• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Main
 Back Matter






Group Title: comparison of sorghum silage, peanut hay and cottonseed hulls as roughages for fattening steers
Title: A comparison of sorghum silage, peanut hay and cottonseed hulls as roughages for fattening steers
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027185/00001
 Material Information
Title: A comparison of sorghum silage, peanut hay and cottonseed hulls as roughages for fattening steers
Alternate Title: Bulletin 320 ; Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Shealy, A. L
Gratz, L. O.
Publisher: University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: June, 1938
Copyright Date: 1938
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027185
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: aen5173 - LTUF
18213477 - OCLC
000924546 - AlephBibNum

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page 1
        Page 2
    Main
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
    Back Matter
        Page 11
Full Text


Bulletin 320 June, 1938


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA
WILMON NEWELL, Director






A COMPARISON OF

SORGHUM SILAGE, PEANUT HAY

AND COTTONSEED HULLS

AS ROUGHAGES

FOR FATTENING STEERS


By
A. L. SHEALY and L. O. GRATZ






CONTENTS
Page
Introduction ..... ...-- -- - .... .. .... ................... 3
Object of Experiment .................... ....... ........ ... 3
M ethod of Procedure .... ................ ...................... 4
Feeds .................. .. ........ .................... 4
M in erals ..................... .. .. ......... ... ....... ................ 5
A n im als .................. .... .. ..................... ..... 6
Results of the Experiment .. .... .. .. .... .................. 6
D discussion .- .......... .......... ..- ................... 9






Bulletins will be sent free to Florida residents upon request to
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA









EXECUTIVE STAFF BOARD OF CONTROL
R, P. Terry, Acting Chairman, Miami
John J. Tigert, M.A., LL.D., President of Thomas W. Bryant, Lakeland
the University W. M. Palmer, Ocala
Wilmon Newell, D.Sc., Director H. P. Adair, Jacksonville
H. Harold Hume, D.Sc., Asst. Dir., Research Chas. P. Helfenstein, Live Oak
Harold Mowry, M.S.A., Asst. Dir., Adm. J. T. Diamond, Secretary, Tallahassee
J. Francis Cooper, M.S.A., Editor
Jefferson Thomas, Assistant Editor
Clyde Beale, A.B.J., Assistant Editor BRANCH STATIONS
Ida Keeling Cresap, Librarian
Ruby Newhall, Administrative Manager NORTH FLORIDA STATION, QUINCY
K. H. Graham, Business Manager L. 0. Gratz, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist in
Rachel McQuarrie, Accountant Charge
R. R. Kincaid, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Pathologist
J. D. Warner, M.S., Agronomist
MAIN STATION, GAINESVILLE Jesse Reeves, Farm Superintendent

AGRONOMY CITRUS STATION, LAKE ALFRED
W. E. Stokes, M.S., Agronomist** A. F. Camp, Ph.D., Horticulturist in Charge
W. A. Leukel, Ph.D., Agronomist John H. Jefferies, Superintendent
G. E. Ritchey, M.S., Associate* W. A. Kuntz, A.M., Asso. Plant Pathologist
Fred H. Hull, Ph.D., Associate Michael Peech, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
W. A. Carver, Ph.D., Associate B. R. Fudge, Ph.D., Associate Chemist
John P. Camp, M.S., Assistant W. L. Thompson, B.S., Asst. Entomologist
Roy E. Blaser, M.S., Assistant John A. Granger, B.S., Asst. Horticulturist

ANIMAL HUSBANDRY EVERGLADES STATION, BELLE GLADE
A. L. Shealy, D.V.M., Animal Husbandman** J. R. Neller, Ph.D., Biochemist in Charge
R. B. Becker, Ph.D., Dairy Husbandman R. N. Lobdell, M.S., Entomologist
L. M. Thurston, Ph.D., Dairy Technologist F. D. Stevens, B.S., Sugarcane Agronomist
W. M. Neal, Ph.D., Asso. in An. Nutrition Thomas Bregger, Ph.D., Sugarcane
D. A. Sanders, D.V.M., Veterinarian Physiologist
M. W. Emmel, D.V.M., Veterinarian Jos. R. Beckenbach, Ph.D., Associate
N. R. Mehrhof, M.Agr., Poultry Husbandman Horticulturist
W. G. Kirk, Ph.D., Asst. An. Husbandman Frederick Boyd, Ph.D., Asst. Agronomist
R. M. Crown, B.S.A., Asst. An. Husban man G. R. Townsend, Ph.D., Assistant Plant
P. T. Dix Arnold, M.S.A., Assistant Dairy Pathologist
Husbandman R. W. Kid -er, B.S., Asst. Animal Husbandman
L. L. Rusoff, M.S., Asst. in An. Nutrition W. T. Foresee, Ph.D., Asst. Chemist
B. S. Clayton, B.S.C.E., Drainage Engineer*
CHEMISTRY AND SOILS
R. V. Allison, Ph.D., Chemist** SUB-TROPICAL STATION, HOMESTEAD
R. M. Barnette, Ph.D., Chemist H. S. Wolfe, Ph.D., Horticulturist in Charge
C. E. Bell, Ph.D., Associate W. M. Fifield, M.S., Asst. Horticulturist
R. B. French, Ph.D., Associate Geo. D. Ruehle, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Pathologist
H. W. Winsor, B.S.A., Assistant
J. Russell Henderson, M.S.A., Assistant W. CENTRAL FLA. STA., BROOKSVILLE
ECONOMICS, AGRICULTURAL F. Ward, M.S., Asst. An. Husbandman
ECONOMICS, AGRICULTURAL in Charge*
C. V. Noble, Ph.D., Agricultural Economist*
Bruce McKinley, A.B., B.S.A., Associate FIELD STATIONS
Zach Savage, M.S.A., Associate
A. H. Spurlock, M.S.A., Assistant Leesburg

ECONOMICS, HOME M. N. Walker, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist in
Charge
Ouida Davis Abbott, Ph.D., Specialist' K. W. Loucks, M.S., Asst. Plant Pathologist
Ruth Overstreet, R.N., Assistant C. C. Goff, M.S., Assistant Entomologist

ENTOMOLOGY Plant City
J. R. Watson, A.M., Entomologist** A. N. Brooks, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
A. N. Tissot, Ph.D., Associate J. W. Wilson, Sc.D., Associate Entomologist
H. E. Bratley, M.S.A., Assistant Cocoa
Cocoa
HORTICULTURE A. S. Rhoads, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
G. H. Blackmon, M.S.A., Horticulturist and Hastings
Acting Head of Department
A. L. Stahl, Ph.D., Associate A. H. Eddins, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
F. S. Jamison, Ph.D., Truck Horticulturist Monticello
R. J. Wilmot, M.S.A., Specialist, Fumigation Sam Hill, S., Ast. Entomologist
Research Sam O. Hill, B.S., Asst. Entomologist*
R. D. Dickey, B.S.A., Assistant Horticulturist Bradenton
J. Carlton Cain, B.S.A., Asst. Horticulturist David G. elbert, Asst. Plant Pathologist
David G. Kelbert, Asst. Plant Pathologist
PLANT PATHOLOGY Sanford
W. B. Tisdale, Ph.D., Plant Pathologistt R. W. Ruprecht, Ph.D., Chemist, Celery Inv.
George F. Weber, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist Celery Investigations
"R. K. Voorhees, M.S., Assistant W. B. Shippy, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Pathologist
Erdman West, M.S., Mycologist
Lillian E. Arnold, M.S., Assistant Botanist Lakeland
SPECTROGRAP C LA ATE. S. Ellison, Meteorologist*
SPECTROGRAPHIC LABORATORY B. H. Moore, A.B., Asst. Meteorologist*
L. W. Gaddum, Ph.D., Biochemist
L. H. Rogers, M.A., Spectroscopic Analyst *In cooperation with U.S.D.A.
Richard A. Carrigan, B.S., Asst. Chemist ** Head of Department.










A COMPARISON OF SORGHUM SILAGE, PEANUT HAY
AND COTTONSEED HULLS AS ROUGHAGES
FOR FATTENING STEERS

By A. L. SHEALY and L. O. GRATZ

With the continued use of purebred bulls in beef cattle herds
in Florida, the grade of offspring is being raised materially
and many of the high-grade steers resulting from these breed-
ing operations are being fattened in feed lots rather than sold
directly from the pastures and ranges as grass-fat steers. In
feeding steers for market it is important that much considera-
tion be given to the kinds of feeds used in the rations, since
profit derived from the feeding operation depends largely upon
cost of the feeds. The ration should consist of feeds that are
most economical, yet from which satisfactory gains may be ob-
tained when fed to high-grade steers.
Concentrates available for use in the ration are somewhat
limited in this state, the most practical feeds being corn, cotton-
seed meal and velvet beans. With roughages, however, the
situation is different. Such crops as corn, sorghum, sugarcane
and Napier grass may be grown as silage crops, while hay may
be made from cowpeas and peanut vines. Cottonseed hulls are
available as roughage, should the feeder decide to purchase
roughage rather than to grow crops for hay or silage.

OBJECT OF EXPERIMENT
It was deemed important to conduct a feeding trial in which
sorghum silage, peanut hay and cottonseed hulls would be tested
for comparative feeding value. These roughages are commonly
employed in feeding steers in Florida. Sorghum was used rather
than corn as a silage crop, since it produces larger yields in
most sections of the state. Peanut hay was selected as a rough-
age since peanuts are raised rather extensively for the confec-
tionery trade, and after the nuts are picked, the cured vines
are used as roughage for feeding cattle. Cottonseed hulls were
tested, since this feed is used quite generally by many feeders
in the western part of the state in fattening steers for market.

Acknowledgments.-The authors desire to acknowledge the valuable
services of R. A. Barton who fed the steers for two years, and of Doctor
W. G. Kirk who graded the steers and made valuable suggestions in the
preparation of the manuscript.







4 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

METHOD OF PROCEDURE
The experiment was conducted at the North Florida Experi-
ment Station, Quincy, for three consecutive feeding seasons, the
first period beginning in the fall of 1934 and the third one end-
ing in February 1937. The length of the feeding periods was
a minimum of 120 days for each season. The steers were
weighed individually on three consecutive days at the beginning
and at the close of each feeding period. The averages of the
three consecutive weights were taken in each instance as the
initial and final weights. Weights were recorded for each 28-
day period throughout the experiment. The steers were fed
about 7:30 A. M. and 5:30 P. M. each day.
At the beginning of each test the steers were divided as uni-
formly as possible, from the standpoints of age, weight, and
grade as feeder steers, into the various lots. At the close of
the feeding period they were graded and slaughtered. The
dressing percent was obtained for each lot. After being chilled
the carcasses were graded according to standard grades for
beef carcasses as given by the United States Department of
Agriculture, except in the second year of the feeding trial.
Feeds.-In addition to the roughages which consisted of sor-
ghum silage, peanut hay and cottonseed hulls, a uniform grain
mixture of broken ear corn (snapped corn), velvet beans in the
pod and cottonseed meal was used as concentrates. During the
second and third years an additional lot of steers was added in
which peanut meal replaced cottonseed meal in the concentrates
of the ration, sorghum silage being used as roughage. The
additional lot was added so that a comparison might be made
of the feeding value of cottonseed meal and peanut meal.
The sorghum silage was made from Texas Seeded Ribbon
cane, the sorghum being cut when the interior of the seeds was
in the dough stage and the cut forage stored in a trench silo.
A good quality of silage was obtained. The deep clay subsoil
in the Quincy section made it unnecessary to place boards on
the sides of the trench silo as is often necessary in sandy soil.
The peanut hay used in this feeding trial was of fair quality.
The curing of peanuts for confectionery uses extends over a
period of several days, and the vines necessarily must go through
a prolonged curing period. In many instances there is a rather
large amount of rainfall during the curing period which ma-
terially affects the curing of the vines. The quality of peanut








A Comparison of Roughages for Fattening Steers 5

hay is lowered considerably if there has been much rainfall
during the curing period.
Cottonseed hulls were purchased on the local market. A good
grade of hulls was obtained each year.
Broken ear corn was chosen as part of the grain ration, since
it was desired to make the experiment as practical as possible
by utilizing those feeds which any farmer or cattleman could
use. This was the reason for breaking the snapped corn rather
than feeding ground or shelled corn. A hatchet was used in
cutting the ears of corn, the ears being cut into two or three
pieces.
Velvet beans were fed, since in some sections of the state
this crop makes a good yield. The beans were fed in the pods,
making up an important part of a ration of home-grown feeds.
Cottonseed meal containing 41 percent protein, the highest
grade sold in Florida, was used in this experiment as an im-
portant part of the concentrates. Since numerous inquiries had
been received as to whether peanut meal could be substituted
for cottonseed meal in a ration for steers it was decided to add
one lot of steers during the second and third years of the ex-
periment to obtain information on this point. The peanut meal
was the highest grade produced, free from hulls and contained
45 percent protein.
The animals were given all the roughage they would eat. The
grain allowance was increased as the animals indicated they
would consume more grain and still eat a sufficient quantity of
roughage so that definite comparisons could be made of the
roughages. As the feeding period progressed and the steers
gained weight, the grain allowance was raised slightly. If the
steers did not make satisfactory gains, the increase in grain
ration was greater than it would have been otherwise.
Minerals.-Mineral supplements consisting of steamed bone-
meal, common salt and the "salt sick" lick were kept before the
steers at all times. The "salt sick" lick consists of the following
ingredients:
Common salt ..............- ....... ..................... 100 pounds
Red oxide of iron ............................. ........... 25 pounds
Copper sulfate .................. ...-............. ......... 1 pound
These ingredients were mixed thoroughly and the mixture
placed in one compartment of a mineral box. The steamed bone-
meal and common salt were placed in adjoining compartments.
Since the animals were fed under a large shed the minerals
were placed in a box located under the shed.








6 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

Animals.-The steers used each year of this experiment were
mostly long yearlings, with an occasional two-year old in each
lot. They were taken from the ranges in the western part of
the state and had received no supplemental feed as calves.
Generally they were first-cross animals, having been sired by
purebred beef bulls and out of native Florida cows. The beef
breeds represented were Aberdeen-Angus, Hereford and Short-
horn; however, grade Aberdeen-Angus predominated.

RESULTS OF THE EXPERIMENT

During the 1934-35 feeding period, 30 steers were divided
into three lots of 10 each, designated as Lots I, II, and III.

TABLE 1.-COMPARISON OF SORGHUM SILAGE, PEANUT HAY AND COTTON-
SEED HULLS AS ROUGHAGES IN THE RATIONS OF STEERS, 1934-35 FEEDING
PERIOD.
Date of test: December 3, 1934, to April 29, 1935.
Length of test: 148 days.
Lot I Lot II Lot III
Roughage used Sorghum Peanut Cottonseed
silage hay hulls
Number of steers per lot ............................ 10 10 10
Average initial weight per steer in lbs. 505.7 477.8 496.5
Average final weight per steer in lbs ...... 761.7 763.5 783.8
Average gain per steer in lbs. ............... 256.0 285.7 287.3
Gain by lot in lbs. ........................................ 2,560.0 2,857.0 2,873.0
Average daily gain in lbs. .......................... 1.73 1.93 1.94
Average amount of feed consumed daily
per steer in pounds:
Sorghum silage ..................................... 19.14 ........ ...
Peanut hay ......................................... ... -........ 6.26
Cottonseed hulls ........................... ........--- ....... ........ 9.00
Broken ear corn ................-..................-... 7.80 7.80 7.80
Velvet beans in pod ........................ .....-... 2.92 2.92 2.92
Cottonseed meal ........................................ 2.30 2.30 2.30
pounds pounds pounds
Amount of feed required to produce 100
pounds gain:
Sorghum silage ........................................ 1,106.2 .
Peanut hay ....... ......... .............. ... ......-- ........ 324.1
Cottonseed hulls ...................................... ............... 462.6
Broken ear corn ........................................ 450.7 403.8 401.6
Velvet beans in pod ................................. 168.6 151.0 150.2
Cottonseed meal ...................................... 132.9 119.1 118.4
Slaughter data:
Average grade of fat steers at time
of slaughter .............--... ---................... ... Medium High Medium
Medium
Average dressing percent* .............-......- 57.26 58.56 61.16
Average grade of carcasses after
chilling ....................... ................. Low Low Medium
SMedium Medium
*The dressing percent was calculated on the weight of the steer just
prior to slaughter and the weight of the warm dressed carcass.








A Comparison of Roughages for Fattening Steers 7

Lot I received sorghum silage as roughage; Lot II, peanut hay;
and Lot III, cottonseed hulls. The uniform grain mixture of
broken ear corn, velvet beans in the pod, and cottonseed meal
was given to all lots. Results obtained during the first year
of the feeding trial are given in Table 1.
As stated previously, a fourth lot of steers was added at the
beginning of the second year of the feeding trial for the purpose
of comparing the feeding value of cottonseed meal and peanut
meal in the ration for steers. The roughage for this fourth
lot (Lot IV) was sorghum silage as in Lot I. The steers in
Lots I, II, and III received the same feeds as in 1934-1935.
Table 2 gives the results obtained during the second year's
test.

TABLE 2.-COMPARISON OF SORGHUM SILAGE, PEANUT HAY AND COTTON-
SEED HULLS AS ROUGHAGES IN THE RATIONS OF STEERS, 1935-36 FEEDING
PERIOD.
Date of test: November 2, 1935, to February 29, 1936.
Length of test: 120 days.
Lot I Lot II Lot III Lot IV
Roughage used Sorghum Peanut Cottonseed Sorghum
_silage hay hulls silage
Number of steers per lot ......1 10 10 10 10
Average initial weight per
steer in lbs ............................ 467.0 477.3 484.3 470.5
Average final weight per
steer in lbs ----......-..--..... 693.3 706.6 741.8 694.0
Average gain per steer in lbs. 226.3 229.3 257.5 223.5
Gain by lot in lbs. .................... 2,263.0 2,293.0 2,575.0 2,235.0
Average daily gain in lbs. .... 1.89 1.91 2.15 1.86
Average amount of feed con-
sumed daily per steer in
pounds:
Sorghum silage ............------ 15.77 ........ ........ 17.24
Peanut hay ......................... 6.11 ........ ........
Cottonseed hulls _....... ........ 10.32 ......
Broken ear corn .--........- 8.01 8.61 8.57 8.61
Velvet beans in pod ............ 2.49 2.61 2.61 2.61
Cottonseed meal .--.....------ -.. 2.56 2.76 2.76
Peanut m eal --.............. ....... .. ..... ........ ........ 2.76
pounds pounds pounds pounds
Amount of feed required to
produce 100 pounds gain:
Sorghum silage ....... ............ 897.21 ....... ...... 925.8
Peanut hay ........ ......- ....... ........ 319.7 ......
Cottonseed hulls ................... ........ ...- 481.3
Broken ear corn .................. 451.0 450.7 399.4 462.4
Velvet beans in pod ........... 138.0 136.2 121.6 140.1
Cottonseed meal ................. 145.5 144.6 128.8 ...
Peanut m eal ................................ ........ 148.4
Slaughter data:*
Average dressing percent ..J 55.36 55.57 57.84 55.70
*No grades were obtained on the steers just prior to slaughter as fal
steers, neither were there grades obtained on chilled carcasses.








8 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

The feeding during the third year was identical with that
of the second year, except that a smaller amount of velvet
beans in the pod was fed. The third year's results are shown
in Table 3.

TABLE 3.-COMPARISON OF SORGHUM SILAGE, PEANUT HAY AND COTTON-
SEED HULLS AS ROUGHAGES IN THE RATIONS OF STEERS, 1936-37 FEEDING
PERIOD.
Date of test: September 12, 1936, to January 30, 1937.
Length of test: 140 days.

Lot I Lot II Lot III LotIV
Roughage used Sorghum Peanut Cottonseed Sorghum
silage hay hulls silage
Number of steers per lot ...... 10 10 10 10
Average initial weight per
steer in lbs. ....................... 523.0 531.8 538.7 510.5
Average final weight per
steer in lbs. .................. .... 778.5 745.5 795.0 762.8
Average gain per steer in Ibs. 255.5 213.7 256.3 252.3
Gain by lot in lbs. ................... 2,555.0 2,137.0 2,563.0 2,523.0
Average daily gain in lbs .. 1.83 1.53 1.83 1.80
Average amount of feed con-
sumed daily per steer in
pounds:
Sorghum silage .......-............ 20.01 ........ ........ 18.46
Peanut hay ......................... ........ 5.14 ........ ........
Cottonseed hulls -.............. ...... ........ 10.41
Broken ear corn ...........--.. 9.01 9.01 9.01 9.01
Velvet beans in pod ........... 1.62 1.62 1.62 1.62
Cottonseed meal -----................ 2.94 2.94 2.94
Peanut m eal ..................... ...... ..... ......... 2.94
pounds pounds pounds pounds
Amount of feed required to
produce 100 pounds gain:
Sorghum silage .....-............. -1,096.4 ....... ....... 1,024.0
Peanut hay .........-............ .-....... 336.5
Cottonseed hulls .................. --..... ........ 568.3
Broken ear corn ................. 493.5 590.2 491.9 499.7
Velvet beans in pod ........... 88.8 106.2 88.5 89.9
Cottonseed meal ..........-........ 160.9 192.4 160.3
Peanut m eal ...................... .. ... ...... .. ....... .. -162.9
Slaughter data:
Average grade of fat steers
at time of slaughter ........ Medium Medium Low Good Medium
Average dressing percent*.. 59.04 58.89 60.01 57.86
Average grade of car-
casses after chilling ........ High Medium High Medium
SMedium Medium
*The dressing percent was calculated on the weight of the steer just
prior to slaughter and the weight of the warm carcass.

A summary of results obtained for the three feeding periods
is given in Table 4.








A Comparison of Roughages for Fattening Steers 9

TABLE 4.-SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF THREE FEEDING PERIODS, SHOWING
RATIONS, TOTAL GAINS, AND AVERAGE DAILY GAINS MADE BY STEERS
IN DIFFERENT LOTS.
1935 1936 1937 Average*
pounds pounds pounds pounds
Lot I
Average daily ration:
Sorghum silage ................... 19.14 15.77 20.01 18.45
Broken ear corn .................... 7.80 8.01 9.01 8.28
Velvet beans in pod ............ 2.92 2.49 1.62 2.32
Cottonseed meal .................... 2.30 2.56 2.94 2.60
Total gain for lot ....................-. 2,560.0 2,263.0 2,555.0 2,459.3
Average daily gain ..........-..... 1.73 1.89 1.83 1.81
Lot II
Average daily ration:
Peanut hay ............................ 6.26 6.11 5.14 5.96
Broken ear corn ............- ... 7.80 8.61 9.01 8.45
Velvet beans in pod .......... 2.92 2.61 1.62 2.38
Cottonseed meal .............-- ..... 2.30 2.76 2.94 2.65
Total gain for lot .................... 2,857.0 2,293.0 2,137.0 2,429.0
Average daily gain ................ 1.93 1.91 1.53 1.79
Lot III
Average daily ration:
Cottonseed hulls .................. 9.00 10.32 10.41 9.87
Broken ear corn ..........-.....-... 7.80 8.57 9.01 8.44
Velvet beans in pod ....--....--- 2.92 2.61 1.62 2.38
Cottonseed meal ................... 2.30 2.76 2.94 2.65
Total gain for lot .......------...... 2,873.0 2,575.0 2,563.0 2,670.3
Average daily gain .................. 1.94 2.15 1.83 1.96
Lot IV
Average daily ration:
Sorghum silage .............. ........ 17.24 18.46 17.90
Broken ear corn .............. ........ 8.61 9.01 8.82
Velvet beans in pod ......... ........ 2.61 1.62 2.08
Peanut meal ................. .. ........ 2.76 2.94 2.86
Total gain for lot ............... ....... 2,235.0 2,523.0 2,379.0
Average daily gain ............ ..... 1.86 1.80 1.83
*Weighted.

DISCUSSION

It will be noted that the lot receiving cottonseed hulls made
slightly higher average daily gains than the other two lots
for two of the three feeding periods. For the first feeding
period there was only 0.01 pound difference in the average daily
gain between the cottonseed hulls and the peanut hay lots. The
average daily gain made by the steers fed cottonseed hulls and
those fed sorghum silage with the uniform grain mixture was
identical for the third feeding period. It is observed, therefore,
that there was little difference in the feeding value of sorghum
silage, peanut hay and cottonseed hulls as roughages in the
rations of steers on the basis of average daily gain.
Since the feeding value of sorghum silage, peanut hay, and
cottonseed hulls is approximately the same, the cost of these







10 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

roughages should determine which should be used in the rations
of steers. In estimating the total cost of sorghum silage, the
yield per acre as well as the actual expense of growing and en-
siling the crop must be considered. The cost will vary greatly
in different sections of the state, depending largely upon yields.
There is considerable variation in the grade of peanut hay, de-
pending upon the rainfall during the curing period. The price
of peanut hay varies with the grade and the amount produced
annually. The grade of cottonseed hulls is very uniform, as a
general rule, from year to year, the price being determined
largely by the price of cotton and cottonseed.
The amount of feed required to produce 100 pounds gain as
well as the average amount of feed consumed daily per steer
is shown in the preceding tables. If these amounts are used in
calculations, together with the price of each feed, it will be pos-
sible to make a very close estimate as to the cost of each ration
and to determine rather accurately which of the roughages used
in this feeding trial is the most economical and practical.
Assuming sorghum silage is worth $3.50 per ton and the grain
feed $20.00 per ton, then peanut hay would be worth $12.50
per ton, and cottonseed hulls $9.73 per ton as parts of the ration
for fattening steers, based on intake of feed and calculated on
the basis of total digestible nutrients.
The feeding value of peanut meal was practically identical
with that of cottonseed meal in this feeding trial. In each of the
feeding periods there was only 0.03 pound greater average daily
gain obtained from cottonseed meal than from peanut meal. It
would seem, therefore, from the results of this feeding trial
that the price of these two feeds should determine, in a large
measure, which should be used.










1938


Golden Jubilee


Year


Founded at Lake City in 1888, transferred
to Gainesville in 1906, the Florida Agricul-
tural Experiment Station has served Florida
agriculture for 50 years-bringing new crops,
better methods of culture, more efficient dis-
ease and insect control, and similar aids to
advancement by the State's oldest industry
and one of its most important.
Scientists who work for farmers through
the Station are now busily engaged in pur-
suing research on some 180 projects; when
completed, these will furnish information
still further assisting Florida growers.


For bulletins or other information, write
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
WILMON NEWELL, Director
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA
Supported by both State and Federal Funds
1888-1938





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