• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Front Matter
 Table of Contents
 Feeding fresh citrus pulp at the...
 Ensiling fresh citrus pulp
 Character of the citrus pulp...
 Palatability of citrus silages
 Effect of citrus press cake silage...
 Summary and conclusions
 Acknowledgement














Group Title: Bulletin - University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station ; no. 423
Title: Citrus pulp silage
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00015135/00001
 Material Information
Title: Citrus pulp silage
Series Title: Bulletin University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station
Physical Description: 16 p. : ill. ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Becker, R. B ( Raymond Brown ), 1892-1989
Hayman, W. P
Publisher: University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1946
 Subjects
Subject: Dried citrus pulp   ( lcsh )
Silage -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Cattle -- Feeding and feeds -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: R.B. Becker ... et al. ; with the cooperation of W.P. Hayman.
General Note: Cover title.
Funding: Bulletin (University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station)
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00015135
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 000925493
oclc - 18251282
notis - AEN6144

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Page 1
    Front Matter
        Page 2
        Page 3
    Table of Contents
        Page 4
    Feeding fresh citrus pulp at the Range Cattle Station
        Page 5
    Ensiling fresh citrus pulp
        Page 6
        Page 7
    Character of the citrus pulp silages
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
    Palatability of citrus silages
        Page 13
    Effect of citrus press cake silage on milk flavor
        Page 14
    Summary and conclusions
        Page 15
    Acknowledgement
        Page 16
Full Text



August, 1946


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
HAROLD MOWRY, Director
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA








CITRUS PULP SILAGE

R. B. BECKER, GEORGE K. DAVIS, W. G. KIRK, P. T. Dix ARNOLD
With the Cooperation of
W. P. HAYMAN
County Agricultural Agent, Polk County, Florida.



Fig. 1.-Filling a trench silo with citrus press cake, citrus pulp plus
cut Natal grass hay, citrus pulp plus cut sugarcane, and plain fresh
citrus pulD.


Bulletin 423










BOARD OF CONTROL


J. Thos. Gurney, Chairman, Orlando
N. B. Jordan, Quincy
Thos. W. Bryant, Lakeland
M. L. Mershon, Miami
J. Henson Markham, Jacksonville
J. T. Diamond, Secretary, Tallahassee





EXECUTIVE STAFF

John J. Tigert, M.A., LL.D., President of the
University3
H. Harold Hume, D.Sc., Provost for Agricul-
ture
Harold Mowry, M.S.A., Director
L. 0. Gratz, Ph.D., Asst. Dir., Research
W. M. Fifield, M.S., Asst. Dir., Admin.
J. Francis Cooper, M.S.A., Editors
Clyde Beale, A.B.J., Associate Editor3
Jefferson Thomas, Assistant Editors
Ida Keeling Cresap, Librarian
Ruby Newhall, Administrative Manager3
K. II. Graham, LL.D., Business Managera
Claranelle Alderman, Accountants




MAIN STATION, GAINESVILLE


AGRONOMY

W. E. Stokes, M.S., Agronomist1
Fred H. Hull, Ph.D., Agronomist
G. E. Ritchey, M.S., Agronomist2
G. B. Killinger, Ph.D., Agronomist
W. A. Carver, Ph.D., Associate
Roy E. Blaser, M.S., Associate5
H. C. Harris, Ph.D.,. Associate
Fred A. Clark, B.S., Assistant




ANIMAL INDUSTRY

A. L. Shealy, D.V.M., An. Industrialist' s
it. B. Becker, Ph.D., Dairy Husbandman3
E. L. Fouts, Ph.D., Dairy Technologists
D. A. Sanders, D.V.M., Veterinarian
M. W. Emmel, D.V.M., Veterinarians
L. E. Swanson, D.V.M., Parasitologist
N. R. Mehrhof, M.Agr., Poultry Husb.3
G. K. Davis, Ph.D., Animal Nutritionist
R.-S. Glasscock, Ph.D., An. Husbandman
P. T. Di:: Arnold, M.S.A., Asst. Dairy Husb.'
C. L. Comar, Ph.D., Asso. Biochemist
L. E. Mull, M.S., Asst. in Dairy Tech.
Katherine Boney. B.S., Asst. Chem.
Ruth Taylor, A.B., Asst. Biochemist
J. C. Driggers, B.S.A., Asst. Poultry Husb.
Glenn Van Ness, D.V.M., Asso. Poultry
Pathologist


ECONOMICS, AGRICULTURAL

C. V. Noble, Ph.D., Agri. Economist' 3
Zach Savage, M.S.A., Associate3
A. H. Spurloek, M.S.A., Associate
Max E. Brunk, M.S., Associate'
D. E. Alleger, M.S., Associate

Orlando, Florida (Cooperative USDA)

G. Norman Rose, B.S., Asso. Agr. Economist
J. C. Townsend, Jr., B.S.A., Agr. Statistician2
J. B. Owens, B.S.A., Agr. Statistician2

ECONOMICS, HOME

Ouida D. Abbott, Ph.D., Home Econ.1
R. B. French, Ph.D., Biochemist

ENTOMOLOGY

A. N. Tissot, Ph.D., Entomologist and Act-
ing Head of Dept.
H. E. Bratley, M.S.A., Assistant


HORTICULTURE

G. H. Blackmon, M.S.A., Horticulturist'
A. L. Stahl, Ph.D.., Asso. Horticulturist
F. S. Jamison, Ph.D., Truck Hort.
Byron E. Janes, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.
R. A. Dennison, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.
R. K. Showalter, M.S., Asso. Hort.
R. J. Wilmot, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
R. V. Dickey, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
Victor F. Nettles, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
J. Carlton Cain, B.S.A., Asst. Hort.5
F. S. Lagasse, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.2


PLANT PATHOLOGY

W. B. Tisdale, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist'
Phares Decker, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Path.
Erdman West, M.S., Mycologist and Botanist
Lillian E. Arnold, M.S., Asst. Botanist

SOILS

F. B. Smith, Ph.D., Chemist'i
Gaylord M. Volk, M.S., Chemist
J. R. Henderson, M.S.A., Soil Technologisl
J. R. Neller, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
Nathan Gammon, Jr., Ph.D., Soils Chemist
C. E. Bell, Ph.D., Associate Chemist
L. H. Rogers, Ph.D., Associate Biochemist
R. A. Carrigan, B.S., Asso. Biochemist
G. T. Sims, M.S.A., Associate Chemist
H. W. Winsor, B.S.A., Assistant Chemist
Geo. D. Thornton, M.S., Asst. Microbiologist'
J. B. Cromartie, B.S.A., Soil Surveyor
R. E. Caldwell, M.S.A.. Asst. Soil Surveyor'
Wade McCall, B.S., Asst. Chemist

1 Head of Department.
2 In cooperation with U. S.
3 Cooperative, other divisions; U. of F.
4 In Military Service.
6 On leave.









BRANCH STATIONS

NORTH FLORIDA STATION, QUINCY

J. D. Warner, M.S., Vice-Director in Charge
R. R. Kincaid, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
W. H. Chapman, M.S., Asso. Agron.
R. C. Bond, M.S.A., Asso. Agronomist
L. G. Thompson, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
Frank D. Baker, Jr., B.S., Asst. An. Hush.

Mobile Unit, Monticello
R. W. Wallace, B.S., Associate Agronomist

Mobile Unit, Milton
Ralph L. Smith, M.S., Associate Agronomist

Mobile Unit, Marianna
R. W. Lipscomb, M.S., Associate Agronomist


Mobile Unit, Wewahitchka
J. B. White, B.S.A., Associate Agronomist


CITRUS STATION, LAKE ALFRED

A. F. Camp, Ph.D., Vice-Director in Charge
V. C. Jamison, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
J. B. Redd, Ph.D., Insecticide Chemist
W. L. Thompson, B.S., Entomologist
J. T. Griffiths, Ph.D., Entomologist
R. F. Suit, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
E. P. Ducharme, M.S., Plant Pathologist
J. E. Benedict, B.S., Horticulturist
B. R. Fudge, Ph.D., Associate Chemist
C. R. Stearns, Jr., B.S.A., Asso. Chemist
James K. Colehour, M.S., Research Chemist
T. W. Young, Ph.D., Asso. Horticulturist
J. W. Sites, M.S.A., Asso. Horticulturist6
H. 0. Sterling, B.S., Asst. Horticulturist
J. A. Granger, B.S.A., Asst. Horticulturist
H. J. Reitz, M.S., Asso. Plant Path.
Francine Fisher, M.S., Asso. P1. Path.

EVERGLADES STA., BELLE GLADE

R. V. Allison, Ph.D., Vice-Director in Charge
J. W. Wilson, Sc.D., Entomologist'
F. D. Stevens, B.S., Sugarcane Agron.
Thomas Bregger, Ph.D., Sugarcane
Physiologist *
G. R. Townsend, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
B. S. Clayton, B.S.C.E., Drainage Eng.2
W. D. Wylie, Ph.D., Entomologist
W. T. Forsee, Jr., Ph.D., Asso. Chemist
obt. L.L Cassell, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Path.
R. W. Kidder, M.S., Asst. An. Husb.
T. C. Erwin, Assistant Chemist
R. A. Bair, Ph.D., Asst. Agronomist
Earl L. Felix, Ph.D., Asst. Plant Path.
C. C. Seale, Asst. Agronomist
L. O. Payne, B.S.A., Asst. Agronomist
R. C. Ladeburg, B.S.A., Asst. Hort.
Russel Desrosiers, M.S., Asst. Plant Path.
N. C. Hayslip, B.S.A., Asst. Hort.


SUB-TROPICAL STA., HOMESTEAD

Geo. D. Ruehle, Ph.D., Vice-Director in
Charge
H. I. Borders, M.S., Asso. Plant Path.
D. O. Wolfenharger, Ph.D., Asso. Ento-
mologist
R. W. Harkness, Ph.D., Asst. Chemist


W. CENT. FLA. STA., BROOKSVILLE

Clement D. Gordon, Ph.D., Asso. Poultry
Geneticist in Charge2


RANGE CATTLE STATION, ONA

W. G. Kirk, Ph.D., Vice-Director in Charge
E. M. Hodges, Ph.D., Associate Agronomist
D. W. Jones, B.S.A., Asst. An. Hush.
E. R. Felton, B.S.A., Asst. An. Husb.


CENTRAL FLORIDA STATION, SANFORD
R. W. Ruprecht, Ph.D., Chemist in Charge
A. Alfred Foster, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.
J. C. Russell, M.S., Asst. Entomologist
Ben F. Whitner, Jr., B.S., Asst. Hort.


FIELD STATIONS

Leesburg
G. K. Parris, Ph.D., Plant Path. in Charge

Plant City
A. N. Brooks, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist

Hastings *
A. H. Eddins, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
E. N. McCubbin, Ph.D., Truck Horticulturist

Monticello
S. 0. Hill, B.S., Asst. Entomologist2 4
A. M. Phillips, B.S., Asst. Entomologist2


Bradenton
J. *Beekenbach, Ph.D., Horticulturist in
Charge
E. G. Kelsheimer, Ph.D., Entomologist
A. L. Harrison, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
David G. Kelbert, Asso. Horticulturist
E. L. Spencer, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
Robert 0. Magie, Ph.D., Hort., Glad. Inv.

Lakeland
Warren O. Johnson, Meteorologist2

1 Head of Department.
2 In cooperation with U. S.
3 Cooperative, other divisions, U. of F.
4 In Military Service.
5 On leave.
























CONTENTS
Page

FEEDING FRESH CITRUS PULP AT THE RANGE CATTLE STATION ............-.. 5

ENSILING FRESH CITRUS PULP .--....-......-.....-----.....---------------- 6

Field Trial ................--...-..---..- ---.-. ----------.-------.. 6

Controlled Trial ................... --..---- ------.. -----.----- 7

CHARACTER OF THE CITRUS PULP SILAGES .........-........--------- ....-------... 8

PALATABILITY OF CITRUS SILAGES .............----.....-- ... .. ............ ..... 13

Field Trial .................... .--.. ....--.. -----... ..-..- --..-- 13

Controlled Trial ......... -....... -..-...-- ---- ..- ------------ 14

EFFECT OF CITRUS PRESS CAKE SILAGE ON MILK FLAVOR .....-..................-- 14

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ........-........-........--.--.---. .------. 15

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .... -..... --........------------------ --------- 16









CITRUS PULP SILAGE

R. B. BECKER, GEORGE K. DAVIS, W. G. KIRK, P. T. DIX ARNOLD
and W. P. HAYMAN

Will citrus pulp make good silage?
A cattleman ensiled fresh grapefruit pulp (peel, rag and
seed) in an upright silo several years ago. He observed that
the silage was quite moist and that steers tended to leave the
peel until other parts were eaten. When filling the silo the
next year he mixed some grass hay with the grapefruit pulp.
The silage had a better consistency, but under his feeding con-
ditions the practice had not been profitable for fattening steers
and was discontinued.
More recently fresh citrus pulp has been used widely as a
supplementary feed for wintering cattle. It had been fed for
some time to dairy cattle near the canneries. Both beef and
dairy cattle learned to eat the frush pulp. The product is some-
what palatable, nutritious and economical as a source of bulky
feed. Before the citrus canneries begin operations in the fall
the nutritive value of pasture grasses becomes low and cattle
lose some weight. If citrus pulp could be made into satisfactory
silage it could be stored and held over from the previous can-
ning season and fed until fresh citrus pulp becomes available.
This situation made it desirable to determine the character-
istics of citrus pulp silage.

FEEDING FRESH CITRUS PULP AT RANGE
CATTLE STATION
Fresh grapefruit pulp has been fed in limited quantities at
the Range Cattle Station for the past 3 winters. In the winter
of 1942-43 it was fed both in bunks and on the ground to cattle
on pasture. The animals ate little if any of the fresh pulp when
first given access to it, but after a few days they consumed
it readily. It was estimated that mature cows ate from 15 to
25 pounds of fresh pulp per day.
Cows having had access to fresh citrus pulp for several weeks
seemed to miss it when they were moved to an adjoining field.
For some weeks after the transfer was made these cows came
to the division fence whenever fresh citrus pulp was placed in
the bunks. It was easy to understand by their actions that they







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


wanted the feed. The second winter the cows consumed con-
siderable quantities of pulp the first day it was placed in the
bunks. (See Figure 2)
Calves and yearling cattle ate the seed and rag first, even
tearing the rag from the inside of the peel, leaving the peel until
last. When fresh citrus pulp was dumped on the ground it was
eaten readily for a week, after which the cattle failed to touch
it for several days. Later they returned 'to the pile and ate
most of the peel. When mixed grapefruit and orange pulp was
placed in bunks cattle selected the grapefruit first but after-
ward ate the orange pulp readily.
In March and April, 1945, fresh orange pulp was fed. Older
cattle ate small quantities as soon as it was placed in the feed
bunks but younger cattle did not relish it until it had been ex-
posed to the sun and air for from 4 to 5 days, after which time
they ate it in limited quantities.

ENSILING FRESH CITRUS PULP
Field Trial.-Opportunity was offered in the winter of 1944-45
to conduct a field trial on the ensilability of fresh citrus pulp.
A trench silo over 40 feet long was dug with a drag line on

Fig. 2.-Range cattle learned readily to eat fresh citrus pulp when pastures
were short.






Citrus Pulp Silage


rising ground with fair drainage. Several local people cooper-
ated in order to fill this trench silo in a day. Sloping walls of
the silo were smoothed and the fresh citrus pulp was ensiled
in 4 forms in adjacent 10-foot sections of the trench silo, sep-
arated by a single board as a marker. The forms ensiled were:
1. Plain fresh citrus pulp, largely grapefruit.
2. Citrus pulp plus about 25 percent of Natal grass hay in
alternate layers.
3. Citrus pulp plus about 25 percent of fresh sugarcane cut
in 3/4-inch lengths.
4. Citrus press cake.
The proportions were approximated, in the absence of large
scales at the silo. The citrus pulp was delivered fresh from
the cannery. Likewise, the citrus press cake, prepared as for
processing into dried citrus pulp, was delivered fresh from the
press. The Natal grass hay was from a fairly mature stand,
and the sugarcane from the whole stalks cut in the field. The
process of filling the trench silo is shown in Figure 1.
The plain citrus pulp was placed in the end section of the
silo. In the second and third sections citrus pulp and either
cut Natal grass hay or cut fresh sugarcane were spread in al-
ternate thin layers/ Citrus press cake was placed in the fourth
section. Samples of the fresh materials were taken for analysis
as they were delivered to the silo. Ten-kilogram samples of
the corresponding materials were put into moist muslin bags
and placed about 2 feet away from a marker board in the cor-
responding section of the trench silo. The 2 mixed silage
samples contained 73.5 percent of citrus pulp and 26.5 percent
of cut hay or sugarcane. Since the bags were porous the en-
siling process within them proceeded the same as in the ad-
jacent citrus pulp or mixed silage. The filled silo ready for
covering is shown in Figure 3. To reduce exposure to air, roof-
ing paper was spread over the material and covered with a 6
to 10-inch layer of soil. Later, when the silo was opened, the
contents of each bag were weighed and sampled for analysis.
Controlled Trial.-At Gainesville 4 concrete pit silos 43 inches
in diameter by 6 to 7 feet in depth were filled with weighed
materials as follows:
1. Plain fresh citrus pulp, largely grapefruit.
2. Citrus pulp plus 5 percent of cut Natal grass hay placed
in thin layers and mixed.






Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


3. Citrus pulp plus 10 percent of cut sugarcane leaves and
tops fairly dry, placed in thin layers and mixed.
4. Citrus press cake.
The fresh citrus pulp was delivered as fresh as possible from
the cannery, a distance of about 150 miles. The citrus press
cake, similar to that used in the field trial, was delivered about
100 miles. The Natal grass hay was cut from a field that con-
tained little mature grass.
Moist muslin bags containing 10 kilograms of the correspond-
ing citrus pulp combination were placed at 1/3 and 2/3 of the
depth down in the ensiled material in each of the 4 silos. A
burlap marker was placed above each sample bag in the silo.
Each silo was covered with a layer of roofing paper and then
with soil. The contents of each sample bag were weighed and
analyzed after ensiling for comparison with the original ma-
terials which were sampled at time of ensiling.

CHARACTER OF.THE CITRUS PULP SILAGES
The trench silo used in the field trial was opened after wait-
ing a 50-day period for the ensiling process to be completed.
The laboratory silos containing the fresh citrus pulp combina-


trench silo filled with citrus pulp in 4 forms, ready to be
covered with roofing paper and soil.


Fig. 3.-The


F --
5WMWM -_O~-F"'


;; .r
-I: r.l -~t= nrr







Citrus Pulp Silage


tions were opened after 75 days. Because the fourth silo was
filled later, the citrus press cake had only a 47-day ensiling
period. The ensiling process is believed to be fully completed in
less than 45 days, hence all of the above silages were presumed
to have completed the ensiling changes.
The several silages possessed almost the natural yellow color of
fresh ripe peel and had a pleasant mildly acrid aroma. Actually,
the silages were mildly acid, as shown by pH readings of 3.21
to 3.55, determined on juice pressed from the silages (Table 1).
These compare with a pH reading of 3.47 for silage from well
matured corn, which also is mildly acid. Silages from legumes
are less acid, and from sugarcane far more acid. Considerably
less settling and loss of weight occurred with the press cake
than with the fresh pulp combinations.

TABLE 1.-WEIGHTS AND pH READINGS OF CITRUS PULP SILAGES TAKEN
FROM SAMPLE BAGS FILLED ORIGINALLY WITH 10 KILOGRAMS OF FRESH
MATERIALS.
Citrus Pulp Citrus Pulp
Silages:- Plain plus Cut plus Citrus
Citrus Pulp Sugarcane Natal Grass Press Cake
Net weights, in grams

Field Trial ........... 6,400 7,013 9,825 9,642
Controlled trial
Top bag ......... 7,073 7,659 7,477 9,568
Bottom bag .... 7,177* 7,280 8,965* 9,535

pH values of juice pressed from the silages

Controlled trial
Top bag ..-......... 3.37 3.39 3.45. 3.46
Bottom bag .... 1 3.55 3.50 3.21 3.33

Gravitational moisture was evident toward the bottom of the silo.

The high moisture (or low dry matter) contents of the silages,
as shown in Table 2, had much to do with their physical char-
acteristics. The plain silage made from fresh citrus pulp had
little free water in evidence, yet it contained about 85 percent
of moisture and had little stability. A workman standing on
the silage could sink 8 to 12 inches into it with little effort. This
situation was less the case with the silages containing either
25 or 5 percent of cut hay, or 25 percent of cut sugarcane or







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


TABLE 2.-COMPOSITION OF FRESH CITRUS PULP AND OTHER MATERIALS
ENSILED, AND OF THE RESPECTIVE SILAGES.



Materials 2 c


Percent percent percent I percent| percent[ percent

Composition of Fresh Materials at Time of Ensiling
Fresh citrus pulp
Field trial .......--...-- 81.51 .1.23 1.83 2.22 12.48 .73

Controlled trial ...... 81.93 1.23 1.82 2.03 12.26 .73
Citrus press cake
Field trial ............ 71.73 2.01 2.65 4.36 17.80 1.45
Controlled trial ........ | 77.23 1.41 1.80 3.53 15.10 .93
Natal grass hay
Field trial ............... 22.88 1.85 1.11 34.89 37.12 2.15

Controlled trial ........ 24.16 3.20 1.57 17.60 50.28 3.19
Cut sugarcane .........- 77.13 .54 .33 5.72 14.69 1.59
Cut sugarcane leaves
and tops (some-
what dry) ............ 18.15 3.07 4.95 17.08 53.34 3.41

Composition of Silages

Plain citrus pulp
Field trial .------.... 87.04 .91 .73 2.25 8.46 .61
Controlled, top ...... 83.89 1.54 2.00 2.76 9.03 .78

Controlled, bottom .. 84.99 1.41 2.47 4.99 5.38 .76
Citrus pulp plus Natal
grass hay
Field trial ............... 78.02 1.09 1.50 3.43 14.87 1.09

Controlled, top ....... 76.97 1.98 3.41 5.38 11.51 1.02

Controlled, bottom .. 78.20 1.63 2.87 7.52 8.79 .99
Citrus pulp plus cut
sugarcane (field) 84.71 1.05 1.24 2.33 10.13 .54
Citrus pulp plus sugar-
cane tops and
leaves (top) ....... 77.95 1.50 2.70 3.72 13.10 1.03
(Same) bottom ...... 77.57 1.50 2.75 4.70 12.43 1.05
Citrus press cake
Field trial ............ 77.19 1.65 2.44 3.53 13.87 1.32

Controlled, top -.... 75.26 1.66 2.27 4.25 15.30 1.26

Controlled, bottom _. 75.74 1.61 3.14 5.15 13.11 1.25

Average of silages .... 79.79 1.46 2.29 4.16 11.33 0.97






Citrus Pulp Silage


10 percent of sugarcane leaves and tops. The citrus press cake
packed well and had a firm consistency so that it was handled
readily with a silage fork. Little gravitational moisture was
evident in the citrus press cake silage.
Differences in the maturity of the Natal grass when harvested
for hay are shown in the composition of the 2 hays. The mature
hay used in the field trial was higher in crude fiber, and cor-
respondingly lower in all other nutrients, than the hay made
from younger grass. Likewise the fact that cut fresh sugar-
cane was available for the field trial, while dry sugarcane leaves
and tops were used in the controlled trial, make the results not
exactly comparable. Both materials were used satisfactorily.
The greatest loss of nutrients during the ensiling process
occurred with the nitrogen-free extract (sugars and other sol-
uble carbohydrates). Fiber was attacked little by the enzymes,
bacteria and food acids in the ensiling process. It appears to
increase relatively sometimes, because of losses of other nu-
trients. The crude fat or ether-soluble nutrients were changed
little, and even could be expected to increase slightly in pro-
portion, due to formation of some ether-soluble compounds dur-
ing the ensiling action. This was indicated from the computa-
tions in Table 3, based on comparison of the fresh materials
with the nutrients within the sample bags removed from the
silos. The fresh material in the 4 field-trial and 8 controlled-
trial sample bags contained 2,021 grams of dry matter on the
average. Of this, 1,603 grams of dry matter were preserved
as silage-a recovery of 79 percent of dry matter.
The dry hay and sugarcane tops and leaves absorbed moisture
and soluble nutrients from the citrus pulp and the combination
made a better quality of silage than did the citrus pulp alone.
The citrus press cake likewise made a more satisfactory silage
than did the plain citrus pulp.
A slight tendency for moisture to move downward in citrus
pulp silages was observed in 2 out of 3 instances when compar-
ing the composition of material taken from the top and bottom
sample bags used in the controlled trial. This movement of
soluble nutrients and small errors in obtaining representative
samples undoubtedly affect the computations slightly, but are
insufficient to affect the conclusions.
The weight of citrus pulp silage per cubic foot is quite high
in comparison with corn silage. Weights of plain citrus pulp
silage ranged between 58.6 and 60.8 pounds per cubic foot in







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


5 feet of silage. At the same depths, silage made from well
matured corn weighed from 18.5 to 26.8 pounds per cubic foot.
Silage made from citrus press cake was somewhat lighter-from
50.6 to 56.2 pounds per cubic foot in the first 4 feet of a con-
crete pit silo. Those combined with Natal grass hay, or with
cut sugarcane, were somewhat lighter, as shown ip Table 4.
Likewise it may be seen from this table, that the first few feet
of citrus pulp silage weighed about the same as corn silage at
depths of 20 to 30 feet in an upright silo.

TABLE 3.-EFFICIENCY OF PRESERVATION OF NUTRIENTS IN THE SILAGES,
BASED ON WEIGHTS AND ANALYSES OF MATERIALS ENSILED IN SAMPLE BAGS.*



Material P 0
o UU P2e UFx 4 a
percent ( percent percent I percent percent percent

Plain citrus pulp
Field trial ......... 68.34 47.29 25.41 64.99 43.40 53.41
Controlled, top .....- 72.42 89.04 77.80 96.04 52.09 75.18
Controlled, bottom .. 74.45 82.25 97.59 176.30 31.49 74.24
Citrus pulp plus
Natal grass hay
Field trial .......------- 116.19 76.51 90.09 30.96 76.85 97.26
Controlled, top ....... 72.81 111.65 130.08 143.21 60.80 89.54
Controlled, bottom .. 88.70 109.95 142.73 240.08 55.63 104.10
Citrus pulp plus cut
sugarcane (field) 73.74 70.33 60.42 51.99 54.39 39.40
Citrus pulp plus cut
sugarcane tops
and leaves, top .... 79.02 81.59 96.93 80.56 61.29 79.01
(Same), bottom '........ 74.74 77.27 93.95 96.81 55.28 76.06
Citrus press cake
Field trial ...-.........- 103.76 78.88 88.62 78.03 75.11 87.58
Controlled, top ....... 93.24 112.83 120.32 115.16 96.93 129.24
Controlled, bottom 93.51 108.91 166.19 139.06 82.76 127.66
Grand average ...-...--. 84.27 87.21 99.04 111.18 62.17 86.06

The amount of protein preserved in the silage was computed as a percentage of the
total protein in the fresh materials, and similarly with each of the other nutrients.

Since citrus pulp silage weighs so much more than corn
silage, the greater pressures would require about double the







Citrus Pulp Silage


reinforcement or strength of construction usually employed in
silos for corn silage. This difference would not affect a trench
silo where the earth resists downward and lateral thrusts.

TABLE 4.-WEIGHT PER CUBIC FOOT OF CITRUS PULP SILAGES TAKEN
FROM LABORATORY PIT SILOS, COMPARED WITH CORN SILAGE.*


Depth
in
Silo
feet
1

2
3
4
5
10

15
20

25
30


Plain
Citrus
Pulp
pounds
58.6
59.1
59.7
60.2
60.8


Pulp plus
cut Sugar-
cane Tops
and Leaves
pounds
45.7
46.9

47.7
48.0


Pulp plus
Natal
Grass Hay
pounds
48.0

49.7
51.3
52.8


Citrus
Press
Cake
pounds
50.6
53.9
55.9
56.2


Corn
Silage*

pounds
18.5

20.8
23.0
24.9
26.8
35.0
42.0

48.1
54.0
59.0


Weights of
Bulletin 1820.


corn silage are taken from Table 4 in U. S. Dept.


of Agr. Farmers'


PALATABILITY OF CITRUS SILAGES
Field Trial.-The citrus pulp silages from the trench silo
were placed in piles on the ground where a group of 25 bulls
had access to them. These bulls were receiving a considerable
offering of fresh citrus pulp daily, supplementary to mature
grass in the field. Although the bulls had eaten fresh pulp,
4 of them ate some citrus press cake silage and 2 or 3 others
took pulp-plus-hay the first morning. Subsequently, the owner
wrote that these bulls preferred citrus press cake silage, and
then ate about equally of both of the mixed silages. Plain citrus
pulp silage was the least desirable.
One local dairyman offered the 4 kinds of silage to his cows,
and observed: "The cattle ate all 3 kinds of the pulp, but went
to the ground pulp (citrus press cake silage) most."
A second dairyman obtained only the citrus press cake silage,
and stated: "... we offered the ground pulp (silage) to our






Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


cows. They liked it very much. In fact, they seemed to like
it as well as the fresh pulp."
All 4 kinds of silage were offered to cows at the Range Cattle
Station. Dr. E. M. Hodges, who made the observations, wrote:
"The cattle ate all the different silage materials quite well,
taking the sugarcane mixture at the first sniff. They may be
prejudiced toward the cane."
Cattle in this herd were accustomed previously to both fresh
sugarcane and citrus pulp.
Controlled Trial.-Jersey heifers in the Main Station dairy
herd were offered all 4 silages in adjacent sections of feed
troughs. Some of these heifers had been receiving cut sugar-
cane, which may explain their preference for the citrus pulp-
plus-sugarcane leaves and tops at the start. On the third day,
the animals changed their preference to citrus press cake silage,
and continued so until the end of the trial. The silage with 5
percent of cut Natal grass hay was taken in preference to the
pulp-plus-sugarcane silage after the fourth day. Plain. citrus
pulp silage was the last choice. Dairy cows took to these silages
quite slowly, preferring the citrus press cake silage. These cows
received corn silage previously.

EFFECT OF CITRUS PRESS CAKE SILAGE
ON MILK FLAVOR

Six dairy cows were placed in dry lot 10 hours following the
morning milking. Two hours before the evening milking the
group of animals had about 25 pounds of citrus press cake
silage each. These cows were advanced in lactation, milking
11 to 15 pounds each. Individual milk samples were collected
in a bottle and cooled immediately in ice water. They were
held at 350 Fahrenheit for 15 hours; pasteurized at 143' for
30 minutes; cooled to 60 and scored for flavor. Four of the 6
samples had a feedy to very feedy flavor, similar to but some-
what more pronounced than that usually encountered when
corn or kafir silage is fed in the same manner.
Experience and observations have shown that in commercial
practice such mild feed flavors are eliminated by offering the
feed immediately after the cows are milked. This allows several
hours for mild flavor compounds to dissipate from the body
through other means, without affecting the milk.






Citrus Pulp Silage


SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Fresh citrus pulp is being fed to beef and dairy cattle during
the canning season, to supplement other sources of feed. Cattle
express a liking for the fresh pulp, once they have learned to
eat it.
Plain citrus pulp, pulp mixed with cut Natal grass hay or with
cut sugarcane, and citrus press cake were preserved satis-
factorily as silages in a trench silo and in small concrete pit silos.
The silage shrank 21 percent in weight of dry matter in aver-
age of all sample bags. It had about the same acidity as corn
silage. The color of the peel was retained practically unchanged
during the ensiling process. The aroma was mild. In physical
character, the plain citrus pulp silage lacked body, having only
15 percent of dry matter. This was less true of the mixed
silages. Citrus press cake silage had a firm consistency and
was handled readily with a silage fork.
Highest loss of nutrients due to ensiling was in the nitrogen-
free extract (sugars, etc.), lowest in crude fiber and fat. /Addi-
tions of hay or sugarcane increased efficiency of preserving
nutrients and improved the quality of the silage.-_
Citrus pulp silage has a much higher weight per cubic foot
than corn silage; so much so that silos in which it is to be
placed should have much stronger reinforcements than average.
This problem does not apply to trench silos.
Palatability of citrus pulp silages depended upon previous
feeds to which cattle were accustomed. Generally, citrus press
cake silage was quite palatable. The mixtures of pulp with grass
hay and cut sugarcane were eaten readily. Plain citrus pulp
silage was least palatable of those fed.
A feed flavor was transferred through dairy cows into milk
when citrus press cake silage was fed just 2 hours prior to milk-
ing time. The flavor was similar to that from corn or kafir
silage. Such mild flavors can be eliminated by regulating the
feeding time.
It appears that some use might be made of citrus pulp silages
at locations near the canneries, to be fed at times when fresh
citrus pulp is not obtainable.







16 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Investigation of citrus pulp silage was made possible by cooperation
of Gray Singleton of the Lakeland Highlands Canning Company, Suni-
Citrus Products Company, Pasco Packing Association, D. B. Kibler, Jr.,
W. J. Sheely, Hamlin L. Brown, Jack C. Hayman, G. W. Mann, Stuart
Brothers Corporation, Dr. E. M. Hodges, W. H. Lewis, R. O. Pipkin,
Dr. E. L. Fouts and Dr. T. R. Freeman, who contributed directly in sev-
eral ways. Tentative plans for the field trial were initiated by D. B.
Kibler, Jr., Gray Singleton, W. J. Sheely, Dr. W. G. Kirk, and W. P .
Hayman. Katherine Boney assisted with the chemical analyses. The
picture in Figure 2 was taken by Dr. E. M. Hodges.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs