Group Title: Bulletin / University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station ;, no. 665
Title: Supplemental feeding of beef cattle on pasture in south Florida
Full Citation
Permanent Link:
 Material Information
Title: Supplemental feeding of beef cattle on pasture in south Florida
Series Title: Bulletin / University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station ;, no. 665
Physical Description: 28 p. ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Chapman, H. L.
Publisher: University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station,
Publication Date: 1964.
Subject: Beef cattle -- Feeding and feeds -- Florida.
Pastures -- Florida.
General Note: Cover title.
General Note: Includes bibliographical references (p. 25-26).
Funding: Bulletin (University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station) ;
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027227
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 000929048
notis - AEN9813
oclc - 18353660

Full Text

Februot 1i96-

Supplemental feeding of beef cattle

on pasture in south Florida

H L. Chopmon. Ji.
F. M Peacock
W CG Kirk
R L. Shirle,
T J Cunhc

Agricultural Expenlmernt Srctiri.'ri Uni.ersit, of
Fl..rida. Gaines..ille J. P Be.cke bci.:h Direcr..

Bulletin 665





Chapman, Animal Nutritionist, Everglades Station, Belle Glade
Peacock, Assistant Animal Husbandman, Range Cattle Station, Ona
Kirk, Vice-Director, Range Cattle Station
Shirley, Animal Nutritionist, Main Station, Gainesville
Cunha, Animal Nutritionist and Head of Animal Science Department
Main Station


FOREWORD ................. ... .. .... .. 5

NUTRITIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF BEEF CATTLE .............-..-...........-------- .

OF SOUTH FLORIDA .........-.......-...................--....- ..... ...... ..... 1.

EVALUATION OF NUTRITIONAL ADEQUACY OF PASTURES ................................ 13

TYPES OF SUPPLEMENTAL FEEDS ............ ................. .... ----.... -------- 14

RECOMMENDED SUPPLEMENTAL FEEDING PRACTICES ..................--.........----...- 19

MINERAL SUPPLEMENTS FOR SOUTH FLORIDA .... ................. ..-.......... ..... 23

A CKNOW LEDGMENTS -.. ---.. ........................................................ 25

LITERATURE CITED .....................- ................................ .......... 25

A PPEN DIX .. .......... -.. ........ .- --------------....... -- 27


Currently available information on feeding supplemental min-
erals and feeds to beef cattle in south Florida is summarized in
this bulletin. Many factors affect the nutritional requirements
of beef cattle, and the manner in which these requirements can
be best furnished is often a matter of opinion. Information is
presented to give the cattleman a basis to determine the advisa-
bility of providing cattle with supplemental feed and, if needed,
the best kind of supplemental feed to use. Also, current recom-
mendations for mineral mixtures are presented. The major
emphasis concerns cattle on the principal pasture forages of south
The nutritional requirements of beef cattle are affected by
age, sex, breed, condition, stage of life cycle, and purpose for
which the cattle are to be used. Factors affecting the extent to
which a particular supplemental feeding program is used include
kind of feed and pasture forage available, degree of specializa-
tion being followed, physical facilities available, and relative
prices of cattle and feed. In addition, the responses of cattle to
any feed at any given time are affected by factors such as the
genetic potential of the cattle, degree of disease present, para-
sites, and environment.
The basic feed for any cattle operation in south Florida should
be pasture. This then raises three questions:
1. What are the nutritional requirements of beef cattle?
2. How much of these requirements will be furnished from
pasture ?
3. How can the nutrients not furnished by pasture best be
supplied ?

Cattle have a minimum nutritional requirement to maintain
normal body functions, even though the animal does not gain
weight, produce a calf, or give milk. Much of these nutritional
needs can be furnished by the pasture forage. Nutritional defi-

Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

ciencies that are present in forages should be corrected by the
use of properly-balanced supplemental feeds and mineral mix-
tures. When the supply of necessary nutrients becomes defi-
cient, the animal will use its body store of nutrients, with a
resultant loss of body weight and the usual deficiency symptoms
in muscles, bone, and blood tissue.
After the nutritional requirements for body maintenance are
provided, additional nutrients are needed for growth, for fatten-
ing, during pregnancy, or while nursing a calf. The principal
nutrients about which cattlemen in south Florida should be
concerned are protein, energy (carbohydrates and fat), phos-
phorus, copper, cobalt, and Vitamin A. Requirements are dif-
ferent for yearling cattle, two-year-old steers, and pregnant or
nursing cows. There are a number of texts that present recom-
mended nutritional needs for beef cattle under various condi-
tions, including Morrison (21), Maynard and Loosli (20), Brody
(5), and the National Academy of Sciences (22). Levels of total
digestible nutrients (TDN), digestible protein (DP), and phos-
phorus that have been reported necessary for maintenance of
beef cattle are given in Table 1. As shown in this table, the
average daily requirements of beef cattle for energy, protein,
and phosphorus have been reported to be related to body size
of the animal. The levels reported in Table 1 will satisfactorily
maintain cattle of most commercial operations.


Animal Digestible Digestible
Weight TDN* Energy** Protein Phosphorust
(lb.) (lb.) (therms) (lb.)t (gm)

300 2.8 5.6 0.25 8
400 3.5 7.0 0.30 9
500 4.1 8.2 0.35 10
600 4.6 9.2 0.40 12
700 5.2 10.4 0.45 14
800 5.7 11.4 0.50 16
900 6.2 12.4 0.55 18
1000 6.7 13.4 0.60 20
1100 7.2 14.4 0.65 20
1200 7.7 15.4 0.70 20

Brody, S. (51.
Calculated from Swift, R. W. (23).
t Calculated from Maynard, L. A., and J. K. Loosli (20).

Feeding of Beef Cattle on Pasture in South Florida 7

Total Digestible Nutrients.-When using the suggested TDN
maintenance levels in Table 1, it is recommended that about 3.5
pounds additional TDN be furnished per pound of gain desired.
Actually, the amount of TDN required per pound of gain varies
with the age and condition of the animal, but this suggested
"rule of thumb" is satisfactory in most cases.
The TDN requirements of pregnant or nursing cows are dif-
ferent from those indicated above. The current National Re-
search Council (NRC) recommendations for the pregnant or
lactating cow are given in Table 2. The recommended TDN
levels, particularly during the first three to four months after
calving, are extremely important to the cattlemen of south Flor-
ida, for this period of the cow's life cycle occurs, each year, dur-
ing the time that permanent grass pastures are shortest in both
quantity and quality. If adequate nutrients are not available
from pasture and feed to support the nursing cow and her calf,
the cow will furnish the calf its needs at the expense of her own
body for as long as she is able. This results in thin calves, thin
cows, breeding failures, and possibly deaths.


Body Daily Digestible Digestible
Weight Gain TDN Energy Protein Phosphorus
(lb.) (lb.) (lb.) (therms) (lb.) (gm.)

Pregnant heifers
700 1.5 10.0 20 0.9 14
900 0.8 9.0 18 0.8 12
1000 0.5 9.0 18 0.8 12
Pregnant mature cows
800 1.5 11.0 22 1.0 15
1000 0.4 9.0 18 0.8 12
1200 0.0 9.0 18 0.8 12
Cows nursing calves, first 3 to 4 months after calving
1100 0.0 16.8 34 1.4 23

*National Research Council recommendations (22).

Digestible Protein.-The amount of protein needed per unit
of production is not well defined. NRC recommendations for
digestible protein for fattening cattle correspond in most cases

Florida Agricultural Experimient Stations

to about 0.2 percent of the animal's weight. A minimum of 10
percent crude protein in a so-called high-energy ration or in
forage will provide satisfactory gains for steers being fattened if
the protein is of high quality and approximately 60 percent
digestible. However, feeds and forages vary considerably in
the digestibility of crude protein, and it is usually advisable that
a fattening feed contain 11 to 12 percent crude protein in order
to provide a "safety factor" in case the digestibility of the crude
protein is lower than 60 percent. Nevertheless, two-year-old
steers being fattened for slaughter seldom need a crude protein
level in their feed in excess of 12 percent.
When the NRC recommendations for brood cows are cor-
rected to the basis of percent body weight, the digestible protein
requirement corresponds to approximately 0.15 percent of the
body weight of 900 to 1,100-pound cows during the three to four
months after calving. Pregnant cows and heifers should receive
daily about 0.1 percent of their body weight as digestible protein.
The average daily digestible protein requirements for calves
and yearlings that are wintered to gain 1.0 pound a day cor-
respond to approximately 0.13 to 0.15 percent of body weight.
It should be emphasized that the protein requirement of any
beef animal under any set of conditions will vary. The above
figures are "rule of thumb" suggestions that provide cattlemen
a basis for determining the approximate digestible protein re-
quirements of their cattle.
Phosphorus.-The daily phosphorus requirement in grams for
maintenance of cattle can generally be calculated by multiplying
the body weight by 0.02. A minimum of 0.20 percent phosphorus,
on a dry matter basis, should be present both in pasture forages
and fattening rations.
Copper.-The average daily copper requirements of beef cattle
are not included in Tables 1 and 2 because they are different for
cattle on organic and sandy soils. Copper requirements on organic
soils are higher than those on sandy soils because of the rela-
tively high levels of molybdenum found in forages grown on
organic soils. The excess molybdenum will cause cattle to lose
weight, become anemic, have easily broken bones, have a bleached
hair coat, and eventually die if not provided extra copper. The
exact copper requirements for all ages and kinds of beef cattle
has not been well defined. However, beef cattle on organic
soils should have an average daily intake of 1/8 gram of copper.

Feeding of Beef Cattle on Pasture in South Florida 9

Cobalt.-The NRC (22) reports the daily cobalt requirements
of beef cattle to be in the range of 0.07 to 0.10 milligram per
100 pounds of body weight. Cobalt deficiency is of major im-
portance in south Florida, particularly in the coastal areas. The
symptoms include loss of body weight, anemia, weakness, and
sometimes death. Diagnosis of cobalt deficiency in beef cattle
is somewhat difficult since these symptoms are experienced in
other nutritional deficiencies. However, cobalt administration
will result in rapid recovery of cobalt-deficient animals, thus of-
fering a possible criterion for determining if cobalt-deficiency
exists. Cobalt is potentially toxic to animals, and care should
be taken not to exceed the recommended level very much.
Iron.-The iron requirements of cattle are not known. It is
an essential mineral for beef cattle, needed in the formation of
hemoglobin and for certain other body functions. It appears that
body iron may be re-used by the animal. Information is lacking
regarding the absorption and utilization of iron from various
compounds. Heavily parasitized cattle may respond to iron sup-
Other Minerals.-There has been no conclusive evidence that
commercial cattle in south Florida suffer from deficiencies of
iodine, magnesium, manganese, aluminum, zinc, or potassium. It
is possible that supplementing with some of these may prove
of value, but it appears that the requirements of cattle are
furnished by forages, by water, and as natural contaminants of
mineral supplements. The use of trace mineralized salt is good
insurance against possible trace mineral deficiencies, and the cost
is negligible. Therefore, it is recommended that a trace min-
eralized salt rather than plain salt be used in mineral mixtures.
Vitamin A.-At present Vitamin A is the only vitamin that
needs to be considered as a possible supplement for beef cattle
on improved pasture in south Florida. Previously, carotene, the
precursor of Vitamin A (the compound converted to Vitamin A
in the animal's body) found in plants, has been considered suf-
ficient to satisfy the needs of this vitamin for beef cattle. How-
ever, recent information indicates this may not always be so.
There are many factors affecting the Vitamin A requirements of
beef cattle. These include the level of nitrate nitrogen in the
pasture forage, body stores of Vitamin A, physical well-being of
cattle, inter-relations of other nutrients, and possibly temper-
ature, thyroid activity, and season of the year.

Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

The accumulation of information will undoubtedly change
future recommendations. Current NRC (22) recommendations
suggest 560 to 680 International Units (I. U.) of Vitamin A per
100 pounds of body weight for growth; 1,200 to 1,600 I. U. per
100 pounds of weight during pregnancy; and 4,000 I. U. per 100
pounds during the first three to four months after calving. Re-
cent experimental evidence indicates that present NRC recom-
mendations are low in many cases. The cost of Vitamin A is
very small, and cattle should generally be fed the maximum or
even higher levels than the present NRC recommendations.
Until more information is obtained, a good "rule of thumb" is
to feed at least 3,000 I. U. of Vitamin A per 100 pounds of body
weight daily, to cattle of any age, sex, or size where it is
suspected that Vitamin A supplementation may help. Experi-
mental results (10) have shown that 25,000 I. U. of synthetic
Vitamin A per steer per day increased the rate of gain of steers
fed on pasture in south Florida. Also, results of tests by com-
mercial cattlemen in the Everglades and preliminary experi-
mental results (11) indicate that Vitamin A is of value for calves
immediately after weaning.


The major permanent forages used in south Florida include
pangolagrass, Pensacola bahiagrass, Argentine bahiagrass, para-
grass, Roselawn St. Augustinegrass, carpetgrass, varieties of
bermudagrass, and mixture of some of these grasses with peren-
nial legumes. A summary of these, according to their present
usage on mineral (14) and organic soils (12), is presented in
Table 3. As mentioned earlier, the basic requirement for a suc-
cessful cattle operation must be a good pasture program. The
quality of pasture will vary according to type of soil, variety of
forage(s), fertilization program, amount of grazing, maturity of
the forage, amount of rainfall and cold temperature, and season
of the year.
Type of Soil.-Considerable difference exists between the
chemical composition of pasture grasses on organic and mineral
soils. On organic soils the crude protein content of para, pangola,
Argentine bahia, and Roselawn St. Augustine that have been
properly fertilized, and not overgrazed or injured by frost or
high water, rarely falls below 10 percent and is usually above

Feeding of Beef Cattle on Pasture in South Florida 11

12 percent (12). On the other hand, pasture grasses on mineral
soils, unless treated with relatively heavy applications of nitro-
gen, will usually have a crude protein level below 10 percent (17),
and this amount will decrease in the fall and winter (4) unless
additional nitrogen fertilizer is applied in the fall (18).


Organic Soil Mineral Soil
Roselawn St. Augustine Pangola
Pangola Pensacola bahia
Para Argentine bahia
Argentine bahia Coastal bermuda
Pensacola bahia Common bermuda
Coastal bermuda Carpet
Common bermuda Torpedo
White clover
Hubam clover

Another difference that exists is the content of certain min-
eral elements, primarily molybdenum. The element molybdenum
is found in larger amounts in organic than in mineral soils. If
present in forages at levels in excess of 1 to 3 parts per million
(on a dry matter basis), it may be toxic to cattle. Pasture
plants on sandy soils that were originally covered with peat or
muck occasionally contain relatively high levels of molybdenum.
However, the problem is not known to exist in Florida on mineral
soils that have not been previously covered with muck or peat.
Kind of Forage(s) Used.-Differences exist (1, 12, 13) in the
relative value of grasses grown on muck soils. The order of
their probable production capacity (highest to lowest) is Rose-
lawn St. Augustine, pangola, para, Argentine bahia, Pensacola
bahia, and Common bermuda. The last grass is relatively un-
productive and should not be used on organic soils.
Differences also exist (14) in the relative value of the grasses
used for beef production on mineral soils. Pangola, Pensacola
bahia, Argentine bahia, and Coastal bermuda glasses are the
most commonly used improved species in south Florida.
The differences existing in the crude protein content of pas-
ture grasses produced on organic and mineral soils have been
mentioned. Legumes in combination with grasses will provide
a more favorable protein and TDN level during winter and spring
months than grass alone on mineral soils. Under average fer-

Flotida Agricultural Experiment Stations

tilization practices the grass-legume combination should result
in an increase in dry matter per acre and in crude protein and
phosphorus contents of forage, resulting in greater production
per cow (17, 19).
Season of the Year.-Since 1951, Roselawn St. Augustine,
pangola, and para grasses have each routinely produced 800 to
1,000 pounds of gain per acre annually with yearling cattle in
grazing experiments at the Everglades Station (1, 12, 13). Since
1958, Pensacola and Argentine bahia have produced 600 to 1,000
pounds per year. Despite this excellent level of production the
carrying capacity of the forages fluctuates extremely with time
of year. A five-year summary of animal gains on Roselawn St.
Augustine, for example, revealed that 92 percent of the animal
gain was produced from March through October. Also, the carry-
ing capacity fluctuated from the equivalent of two 1,000-pound
animals per acre during March to October down to about 0.75 of
a 1,000-pound animal unit from November through February (1).
Pangola, para, Argentine bahia, and Pensacola bahia grasses re-
acted similarly (12, 13). Although the chemical analysis of
forage grown on organic soil remains fairly constant throughout
the year, the quantity of grass available for cattle is greatly re-
duced during the fall and winter. The carrying capacity of the
forage is reduced 60 to 65 percent during November through Feb-
ruary. If the commercial cattleman is not going to lower the pro-
duction of his cattle, it will be necessary to adjust cattle inven-
tory or to provide the cattle supplemental feed during this period.
Fertilization Program.-It is not the purpose of this bulletin
to discuss pasture fertilization recommendations. However, it
has been demonstrated (17, 19) that unless more than one nitro-
gen application a year is made to grass pastures on mineral soils,
the protein content will decrease in the fall and winter. Generally
this will be accompanied by a decrease in TDN and will usually
require some type of protein and energy supplemental feed if
production losses in cattle are to be minimized. The amount and
kind of fertilization will have a direct bearing on the amount and
kind of supplemental feed needed. The economy of each program
will have to be determined by the individual cattleman.
Stage of Maturity of Plant.-Usually stage of maturity co-
incides with change in season. Permanent grasses on mineral
soils mature in the fall; and unless a nitrogen application is
provided (19), the fiber content will increase, and TDN, protein,
and digestible protein will decrease. Under commercial appli-

Feeding of Beef Cattle on Pasture in South Florida 13

cation the maturity of permanent grasses can be counterbalanced
with temporary pastures, winter legumes, and possibly nitro-
genous fertilization, all of which will provide new plant growth
for the animal.
Pastures on organic soils, if they continue to grow, will not
decrease in protein content or increase in fiber content as much
as pastures on mineral soils. Information is not available con-
cerning the effect of maturity on total digestible nutrient con-
tent of the grasses grown on organic soils. It should also be
emphasized that pastures on organic soils that have been frost-
bitten, flooded, or continually overgrazed will not have green
forage available to cattle. When the available forage is brown,
it will usually be low in protein and high in fiber.

Pasture forage is the basic requirement of cattle produc-
tion, and yet proper evaluation of the nutritive value of pasture
is one of the more difficult problems facing the cattleman. A
commonly used method and one that is available to everyone
is to determine dry matter, crude protein, crude fiber, ether ex-
tract, and nitrogen-free extract, by chemical analysis of a forage
sample representative of that being consumed by the cattle. A
chemical analysis is not necessarily a true measure of forage
value in terms of animal production because of the difficulty of
taking a forage sample typical of that eaten by the animal and
also of relating the chemical fractions to animal production.
However, chemical analysis of a properly collected forage sample
can furnish information that can assist in determining the feed-
ing value of pasture forage. An estimation of the amount of
available forage in a pasture and its nutritive value should be
made on a dry matter basis. The dry matter contains the nutri-
tive portion of the pasture plant. In addition a fresh basis
estimation of the nutritive value of forage may be unreliable due
to the moisture in or on the grass. A number of commercial
laboratories in Florida which can analyze forage are listed in
the appendix.
If the crude protein content of a forage is not below 12 per-
cent on a dry matter basis, it is unlikely that protein will be a
limiting factor in the feeding value of the forage. In most cases
protein should not be a limiting factor if it is not below 10 per-
cent. However, under certain conditions weanling calves might

Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

not be able to consume enough highly succulent forage to satisfy
their protein requirement if the dry matter contains only 10
percent crude protein. For example, a 400-pound calf has a daily
requirement of 0.3 pound digestible protein. If forage contains
90 percent moisture and if the dry matter contains 10 percent
protein that is 60 percent digestible, it would be necessary for
the calf to consume 50 pounds of forage daily to meet its protein
requirements. Also, a protein shortage will result from a defi-
cient supply of pasture forage. However, under most conditions
a crude protein level of 10 percent will be adequate for beef
cattle if they can eat all they want and the moisture content of
the forage is not too high.
On mineral soils, if nitrogen fertilizer is not applied in the
fall, the protein content of grasses will fall to 3 to 4 percent or
even lower during the fall and winter months. The digestibility
of this protein will be greatly reduced and should be considered
very low. If grass-legume mixtures are utilized, the protein
content of the legumes will be highest during the winter months
and will adequately supplement the decreased levels in the grass.
The nitrogen-fixing ability of the legumes will also furnish ni-
trogen to the soils, and the protein content of the grass will
remain higher (17, 19).
Another factor that will provide considerable information
concerning pasture forage value is the leaf-stem ratio. The
digestibility of pasture forage by beef cattle is closely related
to the ratio of leaf and stem that exists at any given time. A
wide ratio (more leaf than stem) usually indicates a high diges-
tibility. This is not a new idea, but one that has been used for
many years and one that can be of considerable value to the

Supplemental feeds for beef cattle can be divided into two
general classifications, concentrate feeds and roughage feeds.
Concentrate feeds generally include those that are relatively low
in fiber content and high in TDN. They may be low or high
in protein content. Examples are the cereal grains, dried citrus
pulp, protein meals, and various types of molasses. Roughage
feeds are generally the opposite, being relatively high in fiber
content and low in TDN. They are usually bulky. Examples
are silage, hay, and pasture. The most important supplemental
feeds available to cattlemen in south Florida are briefly sum-

Feeding of Beef Cattle on Pasture in South Florida 15

marized below. Much of this information was obtained from the
1962 Feed Bag Redbook as defined by the Association of Amer-
ican Feed Control Officials (2). Additional information is avail-
able in Feeds and Feeding (21).


1. Cottonseed meal is a product of cottonseed processing and
is composed primarily of the kernel, with no more of the hulls
than that necessary in the manufacture of oil, provided it has at
least 36 percent protein. Cottonseed meal and hull must be
labeled as such, with the protein guarantee included on the label.
Both old and new process cottonseed meal is available with
guaranteed minimums of 36, 41, and 43 percent protein. Old
process meal must have a minimum level of 2 percent and new
process 0.5 percent fat.
2. Soybean meal is usually made by grinding the bean and
then removing the oil by expeller, hydraulic, or solvent tech-
niques. Almost all of the soybean meal produced today is from
the solvent process. It is an excellent protein source and may
be used to supply the entire protein supplement for beef cattle.
Typical analysis shows 42 percent protein, 5 percent fat, 6 per-
cent fiber, 6 percent ash, and 30 percent nitrogen-free extract.
Soybean oil meal with 50 percent protein is now available from
a new solvent process.
3. Peanut meal is a ground peanut cake, containing no hulls
and a maximum of 7 percent fiber. It must be sold on a protein
guarantee. The name of the product should indicate whether
it is solvent extracted. The average analysis for expeller and
hydraulic meal will be about 45 percent protein, 5 percent fat,
11 percent fiber, 5.5 percent ash, and 23.5 percent nitrogen-free
extract. It will contain about 0.15 percent calcium and 0.5 per-
cent phosphorus. Use only fresh peanut meal because cattle will
not do well if fed rancid meal.
4. Dried citrus pulp is the ground peel, residue of the inside
portions, and the cull fruit from citrus processing. Average
chemical analysis will usually indicate approximately 6 percent
crude protein, 4 percent fat, 14 percent fiber, and 60 percent
nitrogen-free extract. It is an excellent feed and can be used
for beef cattle either as the only source of energy for cows and
heifers or at levels of 20 to 40 percent in fattening rations. It

Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

is high in energy and low in protein. It can be used to replace
shelled or ground snapped corn.
5. Cane molasses finds its greatest use in cattle feeding. It
is a liquid by-product of the manufacture of cane sugar. It
should contain no less than 48 percent total sugars and have a
minimum of 79.50 Brix. Cane molasses produced on the organic
soils of the Everglades will analyze approximately 80 to 81
percent dry matter, 7 to 8 percent crude protein, 60 to 65 percent
nitrogen-free extract, and 7 to 8 percent ash. This product is
very palatable, is an excellent source of readily available energy,
and can be utilized very well when fed to cattle on pasture at a
rate not to exceed 4 to 6 pounds daily per adult animal. It
should not exceed 15 percent in fattening rations of cattle that
are being full-fed.
6. Citrus molasses, a by-product of the citrus industry, is
the partially dehydrated juice of citrus fruits. It should not
contain less than 45 percent total sugars and should have a
minimum of 71.00 Brix. Average analysis will reveal about
5 percent less sugar than cane molasses and approximately 3
percent crude protein, 6 percent ash, and 52 percent nitrogen-
free extract. It is an excellent source of readily available energy
that can be utilized well by steers and cows on pasture.
7. Corn is the most important feed grain used in this coun-
try. Average analysis will show about 8.5 percent protein, 4 per-
cent fat, 2.5 percent fiber, 1.5 percent ash, 69 percent nitrogen-
free extract, 0.03 percent calcium, and 0.3 percent phosphorus.
Yellow corn contains carotene; white corn does not.
8. Corn meal is finely ground corn.
9. Ground snapped corn, also known as ear corn with husks,
ground ear corn with husks, or corn and cob meal with husks,
is the product obtained by grinding the entire ear of corn with
its husk. It should contain no greater proportion of husk and
cob than that which occurs naturally. The average analysis is
about 7 percent protein, 3 percent fat, 8 percent fiber, 1.5 per-
cent ash, and 65 percent nitrogen-free extract. It is high in
energy but not as high as corn grain. It is palatable and fur-
nishes bulk. There is considerable variation in the quality of
ground snapped corn, and care should be exercised in its pur-
chase. The proportion of husk and cob should not be excessive.
10. Corn and cob meal, also known as ear corn chops or

Feeding of Beef Cattle on Pasture in South Florida 17

ground ear corn, is the same as ground snapped corn, without
the husk.
11. Sorghum grain is a widely used product in the west and
southwest United States. On a grain basis it compares very
favorably with corn, having an average analysis of 7 to 12 per-
cent protein, 3 to 5 percent fat, approximately 2 percent fiber,
2 percent ash, and 70 percent nitrogen-free extract. It varies
considerably in protein content but should be assumed to have
a protein level comparable to that of corn. It is usually thought
to have about 95 percent of the feeding value of corn, but new
hybrids may have a higher relative value.
12. Oats are widely used in all types of livestock feeds.
This grain is generally more expensive than corn and is used to
a lesser extent in south Florida. Average analysis shows about
12 percent protein, 5 percent fat, 12 percent fiber, 4 percent ash.
54 percent nitrogen-free extract. 0.1 percent calcium, and 0.35
percent phosphorus. It provides less energy than corn, but more
protein, and is usually fed at levels of 15 to 30 percent of the
concentrate mixture. The grain should probably be crushed
or rolled for cattle, using oats weighing 38 to 40 pounds per
13. Rice grain has a tough outer coating that contains a
large amount of silica. When rice is used as a beef cattle feed,
this hull should be removed. Even when finely ground, the silica
in the hull may irritate the gastro-intestinal tract of cattle.
Ground hulled rice has an average analysis of about 9 percent
protein, 2 percent fat, 1.1 percent fiber, and 74.5 percent nitro-
gen-free extract.
14. Dried beet pulp is the dried residue from sugar beets
that have been cleaned and freed from crowns, sand, and leaves
and extracted in manufacturing sugar. It is primarily used in
dairy and beef cattle feed. It is a very bulky and palatable feed
and has a feeding value similar to that of citrus pulp. Aver-
age analysis shows about 9.0 percent protein, 0.6 percent fat,
19 percent fiber, 3.5 percent ash, 58 percent nitrogen-free extract,
0.65 calcium, and 0.10 percent phosphorus.
15. Early is one of the basic feed grains on the Pacific Coast
and can be used in any amount desired. Availability, preference,
and opinion have been the factors governing the extent to which
it is used. Average analysis, except on the Pacific Coast, is
about 12 percent protein, 2 percent fat, 6 percent fiber. 3 per-

Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

cent ash, 68 percent nitrogen-free extract, 0.08 percent calcium,
and 0.4 percent phosphorus.
Roughage Feeds.-As mentioned earlier, these include the
feeds high in fiber and relatively low in total digestible nutrients.
1. Cottonseed hulls are used quite extensively as a roughage
feed to add bulk to the ration. The average analysis is about
4 percent protein, 24 percent fiber, 6.5 percent fat, 4.5 percent
ash, and 31 percent nitrogen-free extract.
2. Corn cob meal is the product resulting from grinding the
corn cob. If designated as fine ground, it must pass through
a number 10 sieve and one-third through a number 20 sieve.
Coarse ground corn cob meal must pass through a number 4
sieve and 50 percent through a number 10 sieve. It is used at
levels of about 20 percent to add bulk to concentrate mixtures.
3. Silage is palatable, succulent, and bulky. Grass silage
is low in energy. Corn silage is low in protein. Both are excel-
lent feeds for cattle if properly supplemented.
Mineral Ingredients.-Discussion will be limited to phos-
phorus supplements because this is probably the major mineral
deficiency in south Florida when both mineral and organic soils
are considered. Phosphorus-containing materials are also the
principal mineral supplements that can be purchased and fed
by themselves if so desired.
1. Dicalcium phosphate is sold commercially as two different
products. One is made by dissolving bone meal or rock phosphate
in acid and precipitating the phosphorus as dicalcium phosphate.
This type is usually referred to as dicalcium phosphate from
bone or as precipitated bone phosphate. It contains not less
than 17 percent phosphorus. The other form is made by adding
calcium to phosphoric acid and precipitating the phosphorus in
the dicalcium form. This is known as the wet method. Each
type is a good source that usually contains 17 to 21 percent
phosphorus and 26 to 28 percent calcium.
2. Defluorinated rock phosphate is calcium phosphate rock
that has had naturally occurring fluorine removed. To be termed
defluorinated it must contain less than 1 part fluorine to 100
parts phosphorus. The minimum level of calcium and phosphorus
and the maximum level of fluorine must be stated on the label.
Florida feed laws rule that the level of fluorine in a commercial
feed cannot exceed 1 part fluorine to 40 parts phosphorus.

Feeding of Beef Cattle on Pasture in South Florida 19

3. Steamed bone meal is the dried, ground product obtained
by cooking bones with steam under pressure. It contains about
12 percent protein, 3 percent fat, 2 percent fiber, 6.5 percent
nitrogen-free extract, 27 to 28 percent calcium, and 13.5 per-
cent phosphorus.

Considerable thought is required by each cattleman to deter-
mine whether a supplemental feeding program is needed under his
conditions, how it might best be provided, and whether it would
result in additional economic return. No one program is appli-
cable for all cattle of south Florida, nor may one program con-
tinuously be the most desirable for any given cattleman. The
feeding program that provides the greatest gain or fattest ani-
mal may not be the most profitable. However, certain standards
or guides are recommended for commercial cattle.

Replacement Heifers.-Heifers to be kept for herd replace-
ments should have a continuous, uninterrupted minimum growth
rate of 1.0 pound daily. This rate of gain can readily be ob-
tained with average quality cattle on good, well-managed pas-
ture, on both organic or sandy soils. If pastures become deficient
or inadequate during the fall and winter months, it may be neces-
sary to furnish 3 to 5 pounds of a high-energy feed per head
daily to heifers on organic soil and possibly to heifers on grass-
legume pastures on sandy soils. If legumes are not utilized,
it will probably be necessary to furnish 3 to 5 pounds of a high-
energy feed that has a minimum protein content of 20 percent,
or 1 pound of a 40 percent protein supplement plus 3 to 4 pounds
of a high-energy feed. Also, if pastures are extremely succulent,
it may be necessary to provide weaned calves a similar supple-
mental feed program, because this age animal may not have
the capacity to consume sufficient pasture forage to provide its
nutritional needs. This may occur occasionally on pastures on
organic soils or on grass-legume pastures on mineral soils.
Stockers.-Two types of stocker animals are used in south
Florida: the weanling calf and the long-yearling. The weanling
calves should be managed in such a manner as to assure a mini-
mum of 1.0 pound of gain daily for 6 to 8 months. After this
time animals can be grazed for another 10 to 12 months at the
same rate of gain, or can be placed on a feeding program of 5 to 8
pounds of high-energy feed on pasture to gain a minimum of 1.50

Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

to 1.75 pounds per day until finished. The program to follow
should be determined by the quality and breed of cattle used.
Poor quality cattle cannot utilize concentrate feeds as efficiently
as good quality cattle within the same breed. Animals with a
large proportion of Brahman ancestry have the ability to utilize
pasture and other roughage exceptionally well, but may not util-
ize concentrate feed as efficiently as cattle with 23 or more of
British breeding (9). It may be desirable to place a certain
portion of the top quality cattle in dry lot on a full concentrate
feed at the end of the first grazing period, if the relative prices
of cattle and feed are favorable.
There is also considerable merit in managing animals in a
manner that weanling steers will not be on inventory more than
12 months and yearlings no more than 6 to 8 months. The ex-
tent to which supplemental feed will be required to do this will
vary, depending on pasture quality. Some supplemental feed
will usually be required. The supplemental feed will result in a
higher rate of gain, higher slaughter grade, greater dressing
percent, and better buyer acceptance.
Steers.-Readily available by-products can be utilized as cattle
feeds. The question often arises whether they should be fed
alone or used as ingredients in a complete, feed. The primary
feeds available in south Florida are corn, citrus pulp, and cane
molasses. An early experiment on organic soil indicated that
on Roselawn St. Augustinegrass steers fed ground snapped corn
or cane molasses had as satisfactory rate of gain as those fed
cottonseed meal (16). The adequacy of available pasture will
be the primary factor in deciding whether feed ingredients should
be fed separately or in mixed feeds. If pastures are inadequate,
it will be necessary to add a protein source, Vitamin A, and cer-
tain mineral elements. However, if pastures are of good quality
and relative costs are favorable, these feeds can be utilized as the
only feed in a limited feeding program. If cattle are full fed,
they should receive a well-balanced mixed feed, preferably in
drylot. Table 4 (8) gives a summary of results of experiments
with steers grazing Roselawn St. Augustine grass on organic
soil and supplemented with either 6 pounds of citrus pulp, cane
molasses, ground snapped corn, or a mixed feed comprised of
ground snapped corn, citrus pulp, and cottonseed meal.
These experiments emphasize that energy feeds can be
utilized to good advantage on organic soil with well-managed
Roselawn St. Augustinegrass. The feeding of 6 pounds of a

Feeding of Beef Cattle on Pasture in South Florida 21

mixed feed having a crude protein content of 10 to 12 percent
has usually produced approximately 2`3 pound more gain than
pasture alone. Similar information is not available for other
permanent pasture grasses on organic soils, but grazing experi-
ments suggest that comparable results should be expected. An
additional pound of a 40 percent protein supplement is recom-
mended on mineral soils when grass-legume mixtures are not


No Citrus Cane Snapped Mixed
Feed Pulp Molasses Corn Feed

Final weight (lbs.) 839 931 875 914 923
Initial weight (lbs.) 692 692 675 691 692
Total gain (lbs.) 147 239 200 223 231
Daily gain (lbs.)** 1.05 1.71 1.43 1.59 1.65
Intransit shrink (C I 3.52 4.83 5.31 4.90 4.54
Dressing percent ( )* 54.94 57.82 56.45 56.25 55.84
Cooler shrink (%)t 1.20 0.76 0.71 0.79 0.58
Change in grade (/3) 1 2 2 1 1

Chapman, H. L., Jr. et al (8).
**Average daily gain and dressing percent differences significant at 0.01 level of
? Cooler shrink differences significant at 0.05 level of probability.

The primary goal when feeding steers on pasture should be
to utilize available pasture forage to the maximum and to have
the concentrate feed serve as a supplement and not as a substitute.
Steers that receive a full feed of concentrates on pasture usually
do not gain as well as those that are full-fed in dry lot. Also,
a surplus of forage may result when steers are full-fed on pas-
ture. The quality of the forage will affect the performance of
steers given a limited intake of concentrates on pasture, but it
will usually be more profitable to limit the grain ration than to
full-feed on pasture on organic soil (7).
The response of steers to feed additives is more variable on
pasture than in dry lot. However, in most instances diethylstil-
bestrol will increase the rate of gain of steers if used correctly
(7) either in the feed (10 mg per steer per day) or as an implant
in the ear. No more than 24 milligrams should be implanted in
steers on pasture. Steers that have been implanted should not
be given another stilbestrol implant for at least six months.

Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

Diethylstilbestrol has been the most consistent of the feed addi-
tives in stimulating weight gains. On pasture it will usually
increase rate of gain and feed efficiency about 9 percent and 8
percent, respectively, as compared to about 18 percent and 12
percent in dry lot.
Both aureomycin and terramycin have been beneficial in
many cases when used at levels of 80 milligrams per steer daily
in the feedlot. The higher the subclinical disease level in the
feedlot, the more beneficial will be the antibiotics. If a high
disease level exists it is sometimes well to use 350 to 500 milli-
grams per animal per day for one to four weeks after going on
feed, after which discontinue feeding the antibiotic or continue
at the 80-milligram level. The response to these antibiotics has
been more variable on pasture.
The response to enzyme preparations, thyroid-inhibiting
compounds, and tranquilizing agents also has been variable
among cattle on pasture. These drugs have occasionally stim-
ulated growth and may prove of value as further studies specify
the conditions for which they are useful. At the present time
there is not enough known about the specific conditions for which
they will be of value.
Brood Cows.-Proper supplementation of pasture grasses will
improve the production of brood cows. Cows on organic soil
grass pastures should receive 3 to 5 pounds per animal of a high
energy feed from approximately November 15 to March 15. The
feed need not contain over 10 percent crude protein. Cows
grazing grass-legume mixtures should receive the same type of
feed if a supplement is provided, but the economic merit of this
practice has not been well defined. Cows on mineral soils should
be provided with more protein supplement when they do not
have access to a grass-legume pasture. This can be done by
feeding 3 to 5 pounds of a supplement having a 20 percent
minimum crude protein content, or by feeding 2 to 4 pounds of
a high energy feed and 1 to 2 pounds of about 40 percent crude
protein supplement daily per animal. This type of feeding prac-
tice will decrease weight losses of cows, increase rate of con-
ception, increase calving percentage, and increase weaning
weights of calves.
To what extent and in what manner each cattleman chooses
to furnish feed supplements must be an individual decision.
There is a great variation in cattle operations, and different
circumstances will affect each program.

Feeding of Beef Cattle on Pasture in South Florida 23


Mineral Mixtures.-In 1953 information was published con-
cerning mineral requirements of beef cattle and recommended
mineral mixtures for beef cattle in Florida (3). This presented
an excellent summary of available information, most of which
is still applicable. However, information accumulated since
that time has necessitated modifications in recommendations for
mineral mixtures to be used in south Florida.
As mentioned previously, it is recommended that cattle on
organic soil pastures receive an average minimum daily intake
of 1/8 gram of copper. This should be furnished as copper sul-
fate. This material is 25 percent copper; thus it would require
1/ gram of copper sulfate to furnish the needed amount of cop-
per. The amount of copper sulfate in a mineral mixture neces-
sary to furnish 1 gram a day depends on the amount of mineral
mixture eaten daily. If a protein-mineral mixture or a highly
palatable mineral mixture is fed, a lower percentage of copper
sulfate will be required than if an unpalatable mixture is used.
Work conducted in the early 1940's involved unpalatable mineral
mixtures that made it necessary to recommend that mineral
mixtures on organic soils should contain 1.25 percent copper.
Since that time increased usage of feed ingredients in mineral
mixtures has improved palatability to the extent that it is
desirable to lower the minimum level of copper recommended
for mineral mixtures used for cattle on organic-soil pastures.
A mineral mixture that is fed at the rate of 35 to 40 pour-ds
per animal per year (0.1 pound daily) should contain a minimum
of 0.75 percent copper, all furnished as copper sulfate (3.0 per-
cent copper sulfate). This rate of consumption and level of
copper will actually furnish almost three times the amount
of copper thought to be necessary for cattle on organic soils.
However, additional work is needed to more fully define the
copper requirement of these cattle. The level of copper sulfate
recommended above in dry mineral mixtures will not be toxic
to the cattle. Also, in many instances in south Florida, cattle
probably do not consume over 15 to 20 pounds of mineral mixture
each year, and the extra copper will furnish a safety margin.
The copper level for mineral mixtures can be greatly reduced
on sandy soils. A level of 0.15 percent in the mineral (0.6 per-
cent copper sulfate) will usually be adequate. It is generally
considered that a minimum of 7 parts per million of copper in

Florida A.., il,,lt,,,al Experiment Stations

forage will satisfy the requirement of beef cattle for this ele-
ment. This is probably true for most mineral soil pastures
but not for pastures on organic soils.
Phosphorus is probably the most limiting mineral element
for beef cattle production in south Florida. It is recommended
that mineral mixtures designed to be consumed at the rate of
35 to 40 pounds per year contain a minimum of 7 to 8 percent
phosphorus. This applies to both mineral and organic soils. Cal-
cium should not exceed 2 to 21/2 times the phosphorus level.
The phosphorus requirement of beef cattle can be supplied
most easily and economically through proper fertilization of
improved pastures. The minimum level of phosphorus in pas-
tures necessary to assure prevention of phosphorus deficiency
in beef cattle is 0.2 percent on a dry matter basis.
Mineral mixtures for cattle on both mineral and organic soils
should contain a minimum of 0.03 percent cobalt. This may be
provided by cobalt sulfate, cobalt chloride, or cobalt carbonate.
Most of south Florida is cobalt-deficient, and cobalt must be
furnished to prevent this deficiency in cattle. Where it is not
possible to provide cattle continuous access to a mineral mixture
containing this amount of cobalt, the cobalt "bullet" can be
used to meet this requirement (6). When a. cobalt-containing
mineral is continually provided, the economic merit of using
the cobalt bullet is doubtful. As mentioned earlier, cobalt is
potentially toxic, and care should be taken not to exceed the
recommended level very much.
A level of 3 percent iron oxide has been used for many years
in the mineral mixture recommended by the Range Cattle Station.
The level of iron in forage on organic soils usually is quite high,
and a lower level of dietary iron may be satisfactory. As more
information becomes available, recommendations for supplement-
al iron will probably be adjusted. At present 3 percent iron
oxide is recommended in minerals on sandy soils of south Flor-
ida, and about half of this amount on organic soil pastures.
The amount of common salt to include in mineral mixtures
is variable. The Range Cattle Station complete mineral con-
tains 31.21 percent (15). This is quite satisfactory under many
conditions but may be too high if drinking water contains 1,000
parts per million or more of total salts. Cattle near salt water
require less salt in a mineral supplement than those farther away,
and if cattle do not consume mineral mixtures, it may be neces-
sary to lower the salt content of the mineral mixture.

Feeding of Beef Cattle on Pasture in South Florida 25

Protein-Mineral Mixtures.-Considerable interest has devel-
oped in the use of supplements that will furnish both protein
and necessary mineral elements. Protein meal-salt mixtures
have been used successfully at the Range Cattle Station, and
these types of pasture supplements have merit if used properly.
They will allow all animals to have access to a protein supple-
ment, may possibly increase mineral consumption due to in-
creased palatability, and should lower the labor required for
supplemental feeding. Care should be taken to prevent the
mixture from becoming rancid. Nutritionally, the decision about
which to use (protein-mineral combination or a mineral mixture
containing no protein meal) should be based on the available
pasture forage and the relative cost of providing a mineral mix-
ture and protein supplement separately or together. When
salt-protein mixtures are used it is important that cattle have
a plentiful supply of clean, fresh water as well as an available
source of roughage.


Many people have been associated with experiments from
which information for this bulletin was obtained. The authors
wish to acknowledge the efforts by other Experiment Stations
workers including R. W. Kidder, M. Koger, A. C. Warnick, A.
E. Kretschmer, Jr., C. E. Haines, R. J. Allen, Jr., A. Z. Palmer,
J. W. Carpenter, J. R. Crockett, D. W. Beardsley, E. M. Hodges,
and J. E. McCaleb. Without the efforts of these and many
others, this publication would not have been possible.

1. Allen, R. J., Jr. Summarization of grazing trial experiment. Ever-
glades Station Mimeo 57-11. 1957.
2. Anonymous. Feed bag red book. Editorial Service Co., Milwaukee,
Wisconsin. 1962.
3. Becker, R. B., P. T. Dix Arnold, W. G. Kirk, G. K. Davis, and R. W.
Kidder. Minerals for dairy and beef cattle. Florida Agricultural Ex-
periment Stations Bulletin 513. 1953.
4. Blaser, R. E., R. S. Glasscock, G. B. Killinger, and W. E. Stokes. Carpet
grass and legume pasture in Florida. Florida Agricultural Experiment
Stations Bulletin 453. 1952.
5. Brody, S. Bioenergetics and growth. Reinhold Publishing Corp., New
York. 1945.
6. Chapman, H. L., Jr. Results of field tests with the cattle cobalt
"bullet". Everglades Station Mimeo 61-4. 1960.
7. Chapman, H. L., Jr., and C. E. Haines. Fattening steers on pasture
and in drylot. Everglades Station Mimeo 60-17. 1960.

Florida A ricultural E.xperiment Stations

8. Chapman, H. L., Jr., C. E. Haines, and R. W. Kidder. Feeding value
of limited fed mixed feed, citrus pulp, ground snapped corn, and black-
strap molasses for fattening steers on pasture. Everglades Station
Mimeo 61-19. 1961.
9. Chapman, H. L., Jr., A. Z. Palmer, J. R. Crockett, and J. W. Carpenter.
Performance of cattle of British and Brahman breeding when fattened
in drylot and on pasture. Everglades Station Mimeo 61-16. 1961.
10. Chapman, H. L., Jr., R. L. Shirley, and T. J. Cunha. Value of vitamins
A and E for fattening steers. Everglades Station Mimeo 63-19. 1963.
11. Haines, C. E. Vitamin A for weanling calves. Unpublished data.
12. Haines, C. E., and R. J. Allen, Jr. Grazing trial results for one year
(1959-60). Everglades Station Mimeo 61-11. 1961.
13. Haines, C. E., and H. L. Chapman, Jr. Results of grazing experiments
with yearling calves in four major grasses of the Everglades for one
year. Everglades Station Mimeo 60-16. 1960.
14. Hodges, E. M., D. W. Jones, and W. G. Kirk. Grass pastures in central
Florida. Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations Bulletin 484A. 1958.
15. Jones, D. W., E. M. Hodges, and W. G. Kirk. Year-round grazing on
a combination of native and improved pastures. Florida Agricultural
Experiment Stations Bulletin 554A. 1960.
16. Kidder, R. W., and D. W. Beardsley. Protein and carbohydrate sup-
plements for fattening steers on Everglades pasture. Florida Agri-
cultural Experiment Stations Bulletin 493. 1952.
17. Koger, M., W. G. Blue, G. B. Killinger, R. E. L. Greene, H. C. Harris,
J. M. Myers, A. C. Warnick, and N. Gammon, Jr. Beef production,
soil and forage analysis, and economic return from eight pasture pro-
grams in north central Florida. Florida Agricultural Experiment
Stations Bulletin 631. 1961.
18. Kretschmer, A. E., Jr. Personal Communication, November 20, 1962.
19. Kretschmer, A. E., Jr., N. C. Hayslip, and C. C. Hortenstine. One year's
results comparing yield and quality of six grasses grown alone and
with white clover in south Florida. Soil and Crop Science Proceedings
21: 120-128. 1961.
20. Maynard, L. A., and J. K. Loosli. Animal Nutrition, 4th edition. Mc-
Graw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York. 1956.
21. Morrison, F. B. Feeds and feeding, 22nd edition. The Morrison Pub-
lishing Co., Ithaca, New York. 1956.
22. National Academy of Sciences. Nutrient requirements of domestic
animals, Number 4. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle. 1958.
23. Swift, R. W. The caloric value of TDN. Journal Animal Science 16
(4) 753-756. 1957.

Feeding of Beef Cattle on Pasture in South Florida 27


Commercial Laboratories in Florida
Occasionally there are requests for information concerning
commercial laboratories that are available for service analyses.
Following is a list of such laboratories that has been made avail-
able through the courtesy of the Director of Feed Laboratory,
Florida Department of Agriculture, Tallahassee.

Applied Research Laboratories
of Florida, Inc.
P. O. Box 593
Miami Springs, Florida
Biscayne Laboratories
Biscayne Boulevard
Miami, Florida
Black & Company (Water
Gainesville, Florida
Chemical Research Institute
1762 N.W. 7th Street
M. A. Tuthill, Director
Miami 35, Florida
Dr. Allen T. Cole
2815 Cleveland Heights
Commercial Chemists, Inc.
1741 E. Adams Street
Jacksonville, Florida

Flowers Analytical Laboratory
Altamonte, Florida
Haine--Fizette Laboratory
Rt. 2, Box 1335
Largo, Florida
National Spectrographic
Laboratories, Inc.
1180 Palm Avenue
Hialeah, Florida
N. C. Nutting Company
1010 N.W. 20th Street
Miami, Florida

Orlando Research, Inc.
Box 6491
Orlando, Florida

Peninsular Chem Research, Inc.
P. O. Box 3597
Gainesville, Florida

Rowland Chemical Laboratories
1330 Talleyrand Avenue

Flamingo Research Laboratories Jacksonville, Florida
2619 S.W. 37th Avenue

Miami 33, Florida
Florida Chemists & Engineers,
Consulting Chemists (Robert
A. Mans)
645 Rugby Avenue
Orlando, Florida

Shuey & Company
115 East Bay Street
Savannah, Georgia

Southern Analytical Laboratory
128 Talleyrand Avenue
(P. O. Box 628)
Jacksonville, Florida

Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

South Florida Test Service
4201 N.W. 7th Street
Miami, Florida
Thornton Laboratories, Inc.
1145 East Cass Street
Tampa, Florida
Thornton Laboratories, Inc.
2739 College Street
Jacksonville, Florida

Thomas C. Law & Company
Box 1558
Atlanta, Georgia
E. M. Ussell Food Industry
Technical Serv.
1144 Wycott Avenue
Jacksonville, Florida

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