• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Acknowledgement
 Four levels of grain sorghum silage...
 Corn and forage sorghum silages...
 Unrolled and rolled corn and forage...
 Summary and conclusions
 Literature cited
 Back Cover














Group Title: Bulletin - University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station ; no. 779
Title: Silages in finishing rations for beef steers
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027181/00001
 Material Information
Title: Silages in finishing rations for beef steers
Series Title: Bulletin University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station
Physical Description: 17 p. : ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Bertrand, J. E ( Joseph Ezel ), 1924-
Lutrick, M. C ( Monroe Cornealous )
Dunavin, Leonard Sypret, 1930-
Publisher: Agricultural Experiment Stations, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
Place of Publication: Gainesville
Publication Date: 1975
 Subjects
Subject: Silage   ( lcsh )
Sorghum as feed   ( lcsh )
Corn as feed   ( lcsh )
Beef cattle -- Feeding and feeds   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Bibliography: p. 17.
Statement of Responsibility: J.E. Bertrand, M.C. Lutrick, L.S. Dunavin.
General Note: Cover title.
Funding: Bulletin (University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station)
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027181
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 000929869
oclc - 18631490
notis - AEP0673

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Table of Contents
        Table of Contents
    Acknowledgement
        Table of Contents
    Four levels of grain sorghum silage and reconstituted corn
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
    Corn and forage sorghum silages and high-moisture corn and sorghum grains
        Page 6
    Unrolled and rolled corn and forage sorghum silages and high-moisture corn
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
    Summary and conclusions
        Page 16
    Literature cited
        Page 17
    Back Cover
        Back Cover
Full Text
Bulletin 779 November 1975










Silages in Finishing

Rations for Beef Steers
J.E.Bertrand, M.C.Lutrick,
& L.S. Dunavin










7,







Agricultural Experiment Stations
-----



Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
J. W. Sites, Dean for Research
University of Florida, Gainesville





CONTENTS
Introduction ......... ... .. 1
Four Levels of Grain Sorghum Silage and Reconstituted
Corn (Experiment 1) ..---.---..---....--..-... .-- 1
Corn and Forage Sorghum Silages and High-Moisture
Corn and Sorghum Grains (Experiment 2) --..-.-.-... --.-. 6
Unrolled and Rolled Corn and Forage Sorghum Silages
and High-Moisture Corn (Experiment 3) ..--...-.----..----.- 7
Summary and Conclusions ...-...-.-....----. ------------ -.--16
Literature Cited ..-.......-...-.------..-- ------- --17













ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The "oxygen limiting" units for the storage of the high-
moisture grain and the Peerless silage and high-moisture grain
roller mill (Peerless International Company, Inc., Joplin, Mis-
souri) were donated by the A. O. Smith Harvestore Products,
Inc., Arlington Heights, Illinois. The diethylstilbestrol implants
were donated by Charles Pfizer and Company, Inc., Chamblee,
Georgia. The RALGRO (zeranol) implants, Perma-Dual 30A
(vitamin A supplement containing 30,000 IU/g), and Baciferm
40 (zinc bacitracin supplement containing 40 g of the antibiotic
per pound) were donated by Commercial Solvents Corporation,
Terre Haute, Indiana. The Rovimix A-650 (vitamin A supple-
ment containing 650,000 IU/g) was donated by Hoffman-La
Roche, Inc., Nutley, New Jersey. The corn and sorghum seeds
were donated by DeKalb Agricultural Associates, Inc., Coker
Seed Company, McNair Seed Company, Pioneer Hi-Bred, Inc.,
Louisiana Seed Company of Alabama, and Taylor-Evans Seed
Company. The assistance of all these companies is appreciated
and acknowledged.





CONTENTS
Introduction ......... ... .. 1
Four Levels of Grain Sorghum Silage and Reconstituted
Corn (Experiment 1) ..---.---..---....--..-... .-- 1
Corn and Forage Sorghum Silages and High-Moisture
Corn and Sorghum Grains (Experiment 2) --..-.-.-... --.-. 6
Unrolled and Rolled Corn and Forage Sorghum Silages
and High-Moisture Corn (Experiment 3) ..--...-.----..----.- 7
Summary and Conclusions ...-...-.-....----. ------------ -.--16
Literature Cited ..-.......-...-.------..-- ------- --17













ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The "oxygen limiting" units for the storage of the high-
moisture grain and the Peerless silage and high-moisture grain
roller mill (Peerless International Company, Inc., Joplin, Mis-
souri) were donated by the A. O. Smith Harvestore Products,
Inc., Arlington Heights, Illinois. The diethylstilbestrol implants
were donated by Charles Pfizer and Company, Inc., Chamblee,
Georgia. The RALGRO (zeranol) implants, Perma-Dual 30A
(vitamin A supplement containing 30,000 IU/g), and Baciferm
40 (zinc bacitracin supplement containing 40 g of the antibiotic
per pound) were donated by Commercial Solvents Corporation,
Terre Haute, Indiana. The Rovimix A-650 (vitamin A supple-
ment containing 650,000 IU/g) was donated by Hoffman-La
Roche, Inc., Nutley, New Jersey. The corn and sorghum seeds
were donated by DeKalb Agricultural Associates, Inc., Coker
Seed Company, McNair Seed Company, Pioneer Hi-Bred, Inc.,
Louisiana Seed Company of Alabama, and Taylor-Evans Seed
Company. The assistance of all these companies is appreciated
and acknowledged.







SILAGES IN FINISHING RATIONS FOR BEEF STEERS

J. E. Bertrand, M. C. Lutrick, and L. S. Dunavin'

INTRODUCTION
Grain crop silages (corn and sorghum) are high-energy rough-
ages and, when properly supplemented, can constitute a large
portion of the ration for finishing beef cattle in Florida. The
harvesting and feeding of a corn crop as silage instead of grain
can more than double the amount of beef produced per acre of
corn planted (15)2.
Many references appear in the literature relative to the use of
corn silage for finishing beef cattle (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,
14, 15, 16, 18). Sorghum, especially the forage varieties from
which two harvests (a first crop and a ratoon crop) per growing
season can normally be obtained in Florida, will produce sub-
stantially more forage per acre than corn (6,7). However, corn
silage is considered to be superior to sorghum silage in feeding
value for finishing beef cattle (12, 13, 14)
This bulletin presents the results of experiments conducted at
the Agricultural Research Center (ARC), Jay, with silages in
finishing rations for beef steers. The objectives of these studies
were to determine the effects of different levels of grain sorghum
silage in steer rations, to determine the comparative value of
corn and forage sorghum silages in high energy finishing rations,
and to evaluate the benefits derived from rolling corn and forage
sorghum silages prior to feeding.

FOUR LEVELS OF GRAIN SORGHUM SILAGE
AND RECONSTITUTED CORN
(Experiment I)

The purpose of this experiment was to determine the optimum
level of grain sorghum silage to use with reconstituted corn and
a concentrate supplement (protein, mineral, and vitamin) in the
finishing ration of beef steers. Sixty-four good quality steers of
British breeding, each treated with a 36 mg ear implant of
diethylstilbestrol, were weighed and allotted as equally as possible
*to eight experimental groups of eight animals each. The eight
experimental groups, utilizing two groups per treatment, were
1 Associate Animal Scientist, Associate Soils Chemist, and Associate Agron-
omist, respectively, Agricultural Research Center, Jay.
2 Numbers in parentheses refer to Literature Cited.
1











Table 1.-Rations fed in Experiment I (as-fed and dry matter basis) -ARC, Jay (1970).


Ingredients

Grain sorghum silage (e)
Reconstituted corn
t Concentrate supplement


Very High-level
Silage Ration
As-fed Dry matter
basis basis (a)
(%) (%)


80.0
16.9
3.1


63.8
29.5
6.7


High-level Medium-level
Silage Ration Silage Ration
rAs-fed Dry matter As-fed Dry matter
basis basis (b) basis basis (c)
(%) (%) (%) (%)

65.0 45.3 50.0 31.0
31.7 48.6 46.5 63.2
3.3 6.1 3.5 5.8


Low-level
Silage Ration
As-fed Dry matter
basis basis (d)
(%) (%)


35.0
61.3
3.7


19.5
75.0
5.5


(a) Calculated to contain 12.3% protein, 72% total digestible nutrients (TDN), 16.1% crude fiber, 0.56% calcium,
0.38% phosphorus, and 1,215 lU/lb. of vitamin A.
(b) Calculated to contain 12.3% protein, 78% TDN, 12.0% crude fiber, 0.47%/ calcium, 0.39% phosphorus, and 1,110
IU/lb. of vitamin A.
(c) Calculated to contain 12.2% protein, 82%TDN, 9.0% crude fiber, 0.39% calcium, 0.39% phosphorus, and 1,055
IU/lb. of vitamin A.
(d) Calculated to contain 12.3% protein, 85% TDN, 6.6% crude fiber, 0.32% calcium, 0.39% phosphorus, and 1,000
IU/lb. of vitamin A.
(e) DeKalb variety BR-64 (bird-resistant) sorghum.








started on the four feeding treatments listed in Table 1 on May
15, 1970. The composition of the concentrate supplement used to
balance the rations is listed in Table 2.
The reconstituted corn (26.7 9 moisture) was crimped (rolled)
into flat flakes prior to mixing into the rations and feeding. The
rations were fed twice daily in the amount that the steers would
clean-up between feedings. A complete mineral mixture and plain
salt were self-fed in a two compartment mineral box.
The grain sorghum silage was made from a bird-resistant
sorghum, DeKalb variety BR-64. It yielded 12.5 tons per acre
of 66.6% moisture forage from two cuttings. On a dry matter
basis, 39% of the grain sorghum silage was grain.
Analyses of variance on animal performance and carcass
characteristics data were conducted according to the method
of Snedecor (17). The multiple range test of Duncan (8) was
employed to test significance between group means. The same
procedures for testing response differences were employed in
Experiments 2 and 3.
Performance, economic, and carcass data for the beef steers
on the four feeding treatments are presented in Table 3. Steers
on the low-level silage ration had the greatest gain (2.47 pounds
per head daily), followed in order by the gain (2.35 pounds per
head daily) of steers on the medium-level silage ration, the
gain (2.21 pounds per head daily) of steers on the high-level

Table 2.-Concentrate supplement (protein, mineral, and vitamin) fed
in drylot finishing rations (Experiment I)-ARC, Jay (1970).

Ingredients % Lb./Ton

Soybean meal (44% protein) 77.66 1553
Urea-45% N 5.52 111
Salt (trace-mineralized) 5.52 110
Defluorinated rock phosphate 11.04 221
Vitamin A supplement(a) 0.12 2.4
Antibiotic supplement(b) 0.14 2.8

100.00 2000.2

(a) Vitamin A supplement containing 30,000 IU/g added at the level
of 32.7 million IU/ton or 16,350 lU/lb. of concentrate supplement.
(b) Zinc bacitracin supplement containing 40 g/lb. of the antibiotic
added at the level of 112 g/ton or 56 mg/lb. of concentrate sup-
plement.






Table 3.-Performance, economic, and carcass data for beef steers in Experiment I-ARC, Jay (1970).


Very High-level High-level Medium-level Low-level
Item Silage Ration Silage Ration Silage Ration Silage Ration

Length of feeding period, days 178 178 150 150
No. of animals 16 16 16 15 (a)
Avg initial wt, lb. 650 649 647 647
Avg final wt, lb. 1003 1042 1000 1018
Total gain, lb. 353 393 353 371
Avg daily gain, lb. 1.98c** 2.21b 2.35ab 2.47a
Feed/cwt gain (dry basis) (b) 945a* 863ab 791bc 717c
Feed/animal/day, lb. (dry basis(b) 18.9 19.1 18.7 17.7
Feed cost/cwt gain (c) $ 22.05 $ 22.31 $ 21.97 $ 21.05
Avg carcass grade(d) 15.1 16.1 15.8 15.9
Avg yield grade(e) 2.5b** 3.2a 3.0ab 3.3a
Avg carcass wt, lb.(f) 598 633 611 631
Avg dressing percent 59.6b** 60.7ab 61.1a 62.0a

(a) One steer had to be removed during the course of the trial due to sickness; the data for that animal were eliminated.
(b) Grain sorghum silage, 33.4%/ dry matter; reconstituted corn, 73.33% dry matter; and concentrate supplement, 89.58%
dry matter.
(c) Grain sorghum silage cost=$11.00/ton, reconstituted corn cost= $45.00/ton, and concentrate supplement cost=
$101.31/ton.
(d) 14= average good, 15=high good, 16=low choice, 17=average choice, etc.
(e) Yield grades numbered 1 through 5, with yield grade 1 representing the highest yield of boneless, closely trimmed retail
cuts (cutability) and yield grade 5 the lowest.
(f) Paying weight, which was hot dressed weight.
* Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the 5% level of probability.
** Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the 1% level of probability.







silage ration, and the gain (1.98 pounds per head daily) of steers
on the very high-level silage ration. The gain of steers on the
low-level silage ration was higher (P<0.01) than the gains of
steers on the rations containing the two high levels of silage.
Also, the gain of steers on the medium-level silage ration was
higher (P<0.01) than the gain of steers on the very high-level
silage ration. It required 150 days of feeding for the groups of
steers on the rations containing the two lower levels of silage
to reach approximately 1000 pounds, while the groups of steers
on the rations containing the two higher levels of silage required
178 days of feeding to reach market weights of approximately
1000 pounds. In every comparison, steers receiving more silage
in their ration gained less and required a longer feeding period
to reach market weight.
On a total ration dry matter basis, steers on the low-level
silage ration were 10.3"r, 20.4%, and 31.8 ~ more efficient in
converting dry matter to gain than steers on the medium-level
silage ration, high-level silage ration, and very high-level silage
ration, respectively (Table 3). On the same basis, steers on the
medium level silage ration were 9.1 ; and 19.53 more efficient in
converting dry matter to gain than those on the high-level silage
ration and very high-level silage ration, respectively. Steers on
the high-level silage ration were 9.53% more efficient in converting
dry matter to gain than steers on the very high-level silage ration.
The daily feed consumption per steer on a dry matter basis did
not differ to any great extent. There was, however, a trend for
steers on the rations containing more silage to consume more
dry matter.
The cost of gain was lowest for steers receiving the low-level
silage ration and highest for steers receiving the high-level silage
ration (Table 3). Due to the respective feed ingredient prices
existing at the time of the study, the most profitable ration was
the one where just enough grain sorghum silage was used in
the ration with reconstituted corn to furnish the "roughage prop-
erties" generally considered necessary for finishing beef steers.
There was no difference in carcass grades between treatments
when the steers were slaughtered at approximately 1000 pounds
(Table 3). However, steers receiving the very high-level silage
ration had a lower (P<0.01) yield grade (leaner carcasses)
than steers receiving the high-level silage ration and the low-
level silage ration. In every comparison, the carcass yield (dress-
ing percent) was lower for steers receiving more silage in their
ration.







CORN AND FORAGE SORGHUM SILAGES AND
HIGH-MOISTURE CORN AND SORGHUM GRAINS
(Experiment 2)
The purposes of this experiment were to determine the com-
parative value of corn silage and forage sorghum silage in high-
energy finishing rations for feedlot steers and to further examine
the feeding value of high-moisture corn and high-moisture sor-
ghum grain in such rations. Eighty good quality steers of British
breeding, each treated with a 36 mg ear implant of zeranol (a
protein anabolic agent), were weighed and allotted as equally
as possible to eight experimental groups of 10 steers each. The
eight experimental groups, utilizing two groups per treatment,
were started on the four feeding treatments listed in Table 4
on July 3, 1973. The composition of the concentrate supplement
used to balance the rations is listed in Table 5.
The processing of the grain prior to feeding, the feeding pro-
cedure, and the self-feeding of mineral and salt in this and the
following experiment were similar to those followed in Experi-
ment 1.
The corn silage was made from Pioneer variety 3369A corn.
It yielded 12.0 tons per acre of 69.3%9 moisture forage. On a
dry matter basis, 49%- of the corn silage was grain. The forage
sorghum silage was made from a mixture of Funk's variety
102F and Taylor-Evans variety TDN sorghum. It yielded 20.5
tons per acre of 68.6%9 moisture forage from one cutting. On a
dry matter basis, 38% of the sorghum silage was grain. DeKalb
variety E-59 (non-bird-resistant) was used to produce the
high-moisture sorghum grain.
Performance, economic, and carcass data for the beef steers
on the four feeding treatments are presented in Table 6. Steers
receiving corn silage and high-moisture sorghum grain had the
greatest gain (2.60 pounds per head daily), followed in order
by the gain (2.51 pounds per head daily) of steers receiving
corn silage and high-moisture corn, the gain (2.36 pounds per
head daily) of steers receiving forage sorghum silage and high-
moisture corn, and the gain (2.33 pounds per head daily) of
steers receiving forage sorghum silage and high-moisture sorghum
grain. Steers receiving corn silage and high-moisture sorghum
grain gained faster (P<0.05) than steers receiving the two
forage sorghum silage rations.
On a total ration dry matter basis, steers receiving corn silage
and high-moisture corn wer, 10.3%. 14.9%. and 32.7'.' more







efficient in converting dry matter to gain than steers receiving
forage sorghum silage and high-moisture corn, corn silage and
high-moisture sorghum grain, and forage sorghum silage and
high-moisture sorghum grain, respectively (Table 6). On the
same basis, steers receiving forage sorghum silage and high-
moisture corn were 4.11 and 20.39? more efficient in convert-
ing dry matter to gain than steers receiving corn silage and
high-moisture sorghum grain and steers receiving forage sor-
ghum silage and high-moisture sorghum grain, respectively.
Steers receiving corn silage and high-moisture sorghum grain
were 15.55% more efficient in converting dry matter to gain than
steers receiving forage sorghum silage and high-moisture sor-
ghum grain. The daily feed consumption per steer on a dry
matter basis was lower for steers receiving high-moisture corn
in their silage rations.
The cost of gain was lowest for steers receiving corn silage
and high-moisture corn and highest for steers receiving forage
sorghum silage and high-moisture sorghum grain (Table 6).
There were no differences between treatments with respect to
carcass grades, yield grades, and carcass yields (dressing per-
cents) (Table 6).
Upon pooling the data, steers fed corn silage in their rations
were 13.1', more efficient in converting total ration dry mat-
ter to gain than steers receiving forage sorghum silage in their
rations (Table 7). On the same basis, steers receiving high-
moisture corn in their ration were 17.7% more efficient in con-
verting dry matter to gain than steers receiving high-moisture
sorghum grain in their rations. The daily feed consumption per
steer on a dry matter basis was slightly greater for steers re-
ceiving the forage sorghum silage rations than the corn silage
rations. Likewise, steers receiving the high-moisture sorghum
grain rations consumed somewhat more feed than steers receiv-
ing the high-moisture corn rations. This would indicate that the
steers compensated for the lower available energy in sorghum
(silage or grain) compared to corn (silage or grain) by an in-
creased intake of the lower energy rations.

UNROLLED AND ROLLED CORN AND FORAGE SORGHUM
SILAGES AND HIGH-MOISTURE CORN (Experiment 3)
The purposes of this experiment were to evaluate rolled silages
(corn and forage sorghum) in high-energy finishing rations
containing high-moisture corn plus a concentrate supplement
for feedlot steers and to further determine the comparative







Table 4.-Rations fed in Experiment 2 (as-fed and dry matter basis) -ARC, Jay (1973).


Corn Silage Ration


Forage Sorghum Silage Ration


High-moisture


Ingredients

Corn silage(e)
Forage sorghum
High-moisture coi
High-moisture sor
0 Concentrate supp


High-moisture


corn grain sorghum grain
As-fed Dry matter As-fed Dry matter
basis basis (a) basis basis (b)
(%) (%) (%) (%)

50.0 28.5 50.0 29.6
silage(f) -
rn grain (g) 46.0 64.7


rghum grain (h) --
lement 4.0


6.8


46.0
4.0


63.3
7.1


High-moisture
corn grain
As-fed Dry me
basis basis
(%) (%


50.0
46.0

4.0


29.(
64.

6.8


High-moisture
sorghum grain
hitter As-fed Dry matter
(c) basis basis(d)
) (%) (%)


0 50.0 30.3
2
46.0 62.7
3 4.0 7.0


(a) Calculated to contain 12.3% protein, 81% total digestible nutrients (TDN), 9.5% crude fiber, 0.64% calcium,
0.56%/ phosphorus, and 2,465 IU/lb. of vitamin A.
(b) Calculated to contain 13.8% protein, 76% TDN, 9.5% crude fiber, 0.66% calcium, 0.56% phosphorus, and 2,575
IU/lb. of vitamin A.
(c) Calculated to contain 11.7% protein, 78% TDN, 10.2% crude fiber, 0.67% calcium, 0.56% phosphorus, and 2,465
IU/lb. of vitamin A.
(d) Calculated to contain 13.3% protein, 73% TDN, 10.2%/ crude fiber, 0.69% calcium, 0.56% phosphorus, and
2,540 lU/lb. of vitamin A.
(e) Pioneer variety 3369A corn.
(f) Funk's variety 102F and Taylor-Evans variety TDN sorghum.
(g) Coker variety 54, Coker variety 71, and McNair variety 508 corn.
(h) DeKalb variety E-59 (non-bird-resistant) sorghum.







Table 5.-Concentrate supplement (protein, mineral, and vitamin) fed
in drylot finishing rations (Experiment 2)-ARC, Jay (1973).
Ingredients % Lb./Ton
Cottonseed meal (41% protein) 57.02 1141
Urea- 45% N 9.66 193
Salt (trace-mineralized) 9.66 193
Defluorinated rock phosphate 23.18 464
Vitamin A supplement(a) 0.24 4.8
Antibiotic supplement(b) 0.24 4.8
100.00 2000.6

(a) Vitamin A supplement containing 30,000 IU/g added at the level
of 65.3 million IU/ton or 32,650 IU/!b. of concentrate supplement.
(b) Zinc bacitracin supplement containing 40 g/lb. of the antibiotic
added at the level of 192 g/ton or 96 mg/lb. of concentrate
supplement.

value of corn silage and forage sorghum silage in such rations.
Eighty good quality steers of British breeding, each treated with
a 36 mg ear implant of zeranol (a protein anabolic agent), were
weighed and allotted as equally as possible to eight experimental
groups of 10 steers each. The eight experimental groups, utiliz-
ing two groups per treatment, were started on the fcur feeding
treatments listed in Table 8 on June 17, 1974. The composition
of the concentrate supplement used to balance the rations is
listed in Table 9.
The rolled silages were processed through a Peerless silage
and high-moisture grain roller mill in order to crimp (flatten
or crush) the kernels of grain.
The corn silage was made from DeKalb variety XL80 corn. It
yielded 9.3 tons per acre of 66.3%- moisture forage. On a dry
matter basis, 28%C of the corn silage was grain. Because of
drought and severe damage by green stinkbugs, the yield of
forage and grain was drastically reduced. The forage sorghum
silage was made from Funk's variety 102F sorghurm. It yielded
18.0 tons per acre of 71.5/r moisture forage from one cutting.
On a dry matter basis, 39 % of the forage sorghum silage was
grain.
Performance, economic, and carcass data for the beef steers
on the four feeding treatments are presented in Table 10. Steers
receiving the rolled forage sorghum silage ration ha:l the great-
est gain (2.27 pounds per head daily), followed in order by the
gain (2.21 pounds per head daily) of steers receiving the un-











Item
Length of fi
No. of anin
Avg initial
Avg final w
Total gain,
Avg daily g
Feed/cwt g
Feed/animi
Feed cost/c
Avg carcass
Avg yield g
Avg carcass
Avc rdrpcin


Table 6.-Performance, economic, and carcass data for beef steers in Experiment 2-ARC, Jay (1973).

Corn Silage Ration Forage Sorghum Silage Ration
High-moisture High-moisture High-moisture High-moisture
corn grain sorghum grain corn grain sorghum grain
feeding period, days 134 134 134 134
ials 20 20 20 19(a)
wt, lb. 631 627 633 633
t, lb. 967 976 949 945
lb. 336 349 316 312
lain, lb. 2.51ab* 2.60a 2.36b 2.33b
ain (dry basis) (b) 590 678 651 783
al/day, Ib. (dry basis) (b) 14.7 17.7 15.4 18.2
:wt gain (c) $26.46 $29.05 $28.52 $32.76
grade (d) 16.0 16.7 16.1 15.9
rade (e) 2.7 2.9 2.8 2.6
wt, lb. (f) 591 605 580 574
n nerrent 61.1 62.0 61.1 60.7


(a) One steer had to be removed during the course of the trial due to injury; the data for that animal were eliminated.
(b) Corn silage, 30.68% dry matter; forage sorghum silage, 31.45% dry matter; high-moisture corn, 75.60% dry matter;
high-moisture sorghum grain, 71.07% dry matter; and concentrate supplement, 92.02% dry matter.
(c) Corn silage cost=$14.00/ton, forage sorghum silage cost=$12.50/ton, high-moisture corn cost= $75.00/ton, high-
moisture sorghum grain cost=$66.70/ton, and concentrate supplement cost=$167.48/ton.
(d) 14=average good, 15=high good, 16=low choice, 17 -average choice, etc.
(e) Yield grades numbered 1 through 5, with yield grade 1 representing the highest yield of boneless, closely trimmed retail
cuts (cutability) and yield grade 5 the lowest.
(f) Paying weight, which was hot dressed weight.
* Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the 5% level of probability.











Table 7.-Feed data (dry matter basis) for beef steers finished on corn silage versus forage sorghum silage and high-
moisture corn versus high-moisture sorghum grain (Experiment 2)-ARC, Jay (1973).
Silages (a) High-moisture Grains (b)
Item Corn Forage Sorghum Corn Sorghum
Silage 185 213 179 219
Grain 405 454 400 460
Concentrate supplement 44 50 42 52

Total feed/cwt gain (dry basis) (c) 634 717 621 731
SSilage 4.7 5.0 4.4 5.4
Grain 10.3 10.6 9.7 11.3
Concentrate supplement 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.3

Total feed/animal/day, lb. (dry basis) (c) 16.2 16.8 15.1 18.0

(a) Each silage was fed with both high-moisture corn and high-moisture sorghum grain.
(b) Each high-moisture grain was fed with both corn silage and forage sorghum silage.
(c) Corn silage, 30.68% dry matter; forage sorghum silage, 31.45% dry matter; high-moisture corn, 75.60% dry matter;
high-moisture sorghum grain, 71.07% dry matter; and concentrate supplement, 92.02% dry matter.











Table 8.-Rations fed in Experiment 3 (as-fed and dry matter basis)-ARC, Jay (1974).
Corn Silage Ration Forage Sorghum Silage Ration
Unrolled Rolled Unrolled Rolled
As-fed Dry matter As-fed Dry matter As-fed Dry matter As-fed Dry matter
basis basis (a) basis basis (a) basis basis (b) basis basis (b)
Ingredients (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)


Corn silage (c)


50.0 31.4 50.0 31.4


Forage sorghum silage (d) -50.0 27.9 50.0 27.9
High-moisture corn 47.1 63.6 47.1 63.6 47.1 66.9 47.1 66.9
Concentrate supplement 2.9 5.0 2.9 5.0 2.9 5.2 2.9 5.2
(a) Calculated to contain 11.9% protein, 83% total digestible nutrients (TDN), 8.8%crude fiber, 0.41%/ calcium, 0.44%
phosphorus, and 1,815 IU/lb. of vitamin A.
(b) Calculated to contain 11.4% protein, 80%/ TDN, 9.5% crude fiber, 0.43% calcium, 0.44% phosphorus, and 1,885
IU/lb. of vitamin A.
(c) DeKalb variety XL80.
(d) Funk's variety 102F.


~ ~


I-







Table 9.-Concentrate supplement (protein, mineral, and vitamin) fed
in drylot finishing rations (Experiment 3)-ARC, Jay (1974).
Ingredients % Lb./Ton
Soybean meal (44% protein) 65.37 1307
Urea- 450/ N 8.60 172
Salt (trace-mineralized) 8.60 172
Defluorinated rock phosphate 17.19 344
Vitamin A supplement (a) + +
Antibiotic supplement (b) 0.24 4.8
100.00 1999.8
(a) Vitamin A supplement containing 650,000 JU/g added at the level
of 65.3 million IU/ton or 32,650 IU/lb. of concentrate supplement.
(b) Zinc bacitracin supplement containing 40 g/lb. of the antibiotic
added at the level of 192 g/ton or 96 mg/lb. of concentrate sup-
plement.


rolled corn silage ration, the gain (2.20 pounds per head daily)
of steers receiving the unrolled forage sorghum silage ration,
and the gain (2.10 pounds per head daily) of steers receiving
the rolled corn silage ration. There was no difference in gain
between treatments. On a total ration dry matter basis, steers
receiving the four different rations were very similar in the
conversion of dry matter to gain.
The cost of gain was lowest for steers receiving the unrolled
corn silage ration and highest for steers receiving the rolled
forage sorghum silage ration (Table 10).
There were no differences between treatments with respect to
carcass grades, yield grades, and dressing percent (carcass
yields) (Table 10).
Upon pooling the data, results indicated that steers fed corn
silage, which was of poor quality due to drought and severe
damage by green stinkbugs, in their finishing rations were
slightly more efficient in converting total ration dry matter to
gain than steers receiving good forage sorghum silage in their
finishing rations (Table 11). The daily feed consumption per
steer on a dry matter basis was slightly larger for steers re-
ceiving forage sorghum silage rations than for the steers re-
ceiving the corn silage rations. As in Experiment 2, the steers
compensated for the lower available energy in forage sorghum
silage compared to corn silage by increasing consumption. There
was no advantage from rolling the silages.







Table 10.-Performance, economic, and carcass data for beef steers in Experiment 3-ARC, Jay (1974).
Corn Silage Ration Forage Sorghum Silage Ration
Item Unrolled Rolled Unrolled Rolled
Length of feeding period, days 128 128 128 128
No. of animals 20 20 20 20
Avg initial wt, Ib. 685 685 685 683
Avg final wt, lb. 968 954 967 973
Total gain, Ib. 283 269 282 290
Avg daily gain, lb. 2.21 2.10 2.20 2.27
Feed/cwt gain (dry basis) (a) 671 697 703 699
Feed/animal/day, Ib. (dry basis) (a) 14.8 14.6 15.5 ,5.8
Feed cost/cwt gain (b) $37.97 $39.77 $41.00 $41.10
Avg carcass grade (c) 16.5 16.2 15.8 16.4
Avg yield grade (d) 2.9 2.7 2.9 2.9
Avg carcass wt, lb. (e) 581 572 572 580
Avg dressing percent 60.0 60.0 59.2 59.6


(a) Corn silage, 33.74% dry matter; forage sorghum silage, 28.49% dry matter; high-moisture corn, 72.48% dry matter;
and concentrate supplement, 91.63% dry matter.
(b) Unrolled corn silage cost=$18.00/ton, rolled corn silage cost= $19.00/ton, unrolled forage sorghum silage cost=
$15.50/ton, rolled forage sorghum silage cost= $16.50/ton, high moisture corn cost=$100.00/ton, and concentrate
supplement cost= $160.48/ton.
(c) 14=average good, 15=high good, 16 low choice, 17=average choice, etc.
(d) Yield grades numbered 1 through 5, with yield grade 1 representing the highest yield of boneless, closely trimmed
retail cuts (cutability) and yield grade 5 the lowest.
(e) Paying weight, which was hot dressed weight.









Table 11.-Feed data (dry matter basis) for beef steers finished on corn silage versus forage sorghum silage and unrolled
versus rolled silage (Experiment 3)-ARC, Jay (1974).


Item

Silage
High-moisture corn
Concentrate supplement

Total feed/cwt gain (dry basis) (e)

Silage
" High-moisture corn
Concentrate supplement


Corn Forage Unrolled
Silage (a) Sorghum Silage (b) Silage (c)
215 196 204
435 468 448
34 37 35


684


Total feed/animal/day, lb. (dry basis) (e) 14.7


(a) Unrolled and rolled corn silage rations.
(b) Unrolled and rolled forage sorghum silage rations.
(c) Unrolled corn and forage sorghum silage rations.
(d) Rolled corn and forage sorghum silage rations.
(e) Corn silage, 33.74% dry matter; forage sorghum silage, 28.49% dry matter; high-moisture corn, 72.48% dry matter;
and concentrate supplement, 91.63% dry matter.


Rolled
Silage (d)
207
455
36

698


4.5
9.9
0.8

15.2


687


4.5
9.9
0.8

15.2


15.7







SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS


The results of research with silages in high-energy finishing
rations for beef steers were presented. Grain crop silages (corn
and sorghum) were utilized to advantage in finishing rations
for beef steers; however, the kind of silage (corn or sorghum),
the level of silage added to the ration, and the grain content of
the silage were important considerations.
A finishing ration containing 50, silage on an as-fed basis,
fed twice daily in the amount that the steers would clean up be-
tween feedings, proved to be a good ration for feed-lot steers. This
ration did not have a tendency to cause digestive problems which
would result in animals going off of feed. It was also easy to
full-feed and contained enough roughage (fiber) so that founder
was not a problem. This type of ration could be fed by an inex-
perienced feeder without running into too many problems. De-
pending upon the price of grain and silage, this level of silage
(50% on an as-fed basis) did not always make the most profitable
ration for finishing beef steers. In many cases, the most profit-
able ration was the one where just enough silage was used in the
ration with reconstituted grain to furnish the "roughage proper-
ties" generally considered necessary for finishing beef steers.
The information obtained in these trials proved that corn
silage made from the present varieties of corn had a higher
nutritional value in the ration of feedlot steers than forage
sorghum silage made from the present varieties of sorghum.
The gain of feedlot steers receiving good quality corn silage in
their finishing ration was larger than the gain of steers receiving
good quality forage sorghum silage. Also, the dry matter in a
good quality corn silage ration was more efficiently utilized (ap-
proximately 13% ) than the dry matter in a good quality forage
sorghum silage ration. In fact, steers receiving poor quality corn
silage, which had a low grain content because of drought and
severe damage by green stinkbugs, in their finishing ration were
still slightly more efficient in converting total ration dry matter
to gain than steers receiving good quality forage sorghum silage.
In all cases, steers compensated for the lower available energy
from forage sorghum silage rations compared to corn silage
rations by an increased consumption of the lower energy rations.
From the standpoint of gain and feed efficiency, the rolling
of silages (corn and sorghum) in order to crimp (flatten) the
kernels of grain prior to feeding in high-energy finishing rations
for feedlot steers was not worthwhile.
16






LITERATURE CITED
1. Baker, F. S., Jr. 1969. The use of corn silage in steer growing and
finishing programs. Proc. Beef Cattle Short Course, University of
Florida, Gainesville.
2. Baker, F. S., Jr. 1973. Preliminary information on corn silage with
different levels of grain for finishing cattle in dry lot. Proc. Beef
Cattle Short Course, University of Florida, Gainesville.

3. Chapman, H. L., Jr. 1956. Silage as a feed for fattening cattle. Fla.
Agr. Exp. Sta. Everglades Mimeo. 56-9.
4. Chapman, H. L., Jr., V. E. Green, Jr., C. E. Haines, and R. W. Kidder.
1964.. Production and utilization of corn silage on organic soil. Fla.
Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 679.
5. Chamberlain, C. C., H. A. Fribourg, K. M. Barth, J. H. Felts, and J. M.
Anderson. 1971. Effect of maturity of corn silage at harvest on the
performance of feeder heifers. J. Anim. Sci. 33:161.
6. Dunavin, L. S. 1973. Corn silage trials, 1973. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta.
Res. Rept. WF73-4.
7. Dunavin, L. S. 1973. Variety trials of summer annual grasses and of
forage sorghums for silage. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Rept. WF73-5.
8. Duncan, D. B. 1955. Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics
11:1.
9. Hlammes, R. C., Jr., J. P. Fontenot, H. T. Bryant, R. E. Blaser, and
R. W. Engel 1964. Value of high-silage rations for fattening beef
cattle J. Anim. Sci. 23:795.
10. Hentges, J. F., Jr., D. E. Franke, and A. Z. Palmer. 1971. Comparative
performance of beef and dairy X beef breeds of steers from weaning
to slaughter. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Anim. Sci. Mimeo. AN71-2.
11. McCormick, W. C., R. S. Lowrey, and B. L. Southwell. 1967. Corn
silage versus corn silage and small grain pasture for finishing steers.
Ga. Coastal Plains Exp. Sta. Res. Rept. No. 2, pp.7-11.
12. Morrison, F. B. 1956. Feeds and Feeding (22nd ed.) The Morrison
Publishing Company, Ithaca, N. Y.
13. Morrison, S. H. 1974. 1974-75 ingredient analysis and estimated feed
value tables for beef and sheep growing-finishing rations. Feedstuffs
46 (36), pp.A5-A20.
14. N.R.C. 1970. Nutrient requirements of domestic animals. No. 4.
Nutrient requirements of beef cattle. National Academy of Sciences,
Washington, D. C.
15. Perry, T. W. 1968. The value of corn silage for developing feeder
cattle, fattening steers, and cow-calf program. Proc. Beef Cattle Short
Course, University of Florida, Gainesville.
16. Perry, T. W., D. Webb, C. H. Nickel, and W. M. Beeson. 1961. Various
ratios of corn and corn silage in the fattening ration of beef calves.
Purdue Agr. Exp. Sta. Mimeo. AS-294.
17. Snedecor, G. W. 1946. Statistical Methods (4th ed.) Iowa State Col-
lege Press, Ames, Iowa.
18. Utley, P. R., R. S. Lowrey, and W. C. McCormick. 1973. Corn silage
and corn silage plus small grain pasture for finishing steers. J. Anim.
Sci. 36:423.
















































This public document was promulgated at an annual cost
of $1,088.15 or a cost of 21.80 per copy to present informa-
tion on the use of silage in finishing rations for beef steers.




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