STATION CIRCULAR 139
JANUARY 1941
Influence of Various
Grits on Battery-raised
Broilers
WILBUR T. COONEY
Oregon State System of Higher Education
Agricultural Experiment Station
Oregon State College
Corvallis
FOREWORD
circular provides basic information re-
THIS
garding the need and value of various
classes of grits in the broad field of poultry feeding. It is generally accepted by those in the poultry industry that grit is an important supplement
to the basic rations fed to the different classes
of poultry.
The advances in artificial methods of mass
production and in close-confinement practices
have crystallized a greater need for information
regarding the use of grits. The feeding of various grits to poultry is within itself probably of
minor importance, but when considered from the
standpoints of conflicting opinions and the corn-
plexproblems of poultry nutrition as a whole it
is important that information be obtained on the
value of various grits throughout the life of the
fowl.
WM. A. SCHOENFELD
Dean and Director
--.,-"--,-,---.--.,-.-...+
The information presented in this publication
covers only one growth phase of the chicken, and
additional work is planned to obtain further information on the value of grits in poultry rations.
SUMMARY
There was some indication that broilers deprived of grit would consume a larger proportion
of mash to grain than those that had access to grit
of one type or another.
Greater quantities of siliceous grits were
consumed than of calcium grits.
The amount of calcium grits consumed varied
in inverse proportion to the amount of calcium
each grit contained.
4. The lesser consumption of calcium versus
siliceous grits when fed in conjunction with a ration previously balanced for calcium, supports the
belief that birds are reasonably capable of detecting diets unbalanced for minerals and will tend to
eat accordingly.
S. The results obtained in these feeding trials
with respect to average weight at marketing time
do not show that grit played more than a minor
role when fed as a supplement to a balanced basic
ration in the rearing of broilers in batteries to the
age of 8 weeks.
There is little evidence from the work com-
pleted to date with battery broilers that grit materially increases the efficiency of food utilization
when measured by pounds of feed required to produce a pound of gain.
Grades received on broilers fed various types
of grits indicate that grit is a desirable constitu-
ent of a normal ration and that hard, siliceous grits
in general yield best results.
The slightly less favorable results obtained
with groups fed calcium-carbonate and calciumsulphate grits may be explained by an interference
with metabolism when these grits supplement a
basic ration previously balanced for known requirements.
Influence of Various Grits on
Battery-raised Broilers
(A progress report on certain experimental projects)
By
W. T. COONEY, Research Assistant
Department of Poultry Husbandry
INTRODUCTION
different kinds of grit are on the market, and considerable mis-
SEVERAL
understanding exists regarding their relative need and merits.
Grits may be classified into three general groups. Into one group may be
placed such insoluble materials as granite, silica, and river gravel. This group
consists primarily of silica. Another important group consists primarily of
calcium carbonate. To this group belong limestone, calcite, and shells from
clams or oysters. A miscellaneous group includes such materials as proprietary
gypsum products.
The rapid expansion in the use of batteries for broiler production has resulted in increasing demands for information regarding the value and necessity
of grit in broiler rations.
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE (SPRING 1939)
During the spring of. 1939, an,cperirnent was set up in conjunction with
battery-broiler work then in progress to check the relative value of various
types of grit for this phase of, pQultry production. The following grits were
used: (1) limestone, (2) a commercial calcium sulphate grit, (3) gray granite,
and (4) white silica.
One hundred and forty day-old S.C. White teghorn males were divided
according to body weight into five equal lots and placed in battery equipment
for the duration of the experiment. All lots were 'weighed at weekly intervals;
feed intakes were recorded; and all birds in each of the five, lots were marketed
at the end of 8 weeks.
STATISTICS AND DISCUSSION
Table 1. ARRANGEMENT OF THE EXPERIMENT AND MORTALITY;
Experimental groups
Chicks
started
Chicks
6n,shed
1'IumberNumber
Granite -Gypsum
Silica
None
-
28
28
28
28
28
26
28
27
28
27
Mortality
Per cent
7.14
3.57
3.57
Loss of chicks in any one group could not be attributed to the type of
grit fed.
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION CIRCULAR 139
6
Feed-consumption records and feed efficiency as measured by the pounds
of feed required to produce a pound of gain for the 8-week feeding period
are presented in Tables 2 and 3.
Experimental groups
Mash
consumed
consumed
Scratch
Mash and
scratch
consumed
Pounds
80.87
80.94
76.07
72.07
74.81
Pounds
41.75
42.28
39.00
43.63
47.06
Pounds
122.62
123.19
115.07
116.19
121.87
Meat sold
Feed per
pound of
meat sold
Feed per
pound of
gain
Pounds
43.50
50.25
46.75
48.00
46.25
Pounds
2.82
2.45
2.46
2.42
2.64
Pounds
2.72
2.45
2.46
2.42
2.62
Limestone
Granite -
Gypsum Silica --None
Table 3. EFFICIENCY OF RATION.
Experimental groups
Limestone
Granite -Gypsum
Silica
None --
From the data presented in Table 3 one must conclude that there is no
significant difference in pounds of feed required to produce a pound of gain.
Table 4 shows the computed protein intake for the different groups and
the average weight of individual birds at the time of marketing (8 weeks).
Table 4. PROTEIN INTAKE AND GROWTH.
Mash
Grain
Total
Protein in
total ration
Average
weight
per bird
Pounds
Pounds
Pounds
Per cent
Pounds
15.5
15.5
14.6
13.9
14.4
4.0
19.5
19.5
18.3
18.1
18.9
15.9
15.8
15.9
15.6
15.5
Protein consumed
Experimental groups
Limestone
Granite
Gypsum
Silica
None
4.0
3.7
-
4.2
4.5
1.67
1.79
1.73
1.72
1.72
No significance can be attached to the small difference in body weights
shown in Table 4.
Table 5 gives the grit consumption for the various groups and the average
grit intake per bird in each lot during the 8-week feeding period.
Table 5. GluT CONSUMPTION.*
Experimental groups
Limestone
Granite
Gypsum
Silica
None
Jncludes wastage.
consumed
Grit
Grit per
bird
Feed per
pound
of gain
Pounds
Pounds
Pounds
2.00
5.50
2.56
5.00
0.08
.20
.09
.18
2.72
2.45
2.46
2.42
2.62
INFLUENCE OF GRITS ON BATTERY-RAISED BROILERS
7
Contrary to popular opinion, the birds consumed larger quantities of the
hard, siliceous grits than of the other grits.
The data gathered during this experiment indicated that there was no particular advantage in feeding grit to broilers and certainly no advantage in one
type of grit over another. It was the belief, however, that further work should
be conducted before attempting to draw any definite conclusions.
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE (FALL 1939)
During the fall of 1939 another grit experiment was set up to check further
on the relative value of various types of grit for battery-raised broilers. The
grits fed in this work were identical with those used during the first test;
namely, (1) limestone, (2) a commercial calcium sulphate grit, (3) gray granite, and (4) white silica.
Two hundred and fifty day-old S.C. White Leghorn males were divided
according to body weight into 10 equal lots and placed in battery equipment
for the duration of the experiment. All lots were weighed at weekly intervals;
feed intakes were recorded; and all birds in each of the 10 lots were marketed
at the end of 8 weeks.
The 10 lots of chicks were arranged into five grqups, with both lots in
each group receiving the same ration. The five groups were managed and fed
alike with the exception of the grit. The birds were allowed free access to
mash, grain, and grit fed in separate hoppers. Group 1 received a limestone
grit; group 2 received a gray granite grit; group 3 received a calcium sulphate
grit; group 4 received a white silica grit; group 5 served as a control group
with no grit available at any time.
Chicks that died during the first 4 days were replaced with birds of the
same age and weight. There was no loss of chicks after the fourth day.
STATISTICS AND DISCUSSION
Table 6 shows'the arrangement of the experiment.
Table 6. ARRANGEMENT OF THE EXPERIMENT.
Chicks started
Experimental groups
Limestone
Granite
Gypsum
Stlica
None ...........
Loti
Loc
Chicks finished
Loti
Lot2
Number
Number
Number
Number
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
2Sf
25
25t
25
Two pullets removed at marketing 2.50 pounds.
t One pullet removed at marketing = 1.25 pounds.
Feed consumption records and feed efficiency as measured by the 'pounds
of feed required to produce a pound of gain for the 8-week feeding period are
presented in Tables 7 and 8.
Table 8 shows a close relationship between the two lots fed the same grit
when comparing the pounds of feed required to produce a pound of gain and
the total pounds of meat sold. Differences between the different grit groups
are small but, in general, the data agree reasonably well with the data presented
in Table 3.
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION CIRCULAR 139
8
Table 7. FEED CoNsuMPTION.
Mash consumed
xperimental
groups
Limestone
Granite
Gypsum
Silica
None
--
Lot I
Pounds
68.76
69.16
60.69
58.14
69.07
Scratch consumed
Mssh and scratch
consumed
lot 2
Lot!
Lot 2
Loti
Lot 2
Pounds
61.85
62.41
67.43
64.26
68.28
Pounds
52.15
55.43
56.21
58.76
50.07
Pounds
59.34
54.94
53.76
55.84
50.07
Pounds
120.91
124.59
116.90
116.90
119.14
Pounds
121.19
117.35
121.19
120.10
118.35
Table 8. EFFICIENCY OF RATION.
Experi-
mental
groups
Limestone
Granite
Gypsum
Silica ........
Noni
Feed per pound of
meat sold
Meat sold
Lot!
Pounds
38.75
42.25
39.50
37.50
39.75
Lot 2
Pounds
35.00
42.25
40.25
37.75
40.00
Lot!
Pounds
3.14
2.94
2.96
3.12
2.99
Feed per pounds of gain
Lot 2
Loti
Lotl
Pounds
3.46
2.78
3.01
3.29
2.96
Pounds
3.14
2.94
Pounds
3.1St
2.96
2.78
3.01
2.99
2.96
3.00t
3.18t
* Males only.
t Adjusted for pullet consumption.
In this test there is a difference in pounds of meat sold between the granite
group and the silica group that approaches statistical significance (Table 8).
There was a trend somewhat the same but not as marked in the first test
(Table 3). An explanation for such differences, if they are significant, is
lacking in the work completed to date.
Table 9 gives the grit consumption for the various lots and the average
grit intake per bird in each lot during the 8-week feeding period.
Table 9.
Experi-
mental
groups
Limestone -.
Granite
Gypsum
Silica
Grit consumed
Lot 1
Pounds
1.11
6.29
3.16
7.00
.00
Lot 2
Pounds
1.72
9.88
3.21
4.37
.00
None
* Includes wastage.
f Adjusted for pullet consumption.
GRIT CONSUMPTION.
Feed per pound
of gain
Grit per bird
Lot 1
Pounds
0.04
.25
.13
28
.00
Lot 2
Loti
Lot2
Pounds
0.07
.39
.13
Pounds
3.14
2.94
2.96
Pounds
.00
2.99
2.96
.17
3.00t
3.1St
2.78
3.01
3.18t
Table 10 shows the computed protein intake for the various lots and the
average weight of individual birds at the time of marketing (8 weeks).
The data in Table 10 indicate that the protein level of the ration was
not responsible for differences in average weight of individual birds. It is
interesting to note that the birds in both check lots of group 5 consumed more
mash and less grain than any of the lots receiving grit. The uniformity in
consumption of mash and grain between the two lots in this group would indicate that young birds at least prefer a larger proportion of their food in ground
form when grit is not available. In the first test, however, this tendency for
the "no grit" lot to consume a greater proportion of their ration as mash than
the "grit" lots did not prevail (Table 2).
Table 10.
PROTEIN INTAKE AND GROWTH.
Protein consumed
Mash
Experimental groups
Limestone
Granite
'0
Gypt4um
Silica
None
Males only.
Per cent
protein in
total ration
Total
Grain
Lot I
Lot2
Lot I
Lot 2
Lot I
Lot 2
Lot I
Pounds
13.2
13.3
11.7
11.1
13.2
Pounds
11.9
Pou,ids
Pounds
Pounds
Per cent
Lot2
Per cent
5.6
5.2
5.1
5.3
18.2
18.6
17.0
16.7
18.0
Ptiund.r
17.5
17.2
18.0
17.6
17.9
15.1
14.9
14.6
14.3
15.1
14.4
14.7
14.8
14.6
15.1
12.0
12.9
12.3
13.1
5.0
5.3
5.3
5.6
4.8
4.8
Average weight
per bird
l..otl
lot2
Pounds
1.55
1.69
1.58
1.56
1.59
Pounds
1.52
1.69
1.61
1.12
1.60
Table 11. COMPOSITE TABLE OF AVERAGES.
Lot
Limestone
Granite
Gypsum
Silica
None
S
Chicks
started
Number
50
50
50
50
50
Alter the fourth (lay.
Chicks
finished
Mortal.
ity
Number
Per cent
50
50
50
50
50
only.
t Males
Ad)usted for pullet con sumption.
I
Includes wastage.
0.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
Mash and
Scratch
scratch
Mash
consumed consumed consumed
Pounds
130.61
131.57
128.12
122.40
137.35
Pounds
111.49
110.37
109.97
114.60
100.14
Pounds
242.10
241.94
238.09
237.00
237.49
Ratio of
scratch
to mash
Meat
soldt
1:1.2
1:1.2
1:1.2
1:1.1
1:1.4
Pounds
73.75
84.50
79.75
75.25
79.75
Feed per
pound of
meatt
Pounds
3.30
2.86
2.98
3.20
2.98
Feed per
pound of
gains
Pounds
3.16
2.86
2.98
3.09
2.98
Protein
in total
ration
Per cent
14.8
14.8
14.7
14.5
15.1
Average
weight
per
clsickt
Pounds
1.54
1.69
1.59
1.54
1.60
Grit
consumed
per
chick5
Pounds
0.06
.32
.13
.23
.00
INFLUENCE OF GRITS ON BATTERY-RAISED BROILERS
11
Birds that had access to siliceous grits consumed larger quantities of such
grits than those that were fed calcium grits. This coincides with results obtained during the first test. Had the basic ration been deficient in calcium the
birds unquestionably would have consumed larger quantities of the calcium grits.
The amount of limestone and calcium sulphate grits consumed was in inverse
proportion to the available calcium present in these products. This is in keeping with prevailing evidence that birds are sensitive to mineral levels in a ration
and will exhibit such selective ability when placed on rations requiring it.
Table 11 is a composite table, which presents the averages for the two lots
in each of the five groups.
In an effort to determine the part grits might play in grades received for
broilers the birds were marketed through a large commercial poultry produce
house. The two lots within a group were kept separate as well as the various
groups. The grader was unaware of the type of work under consideration and
graded each lot as he came to it. A summary of the grader's report is presented in Table 12.
Table 12. SUMM.RY OF GRADER'S REPORT.
Grades
No. 1
Experimental group and
lot number
Number of
birds sold
Number of
birds
No.2
Per cent of
I
Per cent of
total
Number of
birds
Limestone
total
Per cent
Per ceng
25
25
21
23
84
92
4
2
16
8
Total
Granite
50
44
88
6
12
1
2
25
25
24
23
96
92
1
2
4
8
Total
50
47
94
3
6
25
25
18
19
72
76
7
6
28
24
Total
Silica
50
37
74
13
26
1
25
25
23
22
92
88
2
3
12
Total
tNone
50
45
90
5
10
1
2
25
25
19
21
76
84
6
3
24
12
Total
50
40
80
9
18
1
2
Gypsum
1
2
2
8
* Includes the four females.
t Rejects: Lot 2
2 per Cent).
- -
1 (Per cent of total, 4 per cent. Per cent of total for group,
From the data in Table 12 one must conclude that grit is a desirable component of a broiler ration. The "no grit" group was graded down to 80 per cent
No. l's as compared to 90 per cent and 94 per cent No. l's for the two groups
fed siliceous grits. Grades received for the limestone group are practically
the same as those received for the silica group. The two lots in the group fed
a gypsum-type grit were graded down considerably as compared to the other
grit groups.
OREGON STATE BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION
.Marshfickl
Beatrice Walton Sackett
C. A. Brand
E. C. Sanimons
Robert V. RuhI
Edgar William Smith
V.'illard L. Marks
R. C. Groesbedc -.
Mac Hoke
Portland
Med ford
J'ortiand
,Klamath Fails
Pendkton
It. E. Kicinsorge
Frederick M. Hunter, Ed.D., LL.fl............Chanceflor of Higher Education
STAFF OF AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
are United States Government investigators
stationed in Oregon
...............Pres ident of the State Col1ee
Frank Llewellyn Ballard BS
Director
Wm. A. Schoenfeld, B.S.A., .B.A
............Assistant Director
R. S. Besse, MS
.....Accountant
...........
Esther McKinney
Secretary
Margaret Hurst, B.S.......__._........
Division of Agricultural Economics
E. L. Potter, M.S.............Agricultural Economist; In Charge, Division of Agricultural
Staff members marked
Economics
Agricultural Economics
Agricultural Economist
Associate Economist
W. H. Dreesen, Ph.D
D. B. DeLoach, Ph.D
Farm Managciicnt
0. C. Mumford, M.S........................
........
W. Kuhlman Pb.D............_...
W, W. Gorton, fii.s...
Economist in Charge
.Associate Economist
Assistant Economist
L. Thomas, M.S.............Associate Agricultural Economist, Conservation Economic
Division, Soil Conservation.
State Representative, Division of State and Local
._
J. C. Moore, MS
Planning, Bureau of Agricultural Economics
V. W. Baker. B.S....Assistant Agricultural Economist, Division of Land Economics
P. M. Brandt, A.M
Division of Animal Industries
Dairy Husbandman; In Charge, Division of Animal Industries
Animal Husbandry
Animal
....
R. G. Johnson, B.S.._...................
Animal
0. M. Nelson, M.S............._......_..............
.Associate Animal
W. Oliver,
W. Rodenwold, M.S.._,,..,.. ._...,_.., .,... ..._.............Asistant Animal
G. Ii. Vilster.
....
R. Jones, Ph.D
H. P. Ewalt, B.S......._...........,.....
Husbaudman
Husbandman
Husbandman
Husbandman
Dairy Htsbiuidry
It. E. Stout M.S..................
V. P. Smith, B.S...................._..............-
....... ._....-.Dairy Husbandman
...._......... .Dairy Husbandman
...Researcb Auistant (DairyHubandry
Research Assistant (l)airy Husbandry
Research A5slstant (Dairy Husbandry)
Fish and Game Management
.....Wildlife Conservationist in Charge
Assistant Conservationist
It. E. Dimick, M.S...........................
F. P. Grifllths,
A. S. Einarsen B.S................._...Associate Biologist, Bureau of Biolopeal SurveyS
Jay B Long, ks..................Research Assistant (Fish and Game Management)
Poultry Husbandry
Poultry Husbandman in Charge
Research Assistant (Poultry Husbandry)
Veterinary Medicine
.......Veterinarian in Charge
N. Shaw, B.S., D.V.M
Associate Veterinarian
E. M. Dickinson, D.V.M. M.S
Associate Veterinarian
0. H. Muth, D.V.M., M.
Assistant Veterinarian
It. W. Dougherty, B.S., D.V.M
Assistant Veterinarian
A. S. Rosenwald, B.S., D.V.M
Research Assistant (Veterinary Medicine)
Roland Scott, D.V.M
unuor
Veterinarian,
Bureau
of Animal lndustries
Richard Shuman, D.V.M.............
._.....Rescarch Assistant (Veterinary Medicine
M. P. Chapman. B.B.M....
....Research Assistant (Veterinary Medicine
S. Jones. D.V.M
H. E. Cosby
W. T. Cooney, B.S
t On leave.
.--...+
+...--.....--,,....,.....--........--..--..."+
STATION STAFF(C'ontinued)
Division of Plant Industries
R. Hyslop, B.S
.Agronomist; In Charge, Division of Plant Industries
Form Crops
-Agronomist; Division of Forage Crops and Diseases5
D. D. Hill, PLD.__..__.......
Agronomist
E. Fore,
....Associate Agronomist
H. H. Rampton, M.S
ssist. Agronomist (Division of Forage Crops and Diseases)
E. Harris M.S.._..........-......_.....
Assistant Agronomist
H. E. Finneli, M.S....................
......... ....-...Assistarit Agronomist
Elton Nelson, B.S........Agent, Division of Cotton and Other Fiber Crops and Diseases'
Louisa A. Kanipe, S. ...................,.Junjor Botanist, Division of Seed Investigations'
A. E. Gross, M.S,
............
.Research Assistant (Farm Crops
L It. Hansen,
Research Assistant (Farm Crops
Henry R. Fortmann, B.S
Research Graduate Assistant (Farm Crops)
H. A. Schoth, M.S.._...._.....
E. IL \Vreand B.S.A................
T. Ousdorit,
Ls.....
D. R. Mills, B.S.............
Food Industrij
Technologist in Charp
Associate Technologist
Assistant Tcchnolo$ist
Research Assistant (Food Industries)
...._.
E. %V. Harvey, M.S....
Horticulture
W. S. Brown
D.Sc
Horticulturist
Hartman, It!
......._....
....Horticulturist (1-'omology)
A. G. B. Bouqtlet, M.S....._....._........................_..Horticulturist (Vectable Crops)
C. E. Schuster, M.S..._.....jjorticulturist (Division of Fruit and Vegetable Crops and
Diseases)
W. P. Duruz,
Horticulturist (Plant Propagatron)t
F. Waldo, M.S..........Auociste Pomologist (Division of Fruit and 'egetable
Crops
and Diseases)
E. Hansen, M.S.._........................._
.............Assistant Horticulturist (Pomology)
A. N. Roberts, B.S ...
..........._..................._Research Assistant (Horticulture)
_
Sea Science
W. L. Powers, Ph.D
Soil Scientist in Charge
C. V. Ruzek, M.S
Scientist (Fertility)
M. R. Lewis, C.E
...._...........Jrrigation and Drainage Engineer, Soil Conservation'
R. E. Stephcnson, PILD..............
.... _.........SoiI Scientist
E. F. Torgerson, B.S _..........................
Associate Soil Scientist (Soil Survey)
J. M. Haley,
..Assistant Irrigation Engineer, Cooperative Agent, Soil
Conservation Service'
A. W. Marsh, MS
Research Graduate Assistant (Soils
H. E. Clark, B.S
...+.-__._,
Research Graduate Assistant (Sols
H. E. Dregrie, M.S...........
Research Graduate Assistant (Soils)
Agricultural Chemistry
S. Jones, M.S.A............
...........Chemist in charge
H. Robinson M.S......................................
and Fungicides
K. Haag, Ph.b.................._........_ Chemist (Insecticides
Chemist (Animal Nutrition
b. E. Bultis, M.S.........._....................
.....
.__.............A.ssociate Chemist
M.
Hatch, M.S...................
............. ....
.Assistant Chemist
Lewis, M.S........
J.
Assistant Chemist
Agricultural Engineering
F. K. Price, B.S
...._...._...Agricultural Engineer in Charge
W. M. Hurst, M.A............_...Agricultural Engineer, Bureau of Agricultural Chemistry
arid Engineering'
H. It Sinnard, M.S...._...............,....Associate Agricultural Engineer (Farm Structures)
C. I. Branton. B.S
...
Assistant Agricultural Engineert
G. It. Stafford
Engineering Aid, Bureau of Agricultural Chemistry and
Engineering'
F. Carnes, B.S Junior Agricultural Engineer, Bureau of Agricultural Chemistry
and Engineering
L. M. Klein, B.S
Mechanical Engineer, Bureau of Agri cultural Chemistry and
Engineering
Bacteriology
G. V. Copson, M.S
........
............... Bacteriologis t in Charge
J. E. Simmon s, MS
13 acteriologist
W. B. Bollen,
...................Associate B acteriologist
-
.......
F. J. Rudert,
D. C. Mote, Ph.D
t On leave of absence.
....Research Assistant (B acteriology)
Entomology
..
Entomologist in Charge
I
STATION STAFF(Contlnued)
Associate Entomologist
_Assistant Entomologist
Assistant Entomologist
Assistant in Entomology
Assistant in Entomology
B. G. Thompson Ph.D
S. C. Jones, M.d.....
K. W. Gray1 MS ._.
H. E. Morrison, M.S
Joe Schub, M.S...
Home Economics
Maud M. Wilson, A.M
Helen McCullough. M.A
Home Economist
Assistant Home Economist
Plant Pathology
C. E. Owens, Ph.D..............................._.................._.........._.Phnt Pathologist in Charge
Pathologist
S. M. Zeller, Ph.D _..__.....__.__.........-...-._.._......._........_...Plant
Plant Pathologist'
F. p. Mcwhorter. Ph.D..
B. F. Dana, M.S....................Plant Pathologist (Division of Fruit and Vegetable Crops
and Diseases)'
Associate Plant Pathologist (Agricuhural Marketing Service)'
D. Bailey, M S
P. \V. Miller, Ph.D._._..-........Asociate Pathologist (Division of Fruit and Vegetahie
Crops and Diseases
Agent (Division of Drug and Related Plants
K. Hoerner, hi S
Assistant
Plant Pathologist
......
John Milbrath, Ph.D
Publications and News Service
...............................Director of Information
C. D. Byrne, Ed.D
.......Editor of Pubhcations
..............
E. P. Reed ItS., A.B..............
.....................Editor of Publications
.............._
D. M. Gooile, M.A
In Charge of News Service
.. ............
J. C. Burtner, D.S.
Branch Stations
L. Childs, A.B Superintendent, Hood River Branch Experiment Station, Hood River
Superintendent, Southern Oregon Branch Experiment
F. C. Reimer, M S.
Station, 'ralent
Superintendent, Eastern Oregon Livestock Branch
D. E. Richards, B.S
Experiment Station, Union
.....Superintendent, Umatilla Branch Experiment Station
H. K. Dean. B.S
(Division of \Vestern Irrigation Agriculture), Herniiston'
Superintendent, Harney Branch Experiment Station, Burns
Obil Shattuck, M.S
....... .......Suoerintendent. John Jacob Astor Branch Kxperzment
H. B. Howell. B.S
Station, Astoria
Associate Irrigation Engineer (Division of Irrigation)
Arch Work, B.S
Medford
Superintendent, Pendleton Branch Station (Dry Land
G. A. Mitchell, B.S.
Agriculture), Pendleton
Superintendent and Assistant Range Examiner (Division of
K. B. Platt. M.S..
Grazing), Squaw Butte Range Experiment Station, Burns'
Leader of Livestock Research 'rojeeta, Squaw Butte Range
R. G. Johnson, B.S
Experiment Station, Burnt
M. M. Oveson, M.S.........Superintendent, Sherman Branch Experiment Station, Moro'
Superintendent
and
Assocate
F'omologist, (Division of
E. S. Deginan, Ph.D
Fruit and Vegetahle Crops and Diseases) , Medford
Horticulturist,
Hood
River
Branch
Experur rent Station,
G. G. Brown, A.B., B.S
Hood River
.Aasociatc
Entomologist,
Southern
Oregon Branch
L. G. Gentner, M.S._.......
Experiment Station, Talent
Assistant Agronomist (Division of Cereal Crops and
J. F, Martin, MS
Diseases), Pendleton
R. E. Hutchison, M.S...._....Assistant Superintendent, Harney Branch Experiment
Station, Burns
IBruce Allyn. B.S..._....._......................Junior Irrigation Engineer (Division of Fruit and
Vegetable Crops and Diseases), Meclford
J. R. Kienitolz, Ph.D..................Assistant Pathologist (Division of Fruit and Vegetable
Crops and Diseases), Hood River'
*
R. D. Frichtel, B.S....................Junior Range Examiner (Division of Grazing), Squaw
Butte
Range
Experiment Station, Burns'
*
Joseph Betanger, B.S................Cooperative Research Agent, Conservation Experiment
Station (Division of Soil Conservation), Moro
.