M. P. Hoffman and H. L.

Self
Yearling Steers
Shelter and Feedlot Surface effects on Performance of
1970, 31:967-972. J ANIM SCI
http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/content/31/5/967
and services, is located on the World Wide Web at:
The online version of this article, along with updated information
www.asas.org
by guest on December 17, 2013 www.journalofanimalscience.org Downloaded from by guest on December 17, 2013 www.journalofanimalscience.org Downloaded from by guest on December 17, 2013 www.journalofanimalscience.org Downloaded from
SHELTER AND FEEDLOT SURFACE EFFECTS ON
PERFORMANCE OF YEARLI NG STEERS 1, 2
M. P. HOFFMAN AND H. L. SELF a
Iowa State University, Ames
T
WO important problems in Corn Belt
Feedlots are mud and temperature fluctua-
tions. The extent to which either or both can
modify the economic returns to cattle feeders
is not known. A project to determine the ef-
fects of overhead shelter and feedlot surface
was initiated in northwestern Iowa in the fall
of 1961. The three main criteria for evaluat-
ing effects were rate of gain, daily feed con-
sumption and feed efficiency (kilograms of
feed per kilogram of live weight gain).
Mat eri al s and Met hods
Twelve trials were conducted at the Allee
Experimental Farm, located at Newell near
the center of the northwestern quarter of
Iowa. The general pattern was to conduct the
winter season trials during the months of
November through April and the summer sea-
son trials during the months of May through
September. Except for the summer of 1963
and the winter of 1963 to 1964, two trials
were conducted each year.
Each of six lots, 10.7 m wide and 30.5 m
long, was oriented north and south, with a
surface gradient of 4% slope to the south.
A 3.6-m-wide service drive was provided
between each pair of lots (lots 1 and 2
equaling one pair, etc.). Each lot was en-
closed on three sides with five 0.95-cm
stranded cables on wood posts spaced ap-
proximately 2.7 m apart. Automatic waterers
were located so that each lot had access to
only one water bowl. Each lot contained a
self-feeder located near the service drive and
across the lot from the automatic waterers.
The south end of a barn, from which the
hay mow had been removed, provided shelter
with a dirt floor for lots 1, 2 and 3. The under-
roof area for each of the three sheltered
Iots was approximately 9.I4 m sq (83.6 m2).
1Journal Paper No. J-6495 of the Iowa Agriculture and
Home Economics Experiment Station, Ames, Iowa. Project No.
1503.
Supported in part by funds suppIied by the Iowa Ready
Mixed Concrete Association.
a The authors wish to acknowledge the assistance of D. F.
Cox in the statistical analysis; D. O. Hull, F. W. Roth and
V. M. Meyer in the design and construction of the facilities
and N. Gay and C. E. Summers in the conduct of the experi-
ment.
Lots 4, 5 and 6 had only a board windbreak
2.13 m high across the north end of the lot.
Lots 3 and 4 were paved with concrete,
and lots 2 and 5 had an all dirt surface except
for a 3-m-wide concrete pavement across the
north end of each lot. Lots 1 and 6 had con-
crete only around the self-feeders and the
waterers in addition to the 3-m-wide concrete
pavement across the north end. Bedding was
not used in any of the lots at any time. The
surface space allowed per steer was sufficient
to avoid problems with excess manure ac-
cumulations except during wet weather. The
outside lot space was scraped as frequently
as necessary to prevent manure accumulating
to a depth of more than 5 to 8 centimeters.
The schedule varied depending upon type of
surface and moisture conditions. The area in-
side the shelter was cleaned according to need
and as weather and moisture conditions per-
mitted, usually only once but occasionally
twice during each trial.
The number of steers per lot per trial ranged
from 18 to 22, resulting in an average of
16.2 m 2 outside area per steer. An additional
4.2 m 2 of area under shelter was provided per
steer in lots 1, 2 and 3.
Temperature and precipitation data from
the U.S. Weather Bureau Station at Storm
Lake, approximtaely 19.3 km from Newell,
are presented in table 1.
Yearling cattle, predominantly of Hereford
and Angus breeding, were purchased and on
a group basis were allowed to regain their
original pay weight before being individually
identified, and before an average of two live
weights was obtained for a starting weight on
test. Weights were obtained at 28-day inter-
vals throughout the test period, with a few
exceptions due to weather or other factors.
The last of these periodic weights was taken on
the last day of the test and was used as the
final test weight to avoid excess handling im-
mediately prior to shipment for slaughter. At
the termination of the feedlot test period the
steers from this study were used in other
studies dealing with the effects of pre-
slaughter treatment on yield and carcass data
967
by guest on December 17, 2013 www.journalofanimalscience.org Downloaded from
968 HOFFMAN AND SELF
T AB L E 1. AVE RAGE MONT HL Y P R E C I P I T A-
T I ON AND T E MP E R AT UR E , S T ORM LAKE,
I OWA ( 1931- 1960)
Pr e c i pi t a t i on Av g t e mp.
( e m) ( C)
J a n u a r y 1. 88 - - 8 . 0
Fe b r u a r y 2. 62 - - 6 . 0
Ma r c h 4 . 1 4 - - . 2
Apr i l 5. 74 8. 5
Ma y 10. 13 15. 2
J u n e 11. 35 20. 6
J u l y 9. 47 23. 5
Augus t 8. 64 22. 3
Se pt e mbe r 7. 21 17. 5
Oct ober 4. 27 11. 0
No v e mb e r 3. 38 1. 2
De c e mbe r 2. 01 - - 5 . 2
which will be reported later. Starting and
final test weights and number of days on test
are shown in table 2.
The initial feed offered to the steers ad
l i bi t um in self-feeders was a complete mixed
ration containing 65% ground corn cobs,
with the remainder made up of cracked corn
and a protein supplement fortified with vita-
mins and minerals to meet the National Re-
search Council (1963) requirements. The cob
level was lowered at the rate of 10% at ap-
proximately weekly intervals until the cattle
were on the ration they were to receive
throughout the remainder of the test. The
cob level did not exceed 27% after the adapta-
tion period. The cattle were fed ad l i bi t um at
all times from self-feeders.
All lots within each test were fed the same
number of days until visual appraisal indi-
cated that approximately 80~ of the cattle
T ABL E 2. AVE RAGE I NI T I AL AND F I NAL
WE I GHT S AND NUMB E R OF DAYS ON T E S T
Ave r a ge Aver age
i ni t i al f i nal Nu mb e r
Seas on we i ght we i ght of da ys
a n d ye a r Tr i al ( kg) ( kg) on t e s t
Wi nt e r
1961-1962 I 337 481 115
1962-1963 I I I 309 475 121
1964-1965 V 309 462 154
1965-1966 VI I 274 460 163
1966-1967 I X 281 454 152
1967-1968 XI 256 424 131
S u mme r
1962 I I 318 500 141
1964 I V 367 522 139
1965 VI 293 472 140
1966 VI I I 307 488 141
1967 X 277 482 147
1968 XI I 315 507 140
in all lots would produce U.S.D.A. Choice
grade carcasses. This procedure resulted in
a range of 115 to 163 days on test for indi-
vidual trials. The wide range in length of trial
was because of variation in starting condition
of the cattle from one test to another and
the wide extremes in weather during indi-
vidual trials. The only segment available uni-
formly from all tests on gain, feed consump-
tion and feed efficiency was the first four
28-day weigh periods (112 days). Althougoh
the cattle on some tests were fed consider-
ably longer, it was decided that data through
the first 112 days would provide a critical
evaluation of the factors under test. The ef-
fects of shelter were studied in all 12 trials,
and the effects of surface were studied in the
first five trials. A preliminary analysis of the
data in the first five trials suggested that lot
surface was not having a significant influence
on performance and was not included as a
variable in the later tests.
Least-squares procedures and analysis of
variance for unequal subclass numbers were
used in the analysis of the data. The t-test
was used to test for differences between the
pooled means of all trials for each treatment
effect within each season. The difference be-
tween the pooled means for shelter in summer
and the pooled means for no shelter in sum-
mer was compared with the difference between
these two pooled means in winter by use of
the t-test.
Resul t s and Di scussi on
Rat e of Gain. Cattle with access to shelter
gained faster than cattle without shelter in
all trials, but this difference was significant
on a within-trial basis in only one winter
trial (Trial V, table 3). Pooling the data by
season resulted in a significant effect of shelter
in the winter (1.32 vs. 1.15 kg; P~. 01) .
Williams (1958, 1959) found that cattle in
Canada in winter with access to shelter inside
a straw shed or wind protection by a 3-m-
high board fence on the north end of the lot
gained more rapidly than did cattle without
protection. Givens et al. (1967) did not find
any difference in rate of gain for sheltered
and nonsheltered cattle under California win-
ter conditions. Observations in the trials here
in Iowa suggest that the different results in
California and Canada were probably due to
differences in the length and intensity of winter
storms in the two areas. Although it was not
possible for weigh dates to coincide with ex-
by guest on December 17, 2013 www.journalofanimalscience.org Downloaded from
S HE L T E R, F E E DL OT S URF ACE AND S T E E R P E R F OR MANC E
TABLE 3. EFFECT OF SEASON AND SHELTER ON AVERAGE DAILY GAIN
969
Winter
Season Season
and year Trial Shelter No shelter and year Trial
Summer
Shelter No shelter
kg kg
Winter Summer
1961-1962 I 1.37 1.12 1962 I I
1962-1963 I I I 1.33 1.14 1964 IV
1964-1965 V 1.25 1.06" 1965 VI
1965-1966 VII 1.30 1.21 1966 VI I I
1966-1967 I X 1.32 1.13 1967 X
1967-1968 XI 1.32 1,23 1968 XI I
Average 1.32 1,15"*
Difference 0.17
kg kg
1.47 1.36
1.16 1.05
1.36 1.31
1.34 1.26
1.46 1.41
1. 38 1. 35
1.36 1.29"
0.07**
* P<.05.
** P<.01.
t r eme we a t he r changes, i t was pos s i bl e i n some
t r i al s t o obs er ve t ha t , dur i ng per i ods of mi l d
weat her , t he di f f er ence i n pe r f or ma nc e due t o
shel t er was mi ni mal . I n cont r as t , when wei gh
pe r i od i nt er val s coi nci ded wi t h per i ods of l ow
t e mpe r a t ur e , t he aver age da i l y gai n a nd f eed
effi ci ency of st eer s wi t hout shel t er was r e duc e d
t o a bout t wo t hi r ds t he l evel of st eer s wi t h
access t o shel t er . The gr e a t e s t s pr ead i n per -
f or mance came when wi nd a n d / o r pr e c i pi t a -
t i on a c c ompa ni e d t he l ow t e mpe r a t ur e s . Thi s
suggest s t ha t t he val ue of s hel t er i n wi nt e r
ma y be ques t i onabl e i n ar eas wher e s t or ms
ar e s hor t or r e l a t i ve l y mi l d.
Th e pool ed d a t a for r a t e of gai n i n t he
s ummer i ndi c a t e d t h a t shel t er s i gni f i cant l y
af f ect ed gai n (1. 36 vs. 1.29 kg; P ~ . 0 5 ) .
Dye r , Wa l t o n a nd Fi n l e y ( 1967) a nd Dy e r
et al. ( 1968) r e por t e d t ha t cat t l e wi t h access
t o s hel t er i n Mi s s our i i n J u l y a nd Augus t
gai ned s l i ght l y f as t er t ha n cat t l e wi t hout
shel t er b u t over t he whol e pe r i od of t hei r
exper i ment s ( Ma y t hr ough Oc t obe r a nd Apr i l
t hr ough Au g u s t ) , t he shel t er a nd nons hel t er
gr oups wer e a bout equal i n da i l y gai n, sug-
gest i ng t h a t when f eedl ot gai ns ar e t e mpor a r -
i l y r e t a r d e d b y hi gh t e mpe r a t ur e s , compens a-
t or y wei ght a d j u s t me n t s can be ma de when
t he cat t l e ar e agai n i nt r oduc e d t o mor e opt i -
mum t e mpe r a t ur e s .
The pool ed mean a d v a n t a g e of shel t er
wi t hi n season was s i gni f i cant l y gr eat er ( P (
. 05) i n wi nt er (0. 17 kg) t ha n t he pool ed me a n
a d v a n t a g e i n s ummer (0. 07 k g ) , suggest i ng
t h a t shel t er af f ect ed r a t e of gai n t o a gr e a t e r
ext ent i n wi nt er t ha n i n summer . Th e p a t t e r n
of f eed c ons umpt i on pl us t he f eed effi ci ency
da t a , bot h of whi ch ar e di scussed l at er , sug-
gest t h a t t he benef i ci al effect s of shel t er i n
wi nt er ma y have a di f f er ent phys i ol ogi cal bas i s
t ha n t h a t whi ch r es ul t s i n an a d v a n t a g e f or
shel t er i n summer . The s e d a t a do not p e r mi t
t he de r i va t i on of a speci fi c des cr i pt i on of t he
r ange of t e mpe r a t ur e s or t he ki nd a nd t y p e
of cl i mat e or we a t he r p a t t e r n ne c e s s a r y t o
p e r mi t shel t er t o be economi cal l y j ust i f i ed.
Fe e d l o t s ur f ace di d not s i gni f i cant l y af f ect
r at e of gai n i n a n y of t he f i r st five t r i al s
( t a bl e 4) . Ana l ys i s of t he pool ed d a t a wi t hi n
season r eveal ed f as t er gai ns on di r t s ur f ace
i n wi nt er a nd on t he concr et e s ur f ace i n s um-
mer . Ne i t h e r t hese di f f er ences bet ween t he
means for gai n b y l ot s ur f ace gr oups nor t he
i nt e r a c t i on of s hel t er a nd sur f ace on r a t e of
gai n wer e si gni f i cant .
Fe e d Con' sumpt i on. Shel t er di d not si gni fi -
TABLE 4. EFFECT OF SEASON AND FEEDLOT SURFACE ON AVERAGE DAILY GAIN
Season
and year
Winter Summer
Part Con- Season Part Con-
Trial Dirt concrete crete and year Trial Di rt concrete crete
Winter
1961-1962
1962-1963
1964-1965
Average
kg kg kg kg kg kg
Summer
I 1.33 1.22 1.19 1962 I I 1.36 1.37 1.51
I I I 1.19 1.23 1.28 1964 IV 1.08 1.09 1.14
V 1.18 1.17 1.11
1.23 1.21 1.20 1.22 1.23 1.32
by guest on December 17, 2013 www.journalofanimalscience.org Downloaded from
970 HOF F MAN AND SELF
TABLE 5. EFFECT OF SEASON AND SHELTER ON DAI LY FEED CONSUMPTI ON
Winter Summer
Season Season
and year Trial Shelter No shelter and year Trial Shelter No shelter
kg kg kg kg
Winter Summer
1961-1962 I 13.23 13.25 1962 I I 12.24 11.92
1962-1963 I I I 14.20 14.20 1964 IV 11.42 11.40
1964-1965 V 11.67 11.77 1965 VI 11.77 11. 22
1965-1966 VII 11.26 10.99 1966 VI I I 11.22 11.14
1966-1967 I X 11.11 11.16 1967 X 11.40 11.21
1967-1968 XI 10.98 11.33 1968 XI I 12.10 12.18
Average 12.08 12.12 11.69 11.51
Difference 0.04 0.18
cant l y affect daily feed consumpt i on in any
of the individual trials (t abl e 5). Pooling the
dat a within season indicated essentially no
difference between the shelter and nonshelter
groups in winter in daily feed i nt ake (12.08
v s . 12.12 kg) . The cattle in the winter non-
shelter group had the same genetic pot ent i al
for weight gains as those in the shelter group
but limited themselves to a dai l y feed i nt ake
appr oxi mat el y equal to t hat of the sheltered
group. Clearly, some fact or relating to ap-
pet i t e or t ot al di gest i ve-t ract capaci t y was
operat i ng to effectively establish an upper
limit on feed i nt ake in the n onsheltered cat -
tle, despite their obvious need for great er
daily energy intake. Thus it is appar ent t hat
cat t l e have an upper limit of capaci t y for feed
i nt ake regardless of their requi rement for ad-
ditional nutrients. Ingalls and Scale (1967)
compared heat ed housing wi t h open-shed
housing duri ng the winter in Canada and
found t hat cat t l e wi t h heat ed housing con-
sumed about 0.68 kg less feed per day t han
cattle in open-shed housing when bot h groups
were fed free choice a rat i on with a 9:1
concent rat e-roughage ratio. Williams (1959),
in t emperat ures ranging between 7 C and
- - 37 C, observed a t endency for feed i nt ake
to decrease as the t emperat ure decreased. Re-
sults report ed by Canadi ans MacDonal d and
Bell (1958) showed t hat fluctuating t em-
perat ures between - - 17 C and 7 C tended to
increase feed intake.
The pooled means did not differ signifi-
cant l y in the summer, al t hough there was a
t endency toward greater dai l y consumption
for sheltered cat t l e (11.69 v s . 11.51 kg) ,
which is in agreement with the observat i on
noted earlier t hat cat t l e wi t h shelter in sum-
mer gained significantly fast er t han cat t l e
wi t hout shelter. Ragsdal e e t a l . (1953, 1954),
in Missouri, not ed t hat rel at i vel y high and
low humidities at t emperat ures below 24 C
did not affect feed i nt ake of l act at i ng cows;
however, upon increasing the humi di t y at
t emperat ures above 24 C, feed i nt ake was re-
duced. Similar findings wi t h t emperat ures
above 24 C have been report ed by other work-
ers ( Wayman e t a l . , 1962; Davi s and Merilan,
1960; Johnson, Ragsdal e and Yeck, 1960).
Feed consumpt i on was significantly related
to t ype of surface ( P ~ . 0 5 ) in one winter
(Tri al V) and in one summer (Tri al IV, t a-
ble 6). Analysis of the pooled dat a from
TABLE 6. EFFECT OF SEASON AND FEEDLOT SURFACE ON DAI LY FEED CONSUMPTI ON
Winter Summer
Season Part Con- Season Part Con-
and year Trial Di rt concrete crete and year Trial Dirt concrete crete
kg kg kg kg kg kg
Winter Summer
1961-1962 I 13.11 13.28 13.33 1962 I I 12.10 11.97 12.17
1962-1963 I I I 14.20 14.20 14.20 1964 IV 11.40 11.34 11.50"
1964-1965 V 11.48 11.91 11.77"
Average 12.93 13.13 13.10 11.75 11.66 11.84
* P<.05.
by guest on December 17, 2013 www.journalofanimalscience.org Downloaded from
SHELTER, FEEDLOT SURFACE AND STEER PERFORMANCE
TABLE 7. EFFECT OF SEASON AND SHELTER ON FEED EFFICIENCY
971
Winter
Season Season
and year Trial Shelter No shelter and year Trial
Summer
Shelter No shelter
kg kg
Winter Summer
1961-1962 I 4.41 ~ 5.36* 1962 II
1962-1963 III 4.84 5.67 1964 IV
1964-1965 V 4.26 5.02* 1965 VI
1965-1966 VII 3.84 4.05 1966 VIII
1966-1967 IX 3.77 4.38* 1967 X
1967-1968 XI 3.76 4.14 1968 XII
Average 4.15 4.77**
Difference 0.62
kg kg
4.12 4.29*
4.48 4.95
3.93 3.95
3.82 4.01
3.53 3.55
3.95 4.04
3.97 4.13
0.16"*
a Ki:ograans of feed per kilogram of gain.
* P < . 0 5 .
H P~.01.
trials wi t hi n season revealed no significant
overall effects of feedlot surface on feed in-
take. Shelter and surface did not i nt eract
significantly to affect feed intake.
Fe e d Ei ~c i e n c y . Shelter lowered the feed
requi rement s per kilogram of gain in all 12
trials (table 7) and significantly so ( P~. 05)
in wi nt er trials I, V and I X and summer
trial II. Pooling the dat a by season indicated
t hat feed efficiency over all winter trials was
4.15 kg for the shelter groups and 4.77 kg
for nonshelter groups ( P~. 01) . Williams
(1958, 1959) found in Canada t hat cattle
fed a 50% grain and 50% pelleted roughage
rat i on required less feed per uni t of gain when
protection was afforded by either a straw shed
or a 3-m-high board fence on the nort h end
of the lot. Givens et al. (1967) observed i n
California t hat cattle wi t h shelter in wi nt er
were onl y slightly more efficient t han cattle
wi t hout shelter.
The pooled dat a for feed efficiency i n sum-
mer i ndi cat ed t hat shelter reduced the feed
required per kilogram of gain (3.97 vs. 4.13
kg), although the reduction was not statis-
tically significant. The spread between the
pooled mean differences (0.62 vs. 0.16 kg) in
winter and summer was significant ( P~. 01) ,
i ndi cat i ng t hat shelter had a greater effect
upon feed efficiency in winter t han in summer.
None of the five trials in which surface
was considered showed any significant effect
upon feed efficiency (table 8). Pooling the
trials by season did not reveal a significant
effect of surface on feed efficiency, al t hough
the cattle on dirt i n wi nt er and those on con-
crete i n the summer tended to be more effi-
cient. Shelter and surface did not i nt eract
significantly to influence feed efficiency.
Shelter had a pronounced effect upon cattle
performance in the feedlot. Type of surface
had little observable effect upon the economi-
cally i mport ant t rai t s; however, observations
duri ng the first five trials indicate t hat ap-
proxi mat el y 30% as much labor and ma-
chi nery time was requi red to remove manure
from and to mai nt ai n the lot when it was
paved with concrete as was required to clean
and mai nt ai n a lot with a di rt surface. For
this reason alone, concrete pavi ng was a justifi-
able investment.
TABLE 8. EFFECT OF SEASON AND FEEDLOT SURFACE ON FEED EFFICIENCY
Winter Summer
Season Part Con- Season Part Con-
and year Trial Dirt concrete crete and year Trial Dirt concrete crete
kg kg kg kg kg kg
Winter Summer
1961-1962 I 4.56 ~ 5.02 5.09 1962 II 4.22 4.26 4.14
1962-1963 III 5.43 5.30 5.03 1964 IV 4.80 4.76 4.59
1964-1965 V 4.42 4.66 4.84
Average 4.81 4.99 4.99 4.51 4.51 4.37
a Kilograms of feed per kilogram of gain.
by guest on December 17, 2013 www.journalofanimalscience.org Downloaded from
972 HOF F MAN AND S E L F
S u mma r y
Si x wi n t e r a n d si x s u mme r t r i al s i n v o l v i n g
1, 415 y e a r l i n g s t eer s we r e c o n d u c t e d t o s t u d y
t he ef f ect s of s he l t e r a n d f e e dl ot s ur f a c e on
r a t e of gai n, f eed c o n s u mp t i o n a nd f eed effi-
c i e nc y.
She l t e r s i gni f i c a nt l y i nc r e a s e d r a t e of ga i n
i n b o t h s u mme r a n d wi nt e r , wi t h t he g r e a t e r
ef f ect o c c u r r i n g i n wi nt e r . She l t e r di d n o t si g-
n i f i c a n t l y af f ect f eed c o n s u mp t i o n i n e i t he r
wi n t e r or s u mme r , b u t di d h a v e a s i gni f i c a nt l y
be ne f i c i a l ef f ect on f eed ef f i ci ency i n wi nt e r .
Th e r e wa s o n l y a t r e n d t o wa r d i mp r o v i n g f eed
ef f i ci ency wi t h s he l t e r i n s u mme r ; c ons e -
q u e n t l y , s he l t e r i mp r o v e d ef f i ci ency si gni f i -
c a n t l y mo r e i n wi n t e r t h a n i n s u mme r . Sur -
f ace di d n o t s i gni f i c a nt l y af f ect r a t e of gai n,
f eed i n t a k e or f eed ef f i ci ency, a l t h o u g h p a v -
i ng di d g r e a t l y e xpe di t e t he r e mo v a l of ma -
n u r e a n d f e e dl ot ma i n t e n a n c e . She l t e r a n d
s ur f a c e di d n o t i n t e r a c t s i gni f i c a nt l y t o af f ect
r a t e of gai n, f eed c o n s u mp t i o n or f eed
ef f i ci ency.
L i t e r a t u r e C i t e d
Davis, A. V. and C. P. Merilan. 1960. Effect of con-
stant environmental temperatures and relative
humidities on feed digestion by lactating Holstein
cows. J. Dairy Sci. 43:871. (Abstr.),
Dyer, A. J., A. Kennett, H. V. Walton and R. Fin-
ley. 1968. Cattle feedlot facilities and management
study. Missouri Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. SR97.
Dyer, A. J., H. V. Walton and R. Finley. 1967.
Cattle feedlot facilities and management study.
Missouri Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. SR77.
Givens, R. L., S. R. Morrison, W. N. Garrett and
W. B. Hight. 1967. Influence of pen design and
winter shelter on beef performance. California
Feeders' Day Rep. 7 : 64.
Ingalls, J. R. and M. E. Seale. 1967. Dairy bulls
and steers in open vs. heating housing. J. Anita.
Sci. 26:1467. (Abstr.).
Johnson, H. D., A. C. Ragsdale and R. G. Yeck.
1960. Envi ronment al physiology and shelter en-
gineering with special reference to domestic ani-
mals. LIX. The effects of constant environmental
temperatures 10 ~ or 27 ~ C. on the feed and water
consumption of Holstein, Brown Swiss and Jersey
Calves. Missouri Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Bull. 786.
MacDonald, M. A. and J. M. Bell. 1958. Effects of
low fluctuating temperatures on farm animals.
Dairy Sci. 20:939. (Abstr.).
N.R.C. 1963. Nut ri ent Requirements of Domestic
Animals, No. 4. Nut ri ent Requirements of Beef
Cattle. National Research Council, Washington,
D. C.
Ragsdale, A. C., H. J. Thompson, D. M. Worstell
and S. Brody. 1953. The effect of humidity on
milk production and composition, feed and water
consumption and body weight in beef cattle.
Missouri Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Bull. 521.
Ragsdale, A. C., H. J. Thompson, D. M. Worstell
and S. Brody. 1954. The effect of humidity on
milk production and composition, feed and water
consumption and body weight in cattle. Nut ri -
tion Abstr. and Rev. 24:450.
Wayman, D., H. D. Johnson, C. P. Merilan and
I. L. Berry. 1962. Effect of ad libitum or force-
feeding of two rations on lactating dairy cows
subject to temperature stress. J. Dairy Sci. 45:
1472.
Williams, C. M. 1958. Experiments on bedding and
shelter for beef cattle. Mimeo. Saskatoon, Sas-
katchewan, University of Saskatchewan, Dept. of
Animal Husbandry.
Williams, C. M. 1959. Influence of winter condi-
tions on the feed and water intake of feedlot steers.
J. Anim. Sci. 18:1177. (Abstr.).
by guest on December 17, 2013 www.journalofanimalscience.org Downloaded from
Related Articles
ent
http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/cont
A related article has been published:
Errata
32/4/823.full.pdf
//www.journalofanimalscience.org/content/
http://www.journalofanimalscience.orghttp:
or: next page this article. Please see
An erratum has been published regarding
by guest on December 17, 2013 www.journalofanimalscience.org Downloaded from
N E WS A N D N OT E S 823
me nt a l , college a n d uni ve r s i t y c ommi t t e e s , a n d
r es ear ch a n d ext ens i on act i vi t i es. ( No t al l of
t hes e ar e es s ent i al as f a c t or s i n cons i der at i on
f or t he a wa r d ) .
f. Ext r a - c ur r i c ul a r act i vi t i es b e y o n d r egul ar
t e a c hi ng dut i es.
g. Hi s ser vi ce to agr i cul t ur e a n d r el at ed i ndus -
t ri es.
2. Ma t e r i a l t o be s uppl i ed by t he n o mi n a t o r :
a, Si x copi es of a bi ogr a phy of t he nomi ne e .
b. Si x copi es each of l et t er s i n s u p p o r t of t he
nomi ne e f r o m n o t l ess t h a n fi ve nor mo r e t h a n
t e n c ur r e nt or f or me r s t ude nt s .
Pr oc e dur e s t o be us ed by t he sel ect i on c ommi t t e e s
wi l l f ol l ow t hos e publ i s he d i n t he J. Ani m. Sci. 27
(1968) : 273-275.
E R R A T A
Journal of Ani mal Science, Volume 31, No. 5, page 967, "Shel ter and
Feedlof Surface Effects on Performance of Yearl i ng Steers." Al l of the
values f or feed efficiency in tables 7 and 8, and the accompanying t ext
( page 971) are too smal l by a f act or of 2.2.
Journal of Ani mal Science, Volume 32, No. I, page 148, "St abi l i t y of
Diethylstilbestrol and Its Effect on Performance in Lambs. " A t the end
of the first paragraph, the last par t of the sentence should read "covari -
ant analysis showed the regression coefficients t o be significantly differ-
ent ( P < . O I }.