• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Credits
 Table of Contents
 Main






Group Title: Bulletin - University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station ; 538
Title: Citrus products for beef cattle
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027153/00001
 Material Information
Title: Citrus products for beef cattle
Series Title: Bulletin University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station
Physical Description: 16 p. : ill. ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Kirk, W. Gordon ( William Gordon ), 1898-1979
Davis, George K
Publisher: University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1954
 Subjects
Subject: Beef cattle -- Feeding and feeds -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Citrus fruits -- By-products -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Bibliography: p. 16.
Statement of Responsibility: W.G. Kirk and George K. Davis.
General Note: Cover title.
Funding: Bulletin (University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station) ;
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027153
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Marston Science Library, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida
Holding Location: Florida Agricultural Experiment Station, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the Engineering and Industrial Experiment Station; Institute for Food and Agricultural Services (IFAS), University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 000926382
oclc - 18272587
notis - AEN7053

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page 1
    Credits
        Page 2
        Page 3
    Table of Contents
        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
JAN 20 1955


Bulletin 538 January 1954
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS
WILLARD M. FIFIELD, Director
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA


Citrus Products for Beef Cattle
W. G. KIRK and GEORGE K. DAVIS


dl4AA


Fig. 1.-Brahman cows eating fresh grapefruit.

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









BOARD OF CONTROL

Hollis Rinehart, Chairman, Miami
J. Lee Ballard, St. Petersburg
Fred H. Kent, Jacksonville
Wm. H. Dial, Orlando
Mrs. Alfred I. duPont, Jacksonville
George W. English, Jr., Ft. Lauderdale
W. Glenn Miller, Monticello
J. B. Culpepper, Secretary, Tallahassee

EXECUTIVE STAFF
J. Wayne Reitz, Ph.D., Provost for Agr.:3
Willard M. Filield, M.S., Director
J. It. Beckenbach, Ph.D., Asso. Director
L. O. Gratz, Ph.D., Assistant Director
Rogers L. Bartley, B.S., Admin. Mgr.3
Geo. It. Freeman, B.S.. Farm Superintendent


MAIN STATION, GAINESVILLE
AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS
IH. G. Hamilton, Ph.D., Agr. Economist 1
It. E. L. Greene, Ph.D., Agr. Economist :
M. A. Brooker, Ph.D., Agr. Economist3
Zach Savage, M.S.A., Associate
A. H. Spurlock, M.S.A., Agr. Economist
D. E. Alleger, M.S., Associate
D. I. Brooke, M.S.A., Associate
11. It. Godwin, Ph.D., Associate :
W. K. McPherson, M.S., Economist :
Eric TIhor. M.S., Asso. Agr. Economist
Cecil N. Smith, M.A., Asso. Agr. Economist
Levi A. Powell, Sr., M.S.A., Assistant4
Orlando, Florida (Cooperative USDA)
G. Norman Rose, B.S., Asso. Agri. Economist
J. C. Townsend, Jr., B.S.A., Agr. Statistician'
J. I. Owens, B.S.A., Agr. Statistician 2
F. T. Calloway, M.S., Agr. Statistician
C. L. Crenshaw, M.S., Asst. Agr. Economist
B. W. Kelly, M.S., Asst. Agr. Economist

AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING
Frazier Rogers, M.S.A., Agr. Engineer !:
J. M. Myers, M.S.A., Asso. Agr. Engineer
J. S. Norton, M.S., Asst. Agr. Engineer

AGRONOMY
Fred H. Hull, Ph.D., Agronomist '
G. B. Killinger, Ph.D., Agronomist
H. C. Harris, Ph.D., Agronomist
R. W. Bledsoe, Ph.D., Agronomisl
W. A. Carver, Ph.D., Agronomist
Fred A. Clark, M.S., Associate
E. S. Horner, Ph.D., Assistant
A. T. Wallace, Ph.D., Assistant :
D. E. McCloud, Ph.D., Assistant :
G. C. Nutter, Ph.D., Asst. Agronomist
I. M. Wofford, Ph.D., Asst. Agronomist

ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND NUTRITION
T Cunha, Ph.D., Animal Husbandman
G. K. Davis, Ph.D. Animal Nutritionist
It. L. Shirley, Ph.D., Biochemist
A. M. Pearson, Ph.D., Asso. An. Hush.3
John P. Feaster, Ph.D., Asst. An. Nutri.
H. D. Wallace, Ph.D., Asso. An. Husb."
M. IKoger, Ph.D., An. Husbandman :
J. F. Hentges, Jr., Ph.D., Asst. An. Husb. :
L. R. Arrington, Ph.D., Asst. An. Hush.
A. C. Warnick, Ph.D., Asst. Physiologist

DAIRY SCIENCE
E. L. Fouts, Ph.D., Dairy Technologist13
R. B. Becker, Ph.D.. Dairy Husbandman 3
S. P. Marshall, Ph.D., Asso. Dairy Hush.3
W. A. Krienke, M.S., Asso. Dairy Tech.3
P. T. Dix Arnold, M.S.A., Asso. Dairy ,Iusb. :
Leon Mull, Ph.D., Asso. Dairy Tech.'
H. H. Wilkowshe, Ph.D., Asst. Dairy Tech.:
James M. Wing. Ph.D.. Asst. Dairy Hush.


EDITORIAL
J. lFrancis Cooper, M.S.A., Editor
Clyde Beale, A.B.J., Associate Editor
William G. Mitchell, A.B.J., Assistant Editor
Samuel L. Burgess, A.B.J., Assistant Editor :

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

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

HORTICULTURE
G. H. Blackmon, M.S.A., Horticulturist 1 4
It. A. Dennison, Ph.D., Hort. & Interim Head
F. S. Jamison, Ph.D., Horticulturist 3
Albert P. Lorz, Ph.D., Horticulturist
It. K. Showalter, M.S., Asso. Hort.
It. H. Sharpe, M.S., Asso. Horticulturist
V. F. Nettles, Ph.D., Asso. Horticulturist
F. S. Lagasse, Ph.D., Horticulturist2
It. D. Dickey, M.S.A., Asso. Short.
L. II. Halsey, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
C. II. Hall, Ph.D., Asst. Horticulturist
Austin Griffiths, ,r. B.S., Asst. Hort.
S. E. McFadden, Jr., Ph.D., Asst. Hort.
C. H. VanMiddelem, Ph.D., Asst. Biochemist
Buford D. Thompson, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
M. W. Hoover, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.

LIBRARY
Ida Keeling Cresap, Librarian

PLANT PATHOLOGY
W. I3. Tisdale, Ph.D-. Plant Pathologist'
Phares Decker, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
Erdman West, M.S., Botanist & Mycologist
Robert W. Earhart, Ph.U., Plant Path.2
Howard N. Miller, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Path.
Lillian E. Arnold, M.S., Asso. Botanist
C. W. Anderson, Ph.D., Asst. Plant Path.

POULTRY HUSBANDRY
N. It. Mehrhol', M.Aur., Poultry Hush. :'
J. C. Driggers, Ph.D., Asso. Poultry Husb.:

SOILS
I. B. Smith, Ph.D. Microbiologist' :
.Gaylord M. Volk, Ph.D.. Soils Chemist
.1. R. Neller, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
Nathan Gammon, Jr, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
Halph G. Leighty, B.S., Asst. Soil Surveyor
G. D. Thornton,i Ph.D., Microbiologist
C. F. Eno, Ph.D., Asst. Soils Microbiologist
H. W. Winsor, B.S.A., Assistant Chemist
It. E. Callwell, M.S.A., Asst. Chemist :4
V. W. Carlisle, S, .. Asst. Soil Surveyor
J. H. Walker, M.S.A., Asst. Soil Surveyor
William K. Rlolertson,, PD., Asst. Chemis
0. E. Cruz, B.S.A., Asst. Soil Surveyor
W. G. Blue. Ph.D., Asst. Biochemist
.1. G. A. liskel, Ph.D., Asst. Biochemist"
I. C. Hammond. Ph.D., Asst. Soil Physicist :
H. L. Breland, Ph.D.. Asst. Soils Chem.
W. L. Pritchett, Ph.D., Soil Technologist

VETERINARY SCIENCE
D. A. Sanders, D.V.M., Veterinarian '3
M. W. Emmel, D.V.M., Veterinarian :
C. F. Simpson, D.V.M., Asso. Veterinarian
L. E. Swanson, D.V.M., Parasitologist
W. R. Dennis, D.V.M., Asst. Parasitolo,ist
E. W. Swarthout, D.V.M., Asso. Poultry
Pathologist (Dade City)










BRANCH STATIONS

NORTH FLORIDA STATION, QUINCY
W. C. Rhoades, M.S., Entomologist in Charge
R. R. Kincaid, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
L. G. Thompson, Jr., Ph.D., Soils Chemist
W. H. Chapman, M.S.. Agronomist
Frank S. Baker, Jr., B.S., Asst. An. Hushb.
Frank E. Guthrie, Ph.D., Asst. Entomologist
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. O. 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
I. S. Prosser, Jr., B.S., Asst. Engineer
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
W. A. Simanton, Ph.D., Entomologist
E. J. Deszyck, Ph.D., Asso. Horticulturist
C. D. Leonard, Ph.D., Asso. Horticulturist
W. T. Long, M.S., Asst. Horticulturist
M. H. Muma, Ph.D., Asso. Entomologist
F. J. Reynolds, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.
W. F. Spencer, Ph.D., Asst. Chem.
R. B. Johnson, Ph.D., Asst. Entomologist
W. F. Newhall, Ph.D., Asst. Biochemist
W. F. Grierson-Jackson, Ph.D., Asst. Chem.
Roger Patrick, Ph.D., Bacteriologist
M. F. Oberbacher. Ph.D., Asst. Plant Physiol
Evert J. Elvin, B.S., Asst. Horticulturist
R. C. J. Koo, Ph.D., Asst. Biochemist
J. R. Kuykendall, Ph.D., Asst. Horticulturist

EVERGLADES STATION, BELLE GLADE

W. T. Forsee, Jr., Ph.D., Chemist in Charge
R. V. Allison, Ph.D., Fiber Technologist
Thomas Bregger, Ph.D., Physiologist
J. W. Randolph, M.S., Agricultural Engr.
R. W. Kidder, M.S.. Asso. Animal Hush.
C. C. Seale, Associate Agronomist
N. C. Hayslip, B.S.A. Asso. Entomologist
E. A. Woll, M.S., Asst. Horticulturist
W. H. Thames, M.S., Asst. Entomologist
W. G. Genung, M.S., Asst. Entomologist
Robert J. Allen, Ph.D., Asst. Agronomist
V. E. Green, Ph.D., Asst. Agronomist
J. I. Darby, Ph.D., Asst. Plant Path.
V. L. Guzman, Ph.D., Asst. Hort.
J. C. Stephens, B.S., Drainage Engineer
A. E. Kretschmer, Jr., Ph.D., Asst. Soils
Chem.
Charles T. Ozaki, Ph.D., Asst. Chemist
Thomas L. Meade, Ph.D., Asst. An. Nutri.
D. S. Harrison, M.S., Asst. Agri. Engr.


F. T. Boyd, Ph.D., Asso. Agronomist
M. G. Hamilton, Ph.D., Asst. Horticulturist
J. N. Simons. Ph.D., Asst. Virologist
D. W. Beardsley, M.S., Asst. Animal Husb.

SUB-TROPICAL STATION, HOMESTEAD
Geo. D. Ruehle, Ph.D., Vice-Dir. in Charge
D. 0. Wollenbarger, 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
Marian W. Hazen, M.S., Animal Husband-
man in Charge

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, ScD., 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

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
S. S. Woltz, Ph.D., Asst. Horticulturist
Donald S. Burgis, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
C. M. Geraldson, Ph.D., Asst. Horticulturist

FIELD LABORATORIES

Watermelon, Grape, Pasture-Leesburg
J. M. Crall, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Path. in Chg.
C. C. Helms, Jr., B.S., Asst. Agronomist
L. H. Stover, Assistant in Horticulture
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 2
John R. Large, M.S., Asso. Plant Path.
Frost Forecasting-Lakeland
Warren O. Johnson, B.S., Meteorologist in
Charge

1Head of Department
2 In cooperation with U. S.
SCooperative, other divisions, U. of I.
4 On leave
















CONTENTS
PAGE

IN TRODUCTION ....... .....5........... .... ........ 5

COMPOSITION OF CITRUS PRODUCTS ............ ........... ... ... ......... 6

CITRUS FEED PRODUCTS .................. ...... .................... .... 7

Fresh Grapefruit, Oranges and Tangerines .. ..... .......... 7

Fresh Grapefruit Pulp ........................... .............. 8

Citrus Pressed Cake ........................... .......... ......... 8

D ried Citrus Pulp ... ..... ... ......... .... .. .......... .. 8

Am moniated Citrus Pulp ........ ........ ..... .. ........... .. ... 10

D ried Citrus M eal ... .. .... .... ......... ..... ........ 10

D ried T angerine Pulp ............. ........................ ....-- ............... 10

C itrus Seed M eal .......... ................... ....................- 10

Citrus Molasses ......... .......---------........... 11

Sweet Citrus Pulp .......... ......... ......... 12

Citrus Pulp and Citrus Molasses ......... ......... ............ ..... 12

Citrus Silage ........ .... ... ..... ... ....... 12

CALCIUM AND PHOSPHORUS CONTENT OF CITRUS FEEDS .................... 13

SU M M ARY ..... ................. ........ ....... ........ ...---- 14

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

LITERATURE CITED ....- ................................... ....... 16








Citrus Products for Beef Cattle

W. G. KIRK 1 and GEORGE K. DAVIS 2

INTRODUCTION
Feeding the products of the citrus canning industry to beef
cattle has increased rapidly during the past decade. In 1941
much of the refuse from citrus canning was dumped in fields
and pastures adjacent to the processing plants. Cattle ate a
considerable quantity of grapefruit pulp, but orange pulp was
unpalatable and was wasted by trampling and decay. By 1944
it had been demonstrated that fresh grapefruit pulp was a good
feed and cattlemen paid to have it hauled to their pastures.
Finally in 1947-48 there was such a demand for dried citrus pulp
that virtually all of the fresh pulp was dried for feed.
The quantity of fresh fruit fed to livestock depends upon the
prices paid for fruit by packing and canning plants. It is more
practical to use low grade fruit for feed than pay freight to
Northern markets where it often becomes a problem of garbage
disposal. Beef and dairy cattle are fed varying amounts of
fresh fruit each year from marginal producing groves. In addi-
tion, most of the fruit unfit for packing and canning is dumped
in pastures for livestock feed.
In the 1951-52 season 200,468 tons of dried citrus pulp, 17,597
tons of citrus meal and 54,135 tons of citrus molasses were
produced." These products are second to corn as a source of
concentrated feed nutrients for Florida livestock.
Methods used in the production of citrus feeds are outlined
by Hendrickson and Kesterson (4)4. Drying permits storage
for year round feeding of pulp and there is less deterioration
in storage as compared with corn and other feeds. Rodents
and birds are not as attracted to pulp as they are to some
grain mixtures. It is estimated that 15 percent of the pulp
and over 50 percent of the molasses produced in the 1949-50
season were fed to beef cattle, with small increases each year.
Citrus pulp has been used in much larger quantities in dairy
cattle rations as compared to that fed to beef cattle.
This bulletin presents some of the facts concerning the value
of citrus products as feed for beef cattle.

Vice-Director in Charge, Range Cattle Experiment Station, Ona, Ani-
mal Nutritionist, Main Station, Gainesville.
SInformation supplied by Citrus Processors Association, Tampa, Florida.
'Italic figures in parentheses refer to Literature Cited.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


COMPOSITION OF CITRUS PRODUCTS

The composition of different citrus products, both fresh and
processed, is given in Table 1. All the feeds listed, except citrus
seed meal, are low in protein and rich in sugar and pectins.
Thus their most useful value is to furnish energy. Citrus
products contain a good amount of ash and a moderate per-
centage of fiber.

TABLE 1.-COMPOSITION OF CITRUS FEED PRODUCTS.


Cull grapefruit
Grapefruit
varieties:
Pink .........
Marsh Seed-
less ....
Seedling ....
Oranges .......
Oranges-grate(
Tangerines ....
Grapefruit pull
Pressed grape-
fruit pulp
Dried citrus
pulp .......
Dried citrus
meal .- ...
Dried tangerine
pulp .......
Citrus seed
meal ........
Citrus molasses!
Sweet citrus
pulp ...---
Citrus pulp an(
citrus mo-
lasses ......
Citrus silage:
Plain citrus
pulp ........
Pressed
citrus pulp
Ammoniated
citrus
products:
Pulp ..........
Molasses ..


SNitro-
Dry Crude Crude gen
Matter Protein Fiber Free
[Extract
Percent Percent Percent Percent

13.64 1.07 1 1.39 10.03


10.71 0.06

12.73 0.49
20.47 1.27
15.96 1.19
1 14.84 0.96
17.39 1.01
16.13 1.57

25.23 2.24

86.17 6.46

88.27 6.46

87.48 7.13

88.51 27.08
i 64.09 6.07

86.23 6.24


i 89.18 6.17


12.96 0.91

22.81 1.65



88.00 10.66
60.85 17.59


0.75

0.74
1.64
1.81
1.58
1.38
2.70

4.61

10.98

12.39

9.62

10.53
0.00

10.58


9.99


2.25

3.53


6.97

8.84
12.90
11.93
11.34
13.62
9.86

15.74

61.07

60.55

61.29

31.70
53.50

60.20


62.58


8.46

13.87


12.37 54.68
0.00 37.11


Crude
Fat

Percent

0.64


0.24

0.32
0.90
9.32
0.32
0.80
1.43

1.18

2.78

2.94

5.04

13.79
0.21

3.75


5.73


Total
Digest-
Ash ible Nu-
] trients
Percent Percent

0.51 11.7


7.6

9.1
15.0
12.7
11.0
13.8
14.0

20.5

70.9

71.9

74.3

64.4
51.8

70.97


70.1


0.73 0.61 11.3

2.44 1.32 20.12


4.28 72.7
3.94 50.5


6.01
2.21


Most of the crude fat comes from the seed kernel.


Citrus


varieties with few seeds have less than half as much fat as


,






Citrus Products for Beef Cattle


those with many seeds. The amount ranges from 2.25 to 5.70
percent, depending upon the proportion of seed to pulp. In the
pressing process most of the crude fat is retained in the pulp.
Table 1 shows that citrus molasses contains the smallest amount
of crude fat of any of the citrus products.
The digestion coefficients used to calculate the total digestible
nutrient (TDN) content of the different feeds were obtained
from Florida Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 275 (6)
and Press Bulletin 623 (2).

CITRUS FEED PRODUCTS
Fresh Grapefruit, Oranges and Tangerines.-The nutrient
value of any product has a direct relationship to its dry matter
content. Fresh fruits, because of their high moisture content,
are known as watery concentrates. Table 1 shows that cull
grapefruit contains 13.64 percent dry matter, oranges 15.96
percent and tangerines 17.39 percent. The dry matter varies
with the variety, season and maturity of fruit. For example,
a variety of pink grapefruit picked on May 11, 1952, contained
10.71 percent dry matter, while Marsh Seedless had 12.73
percent dry matter, and a seedling kind contained 20.47 percent
when picked on the same day. The nitrogen-free extract, con-
sisting mostly of sugars and pectins, makes up approximately
75 percent of the dry matter, with crude protein, crude fiber.
crude fat and ash making up the remainder.
Cattle eat grapefruit readily (Fig. 1) but do not like oranges
and tangerines as well, because of the bitterness imparted by
the larger amount of essential oil in the peel. Cows on native
pasture at the Range Cattle Station having free access to whole
oranges ate an average of 7.5 pounds daily during the winter,
while those fed grapefruit ate 10 pounds within a few minutes
after being fed and would have eaten more than twice this
amount if they had been given the grapefruit free-choice. In
three winters cows on native range averaged a weight loss
of 51 pounds per head; those fed whole oranges as a supplement
lost 28 pounds; and cows getting grapefruit lost 10 pounds.
Birth of calves during the last two months of each winter con-
tributed to the loss in weight of the cows in each lot. It was
evident, however, that the cows fed oranges and grapefruit
were in better condition than those on native pasture alone.
Choking to death by a whole orange lodging in the animal's
gullet is a potential danger. No death loss has occurred in five






Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


winters of experimental feeding at the Range Cattle Station.
Two cows observed to be in distress from choking dislodged the
fruit within a short time.
Three feeding trials have been completed in which fresh
grapefruit furnished from 51 to 55 percent of the total digestible
nutrients (5) and two trials when fresh oranges furnished 45
percent and grated oranges 59 percent of the TDN eaten. All
steers were fed fair quality hay for roughage and enough cot-
tonseed meal to balance the ration.
Steers eating 40 pounds daily of grapefruit made an average
daily gain of 1.98 pounds, while those eating 34 pounds of grape-
fruit and fed 2 pounds of ground snapped corn daily gained
2.15 pounds.
Steers getting an average of 29 pounds of fresh oranges daily
had an average daily gain of 1.73 pounds, while those eating
57 pounds of grated oranges gained an average of 2.97 pounds
daily. Grating 5 oranges removed almost all the peel oil from
the skin, which increased the palatability, consumption and
gains.
Economic factors influence the quantity of fresh fruit used
for cattle feed. When fresh fruit is low in price and when it
is available from small or marginal groves or as packinghouse
culls, it may provide a cheap energy feed for cattle.
Fresh Grapefruit Pulp.-The amount of fresh citrus pulp,
consisting of peel, rag and seeds, fed cattle has decreased
with each canning season, as it now goes into the manufacture
of dried pulp. Feeding trials and chemical analysis indicate
that fresh grapefruit pulp has a value slightly higher than
fresh grapefruit, but pulp fermented quickly and was then
refused.
Citrus Pressed Cake.-This product is obtained after the
fresh pulp is put through a hammer mill, mixed with a small
amount of hydrate of lime and pressed to remove water. Pressed
cake has about 60 percent more dry matter than fresh pulp.
It has been fed only in limited amounts, since it is difficult to
keep the cake in a fresh, palatable state. Most of this material
is going to drying plants and it is doubtful if this product
will continue on the market.
Dried Citrus Pulp.-This is the most important of all the
citrus feeds, 200,468 tons being produced in 1951-52. It pro-

SGrating was done by an extractor secured from the Fraser-Brace
Engineering Company, Tampa, Florida.






Citrus Products for Beef Cattle


vides year-round feed, is easily stored and handled and is readily
eaten by cattle. Dried citrus pulp may be prepared from fresh
grapefruit or oranges or a mixture of the two. Within the
last three years limited amounts of dried tangerine pulp have
been manufactured. It is estimated 6 that 49 percent of the
total production of dried pulp in 1952-53 was processed from
grapefruit refuse, 49 percent from orange pulp and 2 percent
from tangerine pulp. The value of citrus pulp as a feed is due
to the large amount of nitrogen-free extract, sugars and pectins
which it contains. While bulky, it cannot be considered as a
roughage, since it has only 10 to 15 percent fiber. This has
a higher coefficient of digestibility than the fiber found in most
other concentrate feeds.


Fig. 2.-Shorthorn-Brahman steer fattened on a ration of hay, cottonseed
meal, citrus pulp and molasses.

Citrus pulp has been used in maintenance and fattening ra-
tions for beef cattle as the main energy feed and in combination
with ground snapped corn and cane and citrus molasses. It has
been fed to cattle in dry lot (Fig. 2) and on both improved and

"Information supplied by V. M. Roberts, Sales Manager, Kuder Pulp
Sales Company, Lake Alfred, Florida.


,I-A






Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


native pasture. Feeding trials show that it is palatable and oi,
a nutrient basis compares favorably with other fattening feeds.
Steers fed fair quality hay, cottonseed meal and citrus pulp
(5) in 120-day trials made an average daily gain of 2.17 pounds
and required 466 pounds TDN for 100 pounds gain. Those
cattle dressed 59.77 percent and graded U. S. Low Good as
slaughter animals.
Ammoniated Citrus Pulp.-Citrus pulp has been combined
with anhydrous ammonia to produce a feed with a nitrogen
content equivalent to 12 percent protein. With present pro-
duction methods, ammoniated pulp is not as palatable as plai-n
pulp. Preliminary feeding trials indicate that less protein is
required with treated pulp than with plain pulp to give a bal-
anced ration. The high fat content of ammoniated pulp, Table
1, is due to the large number of seeds present.
Dried Citrus Meal.-This product is obtained by screening the
fine particles from citrus pulp after drying. It has slightly
higher fiber, nitrogen-free extract and ash contents than citrus
pulp, but is lower in fat. Citrus meal is comparable to citrus
pulp in total digestible nutrients. Cattle do not eat meal as
readily as dried pulp because of the fineness, but combining
meal with molasses corrects this condition. It has been in-
corporated into many feed mixtures, especially those which
are pelleted.
Dried Tangerine Pulp.-Limited amounts of tangerine pulp
have been produced in the past three canning seasons. This
pulp is a bright orange color, slightly bulkier and less palatable
than mixed grapefruit and orange pulp. Higher protein and
fat contents indicate a larger proportion of seeds and the fiber
content is lower. On a nutrient basis tangerine pulp may be
slightly superior to other pulps. In one feeding trial of 120
days steers fed fair quality hay, cottonseed meal, tangerine
pulp and citrus molasses gained 2.14 pounds daily and required
404 pounds TDN per 100 pounds gain. Tangerine pulp supplied
33 percent of the total ration by weight and 41 percent of the
TDN eaten.
Citrus Seed Meal.-This feed is derived from citrus seeds and
is the residue after the oil has been removed from the kernel
by use of hydraulic presses. It is the only citrus feed that
contains comparatively large amounts of crude protein. The
amount of crude fat present depends upon the method of ex-






Citrus Products for Beef Cattle


traction. Three hundred and fifty tons of citrus seed meal were
produced in 1950-51, with smaller amounts in following years.


Fig. 3.-Grade steer (/2 Brahman, 1I Hereford and 1/ native) fed
a ration of hay, cottonseed meal and equal parts of dried citrus pulp
and citrus molasses. It gained 285 pounds in 120 days and graded U. S.
good as a slaughter animal.

Citrus Molasses.-Molasses is second to citrus pulp in ton-
nage of feed produced by the processing plants. Analyses show
that molasses contains 60 to 70 percent dry matter made up
largely of sugars from which come most of its value as feed.
It should be considered, therefore, an energy feed. Molasses
has a bitter taste but cattle eat it heartily within a few days
after it is fed for the first time. Cattle receiving large quanti-
ties of molasses along with other feeds low in protein scour
badly and become unproductive. Giving cattle free access to
molasses under range conditions, without adequate protein to
meet the animals' needs, has not proved satisfactory. Molasses
can be fed (Fig. 3) with best results when it is combined with
sufficient roughage and protein to maintain the digestive tract
in good condition and meet the protein requirements of the
cattle.






Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


Within the last two years 70 percent of the molasses fed to
beef cattle in Florida has been mixed with urea at the feed
processing plants. The usual practice is to add 3 percent of
urea or 60 pounds to the ton. The urea increases the nitrogen
content of the molasses, making it equivalent to 12 percent
protein feed. This fortified molasses under controlled methods
of feeding has been used effectively with cattle grazing eith-
improved or native pasture. It is essential to have urea well
mixed with the molasses, since it is poisonous to cattle when
eaten in too large amounts.
Citrus molasses (1) can be used to replace one-half of the
ground snapped corn in a ration for cattle without reducing
rate of gain. Molasses-fed steers had better appetites and were
easier to keep on feed than those on a molasses-free ration. At
its present price of less than $20.00 per ton it is the cheapest
source of energy available to feeders in central Florida.
Sweet Citrus Pulp.-This is a pulp to which a varying amount
of molasses has been added in the final drying process. It has
slightly less fiber and more sugar than regular citrus pulp and
a darker color.
Citrus Pulp and Citrus Molasses.-This product is different
from sweet citrus pulp. It is made by processing all the citrus
waste from a canning plant into one product. The pressed
juice, partially evaporated, is reincorporated with the pulp be-
fore the final drying. It is darker in color, slightly more bitter
and less bulky than citrus pulp and because of its molasses
content may take up moisture unless stored in a dry place.
Analyses indicate that it has a nutrient content similar to that
of citrus pulp.
Results of one 120-day feeding trial at the Range Cattle Sta-
tion show that yearling steers fed a ration of fair quality
hay, cottonseed meal and sweet pulp gained 2.44 pounds daily
and required 402 pounds TDN per 100 pounds gain. Citrus
pulp and molasses fed furnished 54 percent of the total ration
by weight and 63 percent of the TDN consumed. The steers
graded U. S. Good and dressed 60.23 percent.
Citrus Silage.-Table 1 shows that citrus silage has a nutrient
content corresponding to that of the fresh material as it was
put into the silo. Experimental trials (3) show that fresh
citrus pulp contains too much water to produce a high grade
silage. Ensiling either Natal grass hay or fresh sugarcane
with the fresh pulp or using pressed citrus pulp resulted in







Citrus Products for Beef Cattle


good silage products. Such silage handled easily and was
palatable to cattle.

CALCIUM AND PHOSPHORUS CONTENT
OF CITRUS FEEDS

Table 2 shows that the calcium content of fresh fruit ranges
from 0.06 percent in the pink variety of grapefruit to 0.14
percent in tangerines, while grapefruit pulp has 0.19 percent.
Calcium makes up 10 percent of the total ash in seedling oranges
and 24 percent of the ash in tangerines. The range in phos-
phorus content is from 0.01 percent in pink grapefruit to 0.0.
percent in Marsh Seedless, while oranges and tangerines con-
tain 0.02 percent. The phosphorus content varies with the
proportion of seeds in the fruit. Pink and Marsh Seedless
Grapefruit have few seeds, while all the seedling varieties
have many.

TABLE 2.-MINERAL CONTENT OF CITRUS FEEDS.


Fresh Products:
Grapefruit-
Cull ...........
Pink ...........
Marsh Seedless
Seedling .........
Oranges ....
Tangerines ...
Grapefruit pulp)


Processed Feed
Products:
Pressed grapefruit
Dried citrus pulp
Dried citrus meal
Dried tangerine
pulp .......
Sweet citrus pulp
Citrus molasses
Citrus seed meal


Dry I I Mag-
Matter Ash Calcium nesium

Percent Percent Percent Percent


13.64
10.70
12.73
20.47
15.96
17.39
16.13


25.23
86.17
88.27

87.48
89.18
64.09
88.51


0.51
0.45
0.42
0.97
0.71
0.58
0.57


0.08
0.06
0.07
0.10
0.09
0.14
0.19


S Calcium
Phos- Phos-
phorus phorus
S Ratio
Percent Percent


0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.09


4:1
6:1
3.5:1
3.3:1
4.5:1
7:1
6.3:1


1.4( 0.59 0.06 0.04 15:1
4.84 1.59 0.10 0.10 16:1
5.93 1.98 0.06 0.10 20:1

4.40 1.37 0.12 0.12 11:1
4.71 1.64 0.07 0.11 15:1
4.31 0.98 0.28 0.07 14:1
5.41 1.00 0.70 0.64 1.6:1


In processed feeds a number of analyses show that calcium
in citrus molasses ranges from 0.8 to 0.98 percent and in dried
citrus pulp ranges from 1.5 to 1.9 percent and higher. Calcium
makes up 20 percent of the total ash in molasses and 40 percent
of the total ash in pressed grapefruit. The ash of dried pulp
ranges from 31 to 35 percent calcium. Fresh pressed grape-






Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


fruit pulp with 25.23 percent dry matter contains 0.59 percent
calcium and dried citrus meal with 88.27 percent dry matter
has 1.98 percent calcium.
The calcium content of citrus processed feeds is high because
of the practice of adding 1/ of 1 percent of hydrated lime
to the ground fresh pulp 30 minutes before it is pressed. Part
of the added calcium remains in pressed cake and part is carried
off in the juice.
The phosphorus content of processed products ranges from
0.04 percent in pressed grapefruit to 0.12 percent in tangerine
pulp. Dried pulp and meal made from fresh pulp containing
many seeds will have more phosphorus than that made from
pulp with few seeds.
The ratio of calcium to phosphorus in fresh fruit and the
different citrus feeds are also given in Table 2. Since the rela-
tive amount of phosphorus in fresh fruit is low, any slight
change in quantity will affect the calcium-phosphorus ratio
considerably. The range is from 3.3:1 in seedling grapefruit
to 7:1 in tangerines. Due to the added calcium, the calcium-
phosphorus ratio ranges from 11:1 in tangerine pulp to 20:1
in mixed pulp. It is important, therefore, that cattle fed large
amounts of processed citrus feeds have access to a mineral
mixture containing a good supply of phosphorus.

SUMMARY
Fresh fruit contains approximately 15 percent dry matter,
a large part of which is sugar, and is considered a watery
concentrate. Cattle eat grapefruit readily but oranges and tang-
erines are unpalatable because of the bitter oil in their peel.
Cull grapefruit is a good winter supplemental feed for beef
cattle on pastures and can be used to supply from one-third
to one-half of the energy nutrients in fattening rations for
yearling and two-year old steers. Removal of oil from the peel
of fresh oranges increased palatability, consumption and gains.
but there is no practical method of grating fruit.
Virtually all the refuse from citrus canning plants is pro-
cessed into valuable feed products. These feeds in the order of
their economic importance are dried citrus pulp, citrus molasses
and citrus meal. All are rich in sugars and pectins but low in
protein and must be considered as energy feeds only. The fiber
of citrus pulp and meal is not a substitute for roughage such
as hay and pasture. All these feeds are eaten readily by beef






Citrus Proditcts for Beef Cattle


cattle and can be used to furnish a considerable part of the
energy nutrients in balanced or mixed rations for either main-
lenance or fattening. A new product, ammoniated citrus pulp,
is being produced in limited amounts and preliminary trials
show it is not as palatable as regular pulp, which limits its
value as cattle feed.
Citrus molasses, palatable to all classes of beef cattle, is the
cheapest energy feed available in central Florida. Molasses
should be combined with a high protein feed, as results are
unfavorable where it is used to supplement a ration already low
in protein. Increasing amounts of citrus molasses are being
added to citrus pulp in the final drying process and also com-
bined in mixed pelleted feeds. Urea mixes readily with mo-
lasses at the rate of 60 pounds of urea to a ton of molasses---
giving a product with a nitrogen equivalent of 11 to 12 percent
protein. Molasses can be used in a fattening ration to replace
from one-third to one-half the energy feeds such as citrus
pulp and ground snapped corn.
Rations for different classes of cattle are given below:

1. Average daily ration for fattening yearling cattle.
4- 7 pounds good quality hay or equivalent pasture
and
3-10 pounds dried citrus pulp or
4- 5 pounds citrus pulp and 4-5 pounds ground snapped corn or
5- 6 pounds citrus pulp and 3-4 pounds ground snapped corn or
3- 4 pounds each of citrus pulp, ground snapped corn and citrus
molasses or
30-50 pounds cull grapefruit or
20-35 pounds cull grapefruit and 3-4 pounds ground snapped corn
and
2- 3 pounds of either cottonseed meal, peanut meal or a mixture
containing iO parts cottonseed meal, 5.5 parts urea and
34.5 parts citrus meal
and
Free access to complete mineral.
2. Citrus pellets, 16 percent protein, supplement for fattening cattle on
pasture fed at the rate of 4-10 pounds daily. Pellets are made as
follows:
38 parts citrus meal
30 parts citrus molasses
30 parts 41 percent cottonseed meal
2 parts complete mineral
(Ground snapped corn may be substituted for part or all of the
citrus meal)
3. Pasture supplement for calves after weaning fed at the rate of 2-4
pounds daily per calf:







Florida Agricultural Expeimentc Stations


100 pounds cottonseed meal
200 pounds citrus pulp or 100 pounds each of citrus meal and
ground snapped corn
6 pounds complete mineral
4. For creep feeding (self-fed) calves:
100 pounds cottonseed meal
300 pounds citrus pulp or 150 pounds citrus pulp and 150 pounds
ground snapped corn
8 pounds complete mineral mix
5. Supplemental feed for cows on pasture during periods of feed shortage--
daily ration:
3-4 pounds of 1 part cottonseed meal and 3 parts citrus pulp or
2-4 pounds of 1 part cottonseed meal and 112 parts citrus pulp
and 11/2 parts ground snapped corn or
3-5 pounds citrus molasses fortified with urea (60 pounds urea in
1 ton) or
3-4 pounds 16 percent citrus pellets (may be fed on ground)
and
Free access to complete mineral.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many individuals have assisted in collecting the data presented in this
bulletin. Included among those from the Agricultural Experiment Station
arq: Elver M. Hodges, David W. Jones, Katherine M. Boney, H. C. Howze,
O. C. Coker, Albert D. Dawson, Harold E. Henderson, Earl M. Kelly, H. E.
McLeod, Betty Mosley Gause, Barbara Jean Ruth and J. T. McCall.

LITERATURE CITED

1. BAKER, F. S., JR. Citrus Molasses in a Steer Fattening Ration. Fla.
Agr. Exp. Sta. Cir. S-22. 1950.

2. BECKER, R. B., P. T. Dix ARNOLD, GEORGE K. DAVIS and E. L. FOUTS.
Citrus Molasses. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Press Bul. 623. 1946.

3. BECKER, R. B., GEORGE K. DAVIS, W. G. KIRK, P. T. Dix ARNOLD and
W. P. HAYMAN. Citrus Pulp Silage. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 423.
1946.

4. HENDRICKSON, R., and J. W. KESTERSON. Citrus By-Products of Flor-
ida. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 487. 1951.

5. KIRK, W. G., E. R. FELTON, H. J. FULFORD and E. M. HODGES. Citrus
Products for Fattening Cattle. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 454. 1949.

6. NEAL, W. M., R. B. BECKER and P. T. Dix ARNOLD. The Feeding Value
and Nutritive Properties of Citrus By-Products. 1. The Digestible
Nutrients of Dried Grapefruit-Orange Refuses, and the Feeding
Value of Grapefruit Refuse for Growing Heifers. Fla. Agr. Exp.
Sta. Bul. 275. 1935.




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