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














Group Title: Bulletin - University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station ; no. 531
Title: Comparative feeding value of citrus molasses, cane molasses, ground snapped corn and dried citrus pulp for fattening steers on pasture
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027171/00001
 Material Information
Title: Comparative feeding value of citrus molasses, cane molasses, ground snapped corn and dried citrus pulp for fattening steers on pasture
Series Title: Bulletin University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station
Physical Description: 16 p. : ill. ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Chapman, H. L ( Herbert L. ), 1923-
Kidder, Ralph W
Plank, S. W
Publisher: University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1953
 Subjects
Subject: Feeds -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Beef cattle -- Feeding and feeds -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Bibliography: p. 16.
Statement of Responsibility: by H.L. Chapman, Jr., R.W. Kidder, and S.W. Plank.
General Note: Cover title.
General Note: "A contribution from the Everglades Experiment Station"--T.p.
Funding: Bulletin (University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station) ;
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027171
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 000926052
oclc - 18272429
notis - AEN6712

Table of Contents
    Main
        Main
    Title Page
        Page 1
        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





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




ULtu 4 153

December 1953


Bulletin 531


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

(A contribution from the Everglades Experiment Station)









Comparative Feeding Value of

Citrus Molasses, Cane Molasses, Ground

Snapped Corn and Dried Citrus Pulp

For Fattening Steers on Pasture


By
H. L. CHAPMAN, JR., R. W. KIDDER and S. W. PLANK


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
W. F. Powers, Secretary, Tallahassee

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

MAIN STATION, GAINESVILLE

AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS
II. G. Hamilton, Ph.D., Agr. Economist 3
R. E. L. Greene, Ph.D., Agr. Economist 3
M. A. Brooker, Ph.D., Agr. Economist'
Zach Savage, M.S.A., Associate
A. H. Spurlock, M.S.A., Agr. Economist
D. E. Alleger, M.S., Associate
D. L. Brooke, M.S.A., Associate
M. R. Godwin, Ph.D., Associate3
W. K. McPherson, M.S., Economist3
Eric Thor, M.S., Asso. Agr. Economist:
Cecil N. Smith, M.A., Asso. Agr. Economist
Levi A. Powell, Sr., M.S.A., Assistant
Orlando, Florida (Cooperative USDA)
G. Norman Rose, B.S., Asso. Agri. Economist
'J. C. Townsend, Jr., B.S.A., Agr. Statist cian-
J. B. Owens, B.S.A., Agr. Statistician'
F. T. Calioway, M.S., Agr. Statistician

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

AGRONOMY
Fred H. Hull, Ph.D., Agronomist 1
G. B. Killinger, Ph.D., Agronomist
H. C. Harris, Ph.D., Agronomist
R. W. Bledsoe, Ph.D., Agronomist
W. A. Carver, Ph.D., Agronomist
Fred A. Clark, M.S., Associate 2
E. S. Horner, Ph.D., Assistant
A. T. Wallace, Ph.D., Assistant
ID. E. McCloud, Ph.D., Assistant 3
G. C. Nutter, Ph.D., Asst. Agronomist
I. M. Wofford, Ph.D., Asst. Agronomist

ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND NUTRITION
T. J. Cunha, Ph.D., Animal Husbandman 3
G. K. Davis, Ph.D., Animal Nutritionist:'
R. 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., Asst. An. Husb.3
M. Koger, Ph.D., An. Husbandman 3
J. F. Hentges, Jr., Ph.D., Asst. An. Hush. 3
L. R. Arrington, Ph.D., Asst. An. Hush.
A. C. Warnick, Ph.D'., Asst. Physiologist

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


EDITORIAL
J. Francis Cooper, M.S.A., Editor 3
Clyde Beale, A.B.J., Associate Editor
J. N. Joiner, B.S.A., Assistant Editor3
William G. Mitchell, A.B.J., Assistant Editor
Samuel L. Burgess, A.B.J., Assistant Editor

ENTOMOLOGY
A. N. Tissot, Ph.D., Entomologist1
L. C. Kuitert, Ph.D., Associate
H. E. Bratley, M.S.A., Assistant
F. A. Robinson, M.S., Asst. Apiculturist
R. E. Waites, Ph.D., Asst. Entomologist
S. H. Kerr, Ph.D., Asst. Entomologist
HOME ECONOMICS
Ouida D. Abbott, Ph.D., Home Econ.1
R. B. French, Ph.D., Biochemist
HORTICULTURE
G. H. Blackmon, M.S.A., Horticulturist1
F. S. Jamison, Ph.D., Horticulturist 3
Albert P. Lorz, Ph.D., Horticulturist
R. K. Showalter, M.S., Asso. Hort.
R. A. Dennison, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.
R. H. Sharpe, M.S., Asso. Horticulturist
V. F. Nettles, Ph.D., Asso. Horticulturist
F. S. Lagasse, Ph.D., Horticulturist2
R. D. Dickey, M.S.A., Asso. Hort.
L. H. Halsey, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
C. B. Hall, Ph.D., Asst. Horticulturist
Austin Griffiths, Jr., B.S., Asst. Hort.
S. E. McFadden, Jr., Ph.D., Asst. Hort.
C. H. VanMiddelem, Ph.D., Asst. Biochemist
Buford D. Thompson, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
M. W. Hoover, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
LIBRARY
Ida Keeling Cresap, Librarian

PLANT PATHOLOGY
W. B. Tisdale, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist 13
Phares Decker, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
Erdman West, M.S., Botanist & Mycologist3
Robert W. Earhart, Ph.D., 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. R. Mehrhof, M.Agr., Poultry Hush.'1
J. C. Driggers, Ph.D., Asso. Poultry Husb.3
SOILS
F. B. Smith, Ph.D., Microbiologist' ,
Gaylord M. Volk, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
J. R. Neller, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
Nathan Gammon, Jr., Ph.D., Soils Chemist
Ralph G. Leighty, B.S., Asst. Soil Surveyor2
G. D. Thornton. Ph.D., Microbiologist 3
C. F. Eno, Ph.D., Asst. Soils Microbiologist
H. W. Winsor, B.S.A., Assistant Chemist
R. E. Caldwell, M.S.A., Asst. Chemist34
V. W. Carlisle, B.S., Asst. Soil Surveyor
J. H. Walker, M.S.A., Asst. Soil Surveyor
William K. Robertson, Ph.D., Asst. Chemist
0. E. Cruz., B.S.A., Asst. Soil Surveyor
W. G. Blue, Ph.D., Asst. Biochemist
J. G. A. F'iskel, Ph.D., Asst. Biochemist"I
L. C. Hammond, Ph.D., Asst. Soil Physicist3
H. L. Breland, Ph.D., Asst. Soils Chem.
VETERINARY SCIENCE
D. A. Sanders, D.V.M., Veterinarian 13
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. Parasitologist
E. W. Swarthout, D.V.M., Asso. Poultry
Pathologist (Dade City)








BRANCH STATIONS

NORTH FLORIDA STATION, QUINCY
W. C. Rhoades, M.S., En'omologist in Charge
RR. Kincaid, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
L. G. Thompson, Jr., Ph.D., Soils Chemist
W. IH. Chapman, M.S., Agronomist
Frank S. Baker, Jr., B.S., Asst. An. Husb.
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
D. 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 4
R. M. Pratt, Ph.D., Asso. Ent.-Pathologist
W. A. Simanton, Ph.D., Entomologist
E. J. Deszyck, Ph.D., Asso. Horticulturist
C. I. 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. Entomologist
W. F. Grierson-Jackson, Ph.D., Asst. Chem.
Roger Patrick, Ph.D., Bacteriologist
Marion F. Oberbacher, Ph.D., Asst. Plant
Physiologist
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. Wolf, 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. F. Darby, Ph.D., Asst. Plant Path.
V. L. Guzman, Ph.D., Asst. Hort.
J. C. Stephens, B.S., Drainage Engineer2
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. N. Beardsley, M.S., Asst. Animal Husb.

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

WEST CENTRAL FLORIDA STATION,
BROOKSVILLE
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-Leesbnrg
J. M. Craln, Ph.D., Associate Plant Path-
ologist Acting in Charge
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
John R. Large, M.S., Asso. Plant Path.
Frost Forecasting-Lakeland
Warren O. Johnson, B.S., Meteorologist in
Charge 2
1 Head of Department
2 In cooperation with U. S.
3 Cooperative, other divisions, U. of F.
4 On leave
























CONTENTS

PAGE



INTRODUCTION ..................------.-- -------- 5


EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE ................-----.- ----- 7


EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...........-.... 8


SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............------------------------ 13


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..-..............-- .......-........... 15


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








Comparative Feeding Value of

Citrus Molasses, Cane Molasses, Ground

Snapped Corn and Dried Citrus Pulp

For Fattening Steers on Pasture

H. L. CHAPMAN, JR.1, R. W. KIDDER and S. W. PLANK 1

INTRODUCTION
Most of the growth in the beef cattle industry on the muck
and peat soils of the Everglades area has been during the past
decade. An important factor in improving the efficiency of this
beef production is the maximum utilization of the naturally lush
pasture forage, plus the proper use of locally produced feeds
supplemented when necessary with feeds produced elsewhere.
Preliminary studies regarding the possibilities of fattening steers
on forages produced in the Everglades were initiated during
the winter of 1935-36. Since then there has been a continuous
series of feeding trials conducted at the Everglades Experiment
Station to provide the cattlemen in the area with information
concerning the fattening of cattle.
The sugar industry is of major proportion in the Everglades,
with an important by-product of this industry being cane mo-
lasses. Cane, or blackstrap, molasses has been used widely for
feeding beef cattle, replacing as much as one-half of the con-
centrates fed to beef cattle in the dry lot. Bray et. al. (4)2
estimated the value of cane molasses to be approximately 85
percent that of corn for fattening cattle when fed in dry lot.
However, Jones et. al. (5) reported poor results when cane mo-
lasses was self-fed, alone, to steers grazing Sudan grass pasture.
To obtain maximum use of the soil and to utilize residual
fertilizer remaining from vegetable crops, the practice is followed
in the Everglades area of raising field corn during the summer
months. Since corn is high in total digestible nutrients and is
very palatable for cattle, it has long been considered the standard
with which to compare other grains. Experimental results have
shown that cattle can be fattened satisfactorily with much less

1Formerly Assistant Animal Husbandman, Everglades Exp. Station.
SItalic figures refer to Literature Cited.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


grain than formerly thought, if a high-quality roughage is
utilized (9). There is much interest in the value of limited feed-
ing of corn for fattening cattle on Everglades pastures.
Citrus molasses and citrus pulp, two by-products of the citrus
canning industry, have been used extensively as feeds for cattle.
Citrus molasses has been produced commercially since 1941,
while citrus pulp was first dried on a commercial basis in 1932.
Kirk et. al. (8) conducted a series of three dry-lot feeding trials
and reported average daily gains of 2.17 pounds from steers
receiving dried citrus pulp, as compared with 2.37 pounds per
day from those fed ground snapped corn. At the North Florida
Station Baker (1) reported that when citrus molasses replaced
one-half of the ground snapped corn in a fattening ration there
was no reduction in rate of gain, finish or carcass quality. The
steers receiving the molasses were easier to keep on feed and
had better appetites.
The trials discussed in this publication were designed to de-
termine the comparative feeding value of citrus molasses, cane
molasses, ground snapped corn and dried citrus pulp for fatten-
ing steers on pasture. The relative palatability of citrus mo-
lasses and sugar cane molasses produced in the Everglades was
also determined.

Fig. 1.-Grade Brahman steers typical of those predominating in the
Everglades area and those used in feeding trials conducted at the Ever-
glades Experiment Station.


*% -.,



.. _.e.j ._ .~.i jL~~~l.~







Value of Various Florida Feeds in Fattening Steers 7

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

Description of Animals.-Three feeding trials were conducted
using 50 grade Brahman steers per trial. These steers were
selected as equally as possible, as regards previous care, weight,
age, quality and type. In each trial they were divided into five
lots of 10 animals each. The lots were assigned at random to
the different rations. During each trial one animal had to be
removed. However, each steer was from a different lot.
Weighing Procedure.-Individual weights were taken at the
beginning and the end of the preliminary period, at 28-day
intervals during the trials and at the conclusion of each trial.
Individual killing weights were obtained before and carcass
weights after slaughter.
Rations and Methods of Feeding.-The feeds used in each
ration were as follows:

Lot 1. Pasture plus cane molasses, free choice.
Lot 2. Pasture plus citrus molasses, free choice.
Lot 3. Pasture plus cane molasses and citrus molasses, free choice.
Lot 4. Pasture plus 5 pounds ground snapped corn daily.
Lot 5. Pasture plus 5 pounds citrus pulp daily.

Cane and citrus molasses were fed "free choice" and were con-
tinually available to the cattle. The ground snapped corn and
dried citrus pulp were provided at the rate of five pounds per
steer per day and were fed daily at 8:00 a.m. The corn was the
Big Joe variety grown at the Everglades Station.
During the final trial one pound of 41 percent cottonseed meal
was fed to each steer daily, in addition to each regular experi-
mental ration.
During each trial a mineral mixture was continually available
to the cattle. This mixture was formulated for the conditions
specific to the muck and peat areas and consists of the following:
Steamed bone meal ............................. 50.0 pounds
Common salt .....................-- .....-....-. 46.4 pounds
Copper oxide ....................................-.. 0.8 pound
Copper sulfate ................................... 2.5 pounds
Aluminum sulphate ........................... 2.0 pounds
Cobalt carbonate ............... ..... ......... .. 1.0 ounce

Water was provided through standard cattle drinking cups.
A 20-acre field of Roselawn St. Augustine grass (Stenotaph-
rum secundatum Kuntz) was divided into five lots of four acres
each. These were assigned to the five lots of steers at random.
An estimation of the amount of grass consumed daily per steer






Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


was made by the method suggested by Kidder (6), with an al-
lowance being made for the daily consumption of digestible nu-
trients from the feed supplements.
Chemical Analysis of Feeds.-The average composition of the
feeds and the total digestible nutrient contents are given in
Table 1.

TABLE 1.-AVERAGE COMPOSITION AND TOTAL DIGESTIBLE NUTRIENT
CONTENTS OF THE FEEDS USED.
-- Esti.
Total I Total
Dry Crude Crude N-Free Crude Digest-
Mat- Pro- Fiber Ex- Fat Ash ible
ter tein tract Nu-
|1 trients
(Percent on the dry matter basis)

Citrus molasses* ...... 69.90 3.00 0.00 60.00 0.00 5.00 56.7
Cane molasses** ........ 80.89 9.81 0.55 59.75 0.35 10.93 54.0
Ground snapped cornt 89.88 9.07 10.28 66.49 2.60 1.73 67.8
Dried citrus pulp* _.. 94.00 6.00 14.00 58.00 3.00 5.00 72.8
Cottonseed mealt ... 89.71 41.93 13.52 24.11 3.11 6.50 70.6

Analysis obtained from Plymouth Citrus Growers Association.
** Analysis obtained from United States Sugar Coporation.
t Analysis obtained at the Everglades Experiment Station.

Becker et. al. (3) estimated citrus molasses to contain about
56.7 percent of total digestible nutrients and Becker, Arnold
and Davis (2) reported grapefruit pulp and orange pulp to have
76.0 and 69.6 percent of total digestible nutrients, respectively.
An average of these latter two values was used in these trials
to determine the total digestible nutrients in dried citrus pulp.
The coefficients for cane molasses, ground snapped corn and cot-
tonseed meal were taken from Morrison (9).
Time of Trials.-The first trial was conducted from October
2, 1950, to January 29, 1951, the second from February 12, 1951,
to June 11, 1951, and the last from October 8, 1951, to February
12, 1952. The average length of the feeding period was 122 days.

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Resulting rates of gain for each trial and an average of the
three trials are given in Table 2. Analysis of variance of the
data showed differences obtained among the trials to be highly







Value of Various Florida Feeds in Fattening Steers 9

significant. During the second trial average daily gains were
approximately twice those obtained from the first trial. These
trials were duplicated as nearly as possible. It appeared the
principal variable probably was the protein content, or quality,

TABLE 2.-AVERAGE WEIGHTS AND RATES OF GAINS FOR EACH TRIAL AND
THE AVERAGE OF THE THREE TRIALS.

SLot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5

Cane Citrus Cane and Ground Dried
Molasses Molasses Citrus Snapped Citrus
I I Molasses Corn I Pulp
First Trial
October 2, 1950 January 29, 1951. 119 days

Number animals ..-. 10 9 10 10 10
Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs.

Initial weight .......... 683 676 667 699 687
Final weight .......... 756 750 769 764 784
Total gain ................ 73 74 102 65 97
Daily gain ......... 0.61 0.62 0.86 0.55 0.82

Second Trial
February 12, 1951- June 11, 1951. 120 days

Number animals ...... 10 10 10 10 9
Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs.

Initial weight ..... 656 667 663 654 652
Final weight .......... 825 834 860 853 822
Total gain ...... 169 167 197 199 170
Daily gain .............. 1.41 1.39 1.64 1.66 1.42

Third Trial
October 8, 1951 February 12, 1952. 127 days

Number animals ..... 9 10 10 10 10
Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs.

Initial weight ..-..-- 628 632 614 644 649
Final weight ........... 806 801 774 I 806 778
Total gain ............. 178 169 160 162 129
Daily gain ............ 1.40 1.33 1.26 I 1.28 1.02

Average of the Three Trials

Initial weight ........ 655.7 658.3 648.0 665.7 662.7
Final weight ............ 795.7 795.0 801.0 807.7 794.7
Total gain .............. 140.0 136.7 153.0 142.0 132.0
Daily gain ................ 1.15 1.12 1.25 1.16 1.08







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


of the pasture forage. One pound of 41 percent cottonseed meal
per steer was added daily during the third trial. Table 2 shows
that the average daily gains during the third trial were much
superior to those of the first trial, indicating that the extra
protein supplement partially alleviated the protein deficiency
present in the total ration of grass and carbohydrate supple-
ment. Kirk and Hodges (7) reported similar results with the
addition of 0.83 pound of cottonseed meal daily per head when
feeding citrus molasses to two-year-old Brahman heifers that
were grazing winter pastures.

TABLE 3.-AVERAGE DAILY FEED INTAKE PER ANIMAL, FOR THE THREE
TRIALS AND THE AVERAGE OF THE THREE TRIALS.

Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 ] Lot 4 Lot 5
SLbs. I Lbs. Lbs. I Lbs. Lbs.

First Trial
October 2, 1950- January 29, 1951. 119 days


Cane molasses
Citrus molasses
Ground snapped
Dried citrus pu


... 6.56 ...... 3.32
s ....... ...... 8.26 8.67
d corn .... ..... 5
Ip .....
Sp -- -- --- I-

Second Trial
February 12, 1951 June 11, 1951. 120 day


Cane molasses ..........
Citrus molasses ........
Ground snapped corn
Dried citrus pulp -. j
I


5.82
.... j


6.00


2.06
5.87


1::


Cane molasses
Citrus molass
Ground snapp
Dried citrus p
Cottonseed me


Third Trial
October 8, 1951- February 12, 1952.

s -........ 7.93 ..... 2.80
es ....--... .-- 9.10 6.85
ed corn -...-. ...... .....
ulp ...... I
eal* -.. .. 1.00 1.00 I 1.00


Average of the Three Trials

Cane molasses ........- 6.77 ...... 2.73
Citrus molasses ........ ..... 7.79 7.13
Ground snapped corn -..-- .. ....
Dried citrus pulp ...... -..


127 days



5.00
1.00


5.07
.


Cottonseed meal was fed only during the third trial, and was not included in the
average of the three trials.


.21


s


5.00






Value of Various Florida Feeds in Fattening Steers 11

Under the conditions of these trials the total average daily
gains in Lots 1 and 2 were 1.12 pounds, respectively. The steers
receiving the cane molasses had a slight advantage in weight
gain over those receiving citrus molasses but it was not sig-
nificant. When the two were fed simultaneously there was an
overall average daily gain of 1.25 pounds, which was also ac-
companied by an increase in supplemental feed intake, a decrease
in grass consumption and an increase in the amount of feed
required per 100 pounds of gain. The steers in Lot 4, receiving
ground snapped corn, demonstrated slightly higher gains than
did the steers in Lot 5 which were fed an equal amount of citrus
pulp. Statistical analysis of the data indicated no significant
differences between lots, when the average of the three trials
were considered.
There was a definite tendency during the three trials for the
animals to eat citrus molasses in preference to cane molasses.
In Lot 3, where the two were fed free choice in a divided feed
trough, there was slightly over twice as much citrus molasses
consumed as cane molasses. When the cane molasses was fed
alone, in Lot 1, the rate of consumption was higher, but was
still below that amount of citrus molasses eaten by the steers
in Lot 2.
Average daily intake of supplemental feeds for each trial
and the three year average are presented in Table 3. Table 4
shows the average amount of feed required per 100 pounds of
gain for each trial along with the three-year average. There
was a great deal of variance among trials regarding the amount
of feed required by the steers for this gain when they were fed
the same ration. During the first trial the pasture forage was
decreasing in both quality and quantity. The steers, especially
in Lots 1, 2 and 3, where the feeds were given free choice, relied
more upon the supplementary feeds for their nutrients. The
reverse of this was true during the second trial. The steers in
this trial almost doubled their grass consumption, with an ac-
companying decrease in the amount of the supplements con-
sumed per 100 pounds of gain.
Addition of protein supplement to the ration during the third
trial resulted in more efficient utilization of the feed, larger
daily gains and higher daily grass consumption than during the
first trial. Where there was more feed required per hundred
pounds of gain during the third trial than during the second,
the reduction when compared to the first trial indicated that







12 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

the cottonseed meal at least partially corrected the protein de-
ficiency evidently present in the pasture forage during the fall
months.

TABLE 4.-AVERAGE AMOUNT OF FEED REQUIRED PER 100 POUNDS OF GAIN
FOR EACH TRIAL AND THE AVERAGE OF THE THREE TRIALS.

Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5
Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs.


Cane molasse
Citrus mo!ass
Ground snapp
Dried citrus p





Cane molasse
Citrus molass
Ground snapp
Dried citrus p





Cane molasse
Citrus molass
Ground snapp
Dried citrus p
Cottonseed m


First Trial
October 2, 1950 -January 29, 1951. 119 days
I I I
s ........ 1069.0 ........ 387.1 .
es ........ .....--- 1327.7 1010.9 .
ed corn --..- ...-- -- 953.8
ulp ... --- -.-- 639.2

Second Trial
February 12, 1951 June 11, 1951. 120 days


s 412.0
s .......... 412.0
es ..... ........
ed corn
ulp ......


125.3 ........ .
352.4 ...
.. 301.5.
.-...-. .. ... 352.9


Third Trial
October 8, 1951- February 12, 1952. 127 days

s ......... 565.4 ........ 222.6
es ........ .... 683.7 544.1
*ed corn -- ........ 392.0
)ulp ...-.. .... 4
eal* 71.3 75.1 79.4 78.4

Average of Three Trials


92.2
98.4


Cane molasses ......
Citrus molasses ........
Ground snapped corn
Dried citrus pulp ....-.


682.4


...... 245.0 .--- --
814.2 635.8 .......
.... ..... 549.1
494.8


Cottonseed meal was fed only during the third trial, and was not included in the
average of these trials.

Cane molasses was utilized more efficiently than citrus mo-
lasses and slightly less efficiently than ground snapped corn or
dried citrus pulp. The average of the three trials shows that
on the basis of the feed required per 100 pounds of gain the cane
molasses was approximately 15 percent more efficient than the
citrus molasses, under the conditions of these trials. During






Value of Various Florida Feeds in Fattening Steers 13

the last two trials, when the protein level was relatively high,
the ground snapped corn was the most efficient of the five rations
in rate of gain and feed utilization.
The estimated daily consumption is given in Table 5. The
addition of the cottonseed meal resulted in an increase in grass
consumption during the third trial in comparison with the first.

TABLE 5.-ESTIMATE OF DAILY GRASS CONSUMPTION.

Lot 1 Lot 2 I Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5
Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs.

First trial ............ 41 31 22 40 46
Second trial ...... 69 67 66 75 65
Third trial -..... 52 43 37 56 46

Average .........- 54 47 42 57 52


The total digestible nutrients required per 100 pounds of gain
are given in Table 6.
There was little difference between the final average of total
digestible nutrients required from supplemental feeds in lots
receiving cane molasses, ground snapped corn or dried citrus pulp.
However, there was considerable variation in comparisons of
the same ration in different trials. It is of interest to note dur-
ing the second trial, when the pasture forage was excellent both
in quality and quantity, that the total digestible nutrient intake
per 100 pounds of gain was fairly constant for all lots.
Carcass grades were obtained at the end of each trial. How-
ever, due to variation in method of grading for each lot of steers,
the results could not be properly correlated and were not con-
sidered significant.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Dried citrus pulp, citrus molasses, ground snapped corn and
cane molasses were fed in comparative feeding trials to deter-
mine their relative feeding value for fattening grade Brahman
steers on pasture. Three trials, with fifty steers each, were
conducted over an average of 122 days. Animals as nearly alike
as possible in relation to previous treatment, age, type and







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


TABLE 6.-AVERAGE TOTAL DIGESTIBLE NUTRIENTS RECEIVED FROM FEED
SUPPLEMENTS PER 100 POUNDS OF GAIN FOR EACH TRIAL AND THE AVER-
AGE FOR THE THREE TRIALS.


Lot 1 Lot2 Lot 3 Lot 4
Lbs. | Lbs. Lbs. Lbs.


First Trial
October 2, 1950- January 29, 1951. 119 days


Cane molasses ...........
Citrus molasses --..---....
Ground snapped corn
Dried citrus pulp .......


Total ......................


580.3





580.3


754.8




754.8


641.8



641.8


Second Trial
February 12, 1951 June 11, 1952. 120 days

ane molasses ....... ....-... 222.7 .. 67.7
itrus molasses .............. .-..... 244.6 203.0
round snapped corn .. 2
ried citrus pulp ... --..- .- -


Total ........ ........... 222.7 244.6 270.7 24


34.2



04.2


Third Trial
October 8, 1951 February 12, 1952. 127 days


Cane molasses ..... -........----
Citrus molasses -...........
Ground snapped corn -
Dried citrus pulp ..........
Cottonseed meal* ..-...


T total .-.. ... ...- ..- .. ... I




Cane molasses ...........-
Citrus molasses -..............
Ground snapped corn ......
Dried citrus pulp ..............
Cottonseed meal ....--....


T otal ......... ... .......


305.7


50.4


356.1
I


388.0


53.1


441.1


Average

369.6 --
--- 462.5
........ .-----

16.8 17.7


386.4 480.2
__________


119.8
307.9


56.0


483.7




131.9
361.0

18.7


511.6
1I


* Cottonseed meal was fed only during the third trial.


Lot 5
Lbs.








462.2


462.2


256.3


256.3


C
C
G
D


264.8

55.2


320.0






370.3

18.4


388.7


356.9
69.2


126.1







358.5
23.1


381.6






Value of Various Florida Feeds in Fattening Steers 15

quality were selected for each trial. They were divided into
five lots of 10 steers each and were fed their rations while graz-
ing on Roselawn St. Augustine grass pasture. Water and min-
erals were available at all times.
During the initial trial the steers fed cane molasses, citrus
molasses, a combination of the two molasses, ground snapped
corn and dried citrus pulp, made average daily gains of 0.61,
0.62, 0.86, 0.55, and 0.82 pounds, respectively. In comparison
with this, during the second trial the average daily gains by
animals fed the same rations were 1.41, 1.39, 1.64, 1.66 and
1.42 pounds.
In order to determine whether protein was the principle cause
of variability, accounting for large differences in rate of gain
during the first two trials, a protein supplement (cottonseed
meal) was fed during the third trial in addition to regular ex-
perimental rations. Average daily gains for the five lots were
1.40, 1.33, 1.26, 1.28, and 1.02 pounds, respectively. This increase
in average daily gains, accompanied by a decrease in the amount
of feed required per pound of gain, indicates that a protein sup-
plement during the fall and winter months will be beneficial
when fed in conjuction with concentrates used in these trials.
An analysis of variance of the gains obtained showed a sig-
nificant difference among lots during the first trial, but not
during the last two trials. There was no significant difference
in the total average. However, differences in gains obtained
among the three trials were highly significant.
When the rate of gain is not significantly different, the ef-
ficiency of feed utilization, or the amount of feed needed to pro-
duce a pound of gain, becomes an important factor. During
the last two trials, when the protein content of the total ration
was relatively high, the ground snapped corn was the most
efficiently utilized. In the average of the three trials, however,
citrus pulp, cane molasses and ground snapped corn were com-
parable in the efficiency of feed utilization. The citrus molasses
was more palatable than the cane molasses, but during these
trials was not as well utilized per pound of gain.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The feeding trials presented in this publication were initiated by R. W.
Kidder and S. B. Plank in October, 1950. The trials were completed by
H. L. Chapman and R. W. Kidder.
Dried citrus pulp and citrus molasses used in these trials was furnished
by members of the Citrus Processor's Association, Lakeland, Florida. The







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


cane molasses was supplied through the courtesy of the United States
Sugar Corporation, Clewiston, Florida.
The assistance of Mr. Harold Brough and others of the Everglades
Experiment Station in conducting these trials is greatly appreciated.

LITERATURE CITED
1. BAKER, F. S. Citrus molasses in a steer fattening ration. Fla. Agr.
Exp. Sta. Cir. S-22. 1950.
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. BRAY, C. I., M. G. SNELL, F. L. MORRISON and M. E. JACKSON. Feeding
blackstrap molasses to fattening steers. La. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul.
394. 1945.
5. JONES, J. H., J. M. JONES, R. A. HALL and E. M. NEAL. The use of
Sudan grass pastures and other feeds for beef production. Tex.
Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 599. 1941.
6. KIDDER, R. W. A proposed method of measuring pasture yields with
grazing cattle. Jour. An. Sci. 5:2: 187-193. 1946.
7. KIRK, W. G., and E. M. HODGES. Addition of cottonseed meal to citrus
diet means more weight at station. Fla. Cattleman 14:9: 54B. 1950.
8. 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.
9. MORRISON, E. B. Feeds and feeding. 21st Edition. 1951.




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