1 x

grown Swiss, Charolais, and Hereford Breedint
in a Grade Beef Herd
-Effect

on

rerformance and Carcass Characteristics

Agricultural Exp 'rirent Station

AUBURN UNIVERSITY E V. Smith, Director Auburn, Alabaima

CONTENTS
Page
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

4

RESULTS

AND DISCUSSION

Reproductive Performance Calf Weights and Grades Pasture Gains . - -

Feedlot Performance Carcass Data--

Economic Analysis-SUMM ARY -- - -- - - -- - ----

LITERATURE

CITED

------------------- - - - - - - - -.-

11 13

D -A PPE N IX

- - - - - - - - - - - - - ---

___________________ ____________
FIRST PRINTING 4M, MARCH 1972 SECOND PRINTING 2M, NOVEMBER

1972

Brown Swiss, Charolais, and -lereford Breeding in a Grade Beef Hlerd-Effect on Performance and Carass Characteristics

T. B. PATTERSON,

W. W. COTNEY, and ROBERT

A. MOORE*

MANY COMMERCIAL BEEF HERDS in the Southeast were established using common cows of predominately dairy breeding as foundation females. Calves sired by beef bulls were usually sold for slaughter at weaning and few were fed to heavier weights. There have been reports indicating that dairy or dual purpose cattle can be utilized for beef production (17,23). Several show that dairy cows can be used successfully as beef cows when bred to beef bulls (7,17,18,21,22,29). Breeds and crosses that include Holstein and Brown Swiss have been highly productive. Such cows wean significantly heavier calves (7,21,28), and steers produced by these cows perform well in the feedlot (3,7,8,9,12,16, 18,29). In general, dairy or dairy cross carcasses have less fat, less marbling, and lower quality grades; however, these leaner carcasses compare favorably in cutability and eatability with carcasses from straight beef breeds (1,2,3,4,8,11,12,14,28,30,31). Damon et al. (5) reported the first significant research involving Charolais bulls for crossbreeding. They found that crossbred calves sired by Charolais bulls were heaviest at weaning and with one exception gained faster than steers sired by other breeds. Carcass data from these steers (6) indicated that the Charolais cross carcasses had less fat and more lean and were more tender than carcasses of other breed crosses. Other studies (7,13,19,20, 24,27) and a review by Temple (26) confirmed that Charolais cross calves grow faster and yield leaner carcasses, though it is not un*Professor, Department of Animal and Dairy Sciences; Superintendent, Upper Coastal Plain Substation (retired); and Superintendent, Upper Coastal Plain Substation.

4

ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

common for quality grade to be lower because of lack of marbling. From an experiment using Angus, Hereford, and Charolais cows, Lasley (15) and Sagebiel (25) reported lower per cent calf crop and higher rates of dystocia, respectively, when semen from Charolais bulls was used as compared with semen from Angus and Hereford bulls. However, other reports (5,13,26,27) suggest that Charolais cattle compare favorably with other breeds in per cent calf crop. The data reported herein were obtained at the Upper Coastal Plain Substation, Winfield. Grade Hereford cows were mated to Hereford, Brown Swiss, and Charolais bulls to produce straight Hereford (H), Brown Swiss x Hereford (BS x H), and Charolais x Hereford (C x H) calves. The females thus produced were used in a breeding project, while the steer calves yielded additional information for the present study. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE Seventy-five grade cows of predominately Hereford breeding were divided into similar groups of 25 each on the basis of age and previous production record for the 8-year project. Each group was bred to a Brown Swiss, Charolais, or Hereford bull. Thereafter, bulls were replaced annually and the remaining cows and replacement heifers reassigned to minimize cow differences. Death loss and removal of cows with physical defects resulted in slight differences in the number of cows bred. The Hereford bulls were produced in the Auburn University purebred herd and were not closely related. Likewise, the Charolais bulls were not related and came from the same herd. All Hereford and Charolais bulls were selected on the basis of performance records. The two Brown Swiss bulls that sired calves were obtained from separate dairy herds and no performance records were available. All cows were maintained under practical conditions and, other than during the breeding season, were managed as a single herd with no deliberate environmental differences. All calves were raised on pasture without creep. After weaning (at an average age of 250 days), all calves remained on pasture for an average of 94 days. All steers were then full-fed in drylot for an average of 174 days. The ration was a blended mixture containing 80 per cent roughage. The steers were slaughtered at commercial packing plants where USDA graders furnished qual-

BROWN SWISS, CHAROLAIS, AND HEREFORD

BREEDING

5

ity and yield grades. Rib samples were obtained from all carcasses and evaluated for tenderness in the Auburn University Meats Laboratory by Warner-Bratzler shear. The data were analyzed by the method of least squares as described by Harvey (10). These analyses are given in Appendix Tables 1, 2, and 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Reproductive Performance There were no significant differences in per cent calf crop born or weaned among the breeding groups, Table 1. This was true even in the last 2 years of the test when cows exposed to Brown Swiss bulls had 7 per cent more calves born and 11 per cent more calves weaned than cows in groups exposed to Hereford and Charolais bulls. The Brown Swiss bull used the first year was completely sterile.
TABLE 1. AVERAGE REPRODUCTIVE PERFORMANCE,

1963-65

Performance measure Number Per cent Number Per cent
STwo

Hereford

Breeding group Charolais X Brown Swiss Hereford X Hereford 72 90.3 60 83.32 43 95.3 41 95.3

of cows exposed of cows calving -of calves weaned cows weaning calves........

-.

75 86.6 64
85.32

years in all tables since the first Brown Swiss bull was completely sterile. SOne Hereford and three Charolais calves were born dead. Only one of the three Charolais calves was above average in birth weight.

Calf Weights and Grades There was no difference between average birth weights of C x H and BS x H calves. However, calves by Hereford bulls were lighter at birth than the crossbred calves, Table 2. Three C x H calves were born dead and two died shortly after birth, as compared with only one Hereford calf that was born dead. Excessive birth weight was apparently not a factor since only one of the five C x H calves was heavier at birth than the average of the breed group. All calves were born without aid and there was no evidence of dystocia. With the exception of replacement

6

ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
TABLE 2. AVERAGE BIRTH WEIGHT, AND WEANING SCORE, 1963-651

WEANING

WEIGHT,

Performance measure Num-nber of cal ;esz_------------------------------Average birth weight, lb. Average adjusted weaning weight (250 days), lb. --------------------------Average weaning grade4 -------

Hereford 62

Breeding group Charolais X Brown Swiss Hereford X Hereford 59
70

----------------------63,'
6

39

433,4671)452 9.29.

8 1

, . },

averages reported in all tables are least squares means. equal to number of calves weaned in Table 1 because 2 Hereford, 1 Charolais cross, and 1 Brown Swiss cross calves were excluded because of illness
1The

2Not

or injury. 3 Averages with different subscripts are different at P< 0.01. 8 =hi h Standard; 9 = low Good.

heifers, all cows used in this study had produced at least one calf before joining the experiment. In addition, the 69- and 70pound average birth weights for the BS x H and C x H calves, respectively, are not considered large. All BS x H calves were alive at birth and survived to weaning. Calves sired by Charolais bulls were heaviest at weaning, followed by Brown Swiss and Hereford sired calves. The C x H calves were significantly heavier, by an average of 34 pounds, than the Hereford calves. The BS x H calves averaged 15 pounds lighter than the C x H calves and 19 pounds heavier than the Hereford calves. These differences were not significant. The Hereford and C x H calves graded significantly higher at weaning than the BS x H calves.
Posture Gains

Ater weaning, all calves were grazed on late suimmer-early fall permanent pasture without supplemental feed. The C x H calves
TABLE 3. AVERAGE DAYS, DAILY GAIN, AND FINAL PASTURE WEIGHT, 1964-66

Performance measure

Hereford
62

Breeding groups Charolais X Brown Swiss Hereford X Hereford
59 39

Number of
1Av

calves-------------------

Average number of days on pasture--.
Averace daily gain, lb.

--------------

98
0.86,11.2

98 705

84
0.90,

Average final weight, lb.--------------

513,

9

erages with different subscripts are different at P<0.01.

BROWN SWISS, CHAROLAIS, AND HEREFORD

BREEDING

7

gained faster on pasture than did Hereford and BS x H calves, Table 3. The C x H calves were also heavier at the end of the pasture period than the other two groups of calves and BS x H were heavier than H. The steer calves gained 13 pounds more than the heifer calves, for the 3 years, Appendix Table 1.
Feedlot Performance

The BS x H steers gained faster in the feedlot than the C x H steers, Table 4. Average daily feedlot gain of Hereford steers was not different from that of C x H steers or BS x H steers. However, at slaughter the C x H steers were heavier than the Herefords. The Hereford steers required 111 and 55 pounds less feed per hundredweight gain than did the C x H and BS x H steers, respectively. Part of these differences may be attributed to higher maintenance requirements of the heavier steers and part to differences in feedlot gain. There were differences in average slaughter grade among the breeding groups even though the difference between high and low was only 2/3 of a grade.
TABLE 4. AVERAGE FEEDLOT PERFORMANCE FOR STEER CALVES, 1964-66

Performance measure Number Average Average Average Average Average Average Average of steers . number of days on feed .. initial weight, lb........ daily gain, lb. final shrunk weight, lb. feed/cwt. gain, lb. WDA at slaughter, lb. ....... slaughter score ".

Hereford 37 173 543,1
2

Breeding group Charolais X Brown Swiss Hereford X Hereford 34 171 6 19,
1 00 8

21

------------

-----.

.33ab

2.27 a

946,1 927 1.88a 12.2a-

, b 1,088 1.92b 11.31,

181 559a) 2.36 b 986ab 982 1.87ab 10.0 e

1 Averages SAverages

with different subscripts are different at P<0.01. with different subscripts are different at P<0.05. '10 = Good; 11 = high Good; 12 = low Choice.

Carcass Data

The C x H carcasses were heavier and had less fat than those from Hereford steers, Table 5. In addition, the C x H carcasses were more tender and had better yield grades than the BS x H ones. Carcasses from the Hereford steers were fatter, had more marbling, and therefore a higher average quality grade than from either of the crossbred groups. Eighty-seven per cent of the

8
TABLE 5.

ALABAMA

AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
1965-67

AVERAGES OF CARCASS CHARACTERISTICS,

Performance measure

Hereford

Breeding group Charolais X Brown Swiss Hereford X Hereford

N um ber of steers--------------------------------37 34 21 Average market weight, lb. 9461 1,0089861 610 Average hot carcass weight, lb. -----561 1i 581 2 Average marbling score y......... . 5.31 .5114.61) 3 Average quality grade' ------------------------12.01) 11.1)110.51) Average adjusted rib fat, in. -------------0.341 0.241) 0.251) 2 8 5 Average yield grade -----------------------b 1.932.45 Average tenderness score------------17,1i16119)

-------------

Averages with different subscripts are different at 3 = trace; 4 = slight; 5 = small; 6 = modest. '10 Good; high Goad; 12 low Choice. 41 best, 5 poorest. -Warner-Bratzler shear. Expressed as pounds pressure per square inch so that the lower values are more tender.
1

11'=

P<0.01.

Hereford carcasses graded Choice, as contrasted with only 18 and 14 per cent, respectively, of the C x H and BS x H carcasses. Under present methods of wholesale and retail distribution of beef, only quality grade affects the price received by the producer. Yield grade is an accurate indicator of per cent lean meat in a carcass. Nevertheless, until the butcher and/or the consumer demands less fat and more lean meat, prices will be determined primarily on the basis of quality grade.
Economic Analysis

For the economic analysis of post weaning steer performance in Table 6, initial values per steer were determined on the basis of weaning weight, grade, and prevailing market prices. The $15 advantage for the C x H steers over the Hereford steers was a result of heavier average weaning weight. The $80 advantage over the BS x H steers reflects both higher average grade and heavier average weaning weight. Even though the Hereford calves were lighter at weaning, their higher price per hundredweight resulted in an advantage of $15 per head over the BS x H steers. The total cost charge against each steer included the
initial value, cost of pasture gain at

actual feed cost. The C x H steers required more feed per unit of gain, which resulted in higher cost of feedlot gain than for the Hereford steers. Higher cost of feedlot gain for the BS x H

100

per head per day, and

BROWN SWISS,
TABLE 6.

CHAROLAIS, AND HEREFORD

BREEDING
PERFORMANCE

9

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF POST WEANING FOR STEER CALVES, 1964-66

Performance measure

Breeding group Charolais X Brown Swiss Hereford Hereford X ereford

Number of steer calves--------------8-------- 378421 Average adjusted weight, at w eaning, lb. ----------------------------------456 505 156.55 141.36 Average market value per steer, dol....... Average gain on pasture, lb.---------87' 114 9.60 Average cost of pasture gain, dol.D'_______ 9.60 389 Average gain in feedlot, lb. 403 3 93.42 100.95 Average cost of feedlot gain, dol. --------244.38 267.10 Average total cost, dol. 1,008 Average final weight, lb. -----------------------946 610 561 Average carcass weight, lb.--------------------289.90 273.21 Average market value per "steer, dol.'---22.80 28.83 Gross returns, dol. ----------------------------------1

468

126.36

--------------------

91 9.60
427

--------------------------240.79

104.83 986 581

275.56

34.77
-

0n the basis

of 12 =

$31.50/cwt.;

11

-

$30.50/cwt.;

down to 8

$27.00/cwt.
2Charged
3

at 100/head/day. On the basis of feed/cwt. gain and $2.50/cwt. for feed. On the basis of $50/cwt. for Choice and $47/cwt. for Good carcasses. Return to interest on investment, labor, and management.

steers was a result of both more gain and a higher feed requirement per unit of gain. Gross returns for the post-weaning period were $34.77, $28.88, and $22.80 for the BS x H, Hereford, and C x H steers, respectively. The C x H steers maintained the advantage that existed at weaning over the Hereford steers. However, roughly half of the advantage over the BS x H steers was offset by an increase in grade for the Brown Swiss crosses. The final value of the Hereford and BS x H steers was approximately equal. SUMMARY Comparisons were made between straight-bred Hereford calves and crossbred calves sired by Charolais and Brown Swiss bulls out of grade Hereford cows. The following results were obtained during a 3-year study: 1. There were no differences in percentage of calves born or weaned among the breeding groups. 2. The crossbred calves were heavier at birth and at weaning than the straight-bred calves. 8. Calves by the Brown Swiss bulls graded lower at weaning.

10

ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT

STATION

4. The crossbred calves gained faster on pasture and were heavier at the end of the feedlot period than the Hereford calves. 5. The crossbred steers had heavier carcasses with less fat and better yield grades. 6. The Hereford steers produced carcasses that had more marbling and higher quality grades. 7. Steaks from the C x H carcasses were more tender and steaks from the BS x H carcasses were less tender than those of the Herefords. 8. At weaning and at slaughter, calves sired by Charolais bulls had a higher market valute. 9. Hereford calves had a higher market value at weaning than BS x H calves, but at slaughter there was no difference between the two groups of steers. 10. Gross returns from feedlot finishing favored the BS x H steers because of their increased value as a result of feeding. 11. The Herefords showed a small advantage over the Charolais crosses primarily because of lower feed cost.

BROWN SWISS, CHAROLAIS, AND HEREFORD

BREEDING

11

LITERATURE CITED (1)
BRANAMAN, G. A., A. M. PEARSON, W.

T.

CGEE,

R. M.

GRISWALD,

G. A. BROWN. 1962. Comparison of the Cutability and Eatability of Beef and Dairy Type Cattle. J. Ani. Sci. 21:321.
AND

(2) CALLOW, E. H. 1961. Comparative Studies of Meat. VII. A Comparison Between Hereford, Dairy Shorthorn and Friesian Steers on Four Levels of Nutrition. J. Agr. Sci. 56:265.
(3)
COLE, J. W., C. B. RAMSEY, C. S. HOBBS, AND R. S. TEMPLE.

1963.

Effects of Type and Breed of British, Zebu and Dairy Cattle on Production, Palatability and Composition. I. Rate of Gain, Feed Efficiency and Factors Affecting Market Value. J. Ani. Sci. 22:702.

(4)

------------. 1964. Effects of Type and Breed of British, Zebu and Dairy Cattle on Production, Palatability and Composition. III. Percent Wholesale Cuts and Yield of Edible Portion as Determined by Physical and Chemical Analysis. J. Ani. Sci. 23:71. (5) DAMON, R. A., S. E. MCCRAINE, R. M. CROWN, AND C. B. SINCLETARY. 1959. Performance of Crossbred Beef Cattle in the Gulf Coast Region. J. Ani. Sci. 18:437.

(6)

------------------- , R. M. CROWN, C. B. SINGLETARY,

AND

S. E.

McCRAINE.

1960. Carcass Characteristics of Purebred and Crossbred Beef Steers in the Gulf Coast Region. J. Ani. Sci. 19:820.
EDWARDS, J., D. JOBST, J. HODGES, M. LEYBURN, L. K. O'CONNOR, A. MCDONALD, G. F. SMITH, AND P. WOOD. 1967. The Charolais Re-

(7)

port. Ani. Breed. Abstr. 35:44.

(8) GARRETT, W. N. 1971. Energetic Efficiency of Beef and Dairy Steers.

J. Ani. Sci. 32:451. (9) HALLMAN, L. C., JR. J. Ani. Sci. 32:442.
Subclass Numbers.

1971. Raising Dairy Calves for Beef Purposes.

(10) HARVEY, W. R. 1960. Least Squares Analysis of Data with Unequal
USDA, ARS, Pub. No. 20-8.

(11) JUDGE,

M. D., T. G. MARTIN, V. D. BRAMBLETT, AND

J.

A. BARTON.

1965. Comparison of Dairy and Dual Purpose Carcasses with Beef Type Carcasses from Animals of Similar and Younger Ages. J. Dairy Sci. 48:509. (12)
KIDWELL, J. F. AND

J.

A. McCORMICK.

1956. The Influence of Size

and Type on Growth and Development of Cattle.

J. Ani. Sci. 15:109.

(13) KLOSTERMAN, E. W. 1967. A Comparison of the Hereford and Charolais Breeds and Their Crosses Under Two Systems of Management. 19th Annual Rept. NC-1:175. (14)
KUNKLE,

L. E.

AND V. R. CAHILL.

1959.

Dairy Beef Production. II.

Evaluation of Dairy Beef Carcasses. 833:23. W\Vorld. Aug. 15.

Ohio Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Bull.

(15) LASLEY, J. F. 1969. Crossbreeding in Beef Cattle. The Shorthorn

12

ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT

STATION

(16)
(17)

MARTIN, T. G. 1971. Genetic Aspects of Dairy Beef Production. j. Ani. Sci. 32:433. -----AND M. W. ALDERFER. 1967.

Performance of a Dairy

Herd Under Beef Management. J. Dairy Sci. 50:1178. (18) MASON, I. L. 1966. Hybrid Vigor in Beef Cattle. Ani. Breed. Abstr.
34:453.
MILTON, A. A., J. K. RIGGS, AND T. C. CARTWRIGHT. 1966. Milk Production and Calf Gain in the Angus, Charolais and Hereford Breeds at McGregor. Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Prog. Rept. No. 2415. (20) PARNISH, O. F. 1967. Breed Crossing for Increased Production in Beef Cattle. Annual Rept. W-1:54.

(19)

(21) ----------(22)

, J. S. BRINKS, J. J. URICK, B. W. KNAPP AND T. M. RILEY. 1969. Results From Crossing Beef x Beef and Beef x Dairy Breeds: Calf Performance to Weaning. J. Ani. Sci. 28:291. PATTERSON, T. B., R. A. MOORE, AND W. W. COTNEY. 1969. Charolais x Holstein-Jersey Calves - Fast Growth and High Returns. Highlights of Agr. Res. Vol. 16. No. 2. Auburn Univ. (Ala.) Agr. Exp. Sta. 1964. An Appraisal

(23) PLUM, M. M., L. J. SUMPTION, AND L. HARRIS.

of Holstein Cows Under Beef Cattle Management.

J. Ani. Sci. 23:1198.

(24) (25)

RUOHOMAKI, HILKKA AND MIKKO VARO.

1967. Effect of Crossing with

Charolais on the Beef Yield of Slaughter Animals Based on Results Gained in the Cutting of Carcasses. ACTA Agralia Fennica 109.1:154.
SAGEBIEL, J. A., G. F. KRAUSE, B. SIBBIT, L. SANGFORD, J. E. CoMFORT, A. DYER, AND J. F. LASLEY. 1969. Dystocia in Reciprocally Crossed Angus, Hereford and Charolais Cattle. J. Ani. Sci. 29:245.

J.

(26) TEMPLE, R. S. 1965. Present Status of Charolais Research in the
United States. Charolais Banner. Dec. 1965. (27) WALLACE, J. D., R. J. RALEIGH, AND WV. H. KENNICK. 1966. Performance of Hereford and Charolais x Hereford Crossbred Cattle in Eastern Oregon. Ore. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 603. (28) WELLINGTON, G. H. 1971. Dairy Beef.

J.

Ani. Sci. 32:424.

(29) WILLHAM, R. L., H. L. SELF, AND G. W. ATKESON. 1970. Beef-Dairy Crossbreeding: II. Single Cross Growth. j. Ani. Sci. 31:170. (Abstract).
(30) WILLHAM, R. L., D. G. TOPEL, AND R. E. RUST.

Crossbreeding: III. Single Cross Carcasses. stract).

J. Ani. Sci. 31:170 (Ab1971. Comparisons

1970.

Beef-Dairy

(31)

ZIEGLER,

J.

H., L. L. WILSON, AND D. S. COLE.

of Certain Carcass Traits of Several Breeds and Crosses of Cattle. J. Ani. Sci. 32:446.

BROWN SWISS, CHAROLAIS, AND HEREFORD

BREEDING

13

1

APPENDIX
APPENDIX TABLE 1. ANALYSES OF VARIANCE FOR PERFORMANCE TRAITS FROM BIRTH THROUGH PASTURE PHASE

Mean squares for Source Age of dam ------------------df 11 Birth weight 26.422 Weaning weight .4 Conformcoe Pasture ADG

Year------------------

-

2

800.1

12104.6

Breed--________------------------2 718.40* 16630.1** Sex of calf------1 1076.2 39873.5 Year X breed-------------------3 55.8 1359.5 Year X sex ----------------------2 89.8 547.7 Breed X sex---------------------2 88.9 2411.4 Birth date regression Linear---------------------------1 73.2 1777.9 Quadratic----------------------1 61.2 Cubic ----------------------------1 43.5 1600.5 Error--------------------------------133 52.9 2934.4

17.5**
5.3

5.3

2.740
0.05 0.02 0.08 0.03
0.02
0.03

0.7100

1.13**

3.6 2.1 0.9 3.8
4.2
4.2

1743.4

2.2

0.06

* **

P<0.05.
P<0.01.

APPENDIX TABLE 2.

ANALYSES OF VARIANCE FOR STEER POST WEANING PERFORMANCE TRAITS

Mean squares for Source
YearsBreeds--------------Years X breeds------*P<0.05. *P<0.01.

df
2 2 3
84

ADG Feedlot Pasture 1.7**0

Final

Final WDA
0.00 0.04 0.00
0.02

0.800
0.1

2.20'
0.3 0.1
0.1

weight
36057.70* 34270.00

Slaughter grade

Error ----------------

1070.1

29.000
1.4
1.1

13.2*

0.1

7114.1

APPENDIX TABLE 3. ANALYSES OF VARIANCE FOR STEER CARCASS CHARACTERISTICS Mean squares for

Source

df
2

Carcass

weight
Years---------

Rib fat

Marbling Quality score grade
6.6**0

Steaqk tenderness
51.84 * 26.3

Yield grade
1.5 7.5*

17741.600
3169.7

Breeds-------Year Xbreeds-*'llP<0.01.

2 3

20496.200 47.2

0.0200
0.090

10.7"0 211.600
15.5 1.3

Error--------- 84

0.003

0.02**
0

6.40 * 2.2

0.1

1.3

1.4

12.5

0.2

AGRICULTURAL OF ALABAMA'S

EXPERIMENT STATION SYSTEM LAND-GRANT UNIVERSITY

\ ith an agricultural in every major soil area, Auburn
I Lseal tbl uit Universit serves the

;

0Q

needs of field crop, liv eStoc'k. forestry, and horticultral producers in
eacli 1 trioi ini Ala-

bania. Everv citizen of

the State has a stake ini this research program, since any advantage
from newv and more of economical wavs

OGC 0Q O 1 ® ®
i3 Q

J 2

producilg and handling farm pr oducts directly benefits the consumina public.

-

C
Research Unit Identification
.nt ® , A::

Station

Auburn

1 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 11. 12. 13. 14 15. 16. 17 18. 19 20. 21

Tennessee Valley Substation, Belle Mina. Sand Mountain Substation, Crossville North Alabama Horticulture Substation, Cullman Upper Coastal Plain Substation, Winfield Forestry Unit, Fayette County. Thorsby Foundation Seed Stocks Farm, Thorsby Chilton Area Horticulture Substation, Clanton Forestry Unit, Coosa County. Piedmont Substation, Camp Hill Plant Breeding Unit, Tallassee. Forestry Unit, Autauga County Prattville Experiment Field, Prattville Black Belt Substation, Marion Junction Tuskegee Experiment Field, Tuskegee. Lower Coastal Plain Substation, Camden Forestry Unit, Barbour County. Monroeville Experiment Field, Monroeville Wiregrass Substation, Headland Brewton Experiment Field, Brewton. Ornamental Horticulture Field Station Spring Hill. Gulf Coast Substation, Fairhope.