• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Personnel
 Branch stations
 Table of Contents
 Summary
 Main














Group Title: Bulletin - University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station ; no. 493
Title: Protein and carbohydrate supplements for fattening steers on Everglades pastures
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027099/00001
 Material Information
Title: Protein and carbohydrate supplements for fattening steers on Everglades pastures
Series Title: Bulletin University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station
Physical Description: 16 p. : ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Kidder, Ralph W
Beardsley, D. W ( Daniel Waldo ), 1923-
Publisher: University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1952
 Subjects
Subject: Beef cattle -- Feeding and feeds -- Florida -- Everglades   ( lcsh )
Pastures -- Florida -- Everglades   ( lcsh )
Proteins in animal nutrition   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: R.W. Kidder and D.W. Beardsley.
General Note: Cover title.
General Note: "A contribution from the Everglades Experiment Station"--T.p.
Funding: Bulletin (University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station) ;
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027099
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 000925758
oclc - 18266427
notis - AEN6414

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page 1
    Personnel
        Page 2
    Branch stations
        Page 3
    Table of Contents
        Page 4
    Summary
        Page 4
    Main
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
Full Text



Bulletin 493


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS
WILLARD M. FIFIELD, Director
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA

A contribution from the Everglades Experiment Station





Protein and Carbohydrate Supplements

For Fattening Steers on Everglades

Pastures

R. W. KIDDER and D. W. BEARDSLEY


Typical grade Brahman steers such as used in the green lot feeding trials.


May 1952









BOARD OF CONTROL

Frank M. Harris, Chairman, St. Petersburg
Hollis Rinehart, Miami
Eli H. Fink, Jacksonville
George J. White, Sr., Mount Dora
Mrs. Alfred I. duPont, Jacksonville
George W. English, Jr., Ft. Lauderdale
W. Glenn Miller, Monticello
W. F. Powers, Secretary, Tallahassee
EXECUTIVE STAFF
J. Hillis Miller, Ph.D., President3
J. Wayne Reitz, Ph.D., Provost for Agr.3
Willard M. Fifield, M.S., Director
J. R. Beckenbach, Ph.D., Asso. Director
L. 0. Gratz, Ph.D., Asst. Dir.,
Rogers L. Bartley, B.S., Admin. Mgr.s
Geo. R. Freeman, B.S., Farm Superintendent

MAIN STATION, GAINESVILLE

AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS
H. G. Hamilton, Ph.D., Agr. Economist'3
R. E. L. Greene, Ph.D., Agr. Economist s
M. A. Brooker, Ph.D'., Agr. Economist 3
Zach Savage. M.S.A., Associate
A. H. Spurlock, M.S.A., Associate
D. E. Alleger, M.S., Associate
U. L. Brooke, M.S.A., Associate4
M. R. Godwin, Ph.D., Associate 3
H. W. Little, M.S., Assistant
Tallmadge Bergen, B.S., Assistant
W. K. McPherson, S., Economist
Eric Thor, M.S., Agr. Economist
J. L. Tennant, Ph.D., Agr. Economist
H. W. Little, M.S., Asst. Agr. Economist

Orlando, Florida (Cooperative USDA)
G. Norman Rose, B.S., Asso. Agr. Economist
J. C. Townsend, Jr., B.S.A., Agr.
Statistician 2
J. B. Owens, B.S.A., Agr. Statistician 2
J. K. Lankford, B.S., Agr. Statistician

AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING
Frazier Rogers, M.S.A., Agr. Engineer'
J. M. Johnson, B.S.A.E., Agr. Eng.3
J. M. Myers, B.S., Asso. Agr. Engineer
J. S. Norton, M.S., Asst. Agr. Eng.

AGRONOMY
Fred H. Hull, Ph.D., A aronomist I
G. B. Killinger, Ph.D., Agronomist
H. C. Harris, Ph.D., Agronomist
R. W. Bledsoe, Ph.D., Agronomist
W. A. Carver, Ph.D., Associate
Darrel D'. More, Ph.D Associate -
Fred A. Clark, B.S., Assistant '
Myron C. Grennell, B.S.A.E., Assistant
E. S. Horner, Ph.D., Assistant
A, T. Wallace. Ph.D., Assistant
D. E. McCloud, Ph.D., Assistant 3
H. E. Buckley, B.S.A., Assistant
E. C. Nutter, Ph.D., Asst. Agronomist

ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND NUTRITION
T. J. Cunha, Ph.D., An. Hush.' 3
G. K. Davis, Ph.D., Animal Nutritionist 3
S. John Folks, Jr., M.S., Asst. An. Husb.
Katherine Boney, B.S., Asst. Chem.
A. M. Pearson, Ph.D., Asso. An. Husb."
John P. Feaster, Ph.D., Asst. An. Nutri.
H. D. Wallace, Ph.D., Asst. An. Husb.3
M. Koaer, Ph.D., An. Husbandman 3
G. E. Combs, Jr., B.S.A., Asst. Animal
Husha-dman
E. F. Johnston, M.S., Asst. Animal Husband-
man
DAIRY SCIENCE
E. L. Fouts, Ph.D., Dairy Tech.'1
R. B. Becker, Ph.D., Dairy Hush.3
S. P. Marshall, Ph.D., Asso. Dairy Husb.3
W. A. Krienke, M.S., Asso. Dairy Tech. 3


P. T. Dix Arnold, M.S.A., Asst. Dairy Husb.'
Leon Mull, Ph.D., Asso. Dairy Tech.
H. H. Wilkowske, Ph.D., Asst. Dairy Tech.
James M. Wing, M.S., Asst. Dairy Hush.

EDITORIAL
J. Francis Cooper, M.S.A., Editor3
Clyde Beale, A.B.J., Associate Editors
L. Odell Griffith, B.A.J., Asst. Editor3
J. N. Joiner, B.S.A., Assistant Editor 3

ENTOMOLOGY
A. N. Tissot, Ph.D., Entomologist
L. C. Kuitert, Ph.D., Associate
H. E. Bratley, M.S.A., Assistant
F. A. Robinson, M.S., Asst. Apiculturist
R. E. Waites, Ph.D., Asst. Entomologist

HOME ECONOMICS
Ouida D. Abbott, Ph.D., Home Econ.'
R. B. French, Ph.D., Biochemist

HORTICULTURE
G. H. Blackmon, M.S.A., Horticulturist
F. S. Jamison, Ph.D., Horticulturist
Albert P. Lorz, Ph.D., Horticulturist
R. K. Showalter, M.S., Asso. Hort.
R. A. Dennison, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.
R. H. Sharpe, M.S., Asso. Horticulturist
V. F. Nettles, Ph.D., Asso. Horticulturist
F. S. Lagasse, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.2
R. D. Dickey, M.S.A., Asso. Hort.
L. H. Halsey, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
C. B. Hall, Ph.D., Asst. Horticulturist
Austin Griffiths, Jr., B.S., Asst. Hort.
S. E. McFadden. Jr., Ph.D., Asst. Hort.
C. H. VanMiddelem, Ph.D., Asst. Biochemist
Buford Thompson, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.

LIBRARY
Ida Keeling Cresap, Librarian

PLANT PATHOLOGY
W. B. Tisdale, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist 1
Phares Decker, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
Erdman West, M.S., Mycologist and Botanist
Robert W. Earhart, Ph.D., Plant Path.2
Howard N. Miller, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Path.
Lillian E. Arnold, M.S., Asst. Botanist
C. W. Anderson, Ph.D., Asst. Plant Path.
POULTRY HUSBANDRY
N. R. Mehrhof, M.Agr., Poultry Hush.'x
J. C. Driggers, Ph.D., Asso. Poultry Hush.
SOILS
F. B. Smith, Ph.D., Microbiologist'
Gaylord M. Volk, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
J. R. Henderson, M.S.A., Soil Technologist t
J. R. Neller, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
Nathan Gammon, Jr., Ph.D., Soils Chemist
Ralph G. Leighty, B S., Asst. Soil Surveyor
G. D. Thornton, Ph.D., Asso. Microbiologist a
Charles F. Eno, Ph.D., Asst. Soils Micro-
biologist *
H. W. Winsor, B.S.A., Assistant Chemist
R. E. Caldwell, M.S.A., Asst. Chemist"*
V. W. Carlisle, B.S., Asst. Soil Surveyor
James H. Walker, M.S.A., Asst. Soil
Surveyor
S. N. Edson, M.S., Asst. Soil Surveyor 3
William K. Robertson, Ph.D., Asst. Chemist
O. E. Cruz, B.S.A., Asst. Soil Surveyor
W. G. Blue, Ph.D., Asst. Biochemist
J. G. A. Fiskel, Ph.D., Asst. Biochemist
H. F. Ross, B.S., Soils Microbiologist
L. C. Hammond, Ph.D., Asst. Soil Physicist 3
VETERINARY SCIENCE
D. A. Sanders, D.V.M., Veterinarian1
M. W. Emmel, D.V.M., Veterinarian
C. F. Simpson, D.V.M., Asso. Veterinarian
L. E. Swanson, D.V.M., Parasitologist
Glenn Van Ness, D.V.M., Asso. Poultry
Pathologist
W. R. Dennis, D.V.M., Asst. Parasitologist









BRANCH STATIONS

NORTH FLORIDA STATION, QUINCY
W. C. Rhoades, Jr., M.S., Entomologist
R. R. Kincaid, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
L. G. Thompson, Jr., Ph.D., Soils Chemist
W. H. Chapman, M.S., Asso. Agronomist
Frank S. Baker, Jr., B.S., Asst. An. Husb.
T. E. Webb, B.S.A., Asst. Agronomist

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

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

Mobile Unit, Pensacola
R. L. Smith, M.S., Associate Agronomist

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

CITRUS STATION, LAKE ALFRED
A. F. Camp, Ph.D., Vice-Director in Charge
W. L. Thompson, B.S., Entomologist
R. F. Suit, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
E. P. Ducharme, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Path.
C. R. Stearns, Jr., B.S.A., Asso. Chemist
J. W, Sites, Ph.D., Horticulturist
H. 0. Sterling, B.S., Asst. Horticulturist
H. J. Reitz, Ph.D., Horticulturist
Francine Fisher, M.S., Asst. Plant Path.
I. W. Wander, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
J. W. Kesterson, M.S., Asso. Chemist
R. Hendrickson, B.S., Asst. Chemist
Ivan Stewart, Ph.D., Asst. Biochemist
D. S. Prosser, Jr., B.S., Asst. Horticulturist
R. W. Olsen, B.S., Biochemist
F. W. Wenzel, Jr., Ph.D., Chemist
Alvin H. Rouse, M.S., Asso. Chemist
H. W. Ford, Ph.D., Asst. Horticulturist
L. C. Knorr, Ph.D., Asso. Histologist
R. M. Pratt, Ph.D., Asso. Ent.-Pathologist
J. W. Davis, B.S.A., Asst. in Ent.-Path.
W. A. Simanton, Ph.D., Entomologist
E. J. Deszyck. Ph.D., Asso. Horticulturist
C. D. Leonard, Ph.D., Asso. Horticulturist
I. Stewart, M.S., Asst. Biochemist
W. T. Long, M.S., Asst. Horticulturist
M. H. Muma, Ph.D., Asst. Entomologist
F. J. Reynolds, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.
E. J. Elvin, B.S., Asst. Hort.
W. F. Spencer, Ph.D., Asst. Chem.
I.. H Holtsberg, B.S.A., Asst. Entomologist-
Pathologist
K. G. Townsend, B.S.A., As,t. Entomologist-
Pathologist
J. B. Weeks. B.S.. Asst. Entomologist
E. C. Lundbert, B.S.A., Asst. Biochemist
N. F. Shimp, M.S., Asst. Chem.
R. B. Johnson, M.S.. Asst. Entomologist

EVERGLADES STATION, BELLE GLADE
R. V. Allison, Ph.D., Vice-Director in Charge
Thomas Bregger, Ph.D., Physiologist
J. W. Randolph, M.S., Agricultural Engr.
W. T. Forsee, Jr., Ph.D., Chemist
R. W. Kidder, M.S., Asso. Animal Hush.
C. C. Seale, Asso. Agronomist
N. C. Hayslip, B.S.A., Asso. Entomologist
E. A. Wolf, M.S., Asst. Horticulturist
W. H. Thames, M.S., Asst. Entomologist
W. N. Stoner, Ph.D., Asst. Plant Path.
W. A. Hills, M.S., Asso. Horticulturist
W. G. Genung, B.S.A., Asst. Entomologist
Frank V. Stevenson, M.S., Asso. Plant Path.
Robert J. Allen, Ph.D., Asst. Agronomist
V. E. Green, Ph.D., Asst. Agronomist
J. F. Darby, Ph.D., Asst. Plant Path.
H. L. Chapman, Jr.. M.S.A., Asst. An. Hush.
Thos. G. Bowery, Ph.D., Asst. Entomologist
V. L. Guzman, Ph.D., Asst. Hort.
M. R. Bedsole. M.S.A., Asst. Chem.


SUB-TROPICAL STATION, HOMESTEAD
Geo. D. Ruehle, Ph.D., Vice-Dir. in Charge
D. 0. Wolfenbarger, Ph.D., Entomologist
Francis B. Lincoln, Ph.D., Horticulturist
Robert A. Conover, Ph.D., Plant Path.
John L. Malcolm, Ph.D., Asso. Soils Chemist
R. W. Harkness, Ph.D., Asst. Chemist
R. Bruce Ledin, Ph.D., Asst. Hort.
J. C. Noonan, M.S., Asst. Hort.
M. H. Gallatin, B.S., Soil Conservationist

WEST CENTRAL FLORIDA STATION,
BROOKSVILLE
William Jackson, B.S.A., Animal Husband-
man in Charge2

RANGE CATTLE STATION, ONA
W. G. Kirk, Ph.D., Vice-Director in Charge
E. M. Hodges, Ph.D., Agronomist
D. W. Jones, M.S., Asst. Soil Technologist

CENTRAL FLORIDA STATION, SANFORD
R. W. Ruprecht, Ph.D., Vice-Dir. in Charge
J. W. Wilson, Sc.D., Entomologist
P. J. Westgate, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.
Ben. F. Whitner, Jr., B.S.A., Asst. Hort.
Geo. Swank, Jr., Ph.D., Asst. Plant Path.

WEST FLORIDA STATION, JAY
C. E. Hutton, Ph.D., Vice-Director in Charge
H. W. Lundy, B.S.A., Associate Agronomist
W. R. Langford, Ph.D., Asst. Agron.

SUWANNEE VALLEY STATION,
LIVE OAK
G. E. Ritchey, M.S., Agronomist in Charge

GULF COAST STATION, BRADENTON
E. L. Spencer, Ph.D., Soils Chemist in Charge
E. G. Kelsheimer, Ph.D., Entomologist
David G. A. Kelbert, Asso. Horticulturist
Robert O. Magie, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
J. M. Walter, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
Donald S. Burgis, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
C. M. Geraldson, Ph.D., Asst. Hort.
W. G. Cowperthwaite, Ph.D., Asst. Hort.
Amegda Jack. M.S., Asst. Soils Chemist

FIELD LABORATORIES

Watermelon, Grape, Pasture-Leesburg
C. C. Helms, Jr., B.S., Asst. Agronomist
L. H. Stover, Asst. in Hort.

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

Vegetables-Hastings
A. H. Eddins, Ph.D., Plant Path. in Charge
E. N. McCubbin, Ph.D., Horticulturist
T. M. Dobrovsky, Ph.D., Asst. Entomologist
Pecans-Monticello
A. M. Phillips, B.S., Asso. Entomologist'
John R. Large, M.S., Asso. Plant Path.

Frost Forecasting-Lakeland
Warren O. Johnson, B.S., Meteorologist

1 Head of Department
2 In cooperation with U. S.
3 Cooperative, other divisions, U. of F.
'On leave.










CONTENTS
Page
SU M M ARY ....................... ... .. ... .... ..... ..... 4
M ETHOD OF PROCEDURE .......... .......... ................................... 5
P asture and A nim als ............ ........... ....... ............................ 5
Supplem entry Feeds ........... .............................. 5
M in era ls ......................................................- ..... ............ 5
RESULTS OF EXPERIMENTS .. ............... ...................~.~. ...... 6
Com position of Feeds .... ..... ....... .... ....... ... .............. .... .. 6
M inerals Consum ed ............. ... .................. ............ ............... 6
1947 T rial ... .......................................-. -. .......... 7
Calculation of Grass Consumed ........................................ ......... 7
1948 T rial .......................... .......7..... ........... ..... 7
1950 T rial ....................... .......................... .......... .. 8
A average of Three Trials ................................... .... .......... .. 11
M ARKETING RECORDS ......... ...................... ... ............ 11
F eed C costs -- ---........... ............. ... ........................ 11
Carcass Values ........ ........... 11
Selling V values ............ ..................... ........................ 13
Increased Income from Supplements Fed .................................... 15





Summary

Blackstrap molasses, ground snapped corn and cottonseed
meal were fed to steers on St. Augustine pasture for three
spring seasons in comparison with steers on similar pasture
without supplementary concentrates.
Under the conditions of these feeding trials the cattle ob-
tained sufficient protein from the pasture grass to balance the
limited carbohydrates fed in the first and second trials. In the
third trial this was not repeated, since the steers receiving cot-
tonseed meal gained more than those without protein supplement.
Feeding concentrate supplements to steers on pasture is shown
to be a remunerative practice under the following conditions:
(1) When feed prices are not excessive, (2) when the cattle
being fed are of such quality that they are capable of producing
the higher grades of beef and (3) when the cattle are so mar-
keted that they bring the full value of the grade which they
attain.
Cattle in the lots receiving concentrate supplements produced
a larger gross income per steer than those on grass alone. The
records indicate that a reasonable return was obtained from
fattening on grass without concentrate supplements.










CONTENTS
Page
SU M M ARY ....................... ... .. ... .... ..... ..... 4
M ETHOD OF PROCEDURE .......... .......... ................................... 5
P asture and A nim als ............ ........... ....... ............................ 5
Supplem entry Feeds ........... .............................. 5
M in era ls ......................................................- ..... ............ 5
RESULTS OF EXPERIMENTS .. ............... ...................~.~. ...... 6
Com position of Feeds .... ..... ....... .... ....... ... .............. .... .. 6
M inerals Consum ed ............. ... .................. ............ ............... 6
1947 T rial ... .......................................-. -. .......... 7
Calculation of Grass Consumed ........................................ ......... 7
1948 T rial .......................... .......7..... ........... ..... 7
1950 T rial ....................... .......................... .......... .. 8
A average of Three Trials ................................... .... .......... .. 11
M ARKETING RECORDS ......... ...................... ... ............ 11
F eed C costs -- ---........... ............. ... ........................ 11
Carcass Values ........ ........... 11
Selling V values ............ ..................... ........................ 13
Increased Income from Supplements Fed .................................... 15





Summary

Blackstrap molasses, ground snapped corn and cottonseed
meal were fed to steers on St. Augustine pasture for three
spring seasons in comparison with steers on similar pasture
without supplementary concentrates.
Under the conditions of these feeding trials the cattle ob-
tained sufficient protein from the pasture grass to balance the
limited carbohydrates fed in the first and second trials. In the
third trial this was not repeated, since the steers receiving cot-
tonseed meal gained more than those without protein supplement.
Feeding concentrate supplements to steers on pasture is shown
to be a remunerative practice under the following conditions:
(1) When feed prices are not excessive, (2) when the cattle
being fed are of such quality that they are capable of producing
the higher grades of beef and (3) when the cattle are so mar-
keted that they bring the full value of the grade which they
attain.
Cattle in the lots receiving concentrate supplements produced
a larger gross income per steer than those on grass alone. The
records indicate that a reasonable return was obtained from
fattening on grass without concentrate supplements.








Protein and Carbohydrate Supplements

For Fattening Steers on Everglades

Pastures

R. W. KIDDER and D. W. BEARDSLEY1

With the continued growth of the beef cattle industry on
the peat and muck soils of the Florida Everglades there has
developed an increased interest in supplementary feeds for fat-
tening cattle on pasture. An increase in acreage of field corn
and the availability of other supplements such as blackstrap
molasses, citrus molasses and citrus pulp have been contributing
factors in this development, along with the growth in market-
ing facilities which have helped obtain higher prices for well
finished cattle.
Feeding trials reported in this bulletin were conducted in
1947, 1948 and 1950, to determine the necessity for protein sup-
plements to St. Augustine pasture and to compare self-fed
blackstrap molasses with a limited amount of ground snapped
corn.
Method of Procedure
Pastures and Animals.-Fifty steers, mostly of grade Brah-
man breeding, were divided at the beginning of each trial into
five uniform lots of 10 steers each according to grade, weight,
age, breeding and source. A 20-acre pasture of Roselawn
St. Augustine (Stenotaphrum secundatum Kuntze) was cross-
fenced into five lots of four acres each, with the steer lots as-
signed to pastures at random. Water was provided from the
Belle Glade City system through standard cattle drinking cups.
Each lot was provided with a sheltered mineral box.
Supplementary Feeds.-Blackstrap molasses was fed free
choice to Lots I and II in shallow sheltered troughs by inverting
the weighed molassess barrel in the trough. Two pounds of
cottonseed pellets were fed per head daily to Lots I and IV. Lot
III was fed five pounds of ground snapped corn per head daily
and Lot V received no supplement other than minerals.
Minerals.-Mineral mixture was kept fresh in the salt boxes
at all times. The mixture used was composed of 50 pounds of
1 Kidder, associate animal husbandman, and Beardsley, formerly assist-
ant animal husbandman, Everglades Experiment Station.






Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


bone meal, 43 pounds of salt, 5 pounds of copper sulfate, 2
pounds of aluminum sulfate and 1 ounce of cobalt carbonate.
The mixture would show the following guaranteed analysis on
the State Department of Agriculture tag:
Calcium (Ca) not less than 13.00 percent
Phosphorus (P) not less than 6.00 percent
Salt (NaC1) not more than 43.00 percent
Copper (Cu) not less than 1.27 percent
Aluminum (Al) not less than 0.20 percent
Cobalt (Co) not less than 0.03 percent

Results of Experiments
Composition of Feeds.-Average composition and nutrient con-
tent of feeds used in these trials are shown in Table 1. The black-
strap molasses was produced by the U. S. Sugar Corporation,
Clewiston, Florida. Ground snapped corn was grown locally,
air dried and ground through a hammer mill, using a screen
with 5/-inch mesh. Cottonseed meal in pellet form, 42 percent
protein, was purchased in Southern Georgia.

TABLE 1.-AVERAGE COMPOSITION AND NUTRIENT CONTENT OF FEEDS USED
IN THE FEEDING TRIALS.
Total
SCrude IN-Free Digest-
Dry Pro- Crude Ex- Crude! Ash ible
Matter tein Fiber tract Fat Nu-
| 1 1 | trients
per- per- per- per- per- per- per-
cent cent cent cent cent cent cent
Cottonseed meal .... 90.33 42.84 12.73 24.99 3.15 6.62 64.2
Molasses (blackstrap).. 80.20 9.01 63.99 7.20 60.5
Ground snapped corn .... 89.88 9.07 10.28 66.49 2.60 1.73 73.4
St. Augustine grass*- 18.19 2.73 5.40 8.20 .52 1.34 11.87
St. Augustine grass** 100.00 15.00 29.68 45.47 2.86 6.99 ........

Based on green grass containing 81.8 percent moisture.
** Based on oven-dry material.

Minerals Consumed.-The average amount of mineral mixture
consumed by each steer in 120 days in each lot is shown in
Table 2. These records indicate that there is a great variation
in the requirement or desire for minerals in different lots of
cattle and that limited feeding of concentrates does not alter
these consumption rates greatly. By using a mixture basically
half salt and half bone meal, with trace elements added, the
rate of mineral consumption was greatly increased over previous
trials when each steer consumed between two and three pounds
of minerals in 120 days (Fla. Sta. Bul. 456). Since there are






Supplements for Fattening Steers


such variations in the needs of different lots of cattle the cattle-
man must be prepared to supply as much mineral mixture as
cattle will consume voluntarily.
TABLE 2.-CONSUMPTION OF MINERAL MIXTURE PER STEER FOR EACH
120-DAY FEEDING TRIAL BY LOTS.

Years Lot I Lot II Lot III Lot IV Lot V
Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds
1947 ..... ............ 7.6 8.7 11.8 13.1 15.0
1948 ............................ 11.7 9.1 11.0 10.8 10.5
1950 ........................ 3.5 2.7 3.4 1.9 5.0
Average .. ............. 7.6 6.8 8.7 8.6 10.2

1947 Trial.-In this first trial the steers gained an average of
156 pounds in 120 days from an initial weight of about 600
pounds. The total gain for each lot was in the order of amount
of concentrate supplement fed. The amount of grass consumed
varied inversely with added concentrates. The feeding of ap-
proximately nine pounds of supplement daily in Lot I reduced
the grass consumption about one-third, compared with Lot V
on grass alone. With nine pounds of supplement steers in Lot I
consumed 60 pounds of grass while those without supplement
in Lot V consumed 92 pounds of grass each daily. The steers
had adequate grass available at all times. Results of this trial
are shown in Table 3.
Calculation of Grass Consumed.-The method of computing
the amount of grass consumed by grazing, shown in Tables 3,
4 and 5, is based on Morrison's standard in which a daily allow-
ance of 7.93 pounds of total digestible nutrients is required for
the maintenance of a 1,000-pound cow and the assumption that
the maintenance requirement for animals of other weights is pro-
portional to the 0.73 power of the live weight (Fla. Sta. Bul. 456).
1948 Trial.-In 1948 the steers were of similar quality, though
somewhat heavier than in the first trial. In this trial the lot on
ground snapped corn made better average gains than either of
the lots on molasses or cottonseed meal, even though both mo-
lasses-fed lots consumed larger quantities of supplement than
the corn lot. Three individual steers in this lot on ground snap-
ped corn made gains in 120 days of 380, 300 and 280 pounds.
The ability of these three steers to gain more rapidly than the
steers in the other lots exerted considerable influence on this
record. Such animal variations cannot be predicted in a feeding
trial of this type. These average results are shown in Table 4.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


TABLE 3.-FATTENING STEERS ON ST. AUGUSTINE GRASS WITH LIMITED
CARBOHYDRATE .AND PROTEIN SUPPLEMENTS, FEBRUARY 26 TO JUNE 25,
1947-120 DAYS.


Concentrate Supplement


Number of steers per lot



Av. initial wt. per steer....
Av. final wt. per steer -.....
Av. total gain per steer
Av. daily gain per steer ..

Av. daily ration per steer
M olasses .........................
Ground snapped corn ....
Cottonseed meal ...........
St. Augustine grass ....

Av. daily ration per steer
in total digestible
nutrients:
M olasses ......................
Ground snapped corn ....
Cottonseed meal ............
Total supplement ..........

Calculation of amount of
pasture grass consumed
daily per steer:
Av. weight per steer ....
T.D.N. req. for W. 73
maintenance ---
19.53
T.D.N. req. for gain
x 3.53 ....
T.D.N. consumed per
day .......... ...... .........
T.D.N. in supplement .
T.D.N. in grass .............

Grass consumed T.D.N.
0.1187


Lot I Lot II LotIII Lot IV
molasses I
Cotton- Ground i Cotton-
seed Molasses Snapped seed
Meal Corn Meal

10 10 10 10

pounds pounds pounds pounds

617.0 592.5 627.0 612.5
800.00 755.5 785.5 753.5
183.00 163.00 158.5 141.0
1.53 1.36 1.32 1.18


6.98

2.00
59.98




4.22

1.28
5.50




708.5

6.16


6.46

12.62
5.50
7.12

59.98


....... 5.17

65.63 67.06


3.90


3.90




674.0

5.94


5.75

11.69
3.90
7.79

65.63


3.79

3.79




706.3

6.15


5.60

11.75
3.79
7.96

67.06


:::::::: i
2.00
81.80




........ ]

1.28
1.28




683.0

6.01


4.98

10.99
1.28
9.71

81.80


1950 Trial.-Continuity of this experiment was disrupted in
1949 by using the pastures for another type of feeding experi-
ment, which was concluded in January 1950. The third trial
in this series was started in February and continued into July
1950. Results of this trial are shown in Table 5. For some
unexplained reason these steers failed to consume as much black-
strap molasses as those in the first or second trial. Since there


SLotV


None


10

pounds

628.5
766.0
137.5
1.15





92.16











697.3

6.09


4.06

10.15

10.15

85.51







Supplements for Fattening Steers


was little difference between lots in the amount of concentrate
supplement consumed there was also very little difference in either
average daily gain or in the calculated amount of grass consumed.
In general, the degree of finish attained by these cattle was not as
high as was obtained in the first or second trial. The steers in
Lots I and IV receiving protein supplement in the form of cotton-
seed meal made the highest gains, which was not the situation

TABLE 4.-FATTENING STEERS ON ST. AUGUSTINE GRASS WITH LIMITED
CARBOHYDRATE AND PROTEIN SUPPLEMENTS, JANUARY 26 TO MAY 24,
1948-120 DAYS.


' Lot I Lot II Lot III Lot IV


i]

Concentrate Supplement


Number of steers per lot



Av. initial wt. per steer....
Av. final wt. per steer ......
Av. total gain per steer ..
Av. daily gain per steer


Molasses
Cotton-
seed
Meal


Ground
Molasses Snapped
Corn


Cotton-
seed
Meal


Lot V


None


10 10 10 0 10


pounds

671.5
835.5
164.0
1.37


pounds

677.5
849.5
172.0
1.43


pounds

668.0
892.0
224.0
1.87


pounds

673.0
852.0
179.0
1.49


pounds

687.5
832.5
145.0
1.21


Av. daily ration per steer:
M olasses .........................
Ground snapped corn ....
Cottonseed meal ............
St. Augustine grass ....

Av. daily ration per steer
in total digestible
nutrients:
M olasses -.....................
Ground snapped corn ..
Cottonseed meal ...........
Total supplement ..........

Calculation of amount of
pasture grass consumed
daily per steer:
Av. weight per steer ....
T.D.N. req. for W. 73
maintenance .. ---.
19.53
T.D.N. req. for gain
x 3.53 ....
T.D.N. consumed per
day ..............................
T.D.N. in supplement ..
T.D.N. in grass ........

Grass consumed T.D.N.
0.1187


7.09

2.00
48.18


6.61
.. 4.57

63.69 83.15


4.29 4.00

1.28 -
5.57 4.00


753.5

6.45


4.84

11.29
5.57
5.72

48.18


2.00
88.37 90.65


3.35 .12
-.--..- 1.28
3.35 1.28


763.5 780.0 762.5 760.0

6.51 6.62 6.51 6.49


5.05

11.56
4.00
7.56

63.69


6.60

13.22
3.35
9.87

83.15


5.26

11.77
1.28
10.49

88.37


4.27

10.76

10.76

90.65







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


TABLE 5.-FATTENING STEERS ON ST. AUGUSTINE GRASS WITH LIMITED
CARBOHYDRATE AND PROTEIN SUPPLEMENTS, MARCH 6 TO JULY 4, 1950-
120 DAYS.


Lot I Lot II
Molasses
Cotton-
Concentrate Supplement seed Molasses
SMeal

Number of steers per lot 10 10

pounds pounds

Av. initial wt. per steer.... 596.5 629.5
Av. final wt. per steer ...... 783.5 788.0
Av. total gain per steer .. 187.0 158.5
Av. daily gain per steer 1.55 1.31

Av. daily ration per steer:
Molasses .... ........... ..... 2.58 3.17
Ground snapped corn .... ---- --.
Cottonseed meal .......... 2.00 --
St. Augustine grass -. 73.13 74.73

Av. daily ration per steer
in total digestible
nutrients:
Molasses .......--.........-... ... 1.56 1.92
Ground snapped corn ....
Cottonseed meal ......... 1.28
Total supplement .......... 2.84 1.92

Calculation of amount of
pasture grass consumed
daily per steer:
Av. weight per steer .... 690.0 708.7


T.D.N. req. for W. 73
maintenance ..
19.53
T.D.N. req. for gain
x 3.53 ...
T.D.N. consumed per
day .........-------- ..---- -
T.D.N. in supplement ..
T.D.N. in grass ..............

Grass consumed T.D.N.
0.1187


6.05


5.47

11.52
2.84
8.68

73.13


6.1

4.6

10.7
1.9
8.8

74.7


Lot III Lot IV Lot V

Ground Cotton-
Snapped seed None
Corn Meal


10 10

pounds pounds

623.0 620.0
784.0 793.0
161.0 173.0
1.33 1.43


4.97

60.32




3.66


2.00
83.57


703.5 706.5


7 6.13

2 4.69

9 10.82
2 3.66
7 7.16

3 60.32


5.05

11.20
1.28
9.92

83.57


10

pounds

613.5
755.5
142.0
1.17




85.43











684.5

6.01

4.13

10.14

10.14

85.43


during the first or second trials. Pasture grass grown on the
peat soil containing 2.73 percent protein on a dry matter content
of 18.19 percent is equivalent to 15 percent protein on an oven-
dry basis. This is shown in Table 1. The first and second trials
indicate that during the spring months this protein is adequate
to balance a ration containing up to five pounds of carbohydrate
concentrate supplement. This record for the third trial seems


1.28
1.28


1 6.15






Supplements for Fattening Steers


to reverse this trend. Further studies of the proteins required
for cattle on pasture, including protein analysis of the forage,
are indicated.
Average of Three Trials.-In Table 6 are shown the average
results of the three feeding trials. By comparing the results
on the basis of average daily gains the record indicates that
5.55 pounds of molasses with 2 pounds of cottonseed meal will
produce about the same rate of gain as 4.9 pounds of ground
snapped corn, when these supplements are fed to cattle on ade-
quate pasture. Steers receiving 2 pounds of cottonseed meal
daily gained equally as well as those consuming 5.4 pounds of
molasses, but slightly less than those on the combination of the
two supplements or on ground snapped corn. As would be ex-
pected, those on pasture without supplement made the lowest
average daily gain.

Marketing Records
Florida cattlemen, especially those in the Everglades area,
want to know whether or not the feeding of concentrates to
cattle on good pasture is to be recommended as a profitable
practice. Assuming that the cattle are of suitable quality and
have all of the grass they can consume, the gross income then
depends on (1) cost of supplementary concentrates fed, (2) grade
of beef produced by each feeding program and (3) price received
for the cattle. Since all three of these factors are variable, the
question of whether or not to feed concentrates to a large extent
becomes one of judgement and management.
Feed Costs.-By computing the amount of supplement required
with pasture to maintain cattle and produce 100 pounds gain
and using an approximate feed price figure, the cost of feed re-
quired to produce 100 pounds gain can be determined as shown
in Table 6. These figures are presented to illustrate how
to calculate feed costs rather than to show how remunerative
the feeding procedures were shown to be. Similar cost figures
can be calculated with any feed price list.
Carcass Values.-The second factor in determining the income
is the carcass grade of the beef produced by each ration. This
is shown in Table 7 as a factor which is not always consistent
when the cattle are typical grade Brahman. In the 1948 trial
there were as many "good" steers in Lot V as in Lots II, III, IV.
The record indicates that the feeding of limited amounts of
supplementary concentrates is generally effective in rasing the







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


grade from utility and cutter to good and commercial. In Lot I
77 percent were good and commercial, or 54 percent more than
in the utility and cutter grades. In Lot V, on pasture alone,
43 percent were good and commercial, or 14 percent less than
in the utility and cutter grades. Certainly the feeder grade of
cattle used in these trials exerted a marked influence on the
results. This question is discussed in Florida Experiment Sta-
tion Bulletin 456 and these data substantiate previous findings
that the feeding of concentrates to beef-type cattle on pasture
should be more profitable than finishing them on grass alone
or feeding the concentrates to low grade stock.

TABLE 6.-AVERAGE RESULTS OF THREE FEEDING TRIALS 1947, 1948 AND
1950, COMPARING LIMITED CARBOHYDRATE AND PROTEIN SUPPLEMENTS
FOR STEERS FATTENED ON ST. AUGUSTINE PASTURE.


Concentrate Supplement


Number of steers per lot


Av. initial wt. per steer....
Av. final wt. per steer ......
Av. total gain per steer -
Av. daily gain per steer

Av. daily ration per steer:
M olasses .......................
Ground snapped corn ....
Cottonseed meal ............
St. Augustine grass ....

Amount of feed req. to
produce 100 pounds gain:
Molasses ........................
Ground snapped corn ....
Cottonseed meal ...........
St. Augustine grass ....

Feed cost of supplement
per 100 pounds gain:
Molasses @ $35.00/T ..
Ground snapped corn
@ $50.00/T .............
Cottonseed meal
@ $75.00/T ...........
Cost of total supplement
Cost of supplement per
steer ............................


SLotI Lot II Lot III LotIV LotV
Molasses I
Cotton- Ground Cotton-
seed Molasses Snapped I seed None
Meal Corn Meal

30 30 30 30 30

pounds pounds pounds pounds pounds
628.3 633.2 "639.3 635.2 643.2
806.3 797.7 820.5 799.5 784.7
178.0 164.5 181.2 164.3 141.5
1.48 1.37 1.51 1.37 1.18


5.55 5.41 .... ....-
4.90 ---...
2.00 .. .. 2.00 2
60.43 68.02 70.18 84.58 89.41


381.0 392.3 .... .
........ 336.5 -- ........
135.6 ...... ...-...- 148.1
4,063.5 4,993.4 4,688.3 6,243.7 7,608.3


$ 6.67 $ 6.87 .....-- ... ..
.I $
.. ........ $ 8.41 ........ -
5.09 .... ........ $ 5.55 ....
11.76 6.87 8.41 5.55 .....
19.99 11.30 15.24 9.12 .......







Supplements for Fattening Steers


TABLE 7.-GRADE OF CARCASSES PRODUCED BY EACH RATION FOR EACH
TRIAL AND THE THREE-YEAR TOTAL.


Concentrate Supplement

Grade

1947 Good
Commercial
Utility
Cutter


Good
Commercial
Utility
Cutter

Good
Commercial
Utility
Cutter


Three-Year Good
Total Commercial
Utility
Cutter

Three-Year Good and
Total Commercial
Utility and
Cutter


Lot I Lot II Lot III LotIV
Molasses
Cotton- Ground Cotton-
seed Molasses Snapped seed
Meal I Corn Meal
Number number number number

1 .. 2 1
9 9 4 4


1 4


4
1


Lot V


None

number

5


2 2 2
8 8 5
3


5 4
5 5
1


4
19
6
1
percent


percent percent


3
14
12
1
percent


77 73 67 57

23 27 33 43


2
11
16
1
percent

43

57


Selling Values.-The third factor in determining the income
from feeding concentrates is the actual price received for the
animals in each trial and in each grade. This is shown in Table 8.
The cattle were sold on the basis of their carcass grade at the
current price. The total amount received not only includes this
sale price but also the heavier weights which the higher grade
animals attained, thereby making a wider spread between ani-
mal values than between price per 100 pounds.
This record shows that in 1947 the Good steers brought S37.10
each more than Commercial, while Commercial brought $48.93
more than Utility. In 1948, with prices a little higher, Good
steers brought 834.13 more per steer than Commercial and
Commercial brought 839.87 more than Utility cattle. In the
1950 trial there was only S23.97 difference in value between
Good and Commercial and 831.75 between Commercial and Utility.
When these are averaged it is seen that the Good steers brought










TABLE 8.-AVERAGE SELLING VALUE OF STEERS FOR EACH TRIAL AND THREE-YEAR AVERAGE BY GRADES.


1947
Lot I ..........
Lot II ....
Lot III ...-
Lot IV .....
Lot V ....
Average ....


1948
Lot I .........
Lot II .......
Lot III ....
Lot IV .....
Lot V .....
Average


1950
Lot I ......-
Lot II .......
Lot III ...
Lot IV ...
Lot V ......
Average .
Three-Year
Average


Number

1
O0
2
1





3
2
2







1
1






I 1 I


* Carcass prices per 100 pounds for e


Good*
@ $37.00
Av. Value

$170.57

185.93
189.07

$182.88
Good*
@_ $44.00

$221.03
209.66
238.48
236.06
229.90
$226.48
Good*
@ $46.00

$ ........
230.00
198.72


$214.36


Number

9
9


Commercial*
@ $35.00
Av. Value

$149.14
142.25
146.13
154.44
138.88
$145.78
Commercial
@ $41.00

$195.50
187.57
193.62
191.96
197.83
S$192.35
Commercial*
@ $43.00

S $182.64
191.35
187.19
198.49
189.95
S $190.39


Number


Utility*
@ $26.00
Av. Value


0 $ .......
1 89.44
4 96.85
4 93.41
5 101.09
$ 96.85
Utility*
(@ $38.50

1 $154.00


3 155.29
6 150.83
$152.48
Utility*
@ $38.50


5
7
6
5
5


$207.90 ____ 176.17
ach grade from which live animal values were computed.


$163.47
159.17
168.12
157.70
142.60
$158.64

$135.99


Number


Cutter*
@ $21.00
Av. Value


0 $


57.12

$ 57.12
Cutter*


Cutter*
@ $37.00

1 $149.85


135.79
$142.82







Supplements for Fattening Steers


$31.73 more per steer than the Commercial and Commercial sold
for 840.18 more than Utility.
Increased Income from Supplements Fed.-When the three
factors discussed in the preceding paragraphs are combined, as
applied to the experimental cattle involved, the net results are
shown in Table 9. The figures used are approximately those for
the cattle in the three feeding trials. Actually, the steers were
purchased at lower weights than these initial weights in the
feeding trials, which were started when the cattle had been on
pasture for several weeks. As in the previous tables, these cost
figures are presented more to illustrate how to calculate costs
than to show how much income the feeding procedures produced.
The steers were purchased at S13.00 per 100 pounds in 1947,
816.00 per 100 pounds in 1948 and 819.00 per 100 pounds in
1950. The average initial weight multiplied by this average
initial value of 816.00 indicates the first cost of the cattle. While
some of the income indicated in this table was due to rising

TABLE 9.-AVERAGE RESULTS OF THREE TRIALS IN FEED COSTS AND
SELLING PRICES BY LOTS.


Concentrate Supplement


Number of steers per lot


Av. initial wt. per steer
pounds .........................
*Av. selling wt. per steer
pounds ....... ... .
Av. initial value
@ $16.00 ...................
**Feed cost of supple-
m ent ............... .......
Total cost ....................
Av. selling price per
steer ...........................
Av. selling price per
100 pounds ...............
Gross income per steer
Gross income per acre

Increased income from
supplement compared
with none (Lot V) ....


Lot I Lot II Lot III Lot IV I
Molasses I
Cotton- Ground Cotton-
seed Molasses Snapped seed
Meal : Corn Meal


Lot V


None


30 30 30 30 30


628.3

757.0

$100.53

19.99
120.52

173.39

22.90
52.87
132.18


3.48


633.2 639.3 635.2

739.8 766.7 743.7

$101.31 $102.29 $101.63

11.30 15.24 9.12
112.61 117.53 110.75

167.22 171.59 163.88

22.60 22.38 22.04
54.61 54.06 53.13
136.53 135.15 132.83


5.22


4.76


643.2

726.5

$102.91

102.91

152.30

20.96
49.39
123.48


3.74


* Shrinkage to market deducted from final weight.
** Calculated at prices shown in Table 6.






16 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

market prices, the comparison between lots would not be changed
greatly by using any reasonable fictitious cost figure. The costs
of feed are computed at the feed prices shown in Table 6.
In the case of Lot III, at these rates the steers consumed
$15.24 worth of feed each. When this is added to the steer cost
of $102.29, an investment of $117.53 is shown per steer. When
sold they brought an average of $171.59, which was an increase
of $54.06. When this is compared with Lot V, where the steers
on grass alone brought $49.39 more than they cost, the feeding
program used increased the income per steer by $4.76. Since
50 steers were pastured on 20 acres the income per acre of pas-
ture is 21/' times that of the individual steer. Each of the first
four lots are compared with Lot V in Table 9, to show how much
the feeding of these limited concentrates increased the gross
income per steer over feeding on grass alone. The data show
that the steers in Lot V on grass alone returned a substantial
income, which was increased some by each concentrate ration
used.




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