• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Copyright
 Main














Title: Citrus products for fattening cattle
CITATION DOWNLOADS THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027154/00001
 Material Information
Title: Citrus products for fattening cattle
Physical Description: Book
Publisher: University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
Publication Date: 1949
Copyright Date: 1949
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027154
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: aen6188 - LTUF
18271309 - OCLC
000925535 - AlephBibNum

Downloads
Table of Contents
    Copyright
        Historic note
    Main
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        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





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 454 January, 1949

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




Citrus Products

For Fattening Cattle

By W. G. KIRK, E. R. FELTON, H. J. FULFORD and E. M. HODGES

A Contribution from the Range Cattle Station, Ona, Florida


Fig. 1.-Three-year-old steer fed dried citrus pulp and ground snapped corn.





7








BOARD OF CONTROL ECONOMICS, AGRICULTURAL
J. Thos. Gurney, Chairman, Orlando C. V. Noble, Ph.D., Agri. Economist's
N. B. Jordan, Quincy Zach Savage, M.S.A., Associate
Thos. W. Bryant, Lakeland A. H. Spurlock, M.S.A., Associate
J. Henson Markham, Jacksonville D. E. Alleger, M.S., Associate
Hollis Rinehart, Miami D. L. Brooke, M.S.A., Associate
W. F. Powers, Secretary, Tallahassee R. E. L. Greene, Ph.D., Agri. Economist
H. W. Little, M.S., Assistant
Tallmadge Bergen, B.S., Asst. Economist
EXECUTIVE STAFF Orlando, Florida (Cooperative USDA)
J. Hillis Miller, Ph.D., President of the G. Norman Rose, B.S., Asso. Agr. Economist
University3 J. C. Townsend, Jr., B.S.A., Agr. Statisticians
H. Harold Hume, D.Sc., Provost for Agr.s J. B. Owens, B.S.A., Agr. Statistician'
Harold Mowry, M.S.A., Director J. F. Steffens, Jr., B.S.A., Agr. Statistician'
L. O. Gratz, Ph.D., Asst. Dir., Research
W. M. Fifield, M.S., Asst. Dir., Admin. ECONOMICS, HOME
J. Francis Cooper, M.S.A., Editors ,
Clyde Beale, A.B.J., Associate Editors O B. FeAbbot, Ph.D., Biohe con.
Ida Keeling Cresap, Librarian R. B French, Ph.D., B chemist
Ruby Newhall, Administrative Managers ENTOMOLOGY
Geo. F. Baughman, M.A., Business Manager3 A. N. Tissot, Ph.D. Entomologist'
Claranelle Alderman, Accountants L. C. Kuitert Ph.D., Assistant
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.S.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.A.E., Asst. Agr. Engineers R. K. Showalter, M.S., Asso. Hort.
Albert P. Lorz, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.
AGRONOMY R. H. Sharpe, M.S., Asso. Hort.
Fred H. Hull, Ph.D., Agronomist' R. J. Wilmot, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
G. E. Ritchey, M.S., Agronomists R. D. Dickey, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
G. B. Killinger, Ph.D., Agronomists Victor F. Nettles, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.4
H. C. Harris, Ph.D., Agronomists F. S. Lagasse, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.2
R. W. Bledsoe, Ph.D., Agronomist L. H. Halsey, B.S.A., Asst. Hort.
M. E. Paddick, Ph.D., Agronomist F. 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 s
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'1 Lillian E. Arnold, M.S., Asst. Botanist
R. B. Becker, Ph.D., Dairy Husbandman3
E. L. Fonts, Ph.D., Dairy Technologists
D. A. Sanders, D.V.M., Veterinarian F. B. Smith, Ph.D., Microbiologist' a
Gaylord M. Volk, Ph.D., Chemist
M. W. Emmel, I.V.M. Veterinarians J. R. Henderson, M.S.A., Soil Technologist3
L. E. Swanson, D.V.M., Parasitologist J. R. Neller, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
N. R. Mehrhof, M.Agr., Poultry Hushb. Nathan Gammon, Jr., Ph.D., Soils Chemist
SC. E. Bell, Ph.D., Associate Chemist
G. K. Davis, Ph.D., Animal Nutritionist3 R. A. Carrigan, Ph.D., Asso. Biochemist'
R. S. Glasscock, Ph.D., An. Husbandmans H. W. Winsor, B.S.A., Assistant Chemist
P. T. Dix Arnold, M.S.A., Asst. Dairy Husb.' Geo. D. Thornton, Ph.D., Asso. Microbiologist'
R. E. Caldwell, M.S.A., Asst. Chemists
L. E. Mull, M.S., Asst. in Dairy Tech. J. B. Cromartie, B.S.A., Soil Surveyor
Katherine Boney, B.S., Asst. Chem. Ralph G. Leighty, B.S., Asso. Soil Surveyor
J. C. Driggers, B.S.A., Asst. Poultry Husb. V. W. Cyzycki, B.S., Asst. Soil Surveyor
R. B. Forbes, M.S., Asst. Soils Chemist
"Glenn thVan Ness D.V.M., Asso. Poultry W.L. Pritchett, .S., Asst. Chemist
Pathologist Jean Beem, B.S.A., Asst. Soil Surveyor
S. John Folks, B.S.A., Asst. An. Husb.'
W. A. Krienke, M.S., Asso. in Dairy Mfs.s 1 Head of Department.
S. P. Marshall, Ph.D., Asso. Dairy Husb.3 In cooperation with U. S.
C. F. Simpson, D.V.M., Asso. Veterinarian 3 Cooperative, other divisions, U. of F.
C. F. Winchester, Ph.D., Asso. Biochemists 'On leave.








BRANCH STATIONS SUB-TROPICAL STATION, HOMESTEAD

NORTH FLORIDA STATION, QUINCY Geo. D. Ruehle, Ph.D., Vice-Dir. in Charge
S0. 0. Wolfenbarger, Ph.D., Entomologist
J. D. Warner, M.S.. Vice-Director in Charge ncs n Ph.D, H
Francis B. Lincoln, Ph.D., Horticulturist
R. R. Kincaid, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist Robt. A. Conover, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Path.
W. H. Chapman, M.S., Asso. Agron.
W. I. Chapman, P.., Asso. Agronm. R. W. Harkness, Ph.D., Asst. Chemist
L. G. Thompson, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
F k Bs, r., B.S, Ms An. Hsht Milton Cobin, B.S., Asso. Horticulturist
Frank S. Baker, Jr., B.S., Asst. An. Husb.

Mobile Unit, Monticello W. CENT. FLA. STATION, BROOKSVILLE
R. W. Wallace, B.S., Associate Agronomist William Jackson, B.S.A., Aninal Husband-
man in Charge"
Mobile Unit, Marianna
R. W. Lipscomb, M.S., Associate Agronomist
RANGE CATTLE STATION, ONA
Mobile Unit, Wewahitchka W. G. Kirk, Ph.D., Vice-Director in Charge
J. B. White, B.S.A., Associate Agronomist E. M. Hodges, Ph.D., Associate Agronomist
D. W. Jones, B.S., Asst. Soil Technologist
Mobile Unit, DeFuniak Springs H. J. Fulford, B.S.A. Asst. Animal Husb.
R. L. Smith, M.S., Associate Agronomist
CENTRAL FLORIDA STATION, SANFORD
CITRUS STATION, LAKE ALFRED
CIRUS STA ION, LAKE ALR. W. Ruprecht, Ph.D., Vice-Dir. in Charge
A. F. Camp, Ph.D., Vice-Director in Charge J. W. Ro t, Ph.D, ntooi in
W. L. Thompson, B.S., Entomologist W. Wilson, Sc.D., Entomologist
. T. Griffiths, Ph.D., Asso. Entomologist Ben F. Whitner, Jr., B.S.A., Asst. Hort.
J. T. Griffiths, Ph.D., Asso. Entomologist
R. F. Suit, Ph.D., Plant'Pathologist
E. P, Ducharme, M.S., Plant Pathologist' WEST FLORIDA STATION, MILTON
R. K. Voorhees, Ph.D., Asso. Horticulturist
C. R. Stearns, Jr., B.S.A., Asso. Chemist H. W. Lundy, B.S.A., Associate Agronomist
T. W. Young, Ph.D., Asso. Horticulturist
J. W. Sites, M.S.A., Horticulturist
R. O. Sterling, B.S., Asst. Horticulturist F D TAT
J. A. Granger, B.S.A., Asst. Horticulturist F LD TAT NS
H. J. Reitz, M.S., Asso. Horticulturist Leebrg
Francine Fisher, M.S., Asst. Plant Path.
I. W. Wander, Ph.D., Soils Chemist G. K. Parris, Ph.D., Plant Path. in Charge
A. E. Willson, B.S.A., Asso. Biochemist
J. W. Kesterson, M.S., Asso. Chemist Plant City
R. N. Hendrickson, B.S., Asst. Chemist A. N. Brooks, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
Joe P. Barnett, B.S.A., Asst. Horticulturist
J. C. Bowers, B.S., Asst. Chemist Hastings
D. S. Prosser, Jr., B.S., Asst. Horticulturist A. H. Eddins, Ph.D., Plant Path. in Charge
R. W. Olsen, B.S., Biochemist E. N. McCubbin, Ph.D., horticulturist
F. W. Wenzel, Jr., Ph.D., Supervisory Chem.
Alvin H. Rouse, M.S., Asso. Chemist Monticello
L. W. Fayville, Ph.D., Asst. Chemist A. M. Phillips, B.S., Asso. Entomologists
John R. Large, M.S., Asso. Plant Path.
EVERGLADES STATION, BELLE GLADE
Bradenton
"R. V. Allison, Ph.I., Vice-Director in Charge Bkea Ph Ho large
F. D. Stevens, B.S., Sugarcane Agronomist J. R. Beckenbach, Ph.D., Hort. in Charge
Thomas Bregger, Ph.D., Sugarcane E. G. Kelsheimer, Ph.D., Entomologist
Physiologist David G. Kelbert, Asso. Horticulturist
J. W. Randolph, M.S., Agricultural Engineer E. L. Spencer, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
W. T. Farsee, Jr., Ph.D., Chemist Robert O. Magie, Ph.D., Gladioli Hort.
R. W. Kidder, M.S., Asso. Animal Husb. J. M. Walter, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
T. C. Erwin, Assistant Chemist Donald S. Burgis, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
Roy A. Bair, Ph.D., Agronomist
C. C. Seale, Asso. Agronomist Lakeland
N. C. Hayslip, B.S.A., Asso. Entomologist Warren O. Johnson, B.S., Meteorologist2
E. H. Wolf, Ph.D., Asat. Horticulturist
W. H. Thames, M.S., Asst. Entomologist 1Head 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. 4 On leave.












Contents
PAGE

THE PROBLEM .-.....--- ..-..----------......... --- ..--- -- .......... 5

PREVIOUS WORK .....-..-.. ......-......-....-.. ------....---....... 5

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE ..-..---......-...--------.-----........--.....---- 6

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS ....-......-- ....--........--------------- --............-- 8

SUMMARY ....- ......... ....... .........----------- -......- -.... ..---- ............ 14

RECOMMENDATIONS .....------ ...-----..- -- ---...---.. ---.....-.....-..---- 15

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

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





Fig. 2.-Two-year-old steer fed ground snapped corn.








Citrus Products for Fattening Cattle

W. G. KIRK, E. R. FELTON,1 H. J. FULFORD and E. M. HODGES

The Problem
Central Florida has never been self-sufficient in providing
home-grown feeds for cattle. With larger numbers of improved
cattle, a good feed supply becomes more important. If it can
be produced economically in Florida, so much the better. In
recent years there has been a tremendous increase in the pro-
duction of citrus by-products, including dried citrus pulp, fresh
grapefruit pulp and citrus molasses. During the 1947-48 season
the disposal of cull fruit, as well as of a large surplus, pre-
sented a serious problem to the citrus industry. The cattle-
men's need for energy feeds and that of the citrus industry
for more diversified outlets may, through cooperation, work
out beneficially for both groups if citrus by-products can go
to market as high quality Florida beef.
It is estimated that 140,000 tons of dried citrus pulp and
60,000 tons of citrus molasses were produced in the 1947-48
season. Large tonnages of fresh pulp and cannery wastes have
been hauled direct to feed lots and pastures. The potential
amount of citrus products available is enormous and it is desir-
able that all information on economical methods of using it for
cattle feed be obtained as quickly as possible.

Previous Work
Practical observation over a number of years has indicated
that fresh grapefruit pulp and dried citrus pulp are eaten readily
by all classes of range cattle. Fresh grapefruit pulp has been
fed as a winter supplement to pasture at the Range Cattle
Station since the 1942-43 season with good results in maintain-
ing weights. Fresh orange pulp was not relished because of
the bitter taste of the peel. After several days' exposure to
sun and air the bitterness, which is due to the essential dils in
the rind, was partially dissipated and the pulp was eaten readily.
Recently fresh grapefruit and citrus molasses have been fed.
Beef cattle, on pasture and in dry lot, thrived when these
products made up a large part of the ration but there were no
published data on their value as fattening feeds.
In 1935, Neal, Becker and Arnold (6)2 reported that 100
pounds of dried grapefruit refuse with 91.77 percent dry matter,
1Formerly Assistant Animal Husbandman, Range Cattle Station.
2 Italic figures in parentheses refer to Literature Cited.







6 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

and dried orange pulp with 85.05 percent dry matter, contained
75.99 and 69.55 percent of total digestible nutrients. The dried
grapefruit pulp contained 1.20 percent digestible crude protein
and the orange pulp 2.14 percent. They found that grade heifers
fed a daily ration of 30 pounds of silage, five pounds of cotton-
seed meal and 15 pounds dried grapefruit pulp per 1,000 pounds
live weight for 120 days were thrifty in appearance and made
an average gain of over one pound per day. In this trial 54
"percent of the dry matter and 60 percent of the digestible nutri-
ents were furnished by the dried citrus pulp. The digestible
nutrients required for 100 pounds gain for the four 30-day
periods ranged from 426 to 612 pounds, with an average of
488 pounds. Shealy, Kirk and Crown (7) found that steers fed
the same amount of ground snapped corn and cottonseed meal
" with either Napier grass, sorghum or sugarcane silage, required
630, 616 and 627 pounds of digestible nutrients, respectively,
for each 100 pounds gain. Arnold, Becker and Neal (1) found
"dried citrus pulp a desirable bulky concentrate for dairy cattle.
Citrus molasses was first produced in commercial quantities
Sin 1941. Becker, Arnold, Davis and. Fouts (3, 4) estimated
that it contained 1.4 percent digestible crude protein and 56.7
percent total digestible nutrients. Although citrus molasses is
bitter, cattle soon learn to like it and steers fed at the Range
Cattle Station ate an average of 6.5 pounds daily for 120 days.
The value of citrus by-products as feeds has been summarized
by Becker, Arnold and Davis (2). Fresh grapefruit pulp, dried
citrus pulp and citrus molasses are palatable and good sources
"- of energy, but all are low in protein.

Experimental Procedure
Three dry-lot feeding trials of 120 days each have been com-
pleted at the Range Cattle Station. Eight steers were fed in
1945-46 and 10 steers in both 1946-47 and 1947-48. In every
trial there was a preliminary feeding period of from seven to
10 days.
Of the 28 animals fed, 19 were yearlings and nine two-year-
olds when placed on test. All the steers were at least one-half
Brahman, with some Shorthorn, Devon or Hereford blood trac-
ing back to native stock. Weights were taken on three suc-
cessive days at the beginning and end of each trial and at weekly
intervals throughout the trial.
All animals were fed individually and were housed in stalls







Citrus Products for Fattening Cattle 7

four by 16 feet. The steers were allowed to exercise for a
short period at intervals of from seven to 10 days. Cattle and
pens were sprayed every three weeks with a 1.5 percent DDT
solution to control flies.
The feeds used in each ration were as follows:
Lot 1 Hay, cottonseed meal and ground snapped corn
Lot 2* Hay, cottonseed meal and dried citrus pulp
Lot 3 Hay, cottonseed meal, two pounds ground snapped corn and dried
citrus pulp
Lot 4 Hay, cottonseed meal and fresh grapefruit
Lot 5 Hay, cottonseed meal, two pounds ground snapped corn and fresh
grapefruit.
Fed only in the 1946-47 and 1947-48 trials.

All steers in a trial were fed the same amount of hay and
cottonseed meal. The hay was mixed Carpet, Bermuda, Bahia
and Pangola grasses grown at the Range Cattle Station. In the
1945-46 trial the cottonseed meal contained 41 percent protein,
in the two subsequent tests 36 percent. The hay provided rough-
age, always essential when citrus is fed, and the protein was
necessary to balance the ration.
The ground snapped corn was a white variety of unknown
origin. Grapefruit was either seedling or Marsh Seedless,
picked at from six to 10-day intervals and quartered as used.
Steers were fed twice a day at 8:00 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. The
cottonseed meal was mixed with the dried citrus pulp and poured
over the fresh grapefruit at feeding time and the hay was given
after the morning feeding.
During the trials all steers had access to a mineral mixture.
The amount of some of the ingredients was changed over the
three-year period as it was found advisable, either for nutritive
reasons or because of the cost, to alter the formula. The mineral
mixtures were made up as follows:
1945-46 1946-47 1947-48
Pounds Pounds Pounds
Steamed bonemeal .................................. 52.00 26.00 29.00
Defluorinated superphosphate .............. ...... 26.00 29.00
Common salt ....-.......................... ........ 33.89 33.89 34.22
Red oxide of iron ..-..............-.......-- ...... 3.39 3.39 3.42
Copper sulfate ....................................... 0.68 0.68 0.34
Cobalt chloride .......- ........................... 0.04 0.04 0.02
Cottonseed meal ................................... 5.00 5.00 2.00
Blackstrap molasses ............................ 5.00 5.00 2.00
TOTAL ...... ................................. 100.00 100.00 100.00
Rib cuts, consisting of the 9th, 10th and 11th ribs from each
side of the carcass, were taken for physical, chemical and cook-
ing tests. The data on the meat will be published later.







8 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

Experimental Results
Three feeding trials with steers in dry-lot have been com-
pleted. No difficulty was experienced in getting the steers to
eat citrus feeds. Average weights, gains and dressing percent
of steers fed in each of the three trials are given in Table 1.
TABLE 1.-FATTENING FEEDS, WEIGHT, GAINS AND DRESSING PERCENT.
SI Aver- Dress-
Lot Initial Final Total age ing
No. Year Fattening Feeds IWeight Weight Gain Daily Per-
S___ ____Gain cent
pounds pounds pounds pounds
1 1945-46 Ground snapped corn 718 1,006 288 2.39 58.71
1946-47 540 834 294 2.45 58.26
1947-48 675 950 275 2.29 58.79
S__ Average 645 | 930 285 2.37 58.59
2 1946-47 Dried citrus pulp 544 776 233 1.94 58.86
_1947-48 __635 925 289 2.47 60.68
S___ I Average 590 | 850 261 2.17 59.77
3 1945-46 Two pounds ground 742 1,100 358 2.99 62.62
1946-47 snapped corn and 521 791 270 2.25 58.00
1947-48 dried citrus pulp 692 975 283 2.36 62.10
I__Average 652 955 804 2.53 61.07
4 1945-46 Fresh grapefruit 739 961 222 1.85 61.00
1946-47 552 800 248 2.06 56.79
1947-48 628 872 244 2.04 58.95
__I Average 639 | 877 238 1.98 | 58.91
5 1945-46 Two pounds ground 713 969 266 2.13 57.99
1946-47 snapped corn and 550 817 267 2.23 58.67
1947-481 fresh grapefruit 697 940 252 2.10 59.97
Average 653 9111 258 1 2.15 58.87

It will be noticed that the average initial weight of the steers
fed in the three trials varied considerably. A yearling and a
two-year-old steer were used in each lot in both the first and
third trials and only yearlings in the second trial, which partly
accounts for the difference.
The average daily gains ranged from 1.85 pounds for steers
fed fresh grapefruit to 2.99 pounds for the steers receiving dried
citrus pulp plus two pounds of ground snapped corn, both in the
first trial.
Lot 2, fed dried citrus pulp as a fattening feed, had the lowest
average daily gain in the 1946-47 trial, 1.94 pounds, and the
highest in 1947-48, 2.47 pounds. The pulp used in 1946 varied
in quality and feed consumption was less consistent.







Citrus Products for Fattening Cattle 9

Comparing the steers that received fresh grapefruit with
those fed fresh grapefruit plus two pounds of ground snapped
corn, there was a difference in gain of 0.17 pounds daily in favor
of the steers fed corn. The addition of corn to either the grape-
fruit or dried pulp ration resulted in less fluctuation in feed
intake and more uniform gains.
The average daily feed intake for the three trials is given
in Table 2.
It required a period of 50 to 60 days to get the individual
steers on full feed. Increasing the fattening ration too rapidly
invariably resulted in animals going off feed. In general, feed
consumption was highest during the first 60 to 90 days, and
less feed was required for gains than for the last 30 days.
Of particular interest was the consumption of grapefruit by
individual animals and the averages for the steers on this feed.
One steer ate from 60 to 64 pounds of fresh fruit daily for a
seven-week period beginning on the 54th day of the test, with
an average intake of 48.38 pounds, while the average for the
six steers on this ration was 39.78 pounds. Throughout the
trials only one animal was affected adversely by any of the

Fig. 3.-Two-year-old steer fed dried citrus pulp.














. 4-.







10 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

rations. This steer, on fresh grapefruit, had an occasional di-
gestive disturbance characterized by slight bloat and temporary
refusal of feed. The distention usually subsided in 15 to 20
minutes, after which the feed was entirely eaten.
TABLE 2.-AvERAGE DAILY FEED INTAKE.
Cotton- Ground Dried Fresh
Lot Year Hay seed Snapped Citrus Grape- Mineral
No. Meal Corn Pulp fruit
Pounds I ounds pounds pounds pounds pounds
1 1945-46 6.33 2.46 14.20 ...... ...... 0.39
1946-47 5.67 2.80 10.99 ...... ... 0.45
1947-48 5.88 3.05 10.29 ..... ..... 0.28

Average 5.96 2.77 11.83 0.37

2 1946-47 5.67 2.80 ...... 6.51 ..... 0.43
1947-48 5.88 3.05 ...... 9.33 ...... 0.27

Average 5.74 2.93 7.92 0.34

3 1945-46 6.33 2.46 1.99 11.99 .... 0.40
1946-47 5.67 2.80 2.00 5.75 ..... 0.47
1947-48 5.84* 3.05 2.00 9.29 ..... 0.28

Average 5.95 2.77 2.00 9.01 0.38

4 1945-46 6.33 2.46 .. .... 43.02 0.55
1946-47 5.67 2.80 ..... .... 32.80 0.45
1947-48 5.88 3.05 .... ...... 42.61 0.28

Average 5.93 2.77 __ 39.78 0.43

5 1945-46 6.33 2.46 1.99 ...... 36.16 0.55
1946-47 5.67 2.80 2.00 ..... 26.55 0.45
1947-48 5.80* 3.05 2.00 ...... 40.23 0.28

Average 5.93 2.77 2.00 34.31 0.43
Animals were fed the same amount of hay, but there was some refusal in Lots 3 and 5.

The fresh grapefruit contained 13.64 percent dry matter, so
steers consuming 39.78 pounds per day received 5.43 pounds
dry matter. The high water content of the grapefruit, 86.36
percent, made it impossible for steers to eat sufficient nutrients
"$ to make gains comparable to those fed dry rations. Table 3
gives the feed intake per 100 pounds gain for each lot and
averages for the three trials.
Table 3 shows a great variation in feed required for gains
by steers on the same ration in the different trials. This was
due in part to age and weight and to the capacity of individual
animals to utilize their feed.







Citrus Productr fo Fattening Cattle 11

All steers in a trial received the same amount of hay and
cottonseed meal but in some instances there was a slight re-
fusal, which accounts for the difference in intake shown in
Table 2. The variable in rations used was the feed under test.

TABLE 3.-FEED REQUIRED FOR 100 POUNDS GAIN.
ICotton- Gound Dried Fresh
Lot Hay seed Snapped I Citrus Grape-
No. Year ___ Meal Corn Pulp fruit
pounds pounds pounds pounds Ipounds
1 1945-46 ...... 264 103 593 ......
1946-47 ...... 232 114 429... ........
1947-48 ...... 257 134 480 ... .
Average .... 251 117 500 -.---. _.
2 1946-47 ..... 292 144 ...... 336
1947-48 ...... 241 127 ...... 388 ...
Average .... 264 135 365
3 1945-46 .-..-. 212 83 67 402
1946-47 ...... 252 124 89 256
1947-48 ...... 248 130 85 388 ...
Average .... 235 110 79 354

4 1945-46 ..... 342 133 ...... 2,326
1946-47 ...... 275 136 1,590
1947-48 -..... 289 150 ---- 2,095
SAverage .... 301 136 ___1,992

5 1945-46 ...... 297 115 93 ...... 1,697
1946-47 ..... 255 126 90 ...... 1,193
1947-48 ..... 277 146 95 ..... 1,919
Average .... 276 129 93 1,595

The average composition of the feeds and the digestible
nutrient content are given in Table 4.
Table 4 is included to show the difference in composition of
all feeds used and their digestible nutrient contents. Co-
efficients of digestibility as given by Shealy, Kirk and Crown
(7) were used for ground snapped corn. Coefficients for hay
and cottonseed meal were obtained from Morrison's Feeds and
Feeding (5), and for dried citrus pulp from Neal, Becker and
Arnold (6). Since there are no digestion coefficients for fresh
grapefruit, those of dried grapefruit pulp (6) were used.
The dry feeds contained almost six times the total digestible
nutrients found in fresh grapefruit. The high water content
of fresh grapefruit, 86.36 percent, limited the nutrient intake
of Lots 4 and 5. The steers on grapefruit drank less water but
it was more difficult to keep them well bedded. Frequent phys-







12 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

ical examinations when seedling fruit was used failed to show
any whole or parts of seeds in the feces, which indicated that
seeds as well as pulp were being utilized.

TABLE 4.-AVERAGE COMPOSITION AND DIGESTIBLE NUTRIENT CONTENT
OF FEEDS.
Nitro- Total
Crude gen- Digest-
Feed Dry Pro- Crude Free Crude Ash ible
Matter tein Fiber Ex- Fat | Nu-
____ tract trients
per-er- per- per- per- per- per- per-
cent cent cent cent cent I cent cent
Composition*

Ground snapped corn 87.08 9.43 11.18 61.79 3.03 1.65 ...
Cottonseed meal ........ 90.34 39.04 12.49 27.84 5.12 5.85 ...
Grass hay ................ 89.67 5.66 31.73 46.10 1.67 4.51 -..
Dried citrus pulp ...... 85.84 6.54 15.03 55.10 4.88 4.29 ....
Fresh grapefruit** .. 13.64 1.07 1.39 10.03 0.64 0.51 ..-

Digestible Nutrients

Ground snapped corn ........ 6.51 6.15 51.90 5.93 ........ 70.49
Cottonseed meal ..... ....... 31.62 5.62 19.77 10.83 ..... 67.84
Grass hay .................. ...... 2.26 15.86 23.06 1.50 ...... 42.68
Dried citrus pulp ...... ........ 1.62 10.75 50.93 8.71 ...... 72.01
Fresh grapefruit ...... ....... 0.27 0.99 9.27 1.02 ...... 11.55

Chemical analyses were made under the direction of Dr. George K. Davis. Animal Nu-
tritionist, Main Station, Gainesville.
** The figures for fresh grapefruit are based upon digestion trials (6) with dried citrus
pulp.

The total digestible nutrients required per 100 pounds gain
are given in Table 5.
Table 3 shows the feed intake for gains, while Table 5 gives
the total digestible nutrients from each constituent and the
total nutrients required for gains. The steers fed ground
snapped corn needed the most nutrients, 539 pounds, and those
fed grapefruit the least, 456 pounds. The lot receiving grape-
fruit plus two pounds of corn required 457 pounds. Steers fed
dried citrus pulp consumed 484 pounds of total digestible nutri-
ents for 100 pounds gain.
One hundred pounds of the mineral mixture eaten by the
steers in the three trials had an average total digestible nutrient
content of five pounds, thus the amount obtained from this
source per 100 pounds gain ranged from 0.75 for Lot 3 to 1.1
pounds for Lot 4.







Citrus Products for Fattening Cattle 13

TABLE 5.-ToTAL DIGESTIBLE NUTRIENTS REQUIRED FOR 100 POUNDS GAIN.

I Digestible
I Cotton- Ground Dried Fresh Nutrients
Lot Year Hay I seed Snap- Citrus Grape-I From
No. I Meal ped Pulp fruit I Fatten-
Corn I Total ing
Si __Feed*
pounds pounds pounds pounds pounds I pounds percent
1 1945-46 113 72 430 .... ...... 605 71.1
1946-47 98 75 299 ..... ...... 472 63.3
1947-48 111 90 341 ..... ...... 542 62.9

Average 107 79 353 539 65.5

2 1946-47 124 94 ...... 240 .... 458 52.4
1947-48 104 87 ----- 285 ..... 471 60.5

Average 113 90 263 466 56.5

3 1945-46 92 59 48 291 ..... 489 69.3
1946-47 107 81 62 183 ...... 433 56.6
1947-48 107 88 60 282 ...... 537 63.7

Average 101 74 55 254 484 63.8

4 1945-46 147 94 ..... ...... 245 486 50.4
1946-47 116 89 ...... ... 187 392 47.7
1947-48 125 102 ...... 266 493 54.0

Average 129 95 233 456 51.1

5 1945-46 127 83 66 ...... 179 453 54.1
1946-47 108 82 63 .-... 140 393 51.7
1947-48 119 99 67 ...... 244 529 58.8

Average 118 87 65 187 457 55.1
Ground snapped corn, dried citrus and fresh graDefruit, alone or combined in various
rations.

The steers on the dry rations in the three trials obtained more
nutrients from the fattening feeds and less from the hay and
cottonseed meal, 65.5 and 63.8 percent for Lots 1 and 3, com-
pared to 51.1 from grapefruit,. Lot 4, and 55.1 from corn and
grapefruit, Lot 5. In the second and third trials Lot 2 obtained
56.5 percent of their nutrients from dried citrus pulp.
Animals used in all trials had been given access to a mineral
mixture since birth, hence there was no reason to believe that
they suffered any deficiency. However, as soon as the mineral
mixture was placed in the boxes, usually a pound at a time, it
would be consumed within a few hours. In the third trial each
animal was limited to two pounds a week, as it was estimated






14 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

this would meet its needs. The steers in every trial gnawed
the edge of their stalls and ate earth from the floor of the pens
as well as licking earth when turned out in the exercising yard.
Throughout the trials all steers appeared to be in excellent thrift
and no abnormalities were observed at time of slaughter which
would indicate a lack of mineral.
Of the 28 steers, three graded choice, 18 good and seven com-
mercial. Carcass grade depended upon quality of animal used in
the trials and degree of finish when slaughtered. Quality and
flavor of meat from animals of the same grade were uniformly
good, whether the feed was ground snapped corn, dried citrus
pulp or grapefruit.
Summary
Three feeding trials of 120 days each to test the fattening
value of dried citrus pulp and fresh grapefruit for cattle have
been completed. Twenty-eight steers with 50 percent Brahman
blood were fed individually the fattening rations of ground
snapped corn; dried citrus pulp; dried citrus pulp and two pounds
Fig. 4.-Three-year-old steer fed fresh grapefruit and ground snapped corn.









..* J,_
-----







Citrus Products for Fattening Cattle 15

of ground snapped corn; fresh grapefruit; and fresh grapefruit
plus two pounds of ground snapped corn. In each trial all
animals received the same amount of hay and cottonseed meal
but the amount varied for the three trials.
All rations were palatable and there was little difficulty in
keeping the steers on full feed. The animals were sleek and
glossy and appeared healthy in every respect.
The lot fed ground snapped corn made an average daily gain
of 2.37 pounds, requiring 539 pounds total digestible nutrients.
At the current price of corn this was the most expensive ration.
Dried citrus pulp in two trials produced gains of 2.17 pounds
a day and required 466 pounds total digestible nutrients for
100 pounds gain.
The steers fed dried citrus pulp and two pounds of ground
snapped corn made daily gains of 2.53 pounds with a total
digestible nutrient requirement of 484 pounds.
Fresh grapefruit was eaten readily. The daily gains on this
ration were 1.98 pounds, and with the addition of two pounds
of ground snapped corn they were increased to 2.15 pounds.
The total digestible nutrient requirement was 456 and 457
pounds, respectively.

Recommendations
Grade steers of good feeder conformation and quiet disposi-
tion weighing from 550 to 700 pounds can be fattened satis-
factorily on a ration of hay, cottonseed meal, mineral mixture
and either dried citrus pulp or fresh grapefruit. The citrus
feeds furnish energy nutrients, hay supplies bulk, cottonseed
meal protein balance, and the mineral mixture elements es-
sential for the animal body.
Feed cattle in groups; from 10 to 20 in dry lot where they
are to be fed twice daily, and in larger numbers on pasture
where self-fed. Unruly cattle should be removed and all sharp
horns tipped.
Good gains can be secured on an average daily ration of:
Five to seven pounds of hay
Three pounds cottonseed meal
Eight to nine pounds dried citrus pulp or
40 to 50 pounds fresh grapefruit

At the beginning of the feeding period use more hay and
less of the citrus feeds. Gradually decrease hay and increase
citrus until the cattle are on full feed.







16 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

In dry lot feeding exercise care that feed does not spoil in
the bunks. Dried citrus pulp and cottonseed meal can be mixed
and fed in bunks, and there is less waste if hay is fed from
racks. Well grown cattle can eat whole grapefruit but for
young animals it is advisable to quarter or slice the fruit
before putting it in the bunks.
If cattle are fattened on pasture the quality of the grass will
determine the amount of fattening feeds required. Grass will
replace hay in the ration. Whole grapefruit and cottonseed
pellets can be spread on the ground if there is a good sod, or
bunks may be used.
When fattening cattle in dry lot or pasture they should be:
(1) Cared for and fed regularly.
(2) Supplied with plenty of fresh water.
(3) Given a good mineral mixture.

Literature Cited
1. ARNOLD, P. T. DIX, R. B. BECKER and W. M. NEAL. The feeding value
and nutritive properties of citrus by-products. II. Dried grapefruit
pulp for milk production. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 354. 1941.
2. BECKER, R. B., P. T. DIX ARNOLD and GEORGE K. DAVIS. Citrus by-
products as feeds for cattle. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Press Bul. 644.
1948.
3. BECKER, R. B., P. T. DIX ARNOLD, GEORGE K. DAVIS and E. L. FOUrs.
Citrus molasses. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Press Bul. 623. 1946.
4. BECKER, R. B., P. T. Dix ARNOLD, GEORGE K. DAVIS and E. L. FoUTs.
Citrus molasses-a new feed. Jour. Dairy Sci. 27 (4): 269-273.
1944.
5. MORRISON, F. B. Feeds and Feeding. The Morrison Pub. Co. Ed. 20,
pp. 958, 980 and 1005. 1936.
6. NEAL, W. M., R. B. BECKER and P. T. Dix ARNOLD. The feeding value
and nutritive properties of citrus by-products. I. The digestible
nutrients of dried grapefruit-orange cannery refuses, and the feed-
ing value of grapefruit refuse for growing heifers. Fla. Agr. Exp.
Sta. Bul. 275. 1935.
7. SHEALY, A. L., W. G. KIRK and R. M. CROWN. Comparative feeding
value of silages made from Napier grass, sorghum and sugarcane.
Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 358. 1941.

Acknowledgments
Acknowledgment is made to Dr. A. L. Shealy, Dr. R. S. Glasscock, Dr.
George K. Davis, Kingan and Co., Bartow and Tampa, and Mr. R. B.
Campbell, Wauchula, for help given in the course of these feeding trials.
The assistance of many members of the Agricultural Experiment Station
and of Mr. O. C. Coker and Mr. H. C. Howze, who cared for the experimental
animals, is appreciated greatly.





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