Group Title: Bulletin University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station
Title: Fattening steers on Everglades winter pasture
CITATION DOWNLOADS THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00026898/00001
 Material Information
Title: Fattening steers on Everglades winter pasture
Series Title: Bulletin University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station
Physical Description: 19 p. : ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Kidder, Ralph W
Publisher: University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1949
Copyright Date: 1949
 Subjects
Subject: Beef cattle -- Feeding and feeds -- Florida -- Everglades   ( lcsh )
Pastures -- Florida -- Everglades   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references (p. 19).
Statement of Responsibility: R.W. Kidder.
General Note: Cover title.
General Note: "A contribution from the Everglades Experiment Station."
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00026898
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: ltuf - AEN6190
oclc - 18271493
alephbibnum - 000925537

Downloads
Full Text





HISTORIC NOTE



The publications in this collection do
not reflect current scientific knowledge
or recommendations. These texts
represent the historic publishing
record of the Institute for Food and
Agricultural Sciences and should be
used only to trace the historic work of
the Institute and its staff. Current IFAS
research may be found on the
Electronic Data Information Source
(EDIS)

site maintained by the Florida
Cooperative Extension Service.






Copyright 2005, Board of Trustees, University
of Florida






Bulletin 456 February, 1949


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








Fattening Steers

On Everglades Winter Pasture

R. W. KIDDER

















(A Contribution from the Everglades Experiment Station)

Single copies free to Florida residents upon request to
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA









BOARD OF CONTROL ECONOMICS, AGRICULTURAL
C. V. Noble, Ph.D., Agri. Economist1
J. Thos. Gurney. Chairman, Orlando Saage, M. A., Associate
N. B. Jordan, Quincy A. H. Spurlock, M.S.A., Associate
Thos. W. Bryant, Lakeland
Thos. W. Bryant, Lakeland D. E. Alleger, M.S., Associate
J. Henson Markham, Jacksonville D. Brooke, M..A., Associate
Hollis Rinehart, Miami R. E. L. Greene, Ph.D., Agri. Economist
W. F. Powers, Secretary, Tallahassee. Litle, M.S., Assistant
Tallmadge Bergen, B.S., Asst.
EXECUTIVE STAFF Orlando, Florida (Cooperative USDA)
G. Norman Rose, B.S., Asso. Agr. Economist
J. Hillis Miller, Ph.D., President of the J. C. Townsen, Jr., .S.A., Agr. Statistician
University1 J.C. Townsend, Jr., B.S.A., Agr. Statisticians
H. Harold Hume, D.Sc., Provost for Agr.' J. B. Owens, B.S.A., Agr. Statistician'
Harold Mowry, M.S.A., Director J. F. Steffens, Jr., B.S.A., Agr. Statisticians
L. 0. Gratz, Ph.D., Asst. Dir., Research
W. M. Fifield, M.S., Asst. Dir., Admin. ECONOMICS, HOME
J. Francis Cooper, M.S.A., Editur3 Ouwda D. Abbott, Ph.D., Home Econ.1
Clyde Beale, A.B.J., Associate Editors R. B. French, Ph.D., Biochemist
Ida Keeling Cresap, Librarian
Ruby Newhall, Administrative Manager3 ENTOMOLOGY
Geo. F. Baughman, M.A., Business Managers A. N. Tissot, Ph.D., Entomologist1
Claranelle Alderman, Accountants L. C. Kuitert, Ph.D., Assistant
H. E. Bratley, M.S.A., Assistant

MAIN STATION, GAINESVILLE HORTICULTURE

AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING G. H. Blackmon, M.S.A., Horticulturist'
Frazier Rogers, M.B.A., Agr. Engineers F. S. Jamison, Ph.D., Horticulturists
J. M. Johnson, B.S.A.E., Asso. Agr. Engineers H. M. Reed, B.S., Chem., Veg. Processing
J. M. Myers, B.S., Asso. Agr. Engineer Byron E. Janes, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.
R. E. Choate, B.S.A.E., Asst. Agr. Engineers R. A. Dennison, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.
A. M. Pettis, B.S.AE., Asst. Agr. Engineers R. K. Showalter, M.S., Asso. Hort.
Albert P. Lorz, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.
R. H. Sharpe, M.S., Asso. Hort.
AGRONOMY R. J. Wilmot, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
Fred H. Hull, Ph.D., Agronomist1 R. D. Dickey, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
G. E. Ritchey, M.S., Agronomist2 Victor F. Nettles, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.'
G. B. Killinger, Ph.D., Agronomists F. S. Lagasse, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.2
H. C. Harris, Ph.D., Agronomist3 L. H. Halsey, B.S.A., Asst. Hort.
R. W. Bledsoe, Ph.D., Agronomist Forrest E. Myers, B.S.A., Asst. Hort.
S. C. Litzenberger, Ph.D., Associate
W. A. Carver, Ph.D., Associate PLANT PATHOLOGY
Fred A. Clark, B.S., Assistant W. B. Tisdale, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist''
M. N. Gist, Collaborator2 Phares Decker, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Path.
Erdman West, M.S., Mycologist and Botanist
ANIMAL INDUSTRY Howard N. Miller, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Path.
A. L. Shealy, D.V.M., An. Industrialist' 3 Lillian E. Arnold, M.S.. Asst. Botanist
R. B. Becker, Ph.D., Dairy Husbandman3
E. L. Fouts, Ph.D., Dairy Technologists SOILS
D. A. Sanders, D.V.M., Veterinarian F. B. Smith, Ph.D., Mvicrobiologist' a
M. W. Emmel, D.V.M. Veterinarian3 Gaylord M. Volk, Ph.D., Chemist
L. E. Swanson, D.V.M., Parasitologist J. R. Henderson, M.S.A., Soil Technologists
SJ.R. Neller, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
N. R. Mehrhof, M.Agr., Poultry Hush.3 Nathan Gammon, Jr., Ph.D., Soils Chemist
G. K. Davis, Ph.D., Animal Nutritionists C. E. Bell, Ph.D., Associate Chemist
R. S. Glasscock, Ph.D., An. Husbandman3 R. A. Carrigan, Ph.D., Asso. Biochemist3
P. T. Dix Arnold, M.S.A., Asst. Dairy Husb., H. D.Winsorn, .S.A., Assistant Chemist
Geo. D. Thornton, Ph.D., Asso. Microbiologists
L. E. Mull, M.S., Asst. in Dairy Tech. R. E. Caldwell, M.S.A., Asst. Chemists
Katherine Boney, B.S., Asst. Chem. J. B. Cromartie, B.S.A., Soil Surveyor
J. C. Driggers, B.S.A., Asst. Poultry Husb.3 Ralph G. Leighty, B.S., Asso. Soil Surveyor
V. W. Cyzycki, B.S., Asst. Soil Surveyor
Glenn Van Ness, D.V.M., Asso. Poultry R. B. Forbes, M.S., Asst. Soils Chemist
Pathologist W. L. Pritchett, M.S., Asst. Chemist
S. John Folks, B.S.A., Asst. An. Husb.3 Jean Beem, B.S.A., Asst. Soil Surveyor
W A. Krienke, M.S., Asso. in Dairy Mfs.'
S. P. Marshall, Ph.D., Asso. Dairy Husb.8 Head of Department.
In cooperation with U. S.
U. F. Simpson, D.V.M., Asso. Veterinarian a Cooperative, other divisions, U. of F.
C. F. Winchester, Ph.D., Asso. Biochemist3 4 On leave.









BRANCH STATIONS SUB-TROPICAL STATION, HOMESTEAD

NORTH FLORIDA STATION, QUINCY Geo. D. Ruehle, Ph.D., Vice-Dir. in Charge
D. 0. Wolfenbarger, Ph.D., Entomologist
J. D. Warner, M.S., Vice-Director in Charge Francis B. Lincoln Ph.D., Horticulturist






Mobile Unit Monticello W. CENT. FLA. STATION, BROOKSVILLE
R. R. Wallace, Ph.D., Plant Pssociate Agronomist William Jackson, B.S.A., Animal Husband-




man in Charge2
Mobile Unit, Marianna
W. H. Chapman, M.S., Associate Agronomist RANGE CATTLE STATION, ONA
W. W. Darkness, Ph.D., V ice-Director in Charge





Mobile Unit, Wewahitchka E. M. Hodges, Ph.D., Associate Agronomist
. G. Thompson, Ph.D., Associate Agronomist D. W. Jones, B.S., Ass. Soil Technologist
H.Frank S. Baker, Jr., B.S., Asst. An. HusHus.
Mobile Unit, Monticello W. CENT. FLA. STATION, BROOKSVILLE
R. W. Wallace, B.S., Associate Agronomist William Jackson, B.S.A., Animal Husband-
man in Charge2




Mobile Unit, MareFiak Springs
R. Liscomb, M.S., Associate Agronomist CENTRANGE CATTLFLORIDA STATION, ANFORD
W. G. Kirk, Ph.D., Vice-Director in Charge
Mobile Unit, Wewahitchka







CITRUS STATION, LAKE ALFRED I. W. Wildgeson, Ph.D., EntomolAssociate Agronomist
. Campsite, B.S.A., AssoVice-Director in Charge Ben F. WhiJoner, Jr., B.S.., Asst. Soil Technologist
H. J. Fulord, B.S.A. Asst. Animal usEntomologist
J. T. Grilths, Ph.D.Unit, Asso. Entomologist
R. L. Smit, M.S., Assocint Pate Agronomist CENTRAL FLORIDA STATION, MILTSANFORD




E. P. Ducharme, M.S., Plant Pathologist' H. W. Lundy, B.S.A., Associate Agronomist
. K. Voorees, Ph.D., Asso.Vice-Dir. in ChargeHorticulturist
CITRUS STATION, LAKE ALFRED J.W. Wilson, Sc.D., Entomologist




A. Stearnsmp,Ph.D., Vice-irector in Charge B Whiter, Jr., B.S.A., Asst. ort.Chemist



T. W. Young, Ph.D., Asso. Horticulturist FIELD STATIONS
. L. Thompson, B.S., Entomologtist
J. Griffiths, Ph.D., Asso. Entomologist
R. F. Suit, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist WEST FLORIDA STATION, MILTON




E. P. Ducharme, M.S., Asst. H orticulturist H Lundy, B.S.A., Associate Agronomistburg
R. Voorhees Ph.D., Asso. Horticulturist G. K. Parris, Ph.D., Plant Path. in Charge
Francine Fisher, B.S.A., Asso. Chemist
T. W. Young, Ph.D., Asso. Horticulturisemis t Plant ity



A. E. Willson, B.S.A., Asso. Biochemist A. N. Brooks, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
J. W. Siterson, M.S.A., Horticulturist
. Hendrickson, B.S., Asst. Horticulturist Hastings
Joe P. Granger, B.S.A., Asst. Horticulturist
H. J. Reitrs, .S., Asso. Horticulturist Parris, Ph.D., Plant Path. in Charge
Francine Fisher, Jr. B.S., Asst. Planorticulturist Path.E. N. McCubbin, Ph.D., Horticulturist
I. W. Wander, Ph.D., Soils Cochemist Plant City
A. E. Willsonzel, Jr., Ph.D., AsSupervisory Chem. Monticello Pathologist
Alvin H. Kesterson, M.S., Asso. Chemist A. M. Phillips, B.S., Asso. Entomologist
R. Fayvendrickson, B.S., Asst. Chemist John R. Large, MS., Asso. Plant Path.

Joe P. Barnett, B.S.A.TION, BELLEAsst. HorticulturistGLADE Bradeton
. Allison, Ph.., Vice-Director in Charge J. Beckenbach, Ph.D.,lant ath. in Charge





F. D. Stevens, B.S., Sugarcane Agronomist E. G. Kelsheimer, Ph.D., Entomologist
ThomaD. S. Presser, Jr. B.S., Asst. Horticultane David G. Kelbert, Asso. Horticulturist
R. W. Physiologist E. L. Spencer, Ph.D., Soils ChemistB.S., Biochemist
F. W. Wenzel, Jrph, Ph.D., AgricultSup ervisory Chem. Monticello li Hort.
Alvin H. Rousee, Jr,M.S., Asso. Chemist A. M. Phillips, B.S., Asso. Entom Pathologist
L. W. Favile, Ph.D., Ass. Chemist John Rmal Hus. Donald S. Larg, M.S. Asso. Plant Path.

T. C. EVERGLADES STATION, BELLE GLADE Bradentonmist
Roy A. Allison, Ph.D., AgronomVice-Director in Charge J.R. Bekenbach, Ph.D., Hort. in Charge





C. C. Seale, Asso. Agronomist
. Stevens, B.S., Sugarcane Agronomist E.G. Kelsheiernson, Ph.D., Entomologist
Thomas BreggerWolf, Ph.D. Sugarcane David G. Kelbert, Asso. Horticulturist
Physiologist E. L. Spencer, Ph.D., Soils Chemist





J. W. Randolph, M.S., Asst. Engricultural Engineer Robert Magi Ph.D., Gladioli Hort.of Department.
W. T. F'orsee, Jr., Ph.D., Chemist J. M. Walter, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist




R. W. HoffmaKidder, M.S., Asso. Horticulturist. Donald S. Burgis, M.S.A., Asst. Hot.
T. C. Erwin, Assistant Chemist
Roy A. Bair, Ph.D., Agronomist Lakclan
C. C. Scale, Asso. Agronomist
N. C. Hayslip, B.S.A., Asso. Entomologist Warren O. Johnson, B.S., Meteorologist2
E. H. Wolf, Ph.D., Asst. Horticulturist
W. H. Thames, M.S., Asst. Entomologist 1 Head of Department.
J. C. Hoffman, M.S., Asso. Horticulturist 2 In cooperation with U. S.
C. B. Savage, M.S.A., Asst. Horticulturist 3 Cooperative, other divisions, U. of F.
D. L. Stoddard, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Path. On leave.














Contents

Page


METHODS OF PROCEDURE ................ .-- ...... ..... -..... ...-- 6


Animals ------................................. 6


Feeds ....................................... ............... 6


Minerals ..........--- ......------------------------------- ---------- 7


RESULTS OF EXPERIMENTS --............. ...... .............. 7


Composition of Feeds ....----...........-------....-...---.... 7


1943 Trial ..... .......... ....... .... .. ...... ----------- 8


Calculation of Amount of Grass Consumed ..............-------....... .... 9


1944 Trial ...... ---..............-- ....-.....- ......... 11


1946 Trial ..... .... ... .......... ... ...--... 11


Average of Three Trials .....--...... .. ---..-------.... ----..... .... 15


MARKETING AND SLAUGHTER RECORDS .-........-- -----.......- -----------. 16


CONSUMPTION OF MINERALS ..-----....--...--..---- ...---------- -...-------------- 17


DISCUSSION .....--- ...... ...... ..--... ...----..----- -----....---. 17


SUMMARY .................................---------- ----- ------ -- -------- .. 18


LITERATURE CITED ...--....---------.....--.....-.. --.------------....---.--- 19









Fattening Steers

On Everglades Winter Pasture

R. W. KIDDER

The fattening of cattle on pastures produced on Everglades
peat and muck during the winter season has become an import-
ant phase of the beef cattle industry of Florida. This practice
is an important stabilizing influence in a diversified agricultural
program in the Everglades area because it makes economical
use of some fertile land that is not needed for other crops. It
also influences a more uniform distribution of slaughter cattle
in the Florida markets by providing an area where thin cattle
being removed from the range in the fall can be better finished,
and made available for market during the winter season when
very few cattle are being sold for beef direct from the range.
Most of the cattle fattened in this area are carried on pasture
without supplementary concentrates and produce beef which
grades largely "C", with a few in the "B" grade.1 Previous
experiments have indicated that concentrated feeds are neces-
sary if higher grade slaughter animals are to be obtained (1).2
Since blackstrap molasses is a local product and has produced
the most economical gains in previous trials (3), it was con-
sidered important to determine if more than half of the carbo-
hydrates of the supplement could be obtained from this source.
For this reason, molasses was fed at three levels with ground
snapped corn. Sweet potatoes have produced excellent yields
on Everglades soils and, when shredded and dried in the sun,
are a palatable carbohydrate stock feed. This material was
fed to one lot of steers in the place of ground snapped corn.
While the comparative value of the feeds was based on aver-
age results with balanced lots of cattle, some interesting in-
formation was obtained by a study of the performance of in-
dividual steers based on their breeding and on the grade of
carcasses which they produced when slaughtered.
The steer feeding experiments reported in this bulletin were
conducted at the Everglades Experiment Station for the three
winter seasons of 1943, 1944 and 1946.
""A" grade is "Good", "B" grade is "Commercial", "C" grade is
"Utility".
SItalic figures in parentheses refer to "Literature Cited" in the back
of this bulletin.






6 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

Method of Procedure
Animals.-Florida steers were used in all three feeding trials
and represented native cattle and those crossed with the Eng-
lish beef breeds and with Brahman. Those fed in 1943 were
produced in Okeechobee, St. Lucie and Martin counties and
were two-year-olds with native breeding predominating. In
1944 the steers were yearlings. About half of them were from
the Range Cattle Station and half were grade Herefords raised
on the range in Okeechobee County. The group fattened in
1946 included 12 native two-year-old steers from Polk County
and 38 head, nearly all two-year-olds; sired by purebred Brah-
man or Shorthorn bulls from the Range Cattle Station. These
included 24 grade Brahman and 14 from bulls of the English
beef breeds. All were accustomed to being weighed individually
and to being fed and were a higher feeder grade than the steers
used in the first and second trials.
Each year the steers were carried on pasture without grain
supplement for several months previous to the beginning of
the feeding trial. They were graded as feeders at the beginning
and as slaughter steers at the completion of each trial. Carcass
grades were established by the Federal grader on duty in the
packing plant in Tampa where the steers were marketed.
At the beginning of each trial the steers were divided into
uniform lots of 10 each according to grade, weight, breeding,
approximate age and source. Following a preliminary period
of 10 to 21 days the feeding trials were conducted for 120 days.
Individual weights were taken on three consecutive days at
the beginning of the preliminary period and at the beginning
and end of the feeding trial. Single individual weights were
taken at 28-day intervals during the trials.
Feeds.-During the first and second trials several varieties
of grass were used, which caused some differences in the pas-
ture between lots, although the amount of grass for each lot
was considered adequate. Five acres of St. Augustine provided
more grass than each lot of 10 steers could consume during
the last trial.
In addition to grass and a uniform feed of cottonseed meal,
carbohydrate concentrates were fed as follows: Lot I, equal
parts of blackstrap molasses and ground snapped corn; Lot II,
blackstrap molasses and ground snapped corn in the proportion
of 3 to 1; Lot III, blackstrap molasses in a self-feeder; Lot IV,
equal parts of blackstrap molasses and shredded sun-dried sweet






Fattening Steers on Everglades Winter Pasture 7

potatoes. During the first trial ground shallu heads were fed
instead of ground snapped corn and during the third trial a
fifth lot was added to include a trial of sweet potato feed. This
feed was the residue from the manufacture of starch from sweet
potato. Yellow Porto Rican sweet potatoes were fed to Lot IV
for the first two feeding trials and a white, starch-type called
"L-5" was fed the third year.
The steers were fed once a day between 8 and 9 A. M. Mo-
lasses was weighed out daily to each lot except Lot III and
poured over the other feeds in the feed bunks, leaving the
molasses container in the bunk until the next morning so that
the steers would lick out any remaining molasses. For Lot III,
a tight feed trough with a roof over it was used to hold a weighed
barrel of molasses inverted on 3/4-inch boards so that the mo-
lasses was about one inch deep in the trough.
Minerals.-Steamed bone meal and a mixture of minor ele-
ments with salt were kept before the steers in covered salt
boxes. The salt mixture was composed of 100 pounds common
fine salt, 2 pounds of snow form copper sulfate, 2 pounds
aluminum sulfate (technical grade) and 2 ounces of cobalt
sulfate.

Results of Experiments
Composition of Feeds.-Average composition and nutrient
content of the feeds used in these trials are shown in Table 1.
The cane molasses (blackstrap) for all three trials was obtained
from the U. S. Sugar Corporation. During the third trial the
starch type sweet potatoes and the sweet potato feed were
furnished by this company.
The feeding value of sweet potatoes has been studied by the
experiment stations of several Southern states (4). In general,
the dry matter in sweet potatoes has been found to be approxi-
mately equal to corn. Experiments in feeding dehydrated sweet
potatoes to dairy cows at Louisiana Agricultural Experiment
Station showed that the sweet potatoes contained 88 percent
of the value of yellow corn meal (6). In sun-drying the freshly
shredded potatoes lose about 2/3 of their weight, hence 300
pounds of shredded potatoes will dry down to 100 pounds.
During good drying weather 700 to 1,000 pounds of potatoes
could be scattered over a concrete tennis court floor 36 feet by
78 feet in the morning before 10 A. M. and 250 to 350 pounds
of dry material could be swept up by 4 P. M. To do this it was







8 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

TABLE 1.-AVERAGE COMPOSITION AND NUTRIENT CONTENT OF FEEDS USED
IN THE FEEDING TRIALS.
"" Total
Digest-
Dry Crude Crude IN-Free Crude Ash ible
Matter Protein Fiber Extract Fat Nu-
SI I trients
percentpercent percent percent percent percentperpercent p
Cottonseed
meal ......... 90.33 42.84 12.73 24.99 3.15 6.62 64.2
Molasses ........ 80.20 9.01 63.99 7.20 60.5
Ground snap- I
ped corn ... 89.88 9.07 10.28 66.49 2.60 1.73 73.4
Ground shallu
heads ......... 90.51 12.67 9.24 61.91 3.48 3.20 77.4
Dried sweet
potatoes* .. 85.23 12.90 3.86 64.25 1.22 3.00 72.0**
Sweet potato
feed* ......... 90.25 2.50 9.60 71.85 0.32 5.98 70.0**
St. Augustine
grass .......... 18.19 2.73 5.40 8.20 0.52 1.34 11.87

Analysis made by the Animal Nutrition Laboratory, Agricultural Experiment Station,
Gainesville.
** Estimates.

necessary to stir the material every 30 to 60 minutes during
the drying period. Calculations of the nutrient content of sweet
potatoes were made on the basis of an estimate of 72 percent
of total digestible nutrients. Recent digestion experiments have
shown that good quality dehydrated sweet potatoes contain
from 76 to 81 percent of total digestible nutrients (6).
While the sweet potatoes used in the starch-making process
contained 12.9 percent protein, and about half of the dry matter
of the potato was recovered as starch, the residue from this
process contained only 2.5 percent protein. Thus the carbo-
hydrates appear to be higher in the feed than in the sweet
potato, and a protein loss is indicated in the process of starch
manufacture.
Proximate analyses, as shown in Table 1, indicate a carbo-
hydrate content of 64.25 percent for the sweet potatoes and
71.85 percent for the sweet potato feed.
1943 Trial.-Forty steers used in the first feeding trial were
carried on pasture without supplementary feed, except minerals,
for 100 days from September 21 to December 30, 1942. During
this period they made an average gain of 82.8 pounds per steer,
or 0.83 pounds daily. This gain is based on weights made three
days after the steers arrived, thereby including a minimum






Fattening Steers on Everglades Winter Pasture 9

amount of "fill" and indicating the average rate of gain to be
expected from cattle of this type on Everglades pasture without
supplementary concentrates. A higher rate of gain can be
expected during the spring season than during the fall months.
Following a preliminary period of 21 days, the feeding trial
was started on January 20 and was concluded May 19. Results
are shown in Table 2. Ground shallu heads were used in this
trial for Lots I and II. Shredded sweet potatoes fed to Lot IV
were dried in the sun in small lots on sisalcraft paper cut in
pieces four feet wide and 30 to 40 feet long. Some lots of potatoes
were dried on 1/4-inch hardware cloth placed over the paper.
This was a slow and costly method of drying.
Better results in drying were obtained for the later trials by
spreading the shredded material on a concrete tennis court
and stirring with a rake about every hour, or more often on
cloudy days. Whether or not this drying procedure would be
a practical operation for a cattle feeding program would have
to be determined by the individual cattleman.
Calculation of Amount of Grass Consumed.-In Table 2 the
average amount of feed consumed daily per steer shows the
weighed amounts of concentrates and an amount of grass cal-
culated in the manner shown in the last section of the table.
This method of calculation is based on total digestible nutrients
consumed, and is described in detail in the Journal of Animal
Science (2).
In the Morrison standards an allowance of 7.93 pounds of total
digestible nutrients is recommended for the maintenance of a
1,000-pound cow (5). The maintenance requirement for ani-
mals of other weights is proportional not to the live weight but
to the 0.73 power of the live weight. Since the 0.73 power of
1,000.is 154.9, this divided by 7.93 gives the factor 19.53 (2).
Hence, by dividing the 0.73 power of the live weight of an ani-
mal by 19.53 the quotient is the average daily maintenance
requirement of total digestible nutrients. The average require-
ment for each pound gain in live weight is 3.53 pounds of total
digestible nutrients. This multiplied by the average daily gain
gives the average amount of nutrients used by the steer for
gains each day. The sum of these gives the total average
amount of nutrients consumed each day per steer. When the
known nutrient content of the concentrates fed is deducted,
the balance is ascribable to the grass. In Table 1 the analysis
and nutrient content of grass shows that each pound of grass







10 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

TABLE 2.-COMPARISON OF SUN-DRIED SHREDDED SWEET POTATOES WITH
GROUND SHALLU HEADS SUPPLEMENTED WITH COTTONSEED MEAL AND
THREE RATES OF MOLASSES FOR FATTENING STEERS ON WINTER PASTURE,
JANUARY 20 TO MAY 19, 1943-120 DAYS.

Lot I Lot LoI Lot III Lot IV
Cotton-
Cotton- Cotton- seed
seed seed Cotton- Meal,
Meal, Meal, seed Dried
Grain supplement ...-....--.... ..-------...... Shallu Shallu Meal Sweet
and and and Potatoes
Molasses Molasses Molasses I and
Molasses

Number of steers per lot .-----..-. 10 10 10 19

pounds pounds pounds pounds
Average initial weight per steer ... 660.2 645.5 658.8 664.8
Average final weight per steer ........ 801.7 787.5 813.0 837.5
Average total gain per steer ........... 141.5 142.0 154.2 172.7
Average daily gain per steer ........... 1.18 1.18 1.28 1.44

Average amount of feed consumed
daily per steer:
Pasture grass ............................-... -27.6 30.0 50.5 38.3
Cottonseed meal ....................-......... 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
M classes .---...................................... 4.29 6.43 5.93 4.29
Ground shallu heads .-...-...-.....- .. 4.29 2.14
Sun-dried sweet potatoes ......... .... ...... ...... 4.29

Amount of feed required to pro-
duce 100 pounds gain:
Pasture grass ....---............................ 2,340.6 2,535.2 3,930.0 2,661.3
Cottonseed meal ............................ 169.6 169.0 156.6 139.0
Molasses .......-.............---.... .... .. 363.6 543.5 561.5 297.9
Ground shallu heads ....-.............-. 363.6 181.1 ...
Sun-dried sweet potatoes ....... ........ ...... 297.9

Total digestible nutrient content
of feed consumed daily per
steer:
Pasture grass ........-....................-- 3.28 3.56 5.99 4.55
Cottonseed meal ..............-- .............. 1.28 1.28 1.28 1.28
M olasses .................................... 2.60 3.89 3.59 2.60
Ground shallu heads .........--.......... 3.32 1.66 .... ....
Sun-dried sweet potatoes ...-.. .. ...... ...... 3.09

Calculation of the amount of pas-
ture grass consumed daily per
steer:
Average weight per steer ............ 731.0 716.5 735.9 751.2
T.D.N. required for maintenance 6.31 6.22 6.34 6.44
T.D.N. required for gain ............. 4.17 4.17 4.52 5.08
T.D.N. consumed per day ..-.......- 10.48 10.39 10.86 11.52
T.D.N. in supplement ............-....... 7.20 6.83 4.87 6.97
T.D.N. in grass .............................. 3.28 3.56 5.99 4.55
Amount of grass .....--..-..-...-...... ---- 27.6 30.0 50.5 38.3







Fattening Steers on Everglades Winter Pasture 11

contains 0.1187 pounds of total digestible nutrients. Hence the
nutrient ascribed to grass divided by 0.1187 gave the average
number of pounds of grass consumed daily per steer. This rep-
resents a close estimate rather than an exact amount, but serves
to show how much pasture grass is necessary to complete the
feed ration for the cattle.
1944 Trial.-Twenty steers used in this trial were carried on
pasture for 132 days without supplementary concentrates. These
20 steers were obtained on July 22, 1943, at an average weight
of 339 pounds. By December 1 they weighed 433 pounds each,
a gain of 94 pounds or 0.72 pounds each per day. Several cases
of "pink eye" among these animals reduced the average gain
during this period. Twenty steers which were about the same
size were obtained from the Range Cattle Station, Ona, Florida,
and added to the group a short time before the preliminary
weights were made on December 1. One steer in Lot III was
poisoned by nightshade, Solanum gracile L., from which he re-
covered after being removed from the trial for treatment.
Results of the 1944 trial are shown in Table 3. The amount
of grass consumed is calculated as described in the discussion
of the first trial, and is more uniform between lots than in the
first trial. Even though the steers were smaller, they grazed
better than the first group and made more efficient use of their
concentrates, as shown by the amount required to produce 100
pounds of gain.
1946 Trial.-Twelve native steers used in this trial were pur-
chased in April 1945 and carried for six months in rotational
grazing trials where, in addition to grass, they received one
pound of cottonseed pellets each daily. During this period,
May 1 to November 1 (184 days), they gained an average of
215 pounds, or 1.16 pounds each daily.
Thirty-six of the steers were obtained from the Range Cattle
Station about November 1 and carried on pasture for two
months. These steers lost an average of 54.6 pounds each in
moving from Hardee County to Belle Glade. In the two months
on grass they made an average gain of 33.6 pounds besides
regaining the shrinkage, or a total of 88.2 pounds based on first
weights taken at Belle Glade. Two steers from the Everglades
Station herd were used.
Results of the 1946 trial are shown in Table 4. This feeding
trial started on January 7, following a 10-day preliminary
period, and continued through May 8. These steers were ac-







12 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

TABLE 3.-COMPARISON OF SUN-DRIED SHREDDED SWEET POTATOES WITH
GROUND SNAPPED CORN SUPPLEMENTED WITH COTTONSEED MEAL AND
THREE RATES OF MOLASSES FOR FATTENING STEERS ON WINTER PASTURE,
DECEMBER 14, 1943, TO APRIL 11, 1944-120 DAYS.

Lot I Lot II Lot III Lot IV
Cotton-
Cotton- Cotton- Cotton- seed
seed seed seed Meal,
Meal, Meal, Meal Dried
Grain supplement ...------.......................... Corn Corn and Sweet
and and Molasses I Potatoes
Molasses Molasses and
_____________ __ Molasses

Number of steers per lot .........- 10 10 9 10

pounds pounds pounds pounds

Average initial weight per steer .... 433.5 430.8 430.7 439.2
Average final weight per steer .... 637.5 641.8 614.4 640.2
Average total gain per steer ........ 204.0 211.0 183.7 201.0
Average daily gain per steer ....... 1.70 1.76 1.53 1.68

Average amount of feed consumed
daily per steer:
Pasture grass ................................. 47.1 49.8 48.9 49.1
Cottonseed meal ........................- ... 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
M olasses ........................--..--..-. ..-... 3.10 4.72 5.40 2.91
Ground snapped corn .............. 3.10 1.62 ......
Sun-dried sweet potatoes ......... ..... ...... ...... 2.94

Amount of feed required to pro-
duce 100 pounds gain:
Pasture grass ...............-- ............-- 2,770.6 2,829.5 3,196.1 2,922.6
Cottonseed meal .....................--- ........ 117.7 113.7 130.6 119.4
M olasses .........................................- 182.6 268.4 352.7 173.5
Ground snapped corn .................... 182.6 91.8 ....-- .6
Sun-dried sweet potatoes ......... ........ ...... ..... 175.6

Total digestible nutrient content
of feed consumed daily per
steer:
Pasture grass ................................ 5.59 5.91 5.80 5.83
Cottonseed meal .....--.................... 1.28 1.28 1.28 1.28
M olasses ..--.--.....................-.......- .. -- 1.88 2.86 3.26 1.76
Ground snapped corn .....-.....-........ 2.28 1.19 ...... ...
Sun-dried sweet potatoes ......... .--..... ..... ...... 2.12

Calculation of the amount of
pasture grass consumed daily
per steer:
Average weight per steer ............ 535.5 536.3 522.6 539.7
T.D.N. required for maintenance 5.03 5.03 4.94 5.06
T.D.N. required for gain ............. 6.00 6.21 5.40 5.93
T.D.N. consumed per day ............ 11.03 11.24 10.34 10.99
T.D.N. in supplement ........---.----- 5.44 5.33 4.54 5.16
T.D.N. in grass ..........-- ................... 5.59 5.91 5.80 5.83
Amount of grass ..........-...........- ... 47.1 49.8 48.9 49.1







Fattening Steers on Everglades Winter Pasture 13

TABLE 4.-COMPARISON OF SUN-DRIED SHREDDED SWEET POTATOES AND
SWEET POTATO FEED WITH GROUND SNAPPED CORN SUPPLEMENTED WITH
COTTONSEED MEAL AND THREE RATES OF MOLASSES FOR FATTENING STEERS
ON WINTER PASTURE, JANUARY 7 TO MAY 6, 1946-120 DAYS.
LI I
Lot I Lot II 1 Lot III Lot IV I Lot V
Cotton- I Cotton-
Cotton- Cotton- Cotton- seed seed
seed seed seed Meal, Meal,
Meal, Meal, Meal Dried Sweet
Grain supplement ...... Corn Corn and Sweet Potato
and and Molasses Potatoes Feed
Molasses Molasses and and
Molasses Molasses

Number of steers per lot 10 10 10 10 10

pounds pounds pounds pounds pounds

Average initial weight
per steer ........................ 686.3 697.5 664.7 687.2 679.4
Average final weight per
steer ..................... ....... | 934.0 916.7 854.7 913.8 884.3
Average total gain per
steer ............................... 247.7 219.2 190.0 226.6 204.9
Average daily gain per
steer ....... ............-...... 2.06 1.83 1.58 1.89 1.71

Average amount of feed
consumed daily per
steer:
Pasture grass .-....--..-.. -- 56.1 51.0 51.5 51.0 45.6
Cottonseed meal ......... 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Molasses ................---...... 4.58 6.94 7.73 4.58 4.58
Ground snapped corn.... 4.58 2.32 ...... .. ....
Sun-dried sweet
potatoes .................... ..... ....- 4.58 ...
Sweet potato feed ........ ...-- ... ...... .... 4.58

Amount of feed required
to produce 100
pounds gain:
Pasture grass ............ 2,717.8 2,792.0 3,252.6 2,699.6 2,669.3
Cottonseed meal ......-.... 96.9 109.5 126.3 105.9 117.1
Molasses .....--....-...........- .. 222.0 I 380.0 488.4 242.7 268.4
Ground snapped corn.... 222.0 127.3 ...... --.
Sun-dried sweet
potatoes ...................... 242.7 ..-
Sweet potato feed --........ ....- 268.4

Total digestible nutrient
content of feed con-
sumed daily per steer:
Pasture grass .-............ 6.66 6.06 6.11 6.06 5.41
Cottonseed meal ........... 1.28 1.28 1.28 1.28 1.28
Molasses ....................------ 2.77 4.20 4.68 2.77 2.77
Ground snapped corn.. 3.36 1.70 ... ...... --
Sun-dried sweet
potatoes ............. .. --- -- 3.30 ..
Sweet potato feed ...-.. .. ...... ---. 3.21







14 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

TABLE 4.-COMPARISON OF SUN-DRIED SHREDDED SWEET POTATOES AND
SWEET POTATO FEED WITH GROUND SNAPPED CORN SUPPLEMENTED WITH
COTTONSEED MEAL AND THREE RATES OF MOLASSES FOR FATTENING STEERS
ON WINTER PASTURE, JANUARY 7 TO MAY 6, 1946-120 DAYs-(Con-
cluded).

Lot I Lot II Lot III Lot IV I Lot V
Cotton- Cotton-
Cotton- Cotton- Cotton- seed seed
seed seed seed Meal, Meal,
Grain supplement ........ Meal, Meal, Meal Dried Sweet
Corn Corn and Sweet Potato
and and Molasses Potatoes Feed
Molasses Molasses and Iand
_______ I Molasses Molasses
Number of steers per lot 10 10 10 10 10

S pounds pounds pounds pounds pounds
Calculation of the amount
of pasture grass con-
sumed daily per steer:
Average weight per
steer .......................... 810.2 807.1 759.7 800.5 781.9
T.D.N. required for
maintenance .............. 6.80 6.78 6.49 6.74 6.63
T.D.N. required for
gain ........--.................. 7.27 6.46 5.58 6.67 6.04
T.D.N. consumed per
day ................................ 14.07 13.24 12.07 13.41 12.67
T.D.N. in supplement.... 7.41 7.18 5.96 7.35 7.26
T.D.N. in pasture grass 6.66 6.06 6.11 6.06 5.41
Amount of grass con-
sumed ...................... 56.1 51.0 51.5 51.0 45.1


customer to being fed, and started on feed very quickly. A
fifth lot was added, making a total of 50 steers. Lot V received
the sweet potato feed, a by-product of the manufacture of
starch from sweet potatoes. This material has been called
"pulp" because its analysis is similar to that of sugar beet or
grapefruit pulp and it is a residue product. Its physical appear-
ance, however, is more like hardwood ashes than like these other
pulp feeds. While the results of one trial may not be conclusive,
the rate of gain indicates that the feed was worth 83 percent
as much as ground snapped corn.
Grass consumption in this trial also is calculated in the manner
previously described. It will be noted that these larger steers
consumed in general only a few pounds more grass daily than
the smaller cattle in the second trial. While they made a little
higher rate of gain and attained a higher finish, they also re-
quired more concentrated feeds to produce 100 pounds of gain.







Fattening Steers on Everglades Winter Pasture 15

Average of Three Trials.-Average results of the three feed-
ing trials are shown in Table 5. Data concerning nutrient con-
tent of the feeds and methods of calculation of the consumption
of grass which are found in the three preceding tables have
been omitted. Based on average daily gain of the steers in
Lots I and IV, the sun-dried, shredded sweet potatoes were ap-
proximately equal to the ground snapped corn when fed with
an equal quantity of molasses and two pounds each of cotton-
seed meal to steers on pasture. Under similar conditions the
feeding of three pounds of molasses to one pound of corn pro-
duced slightly lower gains.
Molasses in Florida is usually a lower priced carbohydrate

TABLE 5.-AVERAGE RESULTS OF THREE FEEDING TRIALS, 1943, 1944, 1946,
COMPARING SUN-DRIED SHREDDED SWEET POTATOES WITH GROUND SNAP-
PED CORN SUPPLEMENTED WITH THREE RATES OF MOLASSES AND COTTON-
SEED MEAL, FOR FATTENING STEERS ON WINTER PASTURE.

Lot I Lot II Lot III Lot IV
] Cotton-
Cotton- Cotton- ] sed
seed seed Cotton- Meal,
Grain supplement ..-........................... Meal, Meal, seed I Dried
Corn Corn Meal Sweet
and and Iand i Potatoes
Molasses Molasses Molasses i and
S___Molasses

Number of steers per lot ............. 30 30 29 30

pounds pounds pounds pounds
Average initial weight per steer ... 593.3 591.3 584.7 597.1
Average final weight per steer...... 791.1 782.0 760.7 797.2
Average total gain per steer ....... 197.8 190.7 176.0 200.1
Average daily gain per steer ........ 1.65 1.59 1.47 1.67

Average amount of feed consumed
daily per steer:
Pasture grass ..................... ............ 43.6 43.6 50.3 46.1
Cottonseed meal ......--...........-- 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Molasses .-...-.........---................... 3.99 6.03 6.35 3.93
Ground snapped corn ................... 3.99 2.03 ..-
Sun-dried sweet potatoes ..... ....... ...... 3.94

Amount of feed required to pro-
duce 100 pounds gain:
Pasture grass ................................. 2,609.7 2,718.9 3,459.6 2,751.1
Cottonseed meal ........................... 128.1 130.7 137.8 125.2
Mollasses ........................................ 256.1 397.3 467.5 238.0
Ground snapped corn ................. 256.1 133.4.....
Sun-dried sweet potatoes ............ ........ -.... ........ 238.0







16 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

concentrate than corn. For this reason steers in Lot III on the
self-fed molasses made their gains at a lower feed cost per 100
pounds of gain than did steers in the other three lots. They did
not attain as high a degree of finish in the second or third trials
as the steers on molasses and corn rations.

Marketing and Slaughter Records
Each of the three years the steers were weighed individually
before leaving the Everglades Station and on arrival at the
packing plant at Tampa, where they were slaughtered. Records
were made of the weights of livers, hides and carcasses. Federal
meat graders on duty at the plant graded the carcasses and in
the first and second trials, chilled weights were taken 24 hours
after slaughtering. These marketing and slaughtering records
are summarized by lots for the three years in Table 6.
When these records are summarized by carcass grades, sev-
eral interesting facts are revealed, as can be noted from Table 7.
Thirty-nine steers which produced "A" or "Good" carcasses
made an average daily gain of 1.95 pounds per day, lost 7.48
percent en route to market and yielded 61.16 percent of their
market weight. Sixty-six "B" or "Commercial" grade steers

TABLE 6.-AVERAGE MARKETING AND SLAUGHTERING RECORDS BY LOTS.

Lot I Lot II Lot III Lot IV

Total number of steers ..--............- 30 30 29 30
Average shipping weight, pounds.. 812.5 790.0 771.2 807.0
Average market weight, pounds .... 738.5 725.7 702.0 739.0
Average shrinkage in transit,
percent* .................-----------------................... 7.59 8.10 8.97 8.43
Average warm carcass weight,
pounds .......................... ............. 438.7 432.6 421.8 442.5
Average chilled carcass weight,
pounds ........................................... 431.5 425.6 415.0 435.3
Average shrinkage in chilling,
percent ......--....--......................... 1.64 1.62 1.61 1.63
Average yield or dressing
percentage** ................................-.. 59.2 59.4 59.8 59.7
"A" grade carcasses,t number ........ 11 11 7 10
"B" grade carcasses, number ......... 14 17 17 | 18
"C" grade cracasses, number ......... 5 2 5 2
Average liver weight, pounds ....... 11.3 11.1 11.3 11.9
Average hide weight, pounds ........ 59.8 59.8 57.5 59.1

Percent of shipping weight.
** Calculated on warm carcass and market weights.
t "A" grade is "Good", "B" grade is "Commercial", and "C" grade is "Utility".







Fattening Steers on Everglades Winter Pasture 17

gained an average of 1.53 pounds per day, lost 8.67 percent en
route to market and yielded 58.91 percent. The 14 "C" or
"Utility" grade steers gained only 0.90 pounds per day in the
feed lot. They lost 9.93 percent en route to market and showed
a yield of 58.66 percent.

Consumption of Minerals
The amount of mineral mixture and steamed bone meal con-
sumed per steer by each lot during each 120-day trial is shown
in Table 8. In the last trial (1946) steamed bone meal could
not be obtained until the trial had been in progress for several
weeks. Previous trials have shown that cattle will consume
about the same amount of bone meal as of the salt-mineral
mixture.

Discussion
In this third series of steer feeding experiments at the Ever-
glades Station, the importance of grass for the Everglades
region was emphasized again. An analysis of the second series
of trials reported in Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
Bulletin 391 (1) was published in the Journal of Animal Science
(2). In this analysis it was shown that steers receiving 12
pounds of concentrates consumed from 20 to 38 pounds of grass
each daily, while those receiving only two pounds of cottonseed
meal consumed from 53 to 66 pounds of grass. Since grass is
the natural feed for cattle and can be produced more eco-
nomically than any other feed, the more grass the cattle con-
sume the lower will be their feed cost per 100 pounds gain.
However, since cattle on limited concentrates do not attain a
high enough degree of finish to produce the higher grades of

TABLE 7.-MARKETING AND SLAUGHTERING RECORDS INCLUDING PRE-
DOMINANT BREEDING OF STEERS BY CARCASS GRADES.
B
Carcass grade ...-............--- ........----...-- A (Commer- C
(Good) cial) (Utility)
Total number of steers ............................... 39 66 14
1943 number of steers .................. ..........-- 5 26 9
1944 number of steers ............-- .................... 8 26 5
1946 number of steers .................................. 26 14 0
Average daily gain (120 days), pounds .... 1.95 1.53 0.90
Average shipping weight, pounds .............. 914.9 754.5 640.7
Average marketing weight, pounds ........... 846.5 689.1 577.1
Average shrinkage in transit, percent ...... 7.48 8.67 9.93
Average warm carcass weight, pounds .... 517.7 406.0 338.5
Yield or dressing percentage, percent ...... 61.16 58.91 58.66







18 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

TABLE 8.-CONSUMPTION OF MINERALS PER STEER FOR EACH 120-DAY
TRIAL BY LOTS.

Lot I Lot II Lot III Lot IV
Min- Min- Min- Min-
eral Bone eral Bone eral Bone eral Bone
Year Mix- Meal Mix- Meal Mix- Meal Mix- Meal
ture ture ture ture
1943 ........ 1.70 2.00 1.50 1.50 1.70 1.50 1.80 2.20
1944 ........ .70 .40 .70 .40 .60 .30 1.10 .60
1946 ........ 2.50 .70 1.95 .55 2.20 .55 1.70 .45
Average_ 1.63 1.03 1.38 .82 1.50 .78 1.53 1.08


meat, the study of home-grown concentrate feeds reported in
this publication is fundamental to the future progress of the
cattle feeding industry in this area.
Cattle carrying definite beef characteristics will make eco-
nomical use of concentrates fed along with pasture. Other
cattle, which show a minimum of improved breeding, do not
have the conformation or natural characteristics necessary to
produce -high-grade beef or to use concentrate feeds economically.
The data assembled in Table 7 show that steers which con-
sumed enough feed to gain an average of 1.95 pounds per day
for 120 days produced grade "A" meat. Those steers which
had access to the same rations but gained only 0.9 pounds per
day produced grade "C" meat. Hence, the feeding of con-
centrates to well-bred cattle gives promise of being more profit-
able than to finish them on grass alone or to feed the concen-
trates to low grade stock. This is because the latter will not
produce "A" grade carcasses even when given extra feed besides
grass, and the better steers on pasture alone cannot consume
enough grass to attain the degree of finish necessary for "A"
grade carcasses.
Steers need from 50 to 75 pounds of grass each daily and
often fail to gain because this amount of grass is not available
in the area to which they are confined. Over-grazing not only
puts the cattle on low rations but also reduces the amount of
grass produced to a rate considerably below the maximum yield
possible from the area.

Summary
Steers were fed concentrates along with pasture for three
seasons to study the relative feeding value of sun-dried shredded







Fattening Steers on Everglades Winter Pasture 19

sweet potatoes and ground snapped corn and the effect of feed-
ing blackstrap molasses at three levels.
All of the steers were on pasture and all were fed two pounds
of cottonseed meal each per day.
When fed with an equal quantity of molasses the sun-dried
shredded sweet potatoes were found to be approximately equal
in feeding value to the ground snapped corn.
When blackstrap molasses and ground snapped corn were fed
in the proportion of 3 to 1, the rate of gain of the cattle was not
as high as when equal parts of molasses and ground snapped
corn were fed.
Steers taking their molasses from a self-feeder consumed
less carbohydrate concentrates and gained less than those hav-
ing their molasses weighed out daily and mixed with other feed.
However, they consumed more grass and made their gains at
a lower feed cost per 100 pounds gain.
Of the 119 steers in the three trials, 39 produced "A" grade
carcasses, 66 "B" and 14 produced "C" grade carcasses.
The 39 "A" steers made an average daily gain in the feed
lot of 1.95 pounds. They lost 7.48 percent en route to market
and yielded 61.16 percent.
The 66 "B" steers showed an average daily gain of 1.53
pounds for the 120-day period. They lost 8.67 percent in transit
and made a yield of 58.91 percent.
The 14 "C" steers gained only 0.9 pounds each daily, though
they had access to the same feed as the others. They showed
a 9.93 percent loss in the trip to market and gave a 58.66 per-
cent yield.
Literature Cited
1. KIDDER, R. W. Fattening steers on winter pasture. Fla. Agr. Exp.
Sta. Bul. 391. 1943.
2. KIDDER, R. W. A proposed method of measuring pasture yields with
grazing cattle. Jour. An. Sci. Vol. 5, No. 2. 1946.
3. KIDDER, R. W., and W. G. KIRK. Cattle feeding in southern Florida.
Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 360. 1941.
4. LEWIs, L. H. Beef cattle in Florida, page 96. Fla. Dept. of Agr. Bul.
28. 1944.
5. MORRISON, F. B. Feeds and Feeding, 20th edition. The Morrison Pub-
lishing Co. 1945.
6. SEATH, D. M., L. L. RUSOFF, G. D. MILLER and CECIL BRANTON. Utiliz-
ing sweet potatoes as a feed for dairy cattle. La. Agr. Exp. Sta.
Bul. 423. 1947.





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