phases which can be accomplished in a particular setting.

Phase one: Procedures that will estimate quantity

and quality without physical change to the carcass.

USDA Formula for estimating percent trimmed

boneless retail cuts from round, loin, rib, and

chuck:

1. Carcass weight.

2. Longissimus dorsi area at the 12th rib.

3. Fat thickness at the 12th rib at a point threequarters of the length of the longissimus dorsi

from the chine bone end.

4. Estimated percent kidney, pelvic, and heart

fat.

5. USDA quality grade to one-third of a grade

and desirably separate scores for marbling

and the other components of the grade:

(a) marbling score

(b) texture of lean

(c) color of lean

(d) firmness of lean

(e) maturity

The first four items can be used in the following prediction equation to estimate percent trimmed boneless retail cuts from the round, loin, rib, and chuck

(cutability) :

Cutability= blM — 5.1M (single thickness of fat

over longissimus dorsi in inches) —0.462 (estimated percent kidney, pelvic, and heart fat)

+ 0.740 (area longissimus dorsi in square inches)

— 0.0093 (carcass weight in pounds).

Phase two: Procedures that require breaking the

carcass permitting the use of more refined evaluation

methods.

Section A: Percent trimmed bone-in retail cuts

from the round, loin, rib, and chuck determined

by actual cut-off.

Section B: Percent trimmed boneless retail cuts

from the round, loin, rib, and chuck determined

by actual cut-out.

Section C: Wisconsin formula for estimating percent ''retail yield'' of trimmed bone-in retail cuts

from the round, loin, rib, and chuck.

1. Trimmed round.

2. Single fat thickness in inches over the ribeye.

An estimate of retail yield can be calculated by

the following regression equation :

Retail yield= 16.64+1.67 (percent trimmed

round) —4.94 (single fat thickness in inches

over rib-eye).

This formula is recommended only for steer carcasses of the beef breeds that range in outside fat

(3d measure) from 0.35 to 1.5 inches.

Section D: Quality grade as described in phase 1,

item 5.

12
Phase three: Objective and subjective measures of

quality in cooked retail cuts from a carcass.

1. Warner-Bratzler shear.

2. Taste panel.

The above phases are stated as briefly as possible.

It is suggested that the acceptance of any of the abo\ c

be on the assumption that detailed instruction be obtained on acceptable methods of collecting the data

from the American Meat Science Association or the

organization conducting the programs.

General Considerations in Progeny Testing for Carcass

Merit

The primary purpose of a progeny test is to determine which of two or more bulls should be retained

for extensive use in a seed-stock herd on the basis of results of progeny test.

Sire evaluation is currently a primar)^ motivating

force for the collection of carcass data. Thus, it is

necessary to make some basic recommendations as to

number of progeny per sire to be tested and other

management factors. Since expense of testing dictates that only a limited number of bulls can be progeny

tested for carcass characteristics and since most of the

other characters in which we are interested are relatively high in heritability, only bulls which are outstanding in other characteristics and from dams of outstandingly good maternal qualities should be progeny

tested.

Although each progeny evaluated in the carcass adds

to the information about the transmitting ability of the

sire being tested, it appears that 8 to 12 give a reasonably good evaluation of the transmitting ability of a

sire. Thus, when the question becomes one of getting

more progeny than this per sire versus progeny testing

additional sires, it is recommended that additional sires

be tested. Further, it might be pointed out that if 8 to

12 progeny are not available, as few as 5 to 6 will give

indications about the probable transmitting ability of

the sire.

If bulls are progeny tested for carcass traits, it is important that the tests be designed so that fair comparisons can be made on the relative genetic merit of the

bulls used in the progeny test for the traits on which

they are being evaluated. Thus, bulls to be compared

should be bred to random samples of cows, with the

calves born at approximately the same time of the

year, reared under comparable conditions with uniformity of procedures in obtaining the appropriate carcass data.

It is desirable that all of the ofTspring on which carcass data are obtained be unselected and preferably of

the same sex. If they are not all of the same sex, the

proportion of sexes should be equalized insofar as

possible and sex difl'erences taken into account in evaluating a sire among the various sire progeny groups to

be compared.

It is su^L^csted that calves on which carcass data

are obtained be fed for a time constant period immediately after weaning. The length of this period should

be constant for all animals within a group but could

be any length between 200-250 days.

An alternate procedure would be to feed to a weight

constant end point. If this procedure is used, it is

recommended that the animals be put on feed at weaning and that heifers be fed a finishing ration until they

are in the 800-850 pound weight range, and steers be

fed a finishing ration until they are in a 975-1025

pound weight range.

Calculation of ''Estimated Carcass ]'alue''

Since quality of the meat and the percentage of edible portion both affect the value of a carcass, it is desirable that both receive consideration. For comparing the progeny of diñ'erent sires for carcass value,

breeders may desire to combine these two basic items

into a single expression—"Estimated Carcass Value".

Such an estimate can be computed if the relative values

of cutability (estimated yield of boneless, closely

trimmed retail cuts from round, loin, rib, and chuck)

and quality grade are known. While the relative

values of cutability and quality grade may be expected

to \'ary somewhat throughout a year or over a period of

years, because of changes in supply-demand patterns,

the average relative importance of the two components

over a period of time should reflect their most meaningful relationship with which the industry should be concerned. Averages for recent years have indicated that

a 2-percent change in cutability has approximately the

same effect on value as a change of one full quality

grade by USDA standards.

Assuming that a 2-percent change in cutability

(USDA Formula) has approximately the same value

as one full quality grade, the following expression may

be used to combine cutability and quality grade into

'^Estimated Carcass Value":

E.Cy. = Cutability (percent) + 0.7 X Quality

Grade, coded with one unit of quality grade equal to

one-third of a grade.

Carcass quality grade must be coded to a numerical

scale for computing an '^Estimated Carcass Value".

Any descending code scale for quality grade may be

used provided one unit change is equated to one-third

of a grade. Thus, 17, 16, and 15 may be used for

high, average, and low prime, respectixely, with a comparable descending scale for the lower grades.

Differences in "Estimated Carcass Value" should reflect diflFerences in actual carcass values provided both

13
difîerences in cutability and carcass grade are weighted

according to their relative economic values.

Trends in supply-demand patterns should be evaluated continuously in regard to their effects on cutability-quality value relationships. Changes in value

relationship should be reflected by changes in the "Estimated Carcass Value."

Carcass weight per day of age is used as a component

of some carcass evaluation programs. Within groups

of animals of approximately the same age raised and

managed similarly, it is a simple and reasonably effective procedure.

Growth rate may be included in the computation of

'"Estimated Carcass Value" by adjusting the carcass

weight for differences in age. Live weight adjusted

for differences in age and multiplied by dressing percent provides an estimate of carcass weight on an age

constant basis. Carcass weight (adjusted for age)

multiplied by the "Estimated Carcass Value" will provide an estimate of value worth including growth rate,

cutability, and quality of meat. The basis for this

approach is that E.C.V. estimates value per pound of

carcass including quality of the meat (carcass grade)

and edible portion (cutability). Carcass weight (adjusted for age) is measure of growth rate. Carcass

weight adjusted for age multiplied by estimated value

per pound provides an estimate of merit that may be

used for comparative purposes. This may be expressed as a ratio of group average by dividing the

value (merit) for each individual into the group average. These procedures for combining growth rate

with estimates of carcass composition (cutability) and

meat quality are recommended because these components contribute to achievement of basic goals in the

beef industry, i.e., efficient production of a high quality

product.

General Considerations in Implementation of Carcass Evaluation Programs

The success of any carcass evaluation program is dependent on implementation; several problems are

presented.

1. Identification.

2. Packer cooperation.

3. Actual data collection.

4. Transmittal of collected data to proper authorities.

5. Payment for data collection.

A method of obtaining data that has wide applicability is the use of the personnel of the Federal Grading

Service in collecting data. This will provide the information consistent with phase 1 of the Carcass Evaluation Section of this report. Steps to follow in procuring this service are :

1. Arrange to have cattle slaughtered in a federally

inspected packing plant or a nonfederally inspected plant approved to receive the Federal

meat grading service.

2. Obtain packer permission to have carcasses

evaluated by USDA meat grader.

3. Contact USDA meat grading office to make

arrangements for Carcass Evaluation Service and

to obtain tags for identification of cattle. (Cost

of service is based on $7.40 per hour of grader's

time plus a 20-cent-per-head charge for transfer

of identity tags by meat inspectors.)

Direct requests for the Beef Carcass Evaluation Service or additional information concerning it to: Meat

Grading Branch, Livestock Division, Consumer and

Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, at

one of the following addresses:

Atlanta, Ga. 30323— 50 Seventh Street NE., Room

245

Denver, Colo. 80216—403 Livestock Exchange

Building

Bell (Los Angeles), Calif. 90201—5555 Eastern

Avenue, Building 6, Section C

Baltimore, Md. 21223—Livestock Exchange

Building, Room 3

Des Moines, Iowa 50309—Iowa Building, Room

205

San Francisco, Calif. 94111—630 Sansome Street,

Room 717

Chicago, 111. 60609—Livestock Exchange Building, Room 522

Forth Worth, Tex. 76106—233 Livestock Exchange Building

New York, N.Y. 10013—346 Broadway, Room 619

Cleveland, Ohio 44102—Livestock Exchange

Building, Room 23

Kansas City, Mo. 64102—760 Livestock Exchange

Building

Omaha, Nebr. 68107—609 Livestock Exchange

Building

National Stock Yards, 111. 62071—Post Office Box

187, 27 Livestock Exchange Building

Seatde, Wash. 98104—605 Federal OflSce Building

Sioux City, Iowa 51107—225 Livestock Exchange

Building

South St. Paul, Minn. 55076—201 Federal Building

14
Cooperative Extension Work: U.S. Department of Agriculture and State Land-Grant Colleges and Universities Cooperating.

Issued January 1966. ,/

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington,' D.C., 20402 - Price 15 cents

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1966 O—790-008