• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Copyright
 Main














Title: Citrus products in cattle finishing rations
CITATION DOWNLOADS THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027155/00001
 Material Information
Title: Citrus products in cattle finishing rations
Physical Description: Book
Creator: Kirk, W. Gordon
Publisher: University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
Publication Date: 1970
Copyright Date: 1970
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027155
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: aep0391 - LTUF
18421620 - OCLC
000929600 - 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
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
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 739 JULY, 1970


CITRUS PRODUCTS
IN

CATTLE FINISHING RATIONS:

A REVIEW OF RESEARCH AT RANGE CATTLE STATION
1946-1960

W. G. Kirk and Marvin Koger







-' ^ A I- --'4 --- ,-----







eer L all for days Ate 803 pounds of feed containing
Uae r l hn ,and daily gain 2.08 pounds. Improvement in live
slaughter grade from High Utility to High Goad with carcass grade of High Good Dressing
per cent 62.7 (11).
OCT 8 0970
Agricul Ural Experiment Stations
I.FA.S- Univ. ofij ood and Agricultural Sciences
u9n ver y of Florida, Gainesville
J. W. Sites, Dean for Research











CONTENTS


Page

Introduction ........ --- ......- .- ..-......... ..........------ 3
Production -..-...- .. ..- .. .. .. ...8.. ...--.-...........- .....-- 3
Citrus feeds --... ...................................- -- 3
Citrus pulp and citrus meal ................ .................. .---- .... 3
Citrus molasses ... ...... ....................... -. ...... .. 4
Sweet citrus pulp ......-................-.... ... 4
Tangerine pulp ....................................---- 4
Fresh citrus ...................................-..-- ----. 4
Feed value of citrus products in cattle finishing rations ...........- -. 4
Ground snapped corn versus citrus pulp ... -............................ 4
Citrus molasses and cane molasses ... -........--... 5
Cottonseed meal versus urea-protein supplement 5........................ 5
Fresh citrus fruit .....5................... 5
Citrus pulp, ground snapped corn, and corn meal --.......... ... 5
Citrus feeds for calves of different breeding .......................... 6
Pangolagrass hay and pangolagrass silage in ration .........- 6
Ammoniated citrus pulp ........ .... ........................ 6
Citrus pulp and ammoniated bagasse ... ............................. 6
Finishing yearling heifers wintered at four gain levels ............ 6
M ethods .......... ... ......... -- -.............. .. . ... .. 7
Summarization and analyses of data ............... ..... ....... 8
R results ........... . ........ ........ 9
Linear correlation coefficients ... .. ........................... 9
Partial regression coefficients ....... .... -....................... 12
Daily gain ............ .......................... ... ... ...... 12
Feed conversion ... ........................... ....... 13
Dressing per cent .. ..... ... ...... ............. 13
Carcass grade ....... .... ........ .... ... .. .. 14
D discussion -....- ..... ...........................-- ..... 14
Conclusions -... ..... ................ -..... - -- 23
Literature cited ...... ............ ............................... 25
Acknowledgements ........ ....-.... ................ .. .... ... 26
A appendix .... -- ----- ........ -.. .. .........- ............. 27

2









Citrus Products in Cattle Finishing Rations:
A Review of Research at Range Cattle
Experiment Station, 1946-1960
W. G. Kirk and Marvin Koger1

INTRODUCTION
Florida citrus products furnish large quantities of energy-
rich cattle feeds; dried citrus pulp, citrus molasses, and citrus
meal are ranked in order of importance. Experimental feeding
trials and practical experience of cattlemen have shown that
citrus feed products are a good source of nutrients in balanced
rations for growing animals, breeding herds, and finishing
cattle. Citrus feeds, since they are products of Florida industry,
are usually available in Florida at a lower cost on an energy
nutrient basis than imported feeds.
The purpose of this bulletin is to summarize the results from
feeding citrus products in cattle finishing trials conducted at
the Range Cattle Experiment Station (RCES) from 1946 to
1960. Data are included from 73 experimental groups fed
rations in which citrus feeds were a main source of energy
nutrients.

PRODUCTION
Citrus feeds are processed from the peel, rag, and seed which
remain after the juice or sections are removed from oranges,
grapefruit, and tangerines. Hendrickson and Kesterson (4)2
have outlined production methods from dried citrus pulp and
citrus molasses. [Tonnage of citrus pulp and meal has increased
from 32,730 tons in 1940-41 to a high of 573,907 tons in 1966-
67.3 Citrus molasses increased from 14,496 tons in 1943-44 to
55,929 tons in 1965-66.

CITRUS FEEDS
Citrus Pulp and Citrus Meal
These are the most important energy feeds derived from
SProfessor Emeritus (Animal Scientist Emeritus), Range Cattle Experi-
ment Station, Ona; and Professor (Animal Geneticist), Florida Agricul-
tural Experiment Station, Gainesville.
Numbers in parenthesis refers to literature cited.
"Production data from Florida Canners Association, Winter Haven,
Florida.

3









citrus by reason of their nitrogen free extract (NFE) and fat
content. Their value varies from 69% to 76% total digestible
nutrients (TDN), depending upon the seed content. Citrus pulp
is palatable to cattle and because of its bulkiness is helpful in
minimizing digestive disturbances in animals on full feed. Citrus
meal, because of its fineness, is not as palatable as pulp.j

Citrus Molasses
Citrus molasses has 60% to 70% dry matter made up largely
of sugars. It furnishes energy nutrients in rations balanced as
to roughage and protein.

Sweet Citrus Pulp
Citrus pulp and citrus molasses frequently are combined as
a single energy feed known as sweet pulp. Analyses show it to
be slightly lower in nutrients than citrus pulp.

Tangerine Pulp
A relatively limited amount of fresh tangerine pulp is
processed along with large amounts of orange and grapefruit
pulp. Tangerine pulp (7) was not as palatable as mixed pulp.
Its value as the main energy feed in cattle rations is limited.

Fresh Citrus
Fresh grapefruit and oranges are considered watery energy
feeds. Grapefruit are more palatable than oranges because of
the lower essential oil content of the peel.

FEED VALUE OF CITRUS PRODUCTS IN CATTLE FINISHING RATIONS
All rations contained adequate protein, roughage, and min-
erals, and at least the minimum requirement of vitamin A for
animal needs, with energy nutrients from citrus and other feed
products. The results of the 23 trials conducted at the RCES are
summarized in Appendix Tables 2 and 3.

Ground Snapped Corn Versus Citrus Pulp
Cattle response from this first series of feeding trials (10)
showed that citrus pulp had a feeding value similar to ground
snapped corn in cattle finishing ration. Cattle fed pulp were
superior to those fed ground snapped corn in conversion of
ration nutrients to liveweight gains.

4








Citrus Molasses and Cane Molasses
Steers hand-fed equal amounts of pulp and either citrus
molasses or cane molasses (11) made similar responses in rate
and economy of gain. The cattle ate an average of 5.3 pounds
of either citrus or cane molasses daily with no digestive dis-
turbance. Self-feeding these two molasses with the same level
of citrus pulp in the ration resulted in daily consumption of 7.9
pounds citrus molasses and 7.2 pounds cane molasses with less
efficient gains.

Cottonseed Meal Versus Urea-Protein Supplement
Calves and yearling steers (15) fed cottonseed meal had a
6.7% higher rate of gain and 6% higher feed and TDN conver-
sion rates than animals fed a mixture of 60% cottonseed meal,
5.5% urea, and 34.5% citrus meal. Yearling cattle fed either
cottonseed meal or protein feed containing urea gained faster
and required less feed for gain than did the calves. In another
trial steers fed urea-treated citrus pulp and 65.7% as much
cottonseed meal had 11% less gain than those fed plain pulp
and cottonseed meal.

Fresh Citrus Fruit
Fresh grapefruit, fresh oranges, and grated oranges con-
tained 13.6%, 16%, and 14.8% dry matter, respectively. Rate
of gain with grapefruit as a source of energy was positively
correlated with the level of TDN consumed, and was limited by
the water content of the fresh fruit (10). Grating improved the
palatability of oranges by allowing essential oils in the skin to
be washed away. Grating raised average daily orange consump-
tion from 29.3 to 56.5 pounds with daily gains being increased
from 1.58 pounds to 2.62 pounds. Gains improved 66% when
more oranges were eaten, whereas daily TDN intake increased
36%. It appeared that nutritional factors other than TDN con-
sumed affected gains.

Citrus Pulp, Ground Snapped Corn, and Corn Meal
These three feeds had similar value when fed at the same
level in balanced growing and finishing steer rations (17).
Yearling steers fed corn meal had a slightly higher carcass
grade and dressing per cent than animals fed the other two
energy feeds.

5









Citrus Feeds for Calves of Different Breeding
Four lots of steer calves were fed the same ration containing
from 51% to 52% TDN from citrus pulp and citrus molasses
(18). Daily gains ranged from 1.71 pounds to 1.78 pounds.
Steers which were most efficient in feed conversion for gains
had the lowest carcass grade.

Pangolagrass Hay and Pangolagrass Silage in Ration
Yearling steers self-fed roughage and hand-fed equal
amounts of citrus pulp and citrus molasses at 0, half-feed, and
full-feed made gains positively correlated with level of citrus
products in the ration (14). Feed conversion was relatively low
because of the high levels of roughage, but improved with in-
creasing levels of citrus feeds.
Citrus feeds furnished from 65% to 74% of the TDN in
rations containing either cottonseed meal or urea-protein sup-
plement (13). Rate of gain and feed conversion were slightly
lower when urea furnished part of the equivalent protein than
when cottonseed meal furnished all the supplemental protein.

Ammoniated Citrus Pulp
Ammoniated citrus pulp was not as palatable in cattle finish-
ing rations as plain citrus pulp, even when cornmeal was added
to both rations (9). Weight gain and feed or TDN conversion
were lowered when ammoniated pulp replaced part of the cot-
tonseed meal and citrus pulp of rations.

Citrus Pulp and Ammoniated Bagasse
Citrus pulp furnished 49% to 54% and citrus molasses from
21% to 27% of the TDN when either plain or ammoniated
bagasse replaced part of the roughage in finishing rations (12).
Inclusion of plain bagasse in all but one series of trials reduced
gain and feed conversion. The exception was when Camola
(bagasse pith 4 parts and cane molasses 10 parts) replaced a
part of the hay or all the cane molasses of rations without in-
fluencing gain or feed utilization.

Finishing Yearling Heifers Wintered at Four Gain Levels
Four lots of heifer calves wintered on pasture to obtain
average daily gains of 0.09, 0.39, 0.77, and 1.21 pounds, respec-

6









tively, were fed 140 days in drylot a ration in which citrus pulp
furnished 44% of the TDN (19). Daily feedlot gains of 1.87,
1.92, 1.62, and 1.55 pounds and feed conversion rates of 0.094,
0.091, 0.085, and 0.078, respectively, were inversely related to
winter gains, demonstrating once again the well known phe-
nomenon of compensatory gain in the feedlot.

METHODS

Average proximate analysis of feeds on an air-dry basis are
given in Appendix Table 1. Analysis of citrus feeds were given
by Kirk and Davis (8) and data for other ration ingredients
were from feed samples collected during the different feeding
trials. Silage and fresh sugarcane were calculated on the dry
matter content of hay (89.7%) and fresh grapefruit and oranges
as dried citrus pulp (88.3%).
All rations contained adequate levels of crude protein from
cottonseed meal or mixtures of cottonseed meal and urea or
ammoniated feed products. Vitamin A was supplied by either
hay, silage, cod liver oil, or alfalfa products. The Ona mineral
mixture (3) fed free-choice furnished supplementary Ca, P, Na,
Cl, Fe, Cu, and Co, minerals which may be deficient in Florida-
grown feeds. The level of roughage in the rations varied from
15.4% to 58.9%, with more than 50% in nine rations. At least
one citrus product was fed to all but Lot 1 of the 73 groups
used in the study.
Stilbestrol was supplied to two groups of cattle. In one
group (Lot 48) stilbestrol was mixed with cottonseed meal and
fed at a rate of 10 mg daily per animal. In the second group
(Lot 118) 24 mg of stilbestrol was implanted into the ear of
each steer when placed on test (20).
There were 614 animals, including 75 steer calves, 428 steers
one year or more in age, and 111 yearling heifers, all fed in
drylot. Ninety steers were fed individually, and 524 steers and
heifers were fed in groups. Brahman and Shorthorn blood pre-
dominated in the experimental animals, but grade Hereford,
Devon, and Angus were represented. The cattle were healthy.
Data for only one animal were discarded because of abnormally
low rate of gain. There were no death losses. Grade, weight,
and breeding were the criteria used in assigning animals to
treatment groups. Cattle fed individually were weighed each
week, while group-fed cattle were weighed at 28-day intervals.

7









Summarization and Analyses of Data
Data from a total of 73 groups of cattle, fed in 23 separate
trials, were included in the study. The number of animals per
group varied from 2 to 16 for an average of 7.2. Group averages
were obtained for each of the 73 groups and these group means
used as observations in summarizing results. The means for
each group are shown in Appendix Tables 2 and 3. Fifteen
variables pertaining to feeds, feedlot performance of cattle, and
carcass characteristics were studied (Table 1). The variables
included were defined as follows:
1. Daily feed intake. Total pounds of roughage, protein,
energy, and mineral feeds eaten by the group divided
by the number of cattle days.
2. TDN (per cent in ration) was calculated from per cent
TDN in each feed and the amount eaten.
3. Dry citrus included citrus pulp, citrus meal, plus any
fresh grapefruit or oranges reduced to the same dry
matter content as citrus pulp.
4. Citrus molasses. Fed as obtained from processing plant.
5. Initial weight was the average of three weights taken
on consecutive days during early trials, or one weight
taken at 8:00 a.m. before animals were fed during later
trials.
6. Feeding period. Days on test ranged from 98 days
(limited by available test feed) to 143 days.
7. Transit shrink. Final experimental weight minus weight
at slaughter plant, expressed as per cent of final feedlot
weight.
8. Market weight. Weight at slaughter plant.
9. Daily gain. Difference between initial and slaughter
plant weights divided by cattle days.
10. Feed conversion. Gain per 1 pound of feed consumed.
11. TDN conversion. Gain per 1 pound of TDN consumed.
12. Cold carcass weight. Weight after carcass had been in
cooler for 48 hours; or warm carcass weight less 2.5%
when chilled carcasses could not be weighed.
13. Cold dressing per cent. Cold carcass weight expressed
as per cent of slaughter weight.

8









14. Cooler shrink. Warm dressing per cent minus cold
dressing per cent.
15. Federal carcass grade. Determined by USDA federal
grader for each carcass.

The principal objective of the study was to determine the
feedlot performance and carcass characteristics of cattle fed
varying levels of citrus feeds. One approach was to determine
the correlation of per cent of citrus products in ration with re-
sponse data. This was accomplished by a multiple regression
analysis which determined the correlation coefficients among all
variables and simultaneously developed multiple regression
equations for most efficiently estimating the response traits
which included daily gain, feed conversion, TDN conversion,
dressing per cent, and carcass grade.
The second approach was to summarize individual trials
which permitted direct comparison of various constituents in
the ration.

RESULTS

Linear Correlation Coefficients

The simple linear coefficients of correlation between the 15
variables studied are shown in Table 1. The coefficients of
particular interest in this study are those which show the rela-
tionship between the level of citrus products in the ration and
feedlot performance. The only significant negative correlation
involving citrus products was that between the level of citrus
molasses in the ration and dressing per cent. The generally
positive relationship between levels of citrus products and feed-
lot performance indicates that citrus products satisfactorily re-
placed other energy feeds at the levels fed. Citrus pulp was the
only feed ingredient which showed a negative relationship with
carcass grade. This point will be discussed further in connection
with the multiple regression studies.
As is shown in Table 1, daily feed intake had substantial
positive correlations with initial weight, market weight, and
cold carcass weight and a negative relationship with conversion
of feed and of TDN for gain. These relationships were to be
expected, since young cattle eat less feed and are more efficient
than older cattle, but require rations higher in TDN and a longer
feeding period to reach satisfactory market weight and grade.

9














Table 1. Coefficients of correlation (r) between variables included in the analysis.1
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

1. Daily feed intake 1.00 -.27 .06 -.15 .70 -.47 -.26 .72 .11 -.70 -.67 .73 .41 -.41 .04
2. a. TDN % 1.00 .17 -.26 -.47 .56 -.25 -.35 .29 .37 .07 -.32 .15 -.05 .13
b. Roughage % 1.00 -.17 .26 .47 -.56 .25 .35 -.29 -.37 -.07 .32 -.15 .05 -.13
3. Citrus dry % 1.00 -.33 .12 .00 .03 .16 .09 .00 -.03 .22 .46 -.15 -.08
4. Citrus molassess % 1.00 -.05 -.16 .22 -.06 .05 .18 .27 -.09 -.31 -.09 .06
5. Initial weight 1.00 -.83 .18 .96 -.03 -.55 -.45 .94 .27 -.05 .07
S 6. Days on test 1.00 -.40 -.75 .00 .34 .19 -.69 .07 -.10 -.04
0 7. Transit yield % 1.00 .20 .25 .42 .53 .18 -.32 .19 .02
8. Market weight 1.00 .22 -.40 -.32 .98 .31 -.07 .13
9. Daily gain 1.00 .61 .56 .21 -.00 .08 .23
10. Feed conversion 1.00 .95 -.41 -.34 .11 .14
11. TDN conversion 1.00 -.34 -.40 .13 .10
12. Cold carcass weight 1.00 .44 -.09 .18
13. Cold dress % 1.00 -.21 .22
14. Cooler yield % 1.00 .15
15. Federal grade 1.00
1 Number of observations are the 73 group means for each trait.














Table 2. Variables influencing the five response traits, partial regression coefficients, order of importance of influence, and multi-
ple correlation coefficients for regression equations.

Response Traits
Daily Feed TDN Dressing Carcass
Item Gain Conversion Conversion % Grade

Constant -5.116 0.0931 0.2901 41.31 7.53
Partial, coefficients
and order of importance:'
1. Daily feed intake, lb 0.22612 -0.003781 -0.00638, 0.1314, -
2. TDN in ration, % 0.32781, 0.001332 -
3. Citrus pulp in ration, % 0.03563 -
4. Citrus molasses in ration, % 0.07853 0.0004183 0.00077, -
5. Initial weight, lb 0.00574 -
6. Days on test 0.08256 -
7. Daily feedlot gain, lb 0.806,
Multiple correlation coefficient (R) 0.40 0.74 0.69 0.71 0.23
Coefficient of determination (R") 0.16 0.55 0.48 0.50 0.05
1 The order of importance of influence on response is shown as a subscript to the partial regression coefficient. A subscript of 1 indicates that the
variable was the most important trait, a subscript of 2 that it was the second most important, etc. Where no coefficient is shown, the variable had no
significant influence on response.









The TDN content of the ration had a positive correlation of
0.56 with days on test and negative correlation of -0.47 with
initial weight. The correlation of level of roughage in the ration
with the various feed items were the same in magnitude but
reverse in sign from those for TDN. This follows from the
negative correlation between TDN and roughage content of the
rations.
Coefficients of particular interest are those pertaining to
level of citrus products in the rations. All cattle except Lot 1,
fed ground snapped corn, received citrus feed. In general, the
level of total citrus products fed showed a slight positive cor-
relation with feedlot performance.

Partial Regression Coefficients
Of greater utility than simple correlation coefficients in the
interpretation of results were the partial regression coefficients
obtained in considering simultaneously the most important fac-
tors influencing daily gain, feed conversion, TDN conversion,
dressing per cent, and carcass grade. A step-wise multiple re-
gression program was employed which showed the order of
importance of the variables affecting performance, as well as
their partial regression coefficients when the interrelationships
of the variables are considered. The results from this study are
shown in Table 2.

Daily Gain
Three factors pertaining to the ration had a significant in-
fluence on daily gain. These were in order of importance, (1)
per cent TDN in the ration, (2) daily feed intake, and (3) per
cent molasses in the ration. The correlations were positive in
all cases.
That per cent TDN in the ration and daily intake had a
favorable influence on gain is, of course, to be expected since it
confirms well established principles of beef cattle feeding. Of
particular significance for this study was the favorable effect
of citrus molasses even when per cent TDN and food intake
were .held constant statistically. This would suggest that citrus
molasses has a, favorable effect over and above its contribution
to TDN of the ration. These results are in agreement with
feeding trials conducted by Baker (2), which have shown citrus
molasses to enhance feedlot gains.
It should be noted, however, that the multiple correlation

12









between ration characteristics and gain was 0.40, which accounts
for only 16% of the variance in gain. This is not surprising in
view of the influence on gain of other factors, such as age and
growth potential of cattle, weather conditions, and effect on
palatability when urea and ammoniated pulp and bagasse were
included in the ration.

Feed Conversion
In this study, feed conversion was expressed as live weight
gain per pound of feed, rather than the reciprocal, as is fre-
quently done. This procedure was used so that a high ratio
would indicate good conversion, which simplifies interpretation
of positive and negative coefficients.
As would be anticipated, the influence of TDN and citrus
molasses on feed conversion paralleled that of their influence on
daily gain, being positive in both cases.
Increased daily feed intake, although having a positive effect
on daily gain, had an apparent negative influence on feed and
TDN conversion. This would not be surprising, since feed intake
was the denominator in the ratio that expressed feed conversion,
thus corresponding to the reverse of a part whole correlation.
Other factors that may have contributed to a negative relation-
ship would be errors in weighing feed, the fact that large
animals require more for maintenance but generally gain more
than smaller animals, and that a high feed intake may be
associated with more rapid passage of feed through the intestinal
tract.
The per cent of dry citrus products in the ration had no
significant influence on conversion, with the correlation coeffi-
cient rounding to 0.0 for both TDN and feed conversion.

Dressing Per Cent
The factors influencing dressing per cent, in order of im-
portance, were daily feed intake, days on test, per cent citrus
pulp in the ration, and initial weight. The coefficients were all
positive. The multiple correlation coefficient was 0.71, account-
ing for 50 % of the variance in dressing per cent.
The positive influence of citrus pulp on dressing per cent
was consistent throughout the data. No obvious reason for the
relationship is apparent.
The multiple regression technique showed citrus molasses to
have no significant influence on dressing per cent when consid-

13









ered simultaneously with other factors. The simple correlation
coefficient, however, showed a negative relationship between
citrus molasses and dressing per cent, due possibly to the general
tendency to reduce citrus molasses in the ration as citrus pulp
was increased.

Carcass Grade
Daily gain was the only ration or performance item which
showed a significant relationship with carcass grade in this
study. This trait accounted for only 5% of the variance in car-
cass grade. The reason for lack of influence of ration character-
istics on carcass grade is explained by the fact that the study
covered a number of years which introduced environmental
variations, and utilized cattle of variable feeder grade, breeding,
age, and sex. These factors had more influence on grade than
the rations fed. Also there was a tendency to feed to the Good
grade irrespective of the ration fed. Had the trials been on a
time constant basis, ration ingredients undoubtedly would have
influenced carcass grade.
It should be pointed out, however, that per cent of citrus
pulp in the ration had a slight negative influence on carcass
grade, as shown by the simple correlation coefficient in Table 1.
While the negative relationship was not statistically significant,
the results suggest that the higher amounts of citrus pulp used
in these studies were approaching the level that can be used
without adversely influencing carcass grade. The highest quan-
tity of citrus pulp fed in a ration was 71.5% of the TDN (Lot
100). The highest level of citrus molasses was 32.4% of the
TDN (Lot 25) and the highest level of total citrus products
was 76.1% of the TDN in the ration (Lot 190).

DISCUSSION

The object of the drylot feeding trials was to determine
the value of citrus pulp and citrus molasses in cattle finishing
rations as indicated by rate of gain, feed conversion for gain,
carcass yield, and carcass quality. Citrus pulp is the most
versatile of the citrus feeds; it is palatable, rich in energy
nutrients, easily mixed with other feed ingredients, and readily
stored. Citrus molasses is of secondary importance as a source
of nutrients because only a limited volume is produced.
The control ration in each of the 23 series of feeding trials
was considered adequate to promote good rate and economy of

14









gain and produce good quality beef. Many cattle on test rations
gained at a slower rate, consequently requiring more nutrients
per unit of gain but with only a slight difference in carcass
yield and grade. In general, rations high in roughage and low
in concentrates were fed during the first weeks, with the per
cent of concentrates being increased during the latter part of
a trial. The data shown are the averages for the entire trial.
Citrus feed products were used in all but one ration, and
citrus pulp was the main source of energy nutrients in all but
three rations. The amount of citrus pulp eaten averaged 5.2
pounds daily by animals started on trial as calves, and fed
citrus molasses and corn meal in addition, to 16.6 pounds by
long yearling steers4 with pulp as the only energy feed in the
ration.
Citrus pulp furnished from 52.1% to 66.1% of the TDN in
the ration in which no other energy feed was provided. In one
series steers self-fed citrus molasses ate an average of 7.9
pounds daily which provided 32.4% of the TDN in their ration
(Lot 25); citrus pulp supplied 33.0% of the TDN. The re-
mainder of the TDN in this ration came from hay, cottonseed
meal, and complete mineral. Total citrus feeds supplied as much
as 76.1% of ration TDN (Lot 190), citrus pulp 57.1%, and
citrus molasses 19.0%.
Fresh grapefruit fed with hay and cottonseed meal supplied
48.6% of the ration TDN. Oranges furnished 44.4% and grated
oranges 58.8% of the TDN, the difference in consumption being
due to superior palatability of the latter.
The rations, feed intake, feedlot performance, and carcass
values for each group of cattle used in preparing Figures 1 to
10 are given in Appendix Tables 2 and 3. Average values for
factors which apply to the 73 lots of cattle used in this study
are given in Table 3. Points of interest shown in each group
are briefly discussed below.
Figure 1 shows the relationship between daily gain and per
cent TDN in the ration. Daily gain was increased by 0.023
pounds for each 1% increase of TDN in the ration. The cor-
relation coefficient between these two traits, (r), was 0.29
(Table 1). That this relationship was not more strongly positive
is explained by the variation in age and weight of cattle fed
and by the number of ingredients used in making up the rations.

Steers 21 to 24 months of age.

15














3.00

V)
Z
0








S2.00





1.50


r = 0.29

1.00I I I
40 45 50 55 60 65

PER CENT TDN IN RATIONS

Figure 1. Daily gain and per cent TDN in rations.






300




& 250








0 50
0



0 i
150


r- -0 09
100 I I I 1
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
PER CENT TDN FROM DRY CITRUS

Figure 2. Daily gain and per cent TDN from dry citrus.

16












2.50

0


2.00
z








o
J 1.50-


r= 0.05


1.00 I I I I
0 10 20 30 40

PER CENT TDN FROM CITRUS MOLASSES

Figure 3. Daily gain and per cent TDN from citrus molasses.






3.00




S2 50
z
0 *
0

z 2.00
4> ;


1.50

r= 0.07

1.00
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
PER CENT TDN FROM CITRUS FEEDS
Figure 4. Daily gain and per cent TDN from citrus feeds.

17










12





II





10






o
(fl .









8




r 0.23

I I I I

1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
DAILY GAIN IN POUNDS
Figure 5. Carcass grade and average gain.


Figures 2, 3, and 4 show the relationship between per cent
of TDN from citrus, citrus molasses, and total citrus products,
respectively, with feedlot gain. The graphs all demonstrate that
citrus products were good sources of TDN, having approxi-
mately the same value on a TDN basis as the feeds which they
replaced.
The relationship between daily gain and carcass grade is
shown in Figure 5, being positive as would be expected. The

18









effect of citrus products on carcass grade was nonsignificant,
as shown in Table 2 and Figure 6. The level of citrus feeds
in the ration had no effect on feed and TDN conversion (Table
2 and Figure 7). TDN from citrus products showed a slight
positive relationship with dressing per cent (Figure 8). Citrus
pulp and dressing per cent show a positive relationship, r = 0.46,
while level of citrus molasses and dressing per cent had a nega-
tive relationship, r = -0.31. These two relationships are not
in agreement with the usual finding that ingredients which in-
crease rate of gain and carcass grade usually result also in
increased dressing per cent. Dry citrus pulp can be included in
a finishing ration at a higher level than molasses. Molasses,
however, has a supplemental value and can be used to replace
part of the more expensive and perhaps less palatable dry energy
feeds.
There was a positive correlation between carcass grade and
dressing per cent (r = 0.22, Table 1; and seen in Figure 10,
b = 0.157). Factors other than carcass grade which affect dress-



12



I I



10
IC)



) 9
Cn,



8


r= -0.01
7 -

20 30 40 50 60 70 80
PER CENT TDN FROM CITRUS FEEDS
Figure 6. Carcass grade and per cent TDN from citrus feeds.

19










ing per cent and are not shown in Figure 10 include ration fed,
method of handling previous to slaughter, hauling shrink and
breeding cattle. It is seen in Table 3 that average cold dressing
per cent per lot ranged from 56.0% to 62.8%, and carcass grade
ranged from Standard to Low Choice. Standard grade cattle
dress from 56.0% to 58.0% ; Good grade from 58.5% to 60.5% ;
and Choice cattle from 61.0% to 63.0%. Ammerman et al. (1)
found no significant difference in rate of gain; carcass grade,
and feed efficiency when 60% to 70% of ground snapped corn
in the finishing ration was replaced by an equal weight of dried



0.30 -




0.25 -
z
0

> 0.20
o
0

C--
0.15 ..


r=-0.05

0.10 II I I I
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
PER CENT TDN FROM CITRUS FEEDS
Figure 7. TDN conversion and per cent TDN from citrus feeds.



- 65-
z
Ll





W r= 0.46

55 I I I I
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
PER CENT TDN FROM DRY CITRUS
Figure 8. Dressing per cent and per cent TDN from dry citrus.

20













65


I-
z
LJ
(9





z

U 55
LI,
60










r= -0.31
50 I 1
S 55



r=-0.31

50------------------
10 20 30 40

PER CENT TDN FROM CITRUS MOLASSES

Figure 9. Dressing per cent and per cent TDN from citrus molasses.


12







0











r= 0.22
7

56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63
DRESSING PER CENT
Figure 10. Carcass grade and dressing per cent.

21









Table 3. Average value and range in lot means for five selected traits.
Item Average Range
TDN in ration, % 59.1 51.0 to 65.0
Daily gain, lb 1.94 1.24 to 2.81
Carcass grade1 9.1 7.0 to 11.8
TDN conversion2 0.165 0.103 to 0.229
Chilled dressing per cent3 59.6 56.0 to 62.8
I Grades: 7, Standard; 8, High Standard; 9, Low Good; 10, Good; 11, High Good;
12, Low Choice.
SGain per pound TDN consumed.
: Chilled carcass weight market weight.


citrus pulp. It was shown by Hentges et al. (5) that replacing
47.4 to 63.2% of corn meal with an equal weight of pelleted
citrus meal in the finishing ration reduced the efficiency of feed
utilization for gains. These two groups of research workers
found evidence of an apparently harmful alteration of the rumen
papillae with high levels of either citrus pulp or pelleted citrus
meal.
Fresh grapefruit fed with hay and cottonseed meal supplied
56.5% of the TDN in the ration. Oranges furnished 44.4% and
grated oranges 58.8%, the difference in consumption being due
to the greater palatability of grated over the ungrated fruit.
Grapefruit and oranges in cattle rations resulted in rate of gain
and feed utilization for gains comparable to the energy nutrients
consumed. The amount of water in fresh citrus is a limiting
factor in TDN intake in balanced rations. The removal of oil
in skin of oranges increased palatability and consumption of
fresh oranges, resulting in improved gains and conversion of
total feed and TDN for maintenance and gain. Cost of fruit with
labor involved in preparation will limit the use of fresh fruit
in finishing rations.
TDN in the 73 rations was from 44.1% (Lot 103) to 65.0%
(Lot 44). The National Research Council (16) shows that a
ration for calves finished as short yearlings5 should contain 66%
TDN and for yearling cattle 65% TDN. Thus only the rations
fed Lot 65 approached the recommended TDN level. Daily gain
per group ranged from 1.24 pounds (Lot 100) to 2.81 pounds
(Lot 89). The average daily gain for all cattle not given stil-
bestrol (Table 3) is below the suggested rate of 2.1 pounds for
calves and 2.4 pounds for yearlings. Roughage in rations was
from 15.4% (Lot 91) to 58.9% (Lot 65). There was a correla-
tion (r = 0.29) between ration TDN and daily gain and the

"From 12 to 15 months of age.

22









reciprocal (r = 0.29) between ration roughage and daily gain.
Replacing part of the cottonseed meal with urea reduced rate
of> gain and increased nutrients required for maintenance and
gain. Recent advances in feeding cattle (6) show that nutrient
deficiencies of urea can be corrected by adequate nutrition of
rumen organisms.
Transit shrink, based on pen and slaughter plant weights,
ranged from 0.9% to 6.3%. Much of this difference was due to
the rations fed, intestinal fill, degree of fleshing, disposition of
animals and the distance cattle were hauled 42 miles in early
trials, 80 miles when delivered at Tampa, and 196 when cattle
were slaughtered at Gainesville.
Average carcass grade of all cattle slaughtered was Low
Good with a range for groups from Standard to Low Choice.
Most cattle had a potential of Good to Choice carcass grades,
but many failed to reach these grades because of shortness of
feeding period and rations lacking either in palatability or in
energy. Feeding urea, ammoniated pulp, and bagasse reduced
palatability, and giving cattle free access to either good quality
pangolagrass hay or silage reduced ration TDN, with a resultant
lower rate of gain.

CONCLUSIONS
The two most available Florida citrus feed products are
citrus pulp and citrus molasses. Their known value is substan-
tiated by the combined statistical study of data from several
feeding trials.

SCitrus pulp:
1. Readily available in large quantities.
2. It is rich in energy nutrients. It can be the main source
of energy nutrients in rations for calves, yearlings, and
older cattle.
3. Palatable to cattle and combines easily with other feed
ingredients in balanced rations.
4. Citrus pulp, because of its bulk, reduced digestive dis-
turbances to a minimum with cattle on full feed.
5. Cattle fed citrus pulp had dressing per cent and carcass
grade consistent with quality of experimental animals
and length of feeding period.

23









6. Value of citrus pulp in cattle finishing rations is in rela-
tion to its energy content.

Citrus molasses:

1. Much smaller volume available than pulp.
2. Palatable to all classes of fed cattle.
3. Feeding value is in its energy nutrient content.
4. It can be used to replace from one-third to one-half of
citrus pulp or other high energy feeds without reducing
gains.
5. May increase shipping shrink with Standard or lower
grade slaughter cattle.

Citrus pulp and molasses:

1. Positive relationship between level of citrus products and
feedlot performance. Thus these two feeds can replace
other energy feeds in balanced rations.
2. Daily gain was influenced, in order of importance, by
(1) per cent TDN in ration, (2) daily feed intake, and
(3) per cent molasses in ration. These factors, however,
accounted for 16% of the variance in gain.
3. Daily feed intake had a negative effect and TDN and
citrus molasses a positive effect on feed conversion, with
citrus pulp having no effect. These factors accounted for
55% of the variance.
4. Daily feed intake had a negative effect and citrus molasses
a positive effect on TDN conversion. These factors ac-
counted for 48% of the variation.
5. Daily feed intake, days on test, citrus pulp in the ration,
and initial weight were responsible for 50% of the varia-
tion in dressing per cent.
6. Daily gain was the only factor which showed a significant
relationship with carcass grade, but this trait accounted
for only 5% of the variance.



24










LITERATURE CITED

1. Ammerman, C. B., P. A. van Wallinghem, A. Z. Palmer, J. W. Car-
penter, J. F. Hentges, and L. R. Arrington. 1963. Comparative
feeding value of dried citrus pulp and ground corn and cob meal for
fattening steers. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Anim. Sci. Mimeo. Rept. 64-8.
2. Baker, F. S., Jr. 1955. Steer fattening trials in North Florida. Fla.
Agr. Exp. Sta. Circ. S-89. p. 10. (Out of print.)

3. Becker, R. B., P. T. Dix Arnold, W. G. Kirk, George K. Davis, and
R. W. Kidder. 1953. Minerals for beef and dairy cattle. Fla. Agr.
Exp. Sta. Bull. 513R. p. 48.

4. Hendrickson, R., and J. W. Kesterson. 1951. Citrus by-products of
Florida. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 487. p. 56. (Out of print.)

5. Hentges, J. F., Jr., J. E. Moore, A. Z. Palmer, and J. W.' Carpenter.
1966. Replacement value of dried citrus meal for corn meal in beef
cattle diets. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bull. 708. p. 22.

6. Kirk, W. G. 1967. The use of urea in fattening rations for cattle
Ch. 11/pp. 215-222. Urea as a protein supplement. Pergammon Press.
New York.

7. Kirk, W. G. 1952. Utilization of citrus products for fattening cattle.
Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Ann. Rept. p. 271.

8. Kirk, W. G., and George K. Davis. 1954. Citrus products for beef
cattle. Fla. Agr. Exp Sta. Bull. 538. p. 16. (Out of print.)

9. Kirk, W. G., George K. Davis, and F. M. Peacock. 1965. Ammoniated
citrus pulp in cattle fattening rations. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Rept.
No. 1. pp. 14-16.

10. Kirk, W. G., E. R. Felton, H. G. Fulford, and E. M. Hodges. 1949.
Citrus products for fattening cattle. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 454.
p. 16. (Out of print.)

11. Kirk, W. G., E. M. Kelly, H. J. Fulford, and H. E. Henderson. 1956.
Feeding value of citrus and blackstrap molasses for fattening cattle.
Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 575A. p. 23.

12. Kirk, W. G., F. M. Peacock, and G. K. Davis. 1962. Utilizing bagasse
in cattle fattening rations. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 641. p. 16.

13. Kirk, W. G., F. M. Peacock, and E. M. Hodges. 1963. Pangolagrass
hay and silage with cottonseed meal and urea in fattening rations.
Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull, 654. p. 14.

14. Kirk, W. G., F. M. Peacock, E. M. Hodges, and J. E. McCaleb. 1960.
Value of pangola hay and silage in steer fattening rations. Fla. Agr.
Exp. Sta. Bull. 621. p. 20.

15. Kirk, W. G., F. M. Peacock, E. M. Hodges, and D. W. Jones, 1958.
Urea and cottonseed meal in the ration of fattening cattle. Fla. Agr.
Exp. Sta. Bull. 603. p. 16.

16. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle. 1963. National Research Coun-
cil Pub. 1137. Washington, D. C. p. 30.

25









17. Peacock, Fentress M., and W. G. Kirk. 1959. Comparative feeding
value of dried citrus pulp, corn feed meal and ground snapped corn for
fattening steers in drylot. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 616. p. 12.
18. Peacock, F. M., and W. G. Kirk. 1963. Feedlot performance and
carcass grades of Brahman and Brahman-Shorthorn steers. Fla. Agr.
Exp. Sta. Bull. 597. p. 16.
19. Peacock, F. M., W. G. Kirk, E. M. Hodges, A. Z. Palmer, and J. W.
Carpenter. 1964. The effect of winter gains of beef calves on subse-
quent feedlot performance. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bull. 667. p. 12.
20. Peacock, F. M., W. G. Kirk, E. M. Hodges, A. Z. Palmer, and J. W.
Carpenter. 1965. Influence of summer pasture, diethylstilbestrol, and
shade on fattening cattle in south Florida. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech.
Bull. 700. p. 14.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors gratefully acknowledge the grant of $1200 from
the Florida Citrus Commission, Lakeland, to assist in the statis-
tical study of the cattle feeding data. Sincere appreciation is
made to Mrs. B. J. Norris, Mrs. Janice Moye, and Mrs. Zula
Mercer, RCES secretarial staff, and to Mrs. Rose Madsen, Main
Station, Gainesville, in the transfer of individual cattle data
from feeding trial records to computer cards, a series of time
consuming and particular tasks. Dr. Frank G. Martin, Associate
Professor (Associate Statistician), Main Station, Gainesville,
and staff assisted in the programming of data and operation of
the computer.






















26


























APPENDIX


































27











Appendix Table 1. Average proximate analysis1 of feed ingredients used in finishing trials.

Code Dry Crude Crude
No. Feed Matter" Protein Ash Fiber Fat NFE TDN
01 Mixed hay 89.7 5.7 4.5 31.7 1.7 46.1 42
02 Pangolagrass hay 89.7 6.6 5.4 32.1 2.2 43.4 42
03 Pangolagrass silage 25.5 1.6 1.6 8.6 0.6 13.1 14
04 Cottonseed hulls 87.5 3.5 2.6 37.9 1.2 42.3 44
05 Bagasse:
Whole 89.8 1.8 2.7 35.9 0.9 48.5 20
Chicken litter 92.3 2.6 2.0 41.4 0.7 45.6 20
Pith 90.0 1.7 14.3 28.8 1.2 44.0 20
Camola 78.9 1.7 11.0 8.7 0.4 57.1 42
07 Ammoniated bagasse 91.9 11.7 3.1 39.3 1.0 36.8 20
08 Alfalfa meal, 15% protein 91.6 15.0 8.8 27.9 2.0 37.9 53
10 Sugarcane- fresh 30.9 1.0 0.7 9.0 0.5 19.7 18
20 Cottonseed meal, 41% protein 90.7 42.0 5.6 13.1 5.9 24.1 70
35 Ground snapped corn 88.8 4.2 4.5 27.7 1.6 50.6 69
36 Yellow corn meal, No. 2 87.4 9.2 1.2 1.7 4.1 71.2 80
37 Dried citrus pulp and meal 88.3 6.1 4.7 11.4 6.0 60.1 71
39 Sweet pulp 86.2 6.2 4.1 10.6 3.8 60.2 68
40 Ammoniated pulp 88.0 10.7 4.3 12.4 6.0 54.6 69
41 Tangerine pulp 87.5 7.1 4.4 9.6 5.0 61.4 71
42 Citrus molasses 64.3 5.6 4.4 0.3 54.0 50
43 Cane molasses 68.9 7.6 8.3 0.3 52.7 53
55 Fresh grapefruit 13.6 1.1 0.5 1.4 0.6 10.0 12
56 Oranges, fresh 16.0 1.2 0.7 1.8 0.3 12.0 12
57 Oranges, grated 14.8 1.0 0.6 1.6 0.3 11.3 11
58 Fresh grapefruit pulp 16.1 1.6 0.6 2.7 1.4 9.8 14
65 Ona Complete Mineral 90.0 2.8 83.8 0.2 0.1 3.1 5
5 Urea 90.0 N 262% protein (Two-Sixty-Two)
2 Stilbestrol -
1 Cod liver oil -
I Analyses mado at Nutrition Laboratory, Main Station, Gainesville.
S All analysis are on airldry basis.





Appendix Table 2. Ration ingredients, weights, dressing per cent, and carcass grade.
Weights
Lot Daily Dressing Carcass3
No. Ration Ingredients1'2 Initial Gain Per Cent Grade
1. Hay, csm and gr sn corn 641 2.21 57.9 10.8
2. Hay, csm and cit pulp 590 2.06 58.8 9.0
3. Hay, csm, cit pulp and gr sn corn 645 2.45 60.1 10.2
4. Hay, csm and grapefruit 637 1.84 57.9 8.3
5. Hay, csm, grapefruit and gr sn corn 647 2.03 57.9 9.0
23. Hay, csm, cit pulp and cit m 612 2.14 59.3 9.1
24. Hay, csm, cit pulp and cane m 603 2.14 58.9 9.3
25. Hay, csm, cit pulp and cit m 623 1.96 59.5 9.3
26. Hay, csm, cit pulp and cane m 668 2.09 59.1 9.2
27. Hay, csm, alf, cit pulp and cit m 555 2.08 60.2 10.2
28. Hay, csm, urea, alf, cit pulp and cit m 547 1.95 59.2 10.0
29. Hay, csm, sweet cit pulp 548 2.16 60.2 10.0
30. Hay, csm, tangerine pulp and cit m 558 1.94 56.9 8.0
35. Hay, csm, cit pulp and cit m 550 1.94 57.6 7.0
36. Hay, csm, alf, amm pulp and cit m 560 1.66 57.6 8.3
37. Hay, csm, cit pulp, cit m, corn meal 708 2.18 60.1 10.0
38. Hay, csm, amm pulp, cit m, corn meal 753 1.84 59.1 11.5
39. Hay, csm, alf, cit pulp, cit m, corn meal 418 2.13 58.3 7.0
40. Hay, csm, alf, amm pulp, cit m, corn meal 393 1.72 58.6 10.0
42. Hay, csm, alf, cit pulp, cit m 455 2.24 57.6 8.8
43. Hay, csm, alf, gr sn corn, cit m 435 2.31 58.0 9.7
44. Hay, csm, alf, corn meal, cit m 434 2.26 59.1 10.0
47. Hay, csm, cit pulp, cit m 541 2.01 58.5 10.0
48. Hay, csm, still, cit pulp, cit m 540 2.10 59.1 10.0
54. Hay, csm, alf, cit pulp, cit m, corn meal 530 1.71 61.4 11.8
55. Hay, csm, alf, cit pulp, cit m, corn meal 523 1.77 59.9 10.9
56. Hay, csm, alf, cit pulp, cit m, corn meal 525 1.78 61.1 9.9
57. Hay, csm, alf, cit pulp, cit m, corn meal 493 1.78 60.4 8.9
58. Hay, csm, grated oranges 748 2.62 59.1 10.0
59. Hay, csm, oranges 736 1.58 57.5 7.0
65. Hay, csm, cit pulp, cit m 837 2.00 57.0 8.3
66. Hay, csm, urea, cit pulp, cit m 830 1.51 59.3 8.7
67. S cane, csm, cit pulp, cit m 848 1.52 56.0 7.6
68. S cane, csm, urea, cit pulp, cit m 840 1.36 57.5 8.4
69. Sil, csm, cit pulp, cit m 835 1.96 56.7 8.1
70. Sil, csm, urea, cit pulp, cit m 849 1.87 58.0 9.0
72. Hay, csm, cit pulp, cit m 749 1.63 59.9 9.8
73. Hay, csm, cit pulp, cit m 764 1.94 61.2 9.4





Appendix Table 2 Continued.

Weights
Lot Daily Dressing Carcass3
No. Ration Ingredients1' Initial Gain Per Cent Grade
75. Sil, csm, cit pulp, cit m 768 1.71 59.1 10.0
76. Sil, csm, cit pulp, cit m 765 2.07 60.5 9.8
77. Hay, csm, cit pulp, cit m 652 2.17 60.6 7.8
78. Hay, csm, urea, cit pulp, cit m 642 2.00 59.6 8.2
79. Sil, csm, cit pulp, cit m 654 1.92 60.2 8.0
80. Sil, csm, urea, cit pulp, cit m 702 1.67 60.4 8.4
83. Hay, csm, cit pulp, cit m 497 1.88 58.1 9.3
84. Hay, csm, amm pulp, cit m 493 1.59 58.5 9.0
87. Hay, csm, cit pulp, cit m, corn meal 457 2.34 57.2 9.0
88. Hay, csm, urea, cit pulp, cit m, corn meal 477 2.08 57.5 9.3
89. Hay, csm, cit pulp, cit m 672 2.81 59.9 9.7
90. Hay, bag, csm, cit pulp, cit m 663 2.48 61.1 10.3
190. Hay, bag, csm, cit pulp, cit m 655 2.39 60.3 9.8
91. Hay, csm, cit pulp, cane m 885 2.06 59.4 9.3
92. Hay, bag, csm, cit pulp, cane m 896 2.25 60.3 10.7
93. Hay, bag, csm, cit pulp, cane m 868 2.21 60.3 9.8
S94. Hay, amm bag, csm, cit pulp, cane m 881 1.91 60.6 9.5
- 95. Hay, amm bag, csm, cit pulp, cane m 859 1.93 59.9 10.2
96. Hay, csm, alf, cit pulp, cane m 832 1.28 60.7 8.0
97. Hay, bag, csm, alf, cit pulp, cane m 850 1.39 62.2 9.7
98. Bag, csm, alf, cit pulp, cane m 843 2.00 60.5 9.3
99. Hay, bag, csm, urea, alf, cit pulp, cane m 852 1.48 61.5 8.7
100. Bag, csm, urea, alf, cit pulp, cane m 905 1.24 61.0 9.0
101. Csh, csm, alf, cit pulp 723 1.87 62.5 8.3
102. Csh, amm bag, csm, alf, cit pulp 728 1.93 62.0 9.0
103. Amm bag, csm, alf, cit pulp 717 1.51 59.8 7.0
104. Csh, csm, alf, cit pulp 900 2.61 62.8 9.5
105. Csh, amm bag, csm, alf, cit pulp 988 2.18 62.5 10.0
106. Amm bag, csm, alf, cit pulp 958 2.25 61.9 9.0
113. Hay, csh, csm, alf, cit pulp, corn meal 389 1.87 58.6 8.1
114. Hay, csh, csm, alf, cit pulp, corn meal 422 1.92 59.9 9.0
115. Hay, csh, csm, alf, cit pulp, corn meal 471 1.62 60.3 8.7
116. Hay, csh, csm, alf, cit pulp, corn meal 515 1.55 61.2 9.2
117. Hay, csh, csm, cit pulp, corn meal, alf 591 2.01 60.3 8.3
118. Hay, csh, csm, cit pulp, corn meal, alf, still 584 2.08 61.1 7.8
SMineral mixture fed to all cattle.
2Abbreviation of feeds: Cottonseed meal, csm; ground snapped corn, gr sn corn; dried citrus pulp, cit pull); citrus molasses, cit m; cane molasses,
cane m; alfalfa meal or pellets, alf; ammoniated pulp, amm pulp; yellow coin meal, corn meal; stilbestrol, still; sugar cane, s cane; pangolagrass silage,
sil; bagasse, bai; cottonseed hulls, csh.
"Carcass grades: 7, Standard; 8, High Standard; 9, Low Good; 10, Good; 11, Hirh Good; 12, Low Choice.









Appendix Table 3. Feed intake, TDN in ration, and feed conversion.
Daily Feed Per Cent Per Cent TDN from Energy Feeds
Intake in Ration Citrus Feeds Conversion
Lot Rough- Cane Total
No.1 Lb. TDN age TDN Pulp Mol. Total mol. Corn Total Feed2 TDN3
1 21.0 12.6 28.3 60.2 64.8 64.8 .105 .175
2 17.0 10.1 33.7 59.4 55.6 55.6 55.6 .121 .204
3 20.1 12.2 29.6 60.8 52.1 52.1 11.3 63.4 .122 .200
4 17.4 10.3 34.2 59.0 56.5 56.5 56.5 .106 .180
5 19.0 11.4 31.2 59.9 48.6 48.6 12.1 60.7 .107 .179
23 18.2 10.4 24.0 57.0 37.5 25.7 63.2 63.2 .118 .206
24 18.2 10.5 24.0 57.8 37.0 37.0 26.9 63.9 .117 .203
25 21.8 12.1 23.8 55.7 33.0 32.4 65.4 65.4 .090 .161
26 21.3 12.1 24.6 57.0 33.7 33.7 31.2 64.9 .098 .172
27 16.8 9.9 26.9 58.9 46.6 15.9 62.5 62.5 .124 .211
28 16.7 9.8 28.2 58.8 52.1 16.1 68.2 68.2 .117 .199
29 16.7 10.3 29.2 61.8 61.3 61.3 61.3 .129 .209
S 30 15.0 8.6 32.9 57.5 41.4 13.7 55.1 55.1 .129 .224
35 15.8 9.4 28.2 59.4 46.6 10.6 57.2 57.2 .122 .206
36 15.7 9.3 28.9 59.2 50.1 10.7 60.8 1.0 61.8 .106 .179
37 20.1 12.5 21.6 62.1 49.9 7.9 57.8 3.6 61.4 .109 .175
38 19.0 11.8 21.7 62.1 57.2 8.4 65.6 69.9 .099 .157
39 15.4 9.3 28.7 60.2 40.1 10.7 50.8 10.3 61.1 .138 .229
40 14.5 8.7 30.0 59.7 43.7 10.6 54.3 10.1 64.4 .119 .198
42 16.6 10.1 24.9 60.9 53.4 9.8 63.2 63.2 .126 .206
43 18.0 10.9 23.5 60.4 9.2 9.2 54.1 63.3 .129 .214
44 17.4 11.3 25.0 65.0 8.6 8.6 56.8 65.4 .130 .200
47 18.8 11.8 18.4 62.8 63.5 8.4 71.9 71.9 .107 .170
48 19.2 12.1 18.0 63.0 64.3 8.1 72.4 72.4 .109 .174
54 15.4 9.5 25.3 61.4 41.5 10.3 51.8 8.4 60.2 .111 .180
55 15.6 9.6 25.3 61.4 41.6 10.2 61.8 8.4 60.2 .113 .184
56 14.9 9.1 26.2 60.9 40.7 10.8 51.5 8.2 59.7 .119 .196
57 14.4 8.7 27.0 60.7 40.3 10.9 51.2 8.1 59.2 .123 .204
58 19.0 11.6 30.1 61.3 58.8 58.8 58.8 .119 .196
59 14.6 8.5 38.4 58.5 44.4 44.4 44.4 .123 .204







Appendix Table 3 Continued
Daily Feed Per Cent Per Cent TDN from Energy Feeds
Intake in Ration Citrus Feeds Conversion
Lot Rough- Cane Total
No.' Lb. TDN age TDN Pulp Mol. Total mol. Corn Total Feed2 TDN3
65 24.0 12.1 58.9 50.5 19.0 15.3 34.3 34.3 .084 .166
66 23.3 11.6 58.2 49.9 26.6 15.6 42.2 42.2 .065 .135
67 21.9 12.4 54.4 56.7 18.5 14.9 33.4 33.4 .070 .123
68 21.5 12.1 55.0 56.4 25.6 14.3 39.9 39.9 .064 .113
69 25.6 13.8 57.6 53.9 16.6 12.9 29.5 29.5 .077 .142
70 25.4 13.5 53.5 53.1 22.9 13.1 36.0 36.0 .074 .138
72 23.0 11.9 53.1 51.9 23.0 16.3 39.3 39.3 .071 .137
73 25.2 14.1 33.2 56.1 38.7 21.5 60.2 60.2 .077 .137
75 21.6 12.1 49.8 56.1 22.7 16.3 39.0 39.0 .079 .140
76 24.6 14.5 32.8 58.8 38.0 19.9 57.9 57.9 .084 .143
77 21.6 12.9 23.6 59.6 49.7 17.1 66.8 66.8 .101 .169
S 78 21.0 12.4 24.1 59.2 58.8 15.5 74.3 74.3 .095 .161
c 79 21.5 13.2 23.8 61.4 48.5 16.2 64.7 64.7 .089 .145
80 21.3 12.9 24.5 60.6 56.6 15.3 71.9 71.9 .079 .130
83 17.4 10.7 19.6 61.7 50.5 9.3 59.8 59.8 .108 .196
84 16.7 10.3 21.7 61.5 56.9 9.8 66.7 66.7 .096 .156
87 16.9 10.4 24.6 61.3 50.2 9.6 59.8 8.2 68.0 .138 .225
88 16.1 9.6 25.8 59.6 52.5 10.4 62.9 8.1 71.0 .129 .217
89 22.4 14.1 17.8 62.8 63.5 11.1 74.6 74.6 .125 .199
90 22.5 13.7 17.9 61.1 63.9 12.1 76.0 76.0 .111 .181
190 21.7 12.8 17.4 59.1 57.1 19.0 76.1 76.1 .110 .181
91 23.2 14.2 15.4 61.3 49.3 49.3 24.2 73.5 .089 .145
92 25.4 15.0 17.3 59.2 53.9 53.9 21.2 75.1 .089 .150
93 25.1 14.3 21.8 57.1 49.8 49.8 22.4 72.2 .088 .154
94 22.4 12.8 21.0 57.1 49.6 49.6 24.4 74.0 .085 .149
95 23.7 13.2 19.9 55.6 51.7 51.7 27.1 78.8 .081 .146
96 18.7 11.7 23.1 62.4 59.3 59.3 8.7 68.0 .069 .110
97 23.6 13.3 28.6 56.6 61.7 61.7 10.2 71.9 .059 .104
98 25.1 13.5 30.9 53.7 64.1 64.1 9.9 74.0 .079 .148
99 24.4 13.6 28.9 55.6 68.0 68.0 10.8 78.8 .060 .109

















Appendix Table 3 Continued
Daily Feed Per Cent Per Cent TDN from Energy Feeds
Intake in Ration Citrus Feeds Conversion
Lot Rough- Cane Total
No.1 Lb. TDN age TDN Pulp Mol. Total mol. Corn Total Feed2 TDN3
100 22.5 12.1 29.2 54.0 71.5 71.5 7.8 79.3 .055 .103
101 18.0 11.2 26.6 62.2 66.1 66.1 66.1 .104 .168
102 25.4 13.9 38.5 54.6 52.2 52.2 52.2 .076 .139
103 21.0 9.3 47.2 44.1 63.0 53.0 63.0 .072 .163
104 25.5 16.4 22.5 64.2 59.7 59.7 59.7 .102 .159
105 32.0 19.2 27.4 60.1 63.2 63.2 63.2 .068 .114
106 26.7 14.2 34.9 53.3 62.5 62.5 62.5 .084 .158
113 20.5 12.7 34.3 62.0 44.3 44.3 11.7 56.0 .094 .148
114 21.0 13.0 34.3 61.9 44.3 44.3 11.6 55.9 .091 .148
115 20.3 12.7 34.4 62.2 44.3 44.3 11.7 56.0 .085 .128
116 20.3 12.6 34.4 61.9 44.0 44.0 11.7 55.7 .078 .124
117 22.4 14.2 23.7 63.5 63.0 63.0 63.0 .090 .141
118 23.1 14.5 23.6 62.9 63.0 63.0 63.0 .090 .143
SRations, gain, dressing par cent, and carcass grade given in Appendix Table 1.
Gain per pound feed.
SGain per pound TDN.





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