• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Introduction
 Programs for developing calves
 Programs for fattening steers on...
 Summary
 Literature cited
 Back Cover














Group Title: Bulletin - University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station ; no. 719
Title: Developing calves and steers on pastures in south and central Florida
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027324/00001
 Material Information
Title: Developing calves and steers on pastures in south and central Florida
Series Title: Bulletin University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station
Physical Description: 42 p. : ill. ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Chapman, H. L ( Herbert L. ), 1923-
Publisher: Agricultural Experiment Stations, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1967
 Subjects
Subject: Calves -- Feeding and feeds -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Beef cattle -- Feeding and feeds -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Bibliography: p. 41-42.
Statement of Responsibility: H.L. Chapman, Jr. ... et al..
General Note: Cover title.
Funding: Bulletin (University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station)
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027324
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 000929318
oclc - 18367512
notis - AEP0098

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page 1
    Table of Contents
        Page 2
    Introduction
        Page 3
    Programs for developing calves
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
    Programs for fattening steers on pasture
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
    Summary
        Page 40
    Literature cited
        Page 41
        Page 42
    Back Cover
        Back Cover
Full Text
719
', 1967

.OPING CALVES AND STEERS

PASTURES IN

ITH AND CENTRAL FLORIDA


DIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, GAINESVILLE
riTUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE
CULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS
R. BECKENBACH, DIRECTOR








CONTENTS


Page-
Introduction ........-.......-..- .......-.... --- -- --- -- 3
Programs for Developing Calves .....-..........----- --------- 4
Factors Affecting the Type of Program to Use ........... 4
Calf Quality ........ ----------............ 5
Size of Calf .........-........ ........-- 6
Pasture Quality .........................-........-- -- 7
Available Feeds ............. -.......- -....-......- ----..... 10
Kind of Market ............. ..............-- 13
Degree of Specialization ... ....................- 13
Suggested Management Practices ......-- -........ .....- 14
Economic Interrelationships .................- .- ----- 16
Steer Cost .......-- --............. ... 17
Operating Costs ...... ....--.... --------- -- ---- 25
Feed Costs -...-.-.-..-.....................-- -- --. 25
Examples of Costs of Developing Calves ... ...-- ......-- 25
Programs for Fattening Steers on Pasture .....----.-. 28
Factors Involved in Fattening Steers on Pasture .. .....- 28
Pasture Quality .. .................~.---- ---.... 28
Cattle Quality ...- .....------- ... ......------... 30
Cattle Size ........ ..........--------------- -- 31
Available Feeds ----.............. --------------- 31
Stress Factors --- --.. -...........--.---------..---- --....... -- 32
Value of Supplemental Feed for Steers Fattened on Pasture 32
Economy ics .... ----. -- ...-.--- --..-----................-. 33
Sum m ary -- ..--------..-- --.. .------. --- ----- ---- -- 40
Literature Cited .-.... ---... --.. --- ------- -......- 41







Developing Calves and Steers on Pastures
in South and Central Florida
H. L. Chapman, Jr., D. W. Beardsley, T. J. Cunha,
and W. K. McPherson

INTRODUCTION
During the past 20 years there have been a number of factors,
such as the passage of the no fence law, rising land value, and
rising taxes, which have brought about many changes in the
Florida cattle industry. The Florida cattleman is faced with the
need to produce more and better quality beef per acre in order
to remain on an economically sound basis. The result is that beef
cattle production in Florida is becoming more intensified each
year.
One of the major changes that has occurred. during the past
20 years has been a large increase in acreage of improved pas-
ture. The environment of south Florida is such that it is possible
to have year-round permanent pastures. Improved permanent
grass pastures can be used in combination with other types of
pasture legumes, small grains, native and be the main feed
supply of the cattle industry in south Florida. The quality of
beef produced per acre from these forages will vary widely.
From 5 to 15 pounds of beef can be produced per acre on native
range when grazed with poor to fair quality cattle and this can-
not be increased much by using higher grade animals. On the
other hand, from 250 to 500 pounds or more of beef can be
produced per acre on improved pasture stocked with high grade
cattle.
The kind of pasture program to follow will depend upon the
kind of cattle used and the degree of intensification employed in
the remainder of the program. A good pasture program should
be used with good quality cattle. Fair and poor quality cattle
will do better on good pasture than on poor pasture, but they do
not have the inherent potential for growth and reproduction that
good cattle have. To market improved pasture forage most
profitably, good quality cattle are needed.
The quality of Florida cattle has increased rapidly during the
past 10 years. However the majority of calves produced are still

'Animal Nutritionist and Head, Range Cattle Experiment Station, Ona;
Animal Nutritionist, Everglades Experiment Station, Belle Glade; Animal
Nutritionist and Chairman, Department of Animal Science; and Agricul-
tural Economist, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of
Florida, Gainesville.







medium or below in quality. This necessitates proper planning
if an intensified program of calf production is to be used. The
better the quality of the calf, the more return will usually be
realized.
Florida is a deficit beef-producing state despite having many
favorable attributes for beef production. Many of the calves
born each year are shipped out of state. During 1964 more than
one-third of the calf crop was slaughtered and 20% was shipped
out of state. During this same year Florida feedlot operators
were purchasing thousands of feeder cattle in other states and
feeding them out in Florida. Had the calves that were
slaughtered and shipped out been conditioned on pasture and fed
out in the state, beef production in Florida would have been
increased over 223 million pounds, or more than 52%. It is
important that more consideration be given to keeping these
calves in the state and developing them for Florida's own needs.
The purpose of this bulletin is to discuss management programs
whereby calves can be developed on pasture for slaughter or for
feedlot purposes and to present information that can be used to
determine when and at what weight they should be bought and
sold.
PROGRAMS FOR DEVELOPING CALVES
Factors Affecting the Type of Program to Use
Stocker operators usually feed weaned calves weighing from
250 to 500 pounds up to grass fat slaughter animals weighing
from 800 to 1,000 pounds or 600 to 800 pound feeder steers and
heifers. These objectives can be achieved in a number of differ-
ent ways, depending upon the type of feed available and the
quality of the-animas.
Calf conditioning programs that have been studied in Florida
(1, 3, 8, 16, 17, 18, 19)2 suggest that calf quality, pasture quality,
available feeds, degree of specialization, size of calf, and the
available market all have some effect on the type of program
that will be most profitable under any given set of conditions. In
deciding which of the many programs to follow, a rancher must
evaluate these six factors (see Figure 1) and the relationships
between them in terms of their costs and product prices, in
order to determine the economic feasibility-of the program to be
followed.
A successful stocker operation requires good management,
utilization of progressive production practices, an understanding

'Numbers in parentheses refer to Literature Cited.
































Figure 1.-Interrelationships to consider in a calf-conditioning program.

of proper buying and selling methods, and efficient utilization of
facilities and other resources.

Calf Quality
This is one of the most important factors. However, it is also
important that the quality of cattle, pasture, feed, and manage-
ment all be in proper balance to each other. If excellent pasture
is available, every attempt should be made to utilize good and
choice calves if they can be obtained under a favorable price
structure. Calves of this quality have the ability to grow rapidly,
will utilize feed efficiently, and will have type and conformation
to produce carcasses that will grade good and choice. These
calves will grow faster than standard or utility calves and can
utilize feed more efficiently. They also have the added benefit of
being the type and quality of cattle that can be placed in the
feedlot before slaughter if the price structure is favorable.
If good cattle and good pastures are available, it becomes im-
portant to have the best of management in order to exploit the






value of the cattle and pasture to the fullest. If good and choice
calves are used with sub-marginal pastures, they will not grow
as rapidly as on good pasture unless supplemental feed is pro-
vided. Often many of the nutrients needed can be provided
cheaper through good quality pasture than by supplemental feed.
It is also possible to use standard and utility calves profitably
if they are bought, sold, and managed properly. These calves
will not grow as fast as the good and choice calves, and will not
utilize feed as well either. Usually they should not be placed in
the feedlot. Most of the time these cattle will be on inventory
longer than good and choice calves and will have more pasture
cost but less supplemental feed cost invested in them than in the
higher grading calves.
Size of Calf
The nutritional requirements of cattle are related to body size
or weight. A calf that is growing needs a sufficient level of nutri-
tion to maintain itself and also to gain weight. Much of the
tissue deposited during growth is water, protein, and minerals.
During the growth period, more protein is needed per unit of
body weight than after maturity is attained. The net result is
that when the animal weighs 1,000 pounds, even though more
total protein is needed for maintenance than when the animal
weighs 400 pounds, the crude protein content of the total ration
can be decreased. As the animal grows older, it is able to store
more fat, and consequently more energy will be deposited
throughout the body in the form of fat. As the animal grows, it
will require more total pasture to maintain itself.
A suggested rule-of-thumb for determining the approximate
daily levels of some nutrients needed for maintenance of cattle is
presented in Table 1. This information is a guide that may re-
quire modification under some conditions, but it will be satisfac-
tory in most cases. When using the total digestible nutrients
(TDN) maintenance levels in Table 1, it is recommended that
about 3.5 pounds of additional TDN be furnished for each pound
of daily gain desired. Actually the TDN needed for gain will
vary with the age and condition of the animal, but this suggested
rule-of-thumb will cover most situations.
The digestible protein requirements for calves and yearling
cattle to gain 1.0 pound per day correspond to about 0.13 to
0.15% of their body weight. Phosphorus requirements (stated
as grams) for maintenance correspond to about 0.02% of body
weight. The cobalt requirements are estimated to be 0.07 to 0.10
milligram per 100 pounds of body weight. The nutritional re-







Table 1.-Approximate daily levels of total digestible nutrients (TDN),
digestible energy, digestible protein, and phosphorus needed for maintenance of
beef cattle of different weights.
Animal Digestible Digestible
Weight TDN' Energy2 Proteins3 Phosphorus'
(lb) (lb) (therms) (lb) (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
'S. Brody (2).
2Calculated from R. W. Swift (20).
3Calculated from L. S. Maynard and J. K. Loosli (11).

quirements of beef cattle are discussed in detail in several other
publications (2, 7, 11, 14, 15).
It is important to know the size of cattle in order to utilize
properly available pasture and supplemental feed. Needed ad-
justments in nutrient requirements due to body size should be
recognized and carefully considered. It is important that sup-
plemental feed furnish the nutrients which are not available in
the forage.

Pasture Quality
It is essential that good quality pasture be used. This means
the pasture should be of ample quantity and highly digestible
with adequate levels of protein, minerals, and vitamins. There is
still considerable unimproved range in south Florida. In the
majority of instances, however, using this native range will not
prove economically feasible in stocker programs except in con-
junction with improved pasture. It is important that adequate
good quality pasture be used if a supplemental feeding program
is followed, in order for the supplemental feed to provide for
additional gain and grade rather than for mere maintenance. As
mentioned previously, the more that is invested in a pasture, the
more important it becomes to use good quality cattle that will
have the inherent ability to utilize the forage most efficiently. In
a profitable pasture-stocker operation the pasture should be of
adequate quality and quantity to allow the cattle to gain a mini-
mum of 0.5 to 0.75 pound a day and preferably more, without
supplemental feed. The purpose of supplemental feed is to in-
crease gain, slaughter grade, dressing percent, and buyer ac-
ceptability and decrease the time an animal is on inventory. If







the pasture is inadequate, good quality hay or other supple-
mental roughage should be used.
It is important to determine the nutritive value of the forage
available. Chemical analyses of the forage can be used as an
index, although this measure does not give an evaluation of the
digestible energy in the forage. (There are commercial labora-
tories throughout the state that can provide analytical service.)
The total diet of 400 to 700 pound stockers should contain a
minimum of 12% crude protein. If the forage used has this
much crude protein, the supplemental feed does not need to
exceed 12% crude protein.
If the dry matter content of a forage is too low or if the
forage is of low digestibility, it may be difficult for a steer to
consume enough grass to furnish the necessary nutrients for
growth. If the forage contains 25 to 30% dry matter, the animal
will probably be able to consume enough forage. Table 2 pre-
sents variations which will occur in TDN intake as influenced by
level and digestibility of dry matter in the forage. These figures
can be used as a guide to determine the amount of TDN in a
pound of forage if the dry matter and digestibility are known.

Table 2.-Amount of TDN in a pound of grass at different TDN and dry
matter levels (Ib.).
TDN Dry Matter Content (%)
Content (%) 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
30 .030 .045 .060 .075 .090 .105 .120
35 .035 .052 .070 .088 .105 .122 .140
40 .040 .060 .080 .100 .120 .140 .160
45 .045 .068 .090 .112 .135 .158 .180
50 .050 .075 .100 .125 .150 .175 .200
55 .055 .082 .110 .138 .165 .192 .220
60 .060 .090 .120 .150 .180 .210 .240
65 .065 .098 .130 .162 .195 .228 .260

Forage should have a minimum of 0.20% phosphorus, and
preferably should contain 0.25%. Copper levels in the forage
should not be below 7 to 8 ppm on a dry matter basis.
The leaf to stem ratio is not a definitive measure but usually
is related to the nutritive value of a forage. More stem than leaf
usually indicates low digestibility, and vice versa.
It is also necessary to determine the quantity of available
forage. There are variations in the amount of TDN needed for
maintenance and gain due to factors such as sex, size, and con-
dition of the animal. However, the approximate amounts of
forage needed to maintain steers of different sizes and allow for







Table 3.-Approximate amount of grass (Ib), containing different levels of dry
matter and TDN, needed to produce 0.75 lb. of daily gain on a 400 Ib. steer.1

TDN Dry Matter Content (%)
Content (%) 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

30 205 137 102 82 68 59 51
35 176 118 88 70 59 50 44
40 154 102 77 62 51 44 38
45 137 90 68 55 46 39 34
--------------------------------------------------------
50 123 82 62 49 41 35 31
55 112 75 56 45 37 32 28
60 102 68 51 41 34 29 26
65 95 63 47 38 32 27 24
1Figures above broken line probably exceed maximum amount a calf can eat daily.


0.75 pound a day gain are shown in Tables 3 and 4. (The data
are calculated on the maintenance levels in Table 1 plus 3.53
pounds TDN per pound of gain.) It may be difficult for a steer
to consume enough grass that has less than 20% of dry matter
unless it is exceptionally digestible. On the other hand if a for-
age is dry and undigestible, it will also be difficult for the animal
to obtain enough nutrients from the pasture to reach the desired
rate of gain. It should be stressed that the carrying capacity of
grass pastures is reduced about two-thirds during the winter
months.
It is important to estimate the dry matter content and the
nutritional value of a pasture forage if an intelligent supplemen-
tal feeding program is to be followed. It is essential not to over-
stock or understock the pastures. Overstocking will result in
reduced growth of both cattle and pasture forage.


Table 4.-Approximate amount of grass (Ib), containing different levels of dry
matter and TDN, needed to produce 0.75 Ib. of grain -on a 600 pound steer.'

TDN Dry Matter Content (%)
Content (%) 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

30 242 161 121 97 81 69 60
35 214 139 104 82 69 59 52
40 181 121 91 72 60 52 45
45 161 106 81 65 54 46 40
50 145 97 72 58 48 41 36
55 132 88 65 53 44 38 33
60 121 81 60 48 40 35 30
65 112 74 56 45 37 32 28
'Figures above broken line probably exceed the amount a steer can consume daily.







Available Feeds
Often the type of management program to use in developing
calves will vary with the available feed supply. For example,
vegetable wastes such as sweet corn fodder might be used if not
contaminated with DDT or other chemicals. Citrus pulp, corn,
and molasses are other feeds available in Florida. Silage or hay-
lage made from corn, sorghum, or grass may be available. More
haylage may be used in south Florida in the future, but at the
present time most calves are being managed on pasture with or
without supplemental feed. If properly managed, more return
will be realized by using a small amount of concentrate feeds
along with high quality pasture than if pasture only is used (5).
Many feeds can be used so long as they are properly balanced
nutritionally. Every effort should be made to utilize the most
economical supplemental feed source which provides the needed
nutrients. Many times feeds produced in Florida will be more
economical and should be used. However, if they are more
economical, feeds from other areas should also be used.
Energy is a major deficiency of improved pasture grasses in
Florida and in tropical and sub-tropical areas of the world. Sup-
plemental feeds used in connection with pasture should be high
in energy and low in fiber.
Some of the more commonly used feed ingredients are listed in
Table 5. More detailed listings of feed ingredients are available
(14). Protein supplements that can be used include cottonseed
meal, soybean meal, and peanut meal. Energy feeds produced in
Florida include dried citrus pulp, blackstrap molasses, citrus
molasses, corn, ground snapped corn, hominy feed, and sorghum
grains. It may be more economical to utilize a single feed, but
usually it will be more desirable to use a combination of ingre-
dients. This will depend upon the adequacy of pasture forage,
cost of the feeds, the relative price of the cattle, and whether
feed additives are to be administered. A more complete discussion
of supplements to pasture feeding is available (5).
Examples of rations that can be used on pasture are listed in
Table 6. As mentioned earlier, the feed ingredients shown can
be replaced by other feeds of similar nutritive value if costs be-
come more favorable. However, these are examples of feed mix-
tures that have been used successfully on good quality pastures,
especially those having 10, 12, and 14% crude protein content.
As mentioned earlier, there are many factors which affect the
amount of supplemental feed needed with pasture. This will vary
from time to time on the same ranch. However, it is equally im-













Table 5.-Analyses of feeds commonly used for beef cattle feed supplements in Florida.''

Total
Dry Digestible Digestible Crude
Ingredients Matter Protein Nutrients Protein Calcium Phosphorus
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Dehydrated alfalfa meal (17%) 92.7 12.3 54.3 17.6 1.58 0.26
Dried citrus pulp 90.0 2.7 74.9 6.2 2.04 0.15
Corn, dent, No. 2 85.0 6.7 80.1 8.7 0.02 0.27
i- Ground snapped corn 89.3 4.8 69.1 7.8 0.04' 0.22'
SCorn meal yellow 88.7 6.7 81.2 8.7 0.01 0.14
Cottonseed meal, 41%, solvent 91.5 32.5 63.3 41.1 0.20" 1.19
Blackstrap molasses (mill run) 80.2 4.7 60.4 9.0 0.66' 0.088
Citrus molasses 70.4 0.0 53.6 4.1 1.08 0.08
Hominy feed, 5% fat or more 89.9 7.5 83.9 10.6 0.05 0.57
Sorghum grain 89.6 8.4 79.9 10.8 0.02 0.32
Dicalcium phosphate 23.30 18.00

'Reference, Morrison, F.B. Feeds and Feeding, 22nd Edition (14).
2Analysis presented on an air-dry basis.
SEstimated value.







Table 6.-Examples of rations with various protein contents that can be satis-
factorily used as pasture supplements.
Crude Protein Level (%)
Ingredient 10 12 14 16 18 20

Dried citrus pulp (lb) 800 800 765 705 625 565
Blackstrap molasses (lb) 250 250 250 250 250 250
Cottonseed meal (lb) 50 100 125 175 250 300
Urea-262 (lb) 10 20 30 40 45 55
Hominy feed (lb) 850 790 790 790 790 790
Dicalcium phosphate (lb) 40 40 40 40 40 40
Cobalt sulfate (gm) 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
Vitamin A (I.U.) 5,000,000 Same Same Same Same Same
DES1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000

Protein (%) 10.4 12.5 14.2 16.3 18.3 20.4
TDN (%) 74.8 73.8 73.3 72.6 72.0 71.3
'Caution should be taken not to implant additional stilbestrol within 6 months of the first
implantation.


portant not to feed excessively on pasture as to feed enough to
give maximum profit returns.
One should not full-feed a concentrate ration to calves on pas-
ture to produce slaughter steers. Research indicates that the
economical level of supplemental feed to use on pasture will be
in the range of 1/ to 1% of the body weight of the cattle. When
cattle are full-fed on pasture, the gains are usually slower and
more expensive than in drylot. A suggested rule-of-thumb for
maximum amounts to feed with different grades of cattle is
shown in Table 7. Calves containing more than 50% of Brahman
breeding should receive a maximum of about 1/ % of body weight
as supplemental feed on pasture. As more research is conducted,
these recommendations will undoubtedly be altered. Based on
present knowledge, they will prove satisfactory in most in-
stances.


Table 7.-Suggested maximum level of supplemental feed to provide stickers
on good quality pasture.
Maximum Level of Supplemental
Quality of Feed Intake as Percent of
Stockers Body Weight

Choice and Good 1.00
Standard 0.75
Utility and Cutter 0.25- 0.50







Kind of Market
The type of available market for selling cattle affects many of
the management practices and is closely related to all of the other
factors. If cattle are being conditioned for the feedlot, it might
be profitable to handle them differently than if they are to be
sold for slaughter off pasture, in order to get them into different
slaughter grades. The success of any management program can
be significantly affected by the final sale of the animal. If the
market is strong for grass fat cattle, it is often more profitable
not to go into the feedlot. If it is strong for fat cattle, it may be
desirable to place the cattle in drylot to finish out as good or
choice steers.

Degree of Specialization
The degree of specialization employed on a ranch will also be
a factor in determining the type of production program to be
followed in developing calves. For example, an individual whose
only business is buying and selling stockers or feeders will per-
haps place more emphasis on inventory turnover than a cow and
calf operator. An individual using good and choice quality cattle
may also have more outlets for his cattle than one having stand-
ard or utility quality cattle. An individual with a surplus of
land may find it advantageous to invest more pasture expense
and less supplemental feed expense in an animal, as compared
to an individual with a limited amount of acreage requiring more
intensive management. The degree of intensification of manage-
ment practices on the available pasture acreage will be an im-
portant factor. Fertilization, degree of water control, proper
stocking, and other factors will affect the quality of the available
pasture. Supplemental feed can usually be used to good advan-
tage with good management practices, good quality pasture, and
good quality cattle.
Ranchers who purchase weaned calves to condition and sell
to either slaughter or drylot feeders should decide the weights of
animals to buy and sell on the basis of the weight and prices of
animals, the cost of feed, and the efficiency with which the
animals convert the feed into body weight. In this type of opera-
tion, the nature of the calf conditioning program may constantly
change. For example, there are periods during which the animal
price-feed cost situation makes it profitable to buy light calves
and hold them until they can be sold to drylot feeders. During
other periods, it may be more profitable to put only 200 or 300






pounds of weight on steers before selling them. Generally, it is
profitable to feed to the heavier weights when animal prices are
rising and feed costs are relatively constant. When animal prices
are falling, it is often more profitable to sell at lighter weights.
The conventional cow-calf operator can decide whether or not
to keep weaned calves to heavier weights on the basis of the price
of calves in the late summer and fall and the price of feed during
the late fall and winter months. Unless a rancher has produced
and stored enough feedstuffs to carry some calves through in
addition to maintaining the cow herd, the out-of-pocket cost to
condition calves can be high. It is frequently desirable to keep
calves to heavier weights when the price of weaned calves is
low even though some feed expense may be experienced.

Suggested Management Practices
It is essential to evaluate properly the quality of cattle and
pastures and manage them accordingly. Poor-doing cattle should
not be kept on a high level of supplemental feed. It is important
to cut out the top cattle for sale, but it is just as necessary to cut
out the bottom end to be sold or put on a different management
program. Culling is vital to the success of a stocker operation,
particularly when intensified production practices are being fol-
lowed. Eliminate the poor-doing animal as soon as it is detected.
Dehorning of all calves is highly recommended. The absence
of horns will reduce injuries in feeding, shipping, and working
cattle. Dehorned cattle are quieter, safer to handle, and usually
have more buyer acceptance than horned cattle particularly if
they are potential feed lot cattle.
The length of time a steer is to be kept on inventory will affect
the type of production program to be used in growing out the
calves. Tables 8 and 9 present some rate of gain figures to show
the relationship average daily gain and total gain for a year and
also the relationship between average daily gain and the time
needed to gain 400, 550, 600, or 650 pounds.
Under the most intensive management it is usually advisable
to turn over a calf inventory within a 12-month period or less.
This means that if a calf must gain approximately 600 pounds
before going to market, it will have to gain an average of about
12/3 pounds a day. It will require about 11/2 pounds of gain a day
for a gain of 550 pounds. In order for calves to gain 400 pounds
within 8 months prior to going into the feedlot about 12/3 pounds
of gain a day will be needed. This rate of gain cannot be main-
tained throughout the year on an improved grass pasture with-







Table 8.-Relationship of average daily gain and the time interval
gain 400, 550, 600, and 650 pounds.


needed to


Average
Daily Gain Amount of Gain (Ib)
(lb) 400 550 600 650
(days) (days) (days) (days)
0.9 444 611 667 722
1.0 400 550 600 650
1.1 364 500 545 591
1.2 333 458 500 542
1.3 308 423 462 500
1.4 286 393 429 464
1.5 267 366 400 433
1.6 250 344 375 406
1.7 235 324 353 382
1.8 222 306 333 361
1.9 211 289 316 342
2.0 200 275 300 325


Table 9.-Relationship between average daily gain and annual gain per steer.'

Average Total
Daily Annual
Gain (lb) Gain (lb)

0.5 182.5
0.6 219.0
0.7 255.5
0.8 292.0
0.9 328.5
1.0 365.0
1.1 401.5
1.2 438.0
1.3 474.5
1.4 511.0
1.5 547.5
1.6 584.0
1.7 620.5
1.8 657.0
1.9 693.5
2.0 730.0

1An average daily gain of about 1% lb. is needed for a 400 lb. calf to weigh 1000 lbs. within
a year.


out some type of supplemental feeding program. If steers are
carried on good quality pasture with no supplemental feed it will
take longer than one year to get them ready for slaughter. If
they are to go to the feedlot without prior supplemental feed on
pasture, it will take longer to get them to a top grade, and usually
they will grade lower when they go to the feedlot.
It is suggested that the program for developing calves into
steers be related to their quality. Usually calves grading stand-
ard or below should be sold off pasture. Good and choice calves







can be sold either for slaughter off pasture or to the feedlot
operator, depending upon price. Calves grading good and choice
are able to utilize supplemental feed better and can usually eco-
nomically receive a greater amount of supplemental feed on pas-
ture than calves grading standard or lower.
Stilbestrol, either oral or implanted, should be used. It may be
more advantageous to use implants on pasture, as this will
guarantee that each animal will receive the desired level. Re-
search in Florida (4, 17) has shown that diethystilbestrol in-
creased rate of gain from 0 to 40%, but the response usually ob-
tained on pasture will amount to about 9 or 10% increase in rate
of gain on about 8% less feed. A maximum of 24 mg of stilbest-
rol should be implanted in steers on grass and 12 mg on clover-
grass pasture. At least 180 days should elapse before
reimplanting steers with stilbestrol. Cattle should not be im-
planted near sale time.
Vitamin A should be used at a level of 2,000 to 3,000 I.U. per
pound of feed. The amount can be adjusted to provide about
2,500 to 3,000 I.U. per hundred pounds of body weight. This
level of vitamin A will often improve the rate of gain of steers
being fattened on pasture.

Economic Interrelationships
All of the factors previously discussed are affected by the
price of cattle, the cost of feed, and other fixed costs. All of the
economic constituents must be considered, because these and
many other factors are involved in determining the best method
to handle calves from the time they are weaned or purchased un-
til they are sold for slaughter.
Decisions regarding when to buy calves, what management
practices to use, and when to sell stockers should be based on the
relationship between costs and returns. The management pro-
gram selected should be one in which the difference between the
costs and estimated returns are the greatest. Every effort must
be made to keep costs within estimates and to lower them when-
ever it is possible without lowering efficiency. Similar efforts
must be made to estimate the selling price for the animals as
nearly as possible. In practice, estimates of production costs and
selling prices are seldom, if ever, exact. The operator must con-
stantly evaluate his position and be ready to terminate a program
when it is no longer earning a profit., Ranchers who keep records
of feed costs and animal weights can determine rather easily
when it is no longer profitable to continue a program.






Profits from growing out calves can be calculated as follows:
Selling price x selling weight
Initial price x initial weight
Operating costs (all charges except feed)
Feeding costs
Profit

Production of slaughter steers frm calves is a high-risk busi-
ness which requires considerable time in studying market condi-
tions and icetrends. This is one of the most important aspects
of the program. The risk with calves can be considered to be
lower than with heavier cattle; however, the fact that they will
be kept on inventory much longer than 700 to 800 pound steers
means that market price trends have more time to exert an
influence on their selling price. This effect can be offset some-
what by purchasing calves periodically throughout the year
rather than at one time.

Steer Cost
A stocker operation cannot be continuously successful unless
the operator has a complete knowledge of the cost factors in-
volved. These factors include the purchase price of calves, selling
price of steers, and operating costs. For example, if a certain
price is paid for calves, and it costs a certain amount to put on
the subsequent gains, there is a minimum selling price needed to
break even. This will vary with the size of the animal purchased.
Examples of this relationship are presented in Tables 10, 11, and
12.
If a cattleman knows the cost of his gain and the initial cost
of his calves, he can determine the figure he must receive to
break even. If the initial cost of the stockers exceeds the cost of
gain the required break even price increases as the initial weight
increases. Conversely, if the initial cost per pound for the stocker
is less than the cost per pound of gain, the break even price de-
creases as the initial weight of the animal increases. If a cattle-
man knows his cost of gain, he can then determine what he can
pay for stockers based on anticipated market trends. Examples
of this are presented in Tables 13, 14, and 15. When the cost of
gain is less than the selling price, the initial price that can be paid
for stockers decreases as the size of the animal increases. When
the cost of gain exceeds the selling price, the maximum initial
price that can be paid increases as the size of the stocker in-
creases.















Table 10.-Necessary selling price to break even at different initial and gain cost for a 400 lb. calf fed to 1000 lbs. in weight (I/lb.).


Cost of Initial Cost (0/lb)


16.5 17.0 17.5 18.0
17.0 17.5 18.0 18.5
17.5 18.0 18.5 19.0
18.0 18.5 19.0 19.5
18.5 19.0 19.5 20.0
19.0 19.5 20.0 20.5
19.5 20.0 20.5 21.0
20.0 20.5 21.0 21.5
20.5 21.0 21.5 22.0
21.0 21.5 22.0 22.5
21.5 22.0 22.5 23.0
22.0 22.5 23.0 23.5
22.5 23.0 23.5 24.0
23.0 23.5 24.0 24.5
23.5 24.0 24.5 25.0


21 22 23 24 25 26
18.5 19.0 19.5 20.0 20.5 21.0
19.0 19.5 20.0 20.5 21.0 21.5
19.5 20.0 20.5 21.0 21.5 22.0
20.0 20.5 21.0 21.5 22.0 22.5
20.5 21.0 21.5 22.0 22.5 23.0
21.0 21.5 22.0 22.5 23.0 23.5
21.5 22.0 22.5 23.0 23.5 24.0
22.0 22.5 23.0 23.5 24.0 24.5
22.5 23.0 23.5 24.0 24.5 25.0
23.0 23.5 24.0 24.5 25.0 25.5
23.5 24.0 24.5 25.0 25.5 26.0
24.0 24.5 25.0 25.5 26.0 26.5
24.5 25.0 25.5 26.0 26.5 27.0
25.0 25.5 26.0 26.5 27.0 27.5
25.5 26.0 26.5 27.0 27.5 28.0


27 28 29 30


Gain (4/1b) 17 18 19 20


16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30














Table 11.-Necessary selling price to break even at different initial and gain costs for a 500 Ib. calf fed to 1000 Ib. weight (0/lb.).

Cost of Initial Cost (0/lb)
Cost of -------------------- -______________


17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
16.4 16.8 17.2 17.6 18.0 18.4 18.8 19.2 19.6 20.0 20.4 20.8 21.2 21.6
17.0 17.4 17.8 18.2 18.6 19.0 19.4 19.8 20.2 20.6 21.0 21.4 21.8 22.2
17.6 18.0 18.4 18.8 19.2 19.6 20.0 20.4 20.8 21.2 21.6 22.0 22.4 22.8
18.2 18.6 19.0 19.4 19.8 20.2 20.6 21.0 21.4 21.8 22.2 22.6 23.0 23.4
18.8 19.2 19.6 20.0 20.4 20.8 21.2 21.6 22.0 22.4 22.8 23.2 23.6 24.0
19.4 19.8 20.2 20.6 21.0 21.4 21.8 22.2 22.6 23.0 23.4 23.8 24.2 24.6
20.0 20.4 20.8 21.2 21.6 22.0 22.4 22.8 23.2 23.6 24.0 24.4 24.8 25.2
20.6 21.0 21.4 21.8 22.2 22.6 23.0 23.4 23.8 24.2 24.6 25.0 25.4 25.8
21.2 21.6 22.0 22.4 22.8 23.2 23.6 24.0 24.4 24.8 25.2 25.6 26.0 26.4
21.8 22.2 22.6 23.0 23.4 23.8 24.2 24.6 25.0 25.4 25.8 26.2 26.6 27.0
22.4 22.8 23.2 23.6 24.0 24.4 24.8 25.2 25.6 26.0 26.4 26.8 27.2 27.6
23.0 23.4 23.8 24.2 24.6 25.0 25.4 25.8 26.2 26.6 27.0 27.4 27.8 28.2
23.6 24.0 24.4 24.8 25.2 25.6 26.0 26.4 26.8 27.2 27.6 28.0 28.4 28.8
24.2 24.6 25.0 25.4 25.8 26.2 26.6 27.0 27.4 27.8 28.2 28.6 29.0 29.4
24.8 25.2 25.6 26.0 26.4 26.8 27.2 27.6 28.0 28.4 28.8 29.2 29.6 30.0


Gain (I/lb)
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30















Table 12.-Necessary selling price to break even at different initial and gain costs for a 600 Ib. calf fed to 1000 Ibs. (I/lb.).

Initial Cost (//lb)
Cost of


17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
16.6 17.2 17.8 18.4 19.0 19.6 20.2 20.8 21.4 22.0 22.6
17.0 17.6 18.2 18.8 19.4 20.0 20.6 21.2 21.8 22.4 23.0
17.4 18.0 18.6 19.2 19.8 20.4 21.0 21.6 22.2 22.8 23.4
17.8 18.4 19.0 19.6 20.2 20.8 21.4 22.0 22.6 23.2 23.8
18.2 18.8 19.4 20.0 20.6 21.2 21.8 22.4 23.0 23.6 24.2
18.6 19.2 19.8 20.4 21.0 21.6 22.2 22.8 23.4 24.0 24.6
19.0 19.6 20.2 20.8 21.4 22.0 22.6 23.2 23.8 24.4 25.0
19.4 20.0 20.6 21.2 21.8 22.4 23.0 23.6 24.2 24.8 25.4
19.8 20.4 21.0 21.6 22.2 22.8 23.4 24.0 24.6 25.2 25.8
20.2 20.8 21.4 22.0 22.6 23.2 23.8 24.4 25.0 25.6 26.2
20.6 21.2 21.8 22.4 23.0 23.6 24.2 24.8 25.4 26.0 26.6
21.0 21.6 22.2 22.8 23.4 24.0 24.6 25.2 25.8 26.4 27.0
21.4 22.0 22.6 23.2 23.8 24.4 25.0 25.6 26.2 26.8 27.4
21.8 22.4 23.0 23.6 24.2 24.8 25.4 26.0 26.6 27.2 27.8
22.2 22.8 23.4 24.0 24.6 25.2 25.8 26.4 27.0 27.6 28.2


28 29 30


Gain (/lb)
16
17
18
19
t 20
0 21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30














Table 13.-Maximum price that can be paid to break even with 400 Ib. stocker fed to 1000 lb. at different selling prices and gain
costs (0/lb.)


Cost Selling Price (0/lb.)
of Gain
(0/lb) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
16 16.0 18.5 21.0 23.5 26.0 28.5 31.0 33.5 36.0 -


27.0 29.5 32.0 34.5 -
25.5 28.0 30.5 33.0 35.5
24.0 26.5 29.0 31.5 34.0
22.5 25.0 27.5 30.0 32.5
21.0 23.5 26.0 28.5 31.0
19.5 22.0 24.5 27.0 29.5
18.0 20.5 23.0 25.5 28.0
16.5 19.0 21.5 24.0 26.5
15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0
13.5 16.0 18.5 21.0 23.0
12.0 14.5 17.0 19.5 22.0
- 13.0 15.5 18.0 20.5
- 14.0 16.5 19.0
- 12.5 15.0 17.5


36.0 -
34.5 -
33.0 35.5
31.5 34.0
30.0 32.5
28.5 31.0
27.0 29.5
25.5 28.0
24.0 26.5
22.5 25.0


17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30















Table 14.-Maximum price that can be paid to break even with 500 Ib. stickers fed to 1000 lb. at different selling prices and gain
costs (/lb.).


Cost Selling Price (0/lb.)
of Gain


(B/lb) 16


16
17
18
No 19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30


17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3
18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0 26.0 28.0 30.0 32.0 -
17.0 19.0 21.0 23.0 25.0 27.0 29.0 31.0 33.0 35.0 -
16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0 26.0 28.0 30.0 32.0 34.0 36.0 -
15.0 17.0 19.0 21.0 23.0 25.0 27.0 29.0 31.0 33.0 35.0 -
14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0 26.0 28.0 30.0 32.0 34.0 36.0 -
13.0 15.0 17.0 19.0 21.0 23.0 25.0 27.0 29.0 31.0 33.0 35.0 -
12.0 14.0 16.0 81.0 20.0 22.0 24.0 26.0 28.0 30.0 32.0 34.0 36.0 -
- 13.0 15.0 17.0 19.0 21.0 23.0 25.0 27.0 29.0 31.0 33.0 35.0 -
- 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0 26.0 28.0 30.0 32.0 34.0 36.0
13.0 15.0 17.0 19.0 21.0 23.0 25.0 27.0 29.0 31.0 33.0 35.0
- 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0 26.0 28.0 30.0 32.0 34.0
- 13.0 15.0 17.0 19.0 21.0 23.0 25.0 27.0 29.0 31.0 33.0
- 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0 26.0 28.0 30.0 32.0
- 13.0 15.0 17.0 19.0 21.0 23.0 25.0 27.0 29.0 31.0
- 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0 26.0 28.0 30.0















Table 15.-Maximum price that can be paid to break even with 600 Ib. stickers fed to 1000 lb. at different selling prices and gain
costs (0/lb.).

Cost Selling Price (0/lb.)
of Gain
(/lb) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30


21.0 22.7
20.3 22.0
19.7 21.3
19.0 20.7
18.3 20.0
17.7 19.3
17.0 18.7
16.3 18.0
15.7 17.3
15.0 16.7
14.3 16.0
13.7 15.3
- 14.7
- 14.0
- 13.3


24.3 26.0 27.7 29.3
23.7 25.3 27.0 28.7
23.0 24.7 26.3 28.0
22.3 24.0 25.7 27.3
21.7 23.3 25.0 26.7
21.0 22.7 24.3 26.0
20.3 22.0 23.7 25.3
19.7 21.3 23.0 24.7
19.0 20.7 22.3 24.0
18.3 20.0 21.7 23.3
17.7 19.3 21.0 22.7
17.0 18.7 20.3 22.0
16.3 18.0 19.7 21.3
15.7 17.3 19.0 20.7
15.0 16.7 18.3 20.0


32.7 34.3
32.0 33.7
31.3 33.0
30.7 32.3
30.0 31.7
29.3 31.0
28.7 30.3
28.0 29.7
27.3 29.0
26.7 28.3
26.0 27.7
25.3 27.0
24.7 26.3
24.0 25.7
23.3 25.0


36.0 -
35.3 37.0
34.7 36.3
34.0 35.7
33.3 35.0
32.7 34.3
32.0 33.7
31.3 33.0
30.7 32.3
30.0 31.7
29.3 31.0
28.7 30.3
28.0 29.7
27.3 29.0
26.7 28.3


16
17
18
S 19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
















Table 16.-Relationship of annual operating cost and number of cattle produced per acre to cost per steer ($).

Number
Cattle/
Acre/ Annual Operating Cost ($/acre)
Year 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60


40.0 60.0 80.0
20.0 30.0 40.0
13.3 20.0 26.7
- 15.0 20.0
- 16.0


100.0 120.0
50.0 60.0
33.3 40.0
25.0 30.0
20.0 24.0
16.7 20.0
17.1


140.0 -
70.0 80.0 -
46.7 53.3 60.0 66.7 -
35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0
28.0 32.0 36.0 40.0 44.0 48.0
23.3 26.7 30.0 33.3 36.7 40.0
20.0 22.9 25.7 28.6 31.4 34.3
17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0 27.5 30.0
- 17.8 20.0 22.2 24.4 26.7
18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0
-- 18.2 20.0 21.8
S 18.3 20.0


0.25
0.50
0.75
1.0
1.25
1.50
1.75







Operating Costs
The number of cattle carried on a ranch during a year and the
annual operating cost determine the amount it costs for each
animal. This relationship is presented in Table 16 on a per acre
basis. Operating costs can also be prorated on a specified cost per
day basis if annual operating costs are known.

Feed Costs
The relationship of gain and feed cost per pound of gain for
cattle fed on pasture is presented in Table 17. When providing
supplemental feed to cattle on pasture it is important that the
pasture be of good enough quality for the cattle to be gaining at
least 1/2 to 3/4 of a pound a day on pasture alone to prevent the
feed cost per pound of feed from being too high. The feed should
not be considered as a substitute for pasture. Rather it should be
considered as a supplement to maximize the profit return.
Usually the better the pasture forage, the lower the feed cost per
pound of gain for steers fed on pasture.


Examples of Costs of Developing Calves

In order to elaborate further on the interrelationship of all the
factors, an example of returns obtained from calves developed
from 400 pounds to a final weight of 950 to 1050 pounds is
presented in Table 18. There are many factors that will affect
these results, and it should be remembered that this is only an
example. Cost factors used in the example are also presented in
the table. Operating costs was arbitrarily set at 8 cents per steer
per day, and feed cost was set at $55.00 per ton. The operating
cost per steer was based on the length of time on inventory, with
the choice calves gaining an average of 1.8 pounds a day and the
good, standard, and utility gaining 1.6, 1.4, and 1.1 pounds daily
on pasture, respectively.
Needless to say this expense could vary greatly, depending on
stocking re, gain per day, feed cst, operating cost, etc. The
costs for any ranch would have to be calculated on an individual
basis.
What will be the net return from the above costs? This will
be affected by the final grade of the animal. Net return of the
animals in this example would be as shown in Table 19.
It is easy to see that if operating expenses had varied a penny
a day, if the selling or buying price had been up or down 1 or 2














Table 17.-Relationship of average daily gain and cost of feed on the feed cost per pound of gain (0).

Average
Daily Gain Feed Cost/Steer/Day (cents)
(lb) 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

.6 8.3 16.6 25.0 33.3 41.7 -
.8 6.2 12.5 18.8 25.0 31.2 37.5 43.7 -
1.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 ---
1.2 4.2 8.3 12.5 16.7 20.8 25.0 29.2 33.3 37.5 41.7 -
1.4 3.6 7.1 10.7 14.3 17.9 21.4 25.0 28.6 32.1 35.7 39.3 42.9
1.6 3.1 6.2 9.4 12.5 15.6 18.8 21.9 25.0 28.1 31.2 34.4 37.5
1.8 2.8 5.6 8.3 11.1 13.9 16.7 19.4 22.2 25.0 27.8 30.6 33.3
2.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0 27.5 30.0
2.2 4.5 6.8 9.1 11.4 13.6 15.9 18.2 20.5 22.7 25.0 27.3
2.4 6.2 8.3 10.4 12.5 14.6 16.7 18.8 20.8 22.9 25.0
2.6 7.7 9.6 11.5 13.5 15.4 17.3 19.2 21.2 23.1
2.8 8.9 10.7 12.5 14.3 16.1 17.8 19.6 21.4
3.0 8.3 10.0 11.7 13.3 15.0 16.7 18.3 20.0
3.2 9.4 10.9 12.5 14.1 15.6 17.2 18.8
3.4 8.8 10.3 11.8 13.2 14.7 16.2 17.6







Table 18.-Cost factors used in example of developing calves.

Grade of Calf
Choice Good Standard Utility

Cost factors
Initial cost ($/cwt) 30.00 27.50 24.75 21.50
Selling price ($/cwt) 27.00 25.50 22.75 20.50
Final weight (lb) 1050 1000 1000 950
Estimated ADG (lb) 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.1
Days on inventory 361 375 429 500
Operating expense
cost/steer ($) 28.88 30.00 34.32 40.00
Feed intake (% of
body wt.) 1.0 1.0 0.75 0.5
Summary of estimated expenses per steer
Initial cost 120.00 110.00 99.00 86.00
Operating cost 28.88 30.00 34.32 40.00
Feed cost 69.49 72.19 58.99 41.25
Total 218.37 212.19 192.31 167.25
Summary of estimated gross income per steer, based on final
slaughter grade
Final slaughter grade
Choice 283.50 -
Good 255.00 255.00 -
Standard 227.50 227.50 227.50 -
Utility 194.75 194.75 194.75 194.75



Table 19.-Net return obtained from animals of various grades in Table 18.

Final Initial Feeder Grade
Slaughter Grade Choice Good Standard Utility

Choice 65.131 -
Good 36.63 42.81 -
Standard 9.13 15.31 35.19 -
Utility -23.62 -17.44 2.44 27.50

'These figures represent the return obtained in the various grades.


cents, or if the cattle failed to make the desired grade, the above
figures would be considerably different.
In any stocker-feeder operation it is imperative to have an ac-
curate estimate of costs and returns at all times. While the cost
of feed is important, the final outcome will be more easily af-
fected by small variations in operating costs and animal prices
and failure to make a desired grade than by small variations in
feed costs.






PROGRAMS FOR FATTENING STEERS ON PASTURE
Can cattle be economically fattened on pasture? What is the
most desirable way to fatten cattle on pasture? These are ques-
tions which are becoming increasingly common as the quality
of pastures, cattle, and management practices continues to im-
prove in Florida. This section will discuss some results of work
done on this problem during the past 15 years, will suggest pro-
grams that have merit commercially, and will discuss briefly
future trends that appear possible in Florida.

Factors Involved in Fattening Steers on Pasture
A number of factors will affect the degree of success experi-
enced from fattening steers on pasture. These include breed and
quality of cattle, forage quality, stress factors, availability of
feedstuffs, and degree of specialization.

Pasture Quality
Considerable research has been conducted throughout the
United States and particularly in the Southeastern United States
and Florida concerning the merits of fattening cattle on good
quality pasture. The majority of the results indicate that the
practice is economically feasible (5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 21). A study
of the research data reveals that the term "pastures" includes
small grains, temporary grasses, legumes, permanent grasses, or
grass-legume mixtures. It can also mean native range.
A good example of the importance of pastures occurs within
the Florida Agricultural Experiment Station system. The excel-
lent work of the North Florida Experiment Station (1) with
temporary winter pasture and with small grains deals with dif-
ferent forage crops and conditions than those faced by the
majority of people who fatten cattle on pastures in the central
and southern portion of Florida (5). In south Florida the
permanent pastures on sandy soils differ greatly from those on
the muck soils, and both differ from those in north Florida.
Therefore it is extremely important to define the kind of pas-
ture being used. What is its nutritional value? What is its ton-
nage yield per acre? What stage of growth is it in, etc. This
information is needed if intelligent use is to be made of the
forage in cattle production.
It is not easy to evaluate properly, the nutritional value of
pasture forages. A great many research workers throughout the
country are devoting their time to this problem and these efforts







should prove invaluable in the future. There are several rules-of-
thumb, however, that can be considered in evaluating pasture
forage:
1. Most permanent grasses in Florida and in tropical and sub-
tropical areas are deficient in energy. Supplemental feeds
should be high in energy.
2. Crude protein content should be at least 10% in the diet of
fattening 750 to 800 pound cattle. If the crude protein level
of pasture forage is below 10%, it is important to increase
the protein content of the supplemental feed so that the
total feed intake will have a 10% protein level.
3. Carrying capacity of permanent grass pastures is reduced
at least two-thirds during the winter months.
4. A large amount of leaf to stem usually indicates a relatively
high digestibility, and vice versa.
5. If the moisture content of forages is 85 to 90%, it is more
difficult for the animal to consume enough dry matter than
when it contains only 75% moisture. (See Table 20.)
6. Pasture forage dry matter should contain a minimum of
0.20% phosphorus and preferably should have 0.25 to
0.30%.
7. There should be a minimum of 7 ppm of copper in forage on
a dry matter basis.


Table 20.-Approximate amount of grass (Ib), containing different levels of
dry matter and TDN, needed to produce 0.75 Ib. of gain on an 800 pound steer.1

TDN Dry Matter Content (%)
Content (%) 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

30 278 186 139 112 93 80 70
35 239 161 119 95 80 68 60
-----------------------------------------------------------
40 209 139 104 84 70 60 52
45 186 123 93 75 62 53 46
50 167 112 84 67 56 48 42
55 152 102 76 61 51 43 38
60 139 93 70 56 46 40 35
65 128 85 64 52 43 37 32
'Quantities above broken line probably exceed the amount the steer can consume daily.

Any supplemental feeding program should utilize a feed that
will furnish the nutrients lacking in forage. The deficiencies in
the forage may be energy, total digestible nutrients, minerals,
protein, vitamin A, or insufficient quality of forages, or any
combination of these factors. In a program of steer-fattening on







pasture it is essential to know the nutritional value of the forage.
The primary goal should be for the supplemental feed to act as
a supplement to and not a substitute for the pasture forage.

Cattle Quality

As mentioned, the most economically successful steer for pas-
ture feeding programs is the kind of steer normally fed in dry-
lot. However, if properly managed and favorably purchased,
poor and fair quality steers can also be profitable on pasture-
fattening programs. They should not be fed as much, will prob-
ably be on inventory longer, and will probably not utilize good
quality pasture as well as steers of higher grades.
If an intensified pasture program is utilized it is generally
more profitable to use the best quality steer that can be favor-
ably purchased. d quality steers will have the inherent
ability to utilize feed and pasture more efficiently. This will re-
sult in a more rapid turnover of cattle inventory (Table 21) and
will also provide an additional marketing outlet by their going
into drylot if conditions are favorable.


Table 21.-Relationship of feeder grade to rate of gain for steers fattened on
pasture.'

Feeder Number Daily
Grade Steers Gain (lb)
Standard 24 1.74
Standard + 72 1.75
Good 97 1.95
Good 77 2.01
Good + 41 2.06
'Summarized from a number of feeding experiments where cattle received a limited intake of
concentrate on pasture.


The breed of steer also affects the rate of gain on pasture (6).
Cattle heavy in Brahman breeding have m bilitytutilize
high-roughage rations and will often do better on pasture but not
as well in the feedlo aswill English breeds of catleogood
quality Brahman crossbreds (6). Consideration should be given
to the amount of Brahman breeding in steers. Generally steers
having more than 50% of Brahman breeding should be carried
primarily on pasture with a very limited amount of supplemental
feed. English breeds of cattle or good quality Brahman x
English crossbreds can utilize larger amounts of concentrates on
pasture and can also be fed in drylot.







Cattle Size
The exact nutritional requirement of steers will vary, as al-
ready mentioned, due to a number of factors. It is difficult to
make a general statement that will apply to all conditions. How-
ever, there is a relationship of body size, or weight, of cattle to
their nutritional requirements. The heavier the steer, the more
nutrients are needed to maintain the animal. This means it wil
be necessary for an 800 pound steer to eat more than a 600 pound
steer just to keep from losing weight. For example, the figures
below are the approximate daily needs of steers, of different
sizes, for TDN:

TDN needed for
Body weights (Ib) maintenance (Ib)
600 4.6
800 5.7
1000 6.7
1200 7.7

It is important to plan pasture management and feeding pro-
grams so that the peak pasture growth periods will coincide with
the time that cattle inventory weight is the heaviest. The pas-
tures should provide enough nutrients to maintain the animal
and also allow it to gain a minimum of 1 to % of a pound daily.
If the supplemental feed is used for maintenance purposes, it
will be more difficult to realize economical returns from the
feeding program.
Other nutrient needs are also related to body size. For ex-
ample, the digestible protein requirements for fattening cattle
amount to about 0.2% of the animal's body weight. The daily
maintenance need for phosphorus can be determined by multi-
plying body weight by 0.02 and stating the answer in grams. The
cobalt requirement of beef cattle is thought to be in the range of
0.07 to 0.10 milligrams per 100 pounds of body weight. Vitamin
A is suggested to be used at the rate of 2,500 to 3,000 L.U. per
100 pounds of body weight where it is needed. Nutritional re-
quirements will vary, but these figures provide some rules-of-
thumb that can be satisfactorily used. More detailed discussions
of the nutritional requirements of steers are available (11, 14,
15, 26).

Available Feeds
Factors affecting the choice of supplemental feed are: type of
supplemental feed available, type of forage, physical facilities
available, and the relative price of feed and cattle.







Protein supplements used are cottonseed meal, soybean meal,
and peanut meal. Energy feeds produced in Florida include
dried citrus pulp, blackstrap molasses, citrus molasses, corn,
ground snapped corn, and sorghum grain. Other ingredients can
be shipped in but it is often more economical to utilize locally-
produced feeds. It may be economical to utilize a single feed, or
it may be desirable to use a combination of ingredients. This
will depend upon the adequacy of pasture forage, cost of the
feeds, the relative price of the cattle, and whether feed additives
are to be administered. A more detailed discussion of feeds for
use in Florida is available (5).

Stress Factors
From time to time diseases, parasites, cold or wet weather, or
nutritional imbalances in the forage may place abnormal stress
on the cattle. This may necessitate additional supplemental feeds
or changing the feed formula to alleviate the effect of the stress
factors. It is possible, for example, that during periods of exces-
sive rainfall additional supplemental food might be required tem-
porarily to minimize body weight losses. Occasionally it might
be necessary to include antibiotics in the ration to counteract
sub-clinical disease level, although this is not needed as often as
it is in drylot. These and other stress factors will not be dis-
cussed in detail in this report, but it should be recognized that
the possibility of their occurring from time to time does exist.

Value of Supplemental Feed for Steers Fattened on Pasture
The use of a limited amount of concentrates on good quality
pasture has almost always resulted in more return than pasture
alone. Some of these data from studies conducted at the Ever-
glades Experiment Station are presented in Tables 22, 23, and
24. The use of a limited amount of concentrate feed will result
in more gain, higher dressing percent, lower cooler shrink,
higher grading carcasses, quicker inventory turnover, and better
packer-buyer acceptance of the cattle. The use of a full-feed of
concentrates on pasture is not recommended because it is usually
uneconomical. If it is desired to full-feed steers, better results
will almost always be obtained by feeding in drylot than on pas-
ture. Examples of rations that can be used on pasture are
presented in Table 6. Recommended levels of concentrate to feed
steers being fattened on good pasture are presented in Table 7.







Table 22.-Average weight change and carcass data for steers receiving dif-
ferent supplemental feeds while grazing Roselawn St. Augustinegrass.'

Ground
No Citrus Cane Snapped Mixed
Feed Pulp Molasses Corn Feed
Number of steers 8 8 8 8 8
Final weight (Ibs) 839 931 875 914 923
Initial weight (Ibs) 692 692 675 691 692
Total gain (Ibs) 147 239 200 223 231
Daily gain (Ibs) 1.05 1.71 1.43 1.59 1.65
Intransit shrink (%) 3.52 4.83 5.31 4.90 4.54
Cooler shrink (%) 1.20 0.76 0.71 0.79 0.58
Dressing percent (%) 53.6 56.4 55.0 54.8 54.4
Increase in
slaughter grade 1/3 2/3 2/3 1/3 1/3
'Supplements were fed at the rate of 6 pounds per steer daily.


Table 23.-Average data for steers receiving various levels of concentrate in-
take while grazing Roselawn St. Augustinegrass (summarized from several ex-
periments).

Daily Level of Feed Intake (Ibs)
Full-feed
0 6.0 (23.2 lbs/animal/day)
Number of steers 32 112 111
Final weight (Ibs) 803 922 1061
Initial weight (lbs) 736 743 743
Total gain (Ibs) 67 179 318
Daily gain (Ibs) 0.56 1.44 2.57
Intransit shrink (%) 5.38 5.03 4.54
Cooler shrink (%) 3.13 2.11 1.87
Dressing percent (%) 51.3 55.2 60.2
Increase in slaughter grade 1/3 0 3/3



Economics
The interrelationship of cost factors such as the buying and
selling price, operating costs and feed costs has previously been
discussed in detail (see Table 18). The same principles exist for
steers fattened for slaughter as with calves. The primary dif-
ferences are the size of animal and length of time the animal will
be on inventory.
Steers weighing 700 to 800 pounds will not be on inventory as
long as calves. This will probably decrease the effect of price
fluctuations as compared to calves, but also reduces the amount
of total gain an animal will make while on inventory. Because of
the reduced total gain in relationship to the larger initial weight










Table 24.-Results of feeding molasses, with and without cornmeal or VegeFat, to cattle being fattened on posture.

No No
Molasses, Molasses Molasses,
2 Steers 3 Steers Molasses, Molasses VegeFat,
Per Acre Per Acre Molasses VegeFat Cornmeal Cornmeal

Number of steers 8 12 12 12 12 12
Final wt. (lb) 871 845 913 955 928 962
Initial wt. (lb) 677 682 678 682 680 681
Total gain (lb) 194 163 235 273 248 281
Daily gain (lb) 0.94 0.79 1.14 1.33 1.20 1.36
Wt. at packing house 822 797 861 901 876 908
Warm carcass wt. (lb) 464 443 514 548 536 558
Gross dressing %1 56.45 55.58 59.70 60.82 61.19 61.45
c Net dressing %2 53.49 52.68 56.55 57.67 58.11 58.31
Carcass grades
Good 0 0 1 1 0 2
Standard 6 8 9 11 12 10
Utility 2 4 2 0 0 0
Final carcass value ($)8 143.97 135.47 163.06 179.50 173.90 183.93
Feed cost ($)' -- 8.24 16.48 20.60 28.84
Return above feed cost ($) 143.97 135.47 154.82 163.02 153.30 155.09

Warm carcass weight
'Gross dressing percent = Packers live weight
Warm carcass weight 2%% shrink
Net dressing percent = Final weight 3% shrink
3Cattle sold on a net carcass weight and grade basis. U.S. Good, $36.50; U.S. Standard, $33.25; and U.S. Utility, $27.00 cwt. Net carcass weight was warm
carcass wt. 2/2%.
'Costs used in calculating feed costs were cane molasses @ $20.00 per ton; VegeFat @ $160.00 per ton; and cornmeal @ $60.00 per ton.







of the steer, price fluctuations have more effect on income if they
do occur.
Steer fattening is a high-risk and highly skilled enterprise.
Profits are influenced to a great extent by fluctuations in price
and price margin. It is imperative that a cattle feeder be
familiar with market conditions and trends.
Tables 25 and 26 contain data that can be used to determine
the price that must be received to break even for various initial
steer costs and gain costs. It is essential that a feeder know both
gain costs and cattle costs. To approach the problem from an-
other viewpoint, Tables 27 and 28 contain data that can be used
to determine how much can be paid for 700 to 800 pound steers
based on gain cost and anticipated market conditions.
















Table 25.-Necessary selling price to break even at different initial and gain costs for a 700 lb. steer fed to 1000 lb. ( /lb.).

Cost Initial Cost (/lb)
of Gain


17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
16.7 17.4 18.1 18.8 19.5 20.2 20.9 21.6 22.3 23.0 23.7 24.4 25.1 25.8
17.0 17.7 18.4 19.1 19.8 20.5 21.2 21.9 22.6 23.3 24.0 24.7 25.4 26.1
17.3 18.0 18.7 19.4 20.1 20.8 21.5 22.2 22.9 23.6 24.3 25.0 25.7 26.4
17.6 18.3 19.0 19.7 20.4 21.1 21.8 22.5 23.2 23.9 24.6 25.3 26.0 26.7
17.9 18.6 19.3 20.0 20.7 21.4 22.1 22.8 23.5 24.2 24.9 25.6 26.3 27.0
18.2 18.9 19.6 20.3 21.0 21.7 22.4 23.1 23.8 24.5 25.2 25.9 26.6 27.3
18.5 19.2 19.9 20.6 21.3 22.0 22.7 23.4 24.1 24.8 25.5 26.2 26.9 27.6
18.8 19.5 20.2 20.9 21.6 22.3 23.0 23.7 24.4 25.1 25.8 26.5 27.2 27.9
19.1 19.8 20.5 21.2 21.9 22.6 23.3 24.0 24.7 25.4 26.1 26.8 27.5 28.2
19.4 20.1 20.8 21.5 22.2 22.9 23.6 24.3 25.0 25.7 26.4 27.1 27.8 28.5
19.7 20.4 21.1 21.8 22.5 23.2 23.9 24.6 25.3 26.0 26.7 27.4 28.1 28.8
20.0 20.7 21.4 22.1 22.8 23.5 24.2 24.9 25.6 26.3 27.0 27.7 28.4 29.1
20.3 21.0 21.7 22.4 23.1 23.8 24.5 25.2 25.9 26.6 27.3 28.0 28.7 29.4
20.6 21.3 22.0 22.7 23.4 24.1 24.8 25.5 26.2 26.9 27.6 28.3 29.0 29.7
20.9 21.6 22.3 23.0 23.7 24.4 25.1 25.8 26.5 27.2 27.9 28.6 29.3 30.0


(/lb)
16
17
18
19
co 20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30














Table 26.-Necessary selling price to break even at different initial and gain cost for a 800 Ib. steer fed to 1000 Ib. (0/lb.).

Cost Initial Cost (/lb)
of Gain


17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
16.8 17.6 18.4 19.2 20.0 20.8 21.6 22.4 23.2 24.0 24.8 25.6
17.0 17.8 18.6 19.4 20.2 21.0 21.8 22.6 23.4 24.2 25.0 25.8
17.2 18.0 18.8 19.6 20.4 21.2 22.0 22.8 23.6 24.4 25.2 26.0
17.4 18.2 19.0 19.8 20.6 21.4 22.2 23.0 23.8 24.6 25.4 26.2
17.6 18.4 19.2 20.0 20.8 21.6 22.4 23.2 24.0 24.8 25.6 26.4
17.8 18.6 19.4 20.2 21.0 21.8 22.6 23.4 24.2 25.0 25.8 26.6
18.0 18.8 19.6 20.4 21.2 22.0 22.8 23.6 24.4 25.2 26.0 26.8
18.2 19.0 19.8 20.6 21.4 22.2 23.0 23.8 24.6 25.4 26.2 27.0
18.4 19.2 20.0 20.8 21.6 22.4 23.2 24.0 24.8 25.6 26.4 27.2
18.6 19.4 20.2 21.0 21.8 22.6 23.4 24.2 25.0 25.8 26.6 27.4
18.8 19.6 20.4 21.2 22.0 22.8 23.6 24.4 25.2 26.0 26.8 27.6
19.0 19.8 20.6 21.4 22.2 23.0 23.8 24.6 25.4 26.2 27.0 27.8
19.2 20.0 20.8 21.6 22.4 23.2 24.0 24.8 25.6 26.4 27.2 28.0
19.4 20.2 21.0 21.8 22.6 23.4 24.2 25.0 25.8 26.6 27.4 28.2
19.6 20.4 21.2 22.0 22.8 23.6 24.4 25.2 26.0 26.8 27.6 28.4


(/lb)
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30


29 30















Table 27.-Maximum prices that can be paid to break even with 700 Ib. steer fed to 1000 Ib. at different selling prices and gain
. ( ... L (


Cost Selling Price (//lb)
of Gain
//lb) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30


24.6 26.0 27.4
24.1 25.6 27.0
23.7 25.1 26.6
23.3 24.7 26.1
22.9 24.3 25.7
22.4 23.9 25.3
22.0 23.4 24.9
21.6 23.0 24.4
21.2 22.6 24.0
20.7 22.4 23.6
20.3 21.7 23.4
19.9 21.3 22.7
19.4 20.9 22.3
19.0 20.4 21.9
18.6 20.0 21.4


28.8 30.3
28.4 29.8
28.0 29.4
27.6 29.0
27.1 28.6
26.7 28.1
26.3 27.7
25.9 27.3
25.4 26.9
25.0 26.4
24.6 26.0
24.2 25.6
23.7 25.2
23.3 24.7
22.9 24.3


31.7 33.2
31.3 32.7
30.8 32.3
30.4 31.8
30.0 31.4
29.6 31.0
29.1 30.6
28.7 30.1
28.3 29.7
27.9 29.3
27.4 28.9
27.0 28.4
26.6 28.0
26.2 27.6
25.7 27.2


16
17
18
19
m0 20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30














Table 28.-Maximum prices that can be paid to break even with 800 Ib. steer fed to 1000 Ib. at different selling prices and gain
costs (/lb.).

Cost Selling Price (0/lb)
nf Cain


16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
16.0 17.2 18.5 19.8 21.0 22.2 23.5 24.8 26.0 27.2 28.5 29.8 31.0 32.2 33.5
15.8 17.0 18.2 19.5 20.8 22.0 23.2 24.5 25.8 27.0 28.2 29.5 30.8 32.0 33.2
15.5 16.8 18.0 19.2 20.5 21.8 23.0 24.2 25.5 26.8 28.0 29.2 30.5 31.8 33.0
15.2 16.5 17.8 19.0 20.2 21.5 22.8 24.0 25.2 26.5 27.8 29.0 30.2 31.5 32.8
15.0 16.2 17.5 18.8 20.0 21.2 22.5 23.8 25.0 26.2 27.5 28.8 30.0 31.2 32.5
14.8 16.0 17.2 18.5 19.8 21.0 22.2 23.5 24.8 26.0 27.2 28.5 29.8 31.0 32.2
14.5 15.8 17.0 18.2 19.5 20.8 22.0 23.2 24.5 25.8 27.0 28.2 29.5 30.8 32.0
14.2 15.5 16.8 18.0 19.2 20.5 21.8 23.0 24.2 25.5 26.8 28.0 29.2 30.5 31.8
14.0 15.2 16.5 17.8 19.0 20.2 21.5 22.8 24.0 25.2 26.5 27.8 29.0 30.2 31.5
- 15.0 16.2 17.5 18.8 20.0 21.2 22.5 23.8 25.0 26.2 27.5 28.8 30.0 31.2
- 14.8 16.0 17.2 18.5 19.8 21.0 22.2 23.5 24.8 26.0 27.2 28.5 29.8 31.0
- 14.5 15.8 17.0 18.2 19.5 20.8 22.0 23.2 24.5 25.8 27.0 28.2 29.5 30.8
- 14.2 15.5 16.8 18.0 19.2 20.5 21.8 23.0 24.2 25.5 26.8 28.0 29.2 30.5
- 14.0 15.2 16.5 17.8 19.0 20.2 21.5 22.8 24.0 25.2 26.5 27.8 29.0 30.2
- 15.0 16.2 17.5 18.8 20.0 21.2 22.5 23.8 25.0 26.2 27.5 28.8 30.0


(/lb)
16
17
18
S 19
C 20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30






SUMMARY
The relationship of animal size and quality, pasture quality,
market price, stress factors, available feeds, and cost factors
with stocker programs on pasture have been discussed. Regard-
less of the program followed there is no substitute for good
management. The ability to buy and sell intelligently; the ex-
perience to properly evaluate pastures and cattle; the knowledge
of how to feed properly; the constant attention to small details
are all vital to a successful enterprise. None can be left out.
There is considerable potential in peninsular Florida for using
good quality pasture in steer-fattening or conditioning programs.
There will undoubtedly be refinements which will occur in this
practice as more information becomes available on fattening of
cattle and the management of various kinds of pastures. It is
possible that we may experience more favorable price structures
in feed stuffs or that in the future more feed stuffs may be grown
in Florida, but, until those changes occur, good quality pasture
should furnish the bulk of nutrients for cattle in Florida.







LITERATURE CITED

1. Baker, F. S., Jr. 1966. Steer wintering rations in north Florida. Fla.
Agr. Exp. Sta. Cir. S-174.
2. Brody, S. 1945. Bioenergetics and growth. Reinhold Publishing Corp.,
New York.
3. Carpenter, J. W., A. Z. Palmer, W. G. Kirk, F. M. Peacock, and M.
Koger. 1964. Slaughter and carcass characteristics of Brahman and
Brahman-Shorthorn steers. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bull. 680.
4. Chapman, H. L., Jr., A. Z. Palmer, R. W. Kidder, J. W. Carpenter, and
C. E. Haines. 1964. Oral and implanted stilbestrol for beef cattle
fattened on pasture and in drylot. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 666.
5. F. M. Peacock, W. G. Kirk, R. L. Shirley, and T. J.
Cunha. 1964. Supplemental feeding of beef cattle on pasture in south
Florida. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 665.
6. Cunha, T. J., M. Koger, and A. C. Warnick. 1962. Crossbreeding beef
cattle. Univ. of Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida.
7. R. L. Shirley, H. L. Chapman, Jr., C. B. Ammerman,
G. K. Davis, W. G. Kirk, and J. F. Hentges, Jr. 1964. Minerals for
beef cattle in Florida. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 683.
8. 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. Bull. 693.
9. Harris, R. R. 1965. Personal communication. Auburn Univ. Auburn,
Ala.
10. Malphrus, L. D., R. L. Edward, D. H. Kroph, and M. J. Marbist. Con-
sumer preference for beef produced on grass and grain or in drylot;
a comparison. So. Car. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 499.
11. Maynard, L. A., and J. K. Loosli. 1962. Animal Nutrition, 5th edition.
McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York.
(12. McCormick, W. C., D. W. Beardsley, and B. L. Southwell. 1962. Sys-
tems of utilizing small grain pastures in fattening beef steers. Ga.
Agr. Exp. Sta. Cir. N.S. 31.
13. O. M. Hale, and B. L. Southwell. Effects of stilbestrol
when fed or implanted on performance of steers fattened on pastures
and limited grain. Ga. Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bull. N.S. 23.
14. Morrison, F. B. Feeds and Feeding, 22nd edition. 1956. The Morrison
Publishing Co., Ithaca, New York.
15. National Academy of Sciences. 1963 Revised. Nutrient requirements of
beef cattle.
16. 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. Tech. Bull. 667.
17. W. G. Kirk, E. M. Hodges, A. F. Palmer, and J. W.
Carpenter. 1965. Influence of summer pasture, diethylstilbestrol and
shade on fattening cattle in south Florida. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech.
Bull. 700.
18. W. G. Kirk, and M. Koger. 1965. Effect of Brahman
breeding on performance of calves from weaning to feedlot. Fla. Agr.
Exp. Sta. Bull. 705.







19. J. E. McCaleb, E. M. Hodges, and W. G. Kirk. 1964.
Factors influencing winter gains of beef calves. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta.
Bull. 635.
20. Swift, R. W. 1957. The caloric value of TDN. J. Animal Sci. 16(4):
753-756.
21. Wheeler, R. F. 1965. Personal communication. Clemson University,
Clemson, S. C.
















































SIT O




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