• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Introduction
 Effect of supplemental feeding...
 Economic analysis
 Summary
 Animal performance data for individual...
 Equations used for economic...
 Literature cited
 Acknowledgement
 Back Cover






Group Title: Bulletin - University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Stations ; No. 775
Title: Supplemental feeding of steers on Everglades pasture
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027228/00001
 Material Information
Title: Supplemental feeding of steers on Everglades pasture
Series Title: Bulletin University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station
Physical Description: 17 p. : ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Pate, F. M ( Findlay Moye ), 1941-
Publisher: Agricultural Experiment Stations, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville
Publication Date: 1975
 Subjects
Subject: Beef cattle -- Feeding and feeds -- Florida -- Everglades   ( lcsh )
Pastures -- Florida -- Everglades   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Bibliography: p. 17.
Statement of Responsibility: F.M. Pate ... et al..
General Note: "Effect on pasture and feedlot performance and economics of production."
Funding: Bulletin (University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station)
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027228
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 001596999
oclc - 02692299
notis - AHM1129

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Table of Contents
        Table of Contents
    Introduction
        Page 1
    Effect of supplemental feeding on animal performance
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
    Economic analysis
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
    Summary
        Page 12
    Animal performance data for individual trials
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
    Equations used for economic calculations
        Page 16
    Literature cited
        Page 17
    Acknowledgement
        Page 17
    Back Cover
        Page 18
Full Text

Bulletin 775 May 1975

Supplemental
feeding
of
Steers
on
Iverglades
IPasture


F.M. Pate
B.W. Hayes
D.W. Beardsley
R.E.L. Greene
A.Z. Palmer
J.W. Carpenter


AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS
INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, GAINESVILLE
J.W. SITES, DEAN FOR RESEARCH










SUPPLEMENTAL FEEDING OF STEERS ON
EVERGLADES PASTURE

Effect on Pasture and Feedlot Performance
and Economics of Production


F. M. PATE, B. W. HAYES, D. W. BEARDSLEY, R. E. L. GREENE,
A. Z. PALMER, and J. W. CARPENTER
Dr. Pate is an Assistant Professor (Assistant Animal Nutritionist), Dr.
Hayes a former Assistant Professor (Assistant Animal Nutritionist), and
Dr. Beardsley a Professor (Animal Nutritionist) and Center Director,
Agricultural Research and Education Center, Belle Glade. Dr. Greene is
a Professor in the Department of Food and Resource Economics, and Dr.
Palmer and Dr. Carpenter are Professors in the Department of Animal
Science, University of Florida, Gainesville.


This public document was promulgated at an annual cost of
$986.59, or 32 cents per copy to provide information on
supplemental feeding of steers on Everglades pastures.
















CONTENTS




Introduction .................................................... ................................ ....... .......................................... 1

Effect of Supplementation on Animal Performance ....................................... .... 1
Experimental Procedure ............................................. ............ 1
Results and Discussion ........................... ............ ....-...... 2

E conom ic A analysis .................................... .......................................... ................................ 5
Procedure ........... .......... .................... 5
R results and D discussion ........................... .... .. .. ............ ..............
Effect of Supplementation Level and Weight
Gain on Breakeven Selling Price .............................................. 7
Effect of Supplementation on Profits and Losses ................... 10
Advantage of Supplementation from
Increased Stocking Rate .................... ............. ..-.... ....... 10
Advantage of Reduced Inventory Time ..................................... 10
Stocking for a Fixed Time Period ................................................... 11
Other Considerations of Supplementation ............... .......... 11

Summary .......................... ...- 12

A ppendices .. .................................................... ........ ..... ...... 13

Animal Performances Data for Individual Trials .................................. 13

Equations Used for Economic Calculations ............................................. 16

Literature Cited ....................... .. .................... .......... ..... 17


Acknowledgements ..........................






INTRODUCTION
The Everglades region can produce abundant forage for beef
production (3). Haines et al. (1) reported an average daily stock-
ing rate of 2.9 yearling steers per acre for Roselawn St. Augus-
tinegrass. Steers consumed 25 tons of green grass (24.4% dry
matter) per acre annually to produce 1059 pounds of live weight
gain per acre. Steers expressed a moderate rate of gain: 1 to 1.25
pounds per head daily as an annual average. Winter gains and
stocking rate were particularly low, being only one-third and one-
half, respectively, of gains and stocking rate obtained during the
remainder of the year.
For the past decade few steers have been stocked in the Ever-
glades region. The overall performance of steers on Everglades
pastures and the specific influence of the winter period may be
important factors discouraging stocker operations. A possible
solution to the performance problems of grazing steers would be
supplementation with concentrate feed. Supplemental feed would
also allow heavier stocking rates, thus improving land utilization.
Concentrate feeds, however, are expensive, especially in south
Florida where high shipping costs are involved.
The objective of this study was to determine the effect of vari-
ous levels of supplemental feeding on animal performance and
production cost during the grazing period. A secondary objective
was to determine the effect of supplemental feeding on subsequent
finishing performance.


EFFECT OF SUPPLEMENTAL FEEDING ON
ANIMAL PERFORMANCE

Experimental Procedure
This study involved three consecutive feeding trials begun on
December 8, 1966, November 21, 1967, and October 28, 1968,
reported herein as trials 1, 2, and 3, respectively. In each trial 80
yearling steers were used. Steers were Hereford x Brahman and
Angus x Brahman crosses with more than 50% British breed-
ing. All steers were purchased from the same source as weaned
calves 14 to 28 days prior to the start of each trial. The average
weight of steers started on test was 485 pounds. Steers were ran-
domly allotted by weight to four treatment groups of 20 steers
each and placed on Roselawn St. Augustinegrass pastures contain-
ing 8 acres each. The four treatments were as follows:
Treatment 1-No concentrate on pasture.






INTRODUCTION
The Everglades region can produce abundant forage for beef
production (3). Haines et al. (1) reported an average daily stock-
ing rate of 2.9 yearling steers per acre for Roselawn St. Augus-
tinegrass. Steers consumed 25 tons of green grass (24.4% dry
matter) per acre annually to produce 1059 pounds of live weight
gain per acre. Steers expressed a moderate rate of gain: 1 to 1.25
pounds per head daily as an annual average. Winter gains and
stocking rate were particularly low, being only one-third and one-
half, respectively, of gains and stocking rate obtained during the
remainder of the year.
For the past decade few steers have been stocked in the Ever-
glades region. The overall performance of steers on Everglades
pastures and the specific influence of the winter period may be
important factors discouraging stocker operations. A possible
solution to the performance problems of grazing steers would be
supplementation with concentrate feed. Supplemental feed would
also allow heavier stocking rates, thus improving land utilization.
Concentrate feeds, however, are expensive, especially in south
Florida where high shipping costs are involved.
The objective of this study was to determine the effect of vari-
ous levels of supplemental feeding on animal performance and
production cost during the grazing period. A secondary objective
was to determine the effect of supplemental feeding on subsequent
finishing performance.


EFFECT OF SUPPLEMENTAL FEEDING ON
ANIMAL PERFORMANCE

Experimental Procedure
This study involved three consecutive feeding trials begun on
December 8, 1966, November 21, 1967, and October 28, 1968,
reported herein as trials 1, 2, and 3, respectively. In each trial 80
yearling steers were used. Steers were Hereford x Brahman and
Angus x Brahman crosses with more than 50% British breed-
ing. All steers were purchased from the same source as weaned
calves 14 to 28 days prior to the start of each trial. The average
weight of steers started on test was 485 pounds. Steers were ran-
domly allotted by weight to four treatment groups of 20 steers
each and placed on Roselawn St. Augustinegrass pastures contain-
ing 8 acres each. The four treatments were as follows:
Treatment 1-No concentrate on pasture.






Treatment 2-Pasture plus concentrate at 0.5% of body weight
per day.
Treatment 3-Pasture plus concentrate at 1.0% of body weight
per day.
Treatment 4-Pasture plus concentrate at 1.5% of body weight
per day.
Steers were weighed unshrunk at 28-day intervals, and the
amounts of concentrate fed were adjusted accordingly after each
weigh-period. Treatment groups were rotated systematically
among 'pastures after each weigh-period to minimize any effects
of pasture differences. Steers on pasture had free access to a
complete mineral mixture.'
Steer groups remained on pasture until each group reached
an average weight of approximately 850 pounds. At the end of
the pasture phase, steers were implanted with 24 milligrams of
diethylstibestrol each, placed in drylot, and full-fed a concentrate
finishing ration until they reached an average slaughter weight of
approximately 1050 pounds,. Pangola digitgrass hay was fed at
three pounds per steer per day during the drylot phase. Final
weight off pasture was considered initial weight into drylot. The
concentrate ration used on pasture and in drylot contained 36.5%
ground snapped corn, 36.5% dried citrus pulp, 18.0% cottonseed
meal (41% crude protein), 7.5% blackstrap molasses, 1.5% min-
eral mix2 and 2270 IU of vitamin A palmitatee) per pound.
Measures of animal performance during the pasture and dry-
lot phases included average weight gain, days on test, average
daily gain and supplement intake. During the drylot phase feed
efficiency was also calculated. At the end of the drylot phase
steers were slaughtered to obtain carcass information. Carcass
data collected included chilled carcass weight, quality grade, dress-
ing percentage, fat thickness over rib eye, rib eye area, and esti-
mated percent yield.


Results and Discussion

Results of steer performance during the pasture and finishing
periods for trials 1, 2, and 3 are summarized in Table 1. Similar
information for individual trials is presented in Appendix A. Rate
of gain during the pasture phase was closely related to the quan-

1 Mineral mixture contained 40% defluorinated phosphate, 22.5% steamed
bonemeal, 20.0% iodized salt, 1.0% red oxide of iron, 3.2% copper sulfate,
0.15% cobalt sulfate, 7.5% molasses, and 5.85% citrus meal.
2 See footnote 1.







Table 1. Average performance and carcass data of steers fed various
levels of concentrate for pasture and feedlot phases (average
of 3 trials).

Supplementation level
(% of body wt./day)
Item 0 0.5 1.0 1.6

Pasture Phase
No. steers (total) 60 59 59 59
Avg. feeder grade 10.5 10.6 10.5 10.7
Days on pasture 443 327 282 247
Avg. initial weight, lb. 487 485 486 485
Avg. wt. gain, Ib. 366 380 377 368
Avg. daily gain, lb. 0.83 1.16 1.34 1.49
Total concentrate/steer, Ib. 1,035 1,791 2,315
Feedlot Phase
Days in feedlot 88 81 86 82
Avg. initial wt., Ib. 853 865 863 853
Avg. wt. gain, lb. 229 181 202 195
Avg. daily gain, Ib. 2.60 2.26 2.35 2.38
Total feed per steer, Ib. 2,291 2,026 2,039 1,975
Feed/lb. gain, Ib. 10.0 11.2 10.1 10.1
Avg. chilled carcass wt., Ib. 607 599 618 601
Dressing percentage2 59.2 59.9 60.8 60.4
Avg. carcass grade' 10.4 10.1 10.3 10.1
Rib eye area, sq. in. 11.2 11.3 11.6 11.1
Fat over rib eye, in. 0.35 0.35 0.36 0.37
Estimated yield, %3 50.6 50.7 50.8 50.4


1 Feeder and carcass grades are based on the following number system:
Average good = 10, High good = 11.
2 Dressing percent=chilled carcass weight+final unshrunk feedlot weight.
3 Percent of carcass weight in boneless, closely trimmed, retail cuts from
round, loin, rib and chuck.

tity of supplement fed. This relationship was highly significant
statistically. For all trials, an average daily feeding of 3.17, 6.35,
and 9.37 pounds of concentrate per head increased daily gain by
40%, 61%, and 80%, respectively, over steers not supplemented.
The increased supplementation also reduced the time required for
steers to reach approximately 850 pounds by 116, 161, and 196
days, respectively.
There were no consistent trends in feedlot or carcass data to
suggest that previous pasture treatment influenced performance
(Table 1). Average daily feedlot gains of steers previously on






pasture without supplementation appeared superior to that of
supplemented steers, but this average value was greatly influ-
enced by exceptionally rapid gains by steers in one trial (Table
3, Appendix A). Statistical analysis showed that treatment
means were not significantly different with this treatment group
removed. Earlier studies conducted at Belle Glade also indicated
that feeding steers various amounts of supplement to a set weight
on pasture had no effect on finishing performance or carcass char-
acteristics (6).
It is generally considered that concentrate feeding and rapid
gains during the grazing period adversely affect finishing per-
formance. This originates from the belief that cattle compensate
for previous periods of slow to moderate gains with rapid gains
and improved efficiency during subsequent drylot feeding. Perry
et al. (8) and Peacock et al. (7) conducted studies in which cat-
tle were fed various amounts of supplement on pasture followed
by full-feeding concentrate in drylot. They reported that rate of
gain and feed utilization during finishing were negatively cor-
related with rate of gain on pasture. Data from the present study
and past work at Belle Glade (6) suggest that subsequent feedlot
performance is not related to rate of gain on pasture. In these
studies, steer groups fed different amounts of supplement were
on pasture until the same set weight was obtained. In studies re-
ported by Perry et al. (8) and Peacock et al. (7) cattle in all
supplementation treatments were on pasture the same length of
time; thus, total gains on pasture and initial feedlot weight among
treatments differed. It appears that drylot performance of cattle
previously grazed on pasture may be a function of initial drylot
weight rather than rate of gain during the stocking period.
Another criticism of supplemental feeding on pasture has
been that cattle fed for rapid gains during the pasture period
tend to fatten, which is detrimental to later performance in dry-
lot. Peacock et al. (7) reported that the estimated slaughter grade
of heifers wintered on pasture over the same time period was
positively related to supplementation level. They concluded that
the degree of fatness going into drylot was a factor which limited
finishing Ir.'i',rnllaii rc. Steers in the study reported herein and in
previous studies (6) were not evaluated at the end of the pas-
ture period, but a general observation was that differences in ani-
mal condition between supplementation treatments were minor
or non-existent. Again, steers in these studies remained on pas-
ture until each treatment group averaged the same weight. To
support this observation Reid (9) concluded from a review of
several studies that within breed and sex, body composition of







healthy cattle maintained continuously in positive energy balance
is highly related to body weight prior to maturity, and is not
greatly influenced by moderate nutritional differences. Therefore,
supplementation of cattle on pasture would not, per se, alter
animal condition.

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Data collected for the pasture phase were subjected to cost-
return analysis to examine the economic feasibility of feeding
different levels of concentrate to steers on pasture.

Procedure
Economic comparisons of different supplementation rates
were made using the model outlined in Table 2. This method of
calculation shows the steer selling price needed at the end of the
stocker period to cover animal and production costs (breakeven
selling price). Calculations were on a per acre basis because land

Table 2. Outline of production cost used to calculate breakeven selling
price (per acre basis).

1. Steer cost= steers/acre x purchase wt. (cwt)
x cost ($/cwt) $
2. Interest on steers=steer cost x interest rate
(%/day) x days on pasture $


3. Marketing and transportation= steers/acre x
cost/steer ($)
4. Other cost=steers/acre x cost/steer/day $ x
days on pasture (veterinary, insurance,
labor, power, etc.)
5. Pasture cost= cost/acre/day x day on pasture
(fertilizer, fencing, taxes, interest on
land, mowing, etc.)
6. Feed cost= steers/acre x feed/steer (tons)
x cost of feed ($ ton)
7. Interest on feed=feed cost x interest rate
(%/day) x days on feed


$


$


$ ______________

$


8. Labor and equipment cost of feeding= steers/acre
x cost/steer/day ($) x days on pasture $_ __
9. Death loss 1% of all cost 1 through 8. $_.
10. Total cost (sum of lines 1 through 9). $_
Breakeven selling price ($/cwt) =total cost-selling
weight/acre $






is a fixed asset and different supplementation levels allow differ-
ent stocking rates.

Animal performance, feed, and time data collected during the
feeding trials reported above were used to make calculations.
Days on pasture and feed data were adjusted slightly to conform
to an average live weight gain of 375 pounds for steers in each
supplementation group. To compare different amounts of gain,
the feed and time data for 300 pounds of gain on pasture for
each supplementation treatment were extracted from the feeding
trial records.

The feeding trial stocking rate was 2.5 steers per acre for all
treatments, approximately the desired rate for yearling steers on
St. Augustinegrass pasture alone (2). In the calculations, it was
assumed that stocking rate would be increased by 0.5 steer per
acre for each 0.5% increase in supplement fed per unit of body
weight. Thus, for treatments in which steers were supplemented
at 0, 0.5%, 1.0%, and 1.5% of their body weight per day, stock-
ing rates of 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0 steers per acre were used. These
stocking rates appeared reasonable in view of previous studies
measuring the effect of supplementation on stocking rate (8).

Pasture was charged at $73.00 per acre annually or 200 per
acre per day (included cost for fertilizer, pasture maintenance,
taxes, interest on land investment, etc.). A cost of $10.00 per
steer was charged to cover marketing and transportation. An ad-
ditional charge of 20 per steer per day was used to cover other
expenses (veterinary cost, insurance, labor, etc.). Steers supple-
mented at rates of 0.5%, 1.0%, and 1.5% of body weight were
charged 1, 20, and 3t per head per day, respectively, to cover
labor and equipment costs of feeding. Other charges included in-
terest on investment in animals at 7.2% per annum or 0.0197%
per day, and interest on feed at 3.6% per annum or 0.00985%
per day (1/ of interest on animals since feed can be purchased
as needed). Animal performance and cost data used in making
the calculations are summarized in Table 3.

Cost and return values for other time periods and stocker
operations will be different from those used above. The procedure
employed was designed to illustrate economic trends involved in
supplementing steers on pasture. This discussion and accompany-
ing equations should serve as a guide to determine the feasibility of
feeding steers on pasture under conditions encountered in similar
beef production systems.






Table 3. Summary of animal performance and cost factors used to
determine breakeven selling price of stocker systems in
which steers were supplemented at various levels and mak-
ing various amounts of gain.


Animal weight, Ib./steer:
Purchase weight
Selling weight (less 3% shrink)

Stocking rate, steers/acre:



Supplement fed, Ib./steer:


Days on pasture:


300 lb. of gain
375 Ib. of gain



300 Ib. of gain
375 Ib. of gain


All treatments 485
300 lb. of gain 761
375 Ib. of gain 834
0% supplementation 2.5
0.5% supplementation 3.0
1.0% supplementation 3.5
1.5% supplementation 4.0

% Supplementation
0 0.5 1.0 1.5
787 1373 1745
1022 1778 2362

% Supplementation
0 0.5 1.0 1.5
324 264 239 195
454 323 280 252


Pasture cost: 200/acre/day for all treatments
Miscellaneous cost: 20/steer/day for all treatments


Feeding cost, C/steer/day:


0% supplementation 0
0.5% supplementation 1
1.0% supplementation 2
1.5% supplementation 3


Interest charge: Steers-7.2%/annum or 0.0197%/day
Feed -3.6%/annum or 0.00985%/day
Marketing and transportation: $10/steer
Animal cost: A variable (see Table 4)
Feed cost: A variable (see Table 4)


Results and Discussion

Effect of Supplementation Level and Weight Gain on Breakeven
Selling Price
Table 4 presents breakeven selling prices of steers fed differ-
ent amounts of supplement and gaining different amounts of
weight during the stocker period. Breakeven selling prices were
calculated for different steer purchase costs and feed costs. Break-
even selling price was lower for supplemented steers than for
steers not supplemented only when steers were purchased for $55
per cwt or higher, fed a ration costing $40 per ton, supplemented









Table 4. The relationship of breakeven selling price for steers stocked on Roselawn St. Augustinegrass pasture to weight
gain, supplementation level, steer purchase price and ration cost. 1,2

Supple- Ration Purchase price of weaned calves ($/cwt)
mentation cost
level3 ($/ton) 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

300 Ibs. of gain
0 22.73 26.15 29.57 33.00 36.42 39.84 43.26 46.68 50.10

40 23.77 27.15 30.54 33.92 37.30 40.69 44.07 47.45 50.84
00 0.5 60 24.84 28.22 31.61 34.99 38.37 41.76 45.14 48.52 51.91
80 25.91 29.29 32.68 36.06 39.44 42.83 46.21 49.59 52.98
100 26.98 30.36 33.57 37.13 40.51 43.90 47.28 50.67 54.05

40 24.82 28.19 31.55 34.91 38.27 41.63 45.00 48.36 51.72
1.0 60 26.69 30.05 33.41 36.77 40.13 43.50 46.86 50.22 53.58
80 28.55 31.91 35.27 38.63 42.00 45.36 48.72 52.08 55.44
100 30.41 33.77 37.14 40.50 43.86 47.22 50.58 53.95 57.31

40 25.33 28.67 32.01 35.35 38.69 42.03 45.37 48.71 52.05
1.5 60 27.69 31.03 34.37 37.71 41.05 44.39 47.73 51.07 54.40
80 30.05 33.39 36.73 40.07 43.40 46.75 50.08 53.42 56.76
100 32.40 35.74 39.08 42.42 45.76 49.10 52.44 55.78 59.12








375 Ibs. of gain
0 22.70 25.90 29.10 32.30 35.50 38.69 41.89 45.09 48.29

40 23.16 26.28 29.40 32.53 35.65 38.77 41.89 45.02 48.14
0.5 60 24.43 27.56 30.68 33.80 36.92 40.05 43.17 46.29 49.42
80 25.71 28.83 31.96 35.08 38.20 41.32 44.45 47.57 50.69
100 26.99 30.11 33.23 36.36 39.48 42.60 45.72 48.85 51.97

40 24.42 27.51 30.61 33.71 36.81 39.91 43.00 46.10 49.20
1.0 60 26.63 29.73 32.82 35.92 39.02 42.12 45.21 48.31 51.41
80 28.84 31.94 35.04 38.13 41.23 44.33 47.43 50.52 53.62
100 31.05 34.15 37.25 40.35 43.44 46.54 49.64 52.74 55.84

40 25.53 28.61 31.69 34.78 37.87 40.94 44.02 47.10 50.18
1.5 60 28.46 31.54 34.62 37.71 40.79 43.87 46.95 50.03 53.11
80 31.39 34.47 37.55 40.64 43.72 46.80 49.88 52.96 56.04
100 34.32 37.40 40.49 43.57 46.65 49.73 52.81 55.89 58.97

1 Breakeven selling price as $/cwt.
2 Breakeven selling price calculated from data in Table 3 using model in Table 2.
3 Supplementation level as % of body weight per day.






at 0.5% of body weight per day, and fed to make 375 pounds of
gain. In all other situations breakeven selling cost for steers
making the same gain were lowest for steers fed the least supple-
ment.
Breakeven selling prices were approximately the same for
steers making 300 and 375 pounds of gain on pasture when cattle
prices and feed cost were low. With high feed prices and low cat-
tle prices, breakeven selling price became less favorable as amount
of gain increased (more feed used). When cattle prices were
high, breakeven selling price favored steers retained for the
most gain regardless of ration cost.

Effect of Supplementation on Profits or Losses
Breakeven selling price data are useful as a guide for making
management decisions, but they do not present a true economic
picture for comparing management systems which differ in stock-
ing rate or inventory time. An equation for determining profits
from breakeven selling price and selling weight is presented in
Appendix B.

Advantage of Supplementation from Increased Stocking Rate.
-When differences in selling weight per acre exist, selling prices
higher than breakeven selling price begin to favor situations with
the largest selling weight. Breakeven selling prices for supple-
mented cattle were usually higher than for cattle not supple-
mented under the conditions specified in this study. Yet, at a
certain selling price supplementation becomes more profitable
because of the increased stocking rate allowed. This selling price
can be calculated using equation 2 in Appendix B.
For example, if steers weighing 485 pounds were purchased
for $40.00/cwt for use in a stocker operation to put on 375 pounds
of gain, a selling price of $48.98/cwt would be needed for it to be
profitable to supplement steers at 0.5% body weight with a ration
costing $80.00/ton. This example shows that selling price has to
be much higher than purchase price for supplementation to be
profitable. The producer would have to take advantage of in-
creasing cattle prices in a similar situation. Although rising cat-
tle prices of this magnitude occurred in 1972-73 such increases
are rare. Also under a steady market heavy steer prices have nor-
mally been much below that of weaned calves.

Advantage of Reduced Inventory Time.-Reduced inventory
time also favors supplementing steers on pasture under profitable






situations. Annual profits are magnified with systems having
faster turnover rates, but losses from unprofitable systems are
magnified likewise. The selling price at which a system with a
higher breakeven selling price but faster turnover rate becomes
more profitable than one with a slower turnover rate can be
calculated using equation 3 in Appendix B.
For example, if steers weighing 485 pounds were purchased
for $40.00/cwt for use in a stocker operation to put on 375
pounds of gain, a selling price of $39.13/cwt would be needed for
it to be profitable to supplement at 0.5% of body weight with a
ration costing $80.00/ton. This example in comparison with the
preceding example shows the tremendous advantage realized by
utilizing turnover rate in addition to increased stocking rate
($39.13 vs $48.98/cwt selling price where supplementation be-
comes profitable). Both situations were calculated from the same
physical and cost data but the latter example assumes continuous
pasture use 365 days a year. If inventory time is not utilized
(selling and restocking) its is doubtful that supplementation will
be profitable because certain pasture costs continue to be charged
to the operation.

Stocking for a Fixed Time Period
Under actual production conditions stocker cattle would not
likely be carried through a second winter period as were the non-
supplemented steers in this study. Another method of determin-
ing the influence of supplementation on production cost is to com-
pare different supplementation treatments over a fixed time
period. In the present study steers supplemented at 0.5% of body
weight and gaining 375 pounds were on pasture for one day less
than steers not supplemented and gaining 300 pounds. In this
comparison supplementation becomes more economically feasible
when cattle prices are high and feed prices are moderately low
(Table 4).

Other Considerations of Supplementation
The preceding economic data discourages continuous supple-
mentation of steers stocked on Everglades pastures. Haines et al.
(2) reported that supplementation of yearling steers with 5
pounds of concentrate per head daily from November through
January increased annual gains 63 pounds per head over steers
not supplemented. Winter supplementation would also allow high-
er stocking rates, thus better utilization of summer pastures. Sea-






sonal supplementation may be more feasible economically since
production would be less dependent on concentrate feeds.
Other studies have shown that steers grazing St. Augustine-
grass could be fed corn meal, citrus pulp, or similar energy feed
sources without a protein supplement when fed daily at a rate
of 1% of body weight (4, 5). With the high crude protein content
of Everglades pasture forages, mixing costly proteinaceous in-
gredients into limited-fed supplements is not necessary. Also,
mixing costs are eliminated. If high protein supplements are lim-
ited-fed at 1% of body weight per day, twice weekly feeding is
adequate (5).
SUMMARY
Three feeding trials, using 237 steers, were conducted to de-
termine the value of feeding steers on St. Augustinegrass pasture
and its influence on later performance in drylot. In each trial
weanling steers were supplemented on pasture at rates of 0,
0.5%, 1.0%, and 1.5% of their body weight per day to an average
weight of 850 pounds. Steers were then full-fed in drylot to an
average weight of 1050 pounds. Steers were slaughtered and car-
casses evaluated following the finishing period.
Data collected show that rate of gain increased and stocking
time to reach a set feeder weight decreased, as the quantity of
supplement fed increased. Supplementation level or rate of gain
during the pasture period did not have a consistent influence on
steer performance during a subsequent drylot finishing period
or on carcass quality at slaughter.
Economic analyses, involving varying animal and feed prices,
were applied to the steer performance data collected during the
pasture period. The following conclusions are drawn from these
analyses:
1. With steady cattle prices the profitability of continuous
supplementation of steers on pasture is questionable. With
rising cattle prices supplementation becomes more favor-
able economically.
2. The primary advantage of supplementation of stocker
steers is reduced inventory time. Supplementation is of
little value if pastures are not restocked at the end of each
feeding period.
3. The economic advantage of supplementation is greater
when cattle prices are high than when prices are low.
4. There is a greater advantage in holding stocker cattle on
pasture for longer periods when cattle prices are high
than when cattle prices are low.












APPENDIX A

Animal Performance Data for Individual Trials

Table 1. Average performance and carcass data of steers fed various
levels of concentrate for pasture and feedlot phases (Trial 1).

Supplementation level
(% of body wt./day)
Item 0 0.5 1.0 1.5

Pasture Phase

No. steers 20 20 20 20
Avg. feeder grade' 10.6 10.7 10.8 10.9
Days on pasture 482 309 280 260
Avg. initial wt., Ib. 431 429 431 429
Avg. wt. gain, lb. 424 428 430 433
Avg. daily gain, lb. 0.88 1.39 1.54 1.67
Total concentrate/steer, Ib. 934 1,697 2,373
Feedlot Phase

Days in feedlot 78 83 91 69
Avg. initial wt., Ib. 855 857 860 862
Avg. final wt., lb. 1,052 1,064 1,076 1,045
Avg. wt. gain, Ib. 197 207 215 183
Avg. daily gain, lb. 2.53 2.49 2.36 2.65
Total feed/steer, Ib. 2,086 2,097 2,103 1,590
Concentrate, Ib. 1,786 1,825 1,838 1,380
Hay, Ib. 300 272 265 210
Feed/lb. gain, lb. 10.6 10.1 9.8 8.7
Avg. chilled carcass wt., Ib. 568 604 632 604
Dressing percentage2 57.8 59.8 61.7 61.0
Avg. carcass grade1 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.3
Rib eye area, sq. in. 10.3 11.5 11.9 11.1
Fat over rib eye, in. 0.31 0.37 0.41 0.37
Estimated yield, %3 50.8 50.7 50.8 50.5

1 Feeder and carcass grades are based on the following number system:
Average good=10, High good=11.
2 Dressing percent=chilled carcass weight-final unshrunk feedlot weights.
3 Percent of carcass weight in boneless, closely trimmed, retail cuts from
round, loin rib and chuck.












Table 2. Average performance and carcass data of steers fed various
levels of concentrate for pasture and feedlot phases (Trial 2).


Supplementation level
(% of body wt./day)
0 0.5 1.0 1.5


Item


Pasture Phase


No. steers
Avg. feeder grade2
Days on pasture
Avg. initial wt., lb.
Avg. gain, Ib.
Avg. daily gain, lb.
Total concentrate/steer, Ib.


20 191
10.9 11.0
308 280
531 530
319 335
1.04 1.20
918


Feedlot Phase


Days in feedlot
Avg. initial wt., Ib.
Avg. final wt., lb.
Avg. gain, Ib.
Avg. daily gain, Ib.
Total feed/steer, lb.
Concentrate, Ib.
Hay, Ib.
Feed/lb. gain, Ib.
Avg. chilled carcass wt., Ib.
Dressing percentage
Avg. carcass grade2
Rib eye area, sq. in.
Fat over rib eye, in.
Estimated yield, %4


114
850
1,119
269
2.36
2,569
2,224
345
9.6
653
61.1
10.6
11.8
0.40
50.1


65
866
1,022
156
2.40
1,679
1,458
221
10.7
578
59.0
9.8
10.6
0.36
50.2


1 One animal died during the trial.
2, 3, 4 See footnotes 1, 2, and 3, Table 1, respectively.


20
10.9
230
531
316
1.37
1,555


191
10.9
199
530
321
1.61
1,966


87
847
1,060
213
2.45
2,171
1,903
268
10.2
602
60.0
10.4
11.4
0.30
51.0


90
851
1,047
196
2.18
2,187
1,893
294
11.2
589
59.5
10.0
10.8
0.36
50.4












Table 3. Average performance and carcass data of steers fed various
levels of concentrate for pasture and drylot phases (Trial 3).


Supplementation level
(% of bodywt./day)
0 0.5 1.0 1.5


Item


No. steers
Avg. feeder grade2
Days on pasture
Avg. initial wt., lb.
Avg. gain, lb.
Avg. daily gain, lb.
Total concentrate/steer, Ib.


Days in feedlot
Avg. initial wt., Ib.
Avg. final wt., lb.
Avg. gain, lb.
Avg. daily gain, lb.
Total feed/steer, lb.
Concentrate, Ib.
Hay, lb.
Feed/lb. gain, lb.
Avg. chilled carcass wt., Ib.
Dressing percentage3
Avg. carcass grade2
Rib eye area, sq. in.
Fat over rib eye, in.
Estimated yield, %4


Pasture Phase
20 20
10.1 10.1
540 393
499 497
356 377
0.66 0.96
1,254
Feedlot Phase


71
855
1,075
220
3.10
2,217
2,010
207
10.1
600
58.8
10.6
11.4
0.35
50.8


94
874
1,055
181
1.93
2,303
2,031
272
12.7
614
60.9
10.6
11.8
0.32
51.2


1 One animal died during the trial.
2, 3, 4 See footnotes 1, 2, and 3, Table


1, respectively.


191
9.9
337
496
385
1.14
2,120


79
881
1,058
177
2.24
1,843
1,607
236
10.4
620
60.7
10.4
11.5
0.37
50.6


20
10.4
281
496
349
1.2.4
2,606


86
845
1,051
206
2.40
2,149
1,897
252
10.5
610
60.7
10.0
11.4
0.39
50.4












APPENDIX B

Equations Used for Economic Calculations
1. Determining profits or losses from breakeven selling price.


Actual
selling
price
($/cwt)


Breakeven
selling
price
($/cwt)


selling
X weight
(cwt/acre)


2. Determining selling price where system (A) with a higher
breakeven selling price and a higher selling weight per acre
becomes more profitable than a system (B) with a lower
breakeven selling price and a lower selling weight per acre.


Selling
price
($/cwt)


Breakeven
selling
'price A X
($/cwt)


Breakeven
Selling selling Selling
weight A price B X weight B
(cwt/acre) ($/cwt) (cwt/acre)


Selling Selling
weight (A) weight (B)
(cwt/acre) (cwt/acre)

3. Determining selling price where system (A) with a higher
selling price and a faster turnover rate becomes more profit-
able than a system (B) with a lower breakeven selling price
and a slower turnover rate.


Breakeven Selling
selling price A X weight A
($/cwt) (cwt/acre;
Time on pasture (A)
(days+365)
Selling weight (A)
(cwt/acre)
Time on pasture (A)
(days- 365)


Breakeven Selling
selling price B X weight B
($/cwt) (cwt/acre)
Time on pasture (B)
(days-365)
Selling weight (B)
(cwt/acre)
Time on pasture (B)
(days-365)


Profit
or
Loss
$/acre)


Selling
price
($/cwt)












LITERATURE CITED
1. Haines, C. E., H. L. Chapman, Jr., R. J. Allen, Jr., and R. W. Kidder.
1965. Roselawn St. Augustinegrass as a perennial forage for or-
ganic soils of south Florida Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 689.
2. Haines, C. E., H. L. Chapman, Jr., R. W. Kidder, and R. E. L. Greene.
1965. Effects of feeding limited amounts of concentrate to stocker
steers on pasture. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 693.
3. Kidder, R. W. 1952. Ton of beef per acre of grass in 12 months. Breed-
er's Gazette. 117(11):8.
4. Kidder, R. W., and D. W. Beardsley. 1952. Protein and carbohydrate
supplements for fattening steers on Everglades pastures. Fla.
Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 493.
5. Pate, F. M., and J. R. Crockett. 1971. Effect of protein level and feeding
frequency of supplements on performance of stocker steers win-
tered on Everglades pastures. Univ. of Fla., AREC, Belle Glade,
Mimeo Rept. EV71-13.
S6. Pate, F. M., C. E. Haines, R. E. L. Greene, A. Z. Palmer, J.W. Carpenter,
and D. W. Beardsley. 1972. Supplementing steers on pasture from
weaning to feedlot and subsequent effect on finishing performance.
Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 752.
7. Peacock, F. M., W. G. Kirk, E. M. Hodges, A. Z. Palmer, and J. W.
Carpenter. 1964. The effect of winter gains of beef calves on sub-
sequent feedlot performance. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 667.
8. Perry, T. W., D. A. Huber, G. O. Mott, C. L. Rhykerd, and R. W. Taylor.
1972. Effect of level of pasture supplement on pasture, drylot and
total performance of beef cattle. II. Spring plus summer pasture.
J. Anim. Sci. 34:647.
9. Reid, T. J. 1971. The effects of nutrition on body composition of animals.
Proc. Georgia Nutr. Conf. pp. 1-12.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to express their appreciation to Mr. Charles Walker,
former Extension Economist, AREC, Belle Glade, for his assistance in parts
of this study.












LITERATURE CITED
1. Haines, C. E., H. L. Chapman, Jr., R. J. Allen, Jr., and R. W. Kidder.
1965. Roselawn St. Augustinegrass as a perennial forage for or-
ganic soils of south Florida Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 689.
2. Haines, C. E., H. L. Chapman, Jr., R. W. Kidder, and R. E. L. Greene.
1965. Effects of feeding limited amounts of concentrate to stocker
steers on pasture. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 693.
3. Kidder, R. W. 1952. Ton of beef per acre of grass in 12 months. Breed-
er's Gazette. 117(11):8.
4. Kidder, R. W., and D. W. Beardsley. 1952. Protein and carbohydrate
supplements for fattening steers on Everglades pastures. Fla.
Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 493.
5. Pate, F. M., and J. R. Crockett. 1971. Effect of protein level and feeding
frequency of supplements on performance of stocker steers win-
tered on Everglades pastures. Univ. of Fla., AREC, Belle Glade,
Mimeo Rept. EV71-13.
S6. Pate, F. M., C. E. Haines, R. E. L. Greene, A. Z. Palmer, J.W. Carpenter,
and D. W. Beardsley. 1972. Supplementing steers on pasture from
weaning to feedlot and subsequent effect on finishing performance.
Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 752.
7. Peacock, F. M., W. G. Kirk, E. M. Hodges, A. Z. Palmer, and J. W.
Carpenter. 1964. The effect of winter gains of beef calves on sub-
sequent feedlot performance. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 667.
8. Perry, T. W., D. A. Huber, G. O. Mott, C. L. Rhykerd, and R. W. Taylor.
1972. Effect of level of pasture supplement on pasture, drylot and
total performance of beef cattle. II. Spring plus summer pasture.
J. Anim. Sci. 34:647.
9. Reid, T. J. 1971. The effects of nutrition on body composition of animals.
Proc. Georgia Nutr. Conf. pp. 1-12.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to express their appreciation to Mr. Charles Walker,
former Extension Economist, AREC, Belle Glade, for his assistance in parts
of this study.

























SSermlg MAonkm4
co 1875 1975





-NrT




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