• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Credits
 Table of Contents
 Introduction
 Statement of the problem
 Experimental methods
 Experimental feeds
 Presentation of data
 Discussion of results
 Summary
 Acknowledgement
 Literature cited
 Tables














Group Title: Bulletin - University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Stations ; no. 279
Title: The digestible nutrient content of napier grass silage, Crotalaria intermedia silage and natal grass hay
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027338/00001
 Material Information
Title: The digestible nutrient content of napier grass silage, Crotalaria intermedia silage and natal grass hay
Series Title: Bulletin University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station
Physical Description: 26 p. : ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Neal, W. M ( Wayne Miller ), 1905-
Becker, R. B ( Raymond Brown ), 1892-1989
Arnold, P. T. Dix, 1902-
Publisher: University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1935
 Subjects
Subject: Forage plants -- Composition   ( lcsh )
Silage -- Composition   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Bibliography: p. 25-26.
Statement of Responsibility: W.M. Neal, R.B. Becker and P.T. Dix Arnold.
General Note: Cover title.
Funding: Bulletin (University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station)
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027338
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 000924347
oclc - 18207311
notis - AEN4965

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page 1
    Credits
        Page 2
    Table of Contents
        Page 3
    Introduction
        Page 3
    Statement of the problem
        Page 4
    Experimental methods
        Page 5
        Page 6
    Experimental feeds
        Page 7
    Presentation of data
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
    Discussion of results
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
    Summary
        Page 15
    Acknowledgement
        Page 15
    Literature cited
        Page 15
        Page 16
    Tables
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
Full Text
if-i


Bulletin 279


May, 1935


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







THE
DIGESTIBLE NUTRIENT CONTENT

OF NAPIER GRASS SILAGE,
CROTALARIA INTERMEDIA SILAGE
AND NATAL GRASS HAY


W. M. NEAL, R. B. BECKER and P. T. Dix ARNOLD






TECHNICAL BULLETIN






UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA








EXECUTIVE STAFF

John J. Tigert, M.A., LL.D., President of the
University
Wilmon Newell, D.Sc., Director
H. Harold Hume, M.S., Asst. Dir., Research
Harold Mowry, M.S.A., Asst. Dir., Adm.
J. Francis Cooper, M.S.A., Editor
Clyde Beale, A.B.J., Assistant Editor
Jefferson Thomas, Assistant Editor
Ida Keeling Cresap, Librarian
Ruby Newhall, Administrative Manager
K. H. Graham, Business Manager
Rachel McQuarrie, Accountant

MAIN STATION, GAINESVILLE

AGRONOMY
W. E. Stokes, M.S., Agronomist**
W. A. Leukel, Ph.D., Agronomist
G. E. Ritchey, M.S.A., Associate*
Fred H. Hull, Ph.D., Associate
W. A. Carver, Ph.D., Associate
John P. Camp, M.S., Assistant

ANIMAL HUSBANDRY
A. L. Shealy, D.V.M., Animal Husbandman**
R. B. Becker, Ph.D., Dairy Husbandman
W. M. Neal, Ph.D., Associate in Animal
Nutrition
D. A. Sanders, D.V.M., Veterinarian
M. W. Emmel, D.V.M., Asst. Veterinarian
W. W. Henley, B.S.A., Assistant Animal
Husbandman
P. T. Dix Arnold, B.S.A., Assistant Dairy
Husbandman
CHEMISTRY AND SOILS
R. W. Ruprecht, Ph.D., Chemist**
R. M. Barnette. Ph.D., Chemist
C. E. Bell, Ph.D., Associate
R. B. French, Ph.D., Associate
H. W. Winsor, B.S.A., Assistant
H. W. Jones, M.S., Assistant
ECONOMICS, AGRICULTURAL
C. V. Noble, Ph.D., Agricultural Economist**
Bruce McKinley, A.B., B.S.A., Associate
Zach Savage, M.S.A., Associate
A. H. Spurlock, M.S.A., Assistant

ECONOMICS, HOME
Ouida Davis Abbott, Ph.D., Specialist**
L. W. Gaddum, Ph.D., Biochemist
C. F. Ahmann, Ph.D., Physiologist
J. T. Hall, Jr., B.S.Ch.E., Asst. Physiologist
ENTOMOLOGY
J. R. Watson, A.M., Entomologist**
A. N. Tissot, Ph.D., Associate
H. E. Bratley, M.S.A., Assistant
J. W. Kea, B.S.A., Assistant
HORTICULTURE
A. F. Camp, Ph.D., Horticulturist**
G. H. Blackmon, M.S.A., Horticulturist
A. L. Stahl, Ph.D., Associate
F. S. Jamison, Ph.D., Truck Horticulturist
R. J. Wilmot, M.S.A., Specialist, Fumigation
Research
R. D. Dickey, B.S.A., Assistant Horticulturist
PLANT PATHOLOGY
W. B. Tisdale, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist**
George F. Weber, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
R. K. Voorhees, M.S., Assistant
Erdman West, M.S., Mycologist
Lillian E. Arnold, M.S., Assistant Botanist

In cooperation with U.S.D.A.
** Head of Department.


BOARD OF CONTROL

Gee. H. Baldwin, Chairman, Jacksonville
A. H. Blanding, Bartow
A. H. Wagg, West Palm Beach
Oliver J. Semmes, Pensacola
Harry C. Duncan, Tavares
J. T. Diamond, Secretary, Tallahassee

BRANCH STATIONS

NORTH FLORIDA STATION, QUINCY
L. O. Gratz, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist in
Charge
R. R. Kincaid, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Pathologist
J. D. Warner, M.S., Agronomist
R. M. Crown, B.S.A., Asst. Agronomist
Jesse Reeves, Farm Superintendent

CITRUS STATION, LAKE ALFRED
John H. Jefferies, Superintendent
Geo. D. Ruehle, Ph.D., Associate Plant
Pathologist
W. A. Kuntz, A.M., Assoc. Plant Pathologist
B. R. Fudge, Ph.D., Associate Chemist
W. L. Thompson, B.S., Asst. Entomologist

EVERGLADES STATION, BELLE GLADE
A. Daane, Ph.D., Agronomist in Charge
R. N. Lobdell, M.S., Entomologist
F. D. Stevens, B.S., Sugarcane Agronomist
G. R. Townsend, Ph.D., Assistant Plant
Pathologist
J. R. Neller, Ph.D., Biochemist
R. W. Kidder, B.S., Assistant Animal
Husbandman
Ross E. Robertson, B.S., Assistant Chemist

SUB-TROPICAL STATION, HOMESTEAD
H. S. Wolfe, Ph.D., Horticulturist in Charge
W. M. Fifield, M.S., Asst. Horticulturist
Stacy O. Hawkins, M.A., Assistant Plant
Pathologist

WEST CENTRAL FLORIDA STATION,
BROOKSVILLE
E. W. Sheets, D.Agri., Animal Husbandman
in Charge*
W. F. Ward, M.S.A., Asst. An. Husbandman*

FIELD STATIONS

Leesburg
M. N. Walker, Ph.D.,. Plant Pathologist in
Charge
W. B. Shippy, Ph.D,. Asso. Plant Pathologist
K. W. Loucks, M.S., Asst. Plant Pathologist
J. W. Wilson, Ph.D., Associate Entomologist
C. C. Goff, M.S., Assistant Entomologist
Plant City
A. N. Brooks, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
R. E. Nolen, M.S.A., Asst. Plant Pathologist
Cocoa
A. S. Rhoads, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
Hastings
A. H. Eddins, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
Monticello
G. B. Fairchild, M.S., Assistant Entomologist
Bradenton
David G. Kelbert, Asst. Plant Pathologist
Sanford
E. R. Purvis. Ph.D., Assistant Chemist,
Celery Investigations









THE DIGESTIBLE NUTRIENT CONTENT OF NAPIER
GRASS SILAGE, CROTALARIA INTERMEDIA SILAGE*
AND NATAL GRASS HAY

W. M. NEAL, R. B. BECKER and P. T. Dix ARNOLD


CONTENTS
Page
Statement of the problem .. ... ......................... .............. 4
Experimental method's ........... .. .... ........ .................. ........... ........... 5
Experimental feeds ............. .............. ... ... ....... ......... 7
Presentaton of data ...... ...... ....... .. ........ ....... ............................ 7
Digestibility of the basal ration ..... ....................... 7
Digestibility of Napier grass silage ........ .... ... ............ ........ .............
Digestibility of Grotalaria intermedia silage ......... ... ..... ...................... ... ........ ..... 9
Digestibility of Natal grass hay........................ ......... .. .......... ......... 10
D discussion of results......................... ... .. .. .. .. ........ ..... ........ ............... 11
Sum m ary.. ~~....... ... ............... ....... .... .. ... ...... ....... ... .. ........... ......... 15
Literature cited ....................... ............ .... .... .......... ... .. ......... ..... ..... 15
Appendix tables ............... .............. ..... ..... ................................ 17


Many of the crops grown in the lower Coastal Plain area are
of tropical and sub-tropical types, some of which are not adapted
to other latitudes. An appreciable number of them have been
introduced from foreign lands having similar climate, but few
have been subjected to exact studies of their feeding value.
Three forage crops in the above category that are finding
increased use in the feeding of livestock are Napier grass, Natal
grass, and Crotalaria intermedia. The first, a perennial grass,
is adapted for silage and is being used in experimental feeding
of steers at this station. Napier grass also is used as a soiling
crop and as a pasture grass to a limited extent. Natal grass
is being used as hay in studies of nutrition at the Experiment
Station, and is fed at times to livestock in other parts of the
state. Crotalaria intermedia is a legume adapted to the lighter
sandy soils and matures in the late rainy season, so that it can
be preserved to best advantage as silage.
This report deals with the composition, coefficients of digesti-
bility, and digestible nutrients of Napier grass and C. intermedia

The study of Crotalaria intermedia silage was a part of a cooperative
investigation of the Crotalarias being conducted jointly by the Division of
Forage Crops and Diseases, Bureau of Plant Industry, United States
Department of Agriculture, and the Agronomy and Animal Husbandry
Departments of the Florida Agricultural Experiment Station. Mr. George
E. Ritchey was in charge locally for the Division of Forage Crops and
Diseases.









THE DIGESTIBLE NUTRIENT CONTENT OF NAPIER
GRASS SILAGE, CROTALARIA INTERMEDIA SILAGE*
AND NATAL GRASS HAY

W. M. NEAL, R. B. BECKER and P. T. Dix ARNOLD


CONTENTS
Page
Statement of the problem .. ... ......................... .............. 4
Experimental method's ........... .. .... ........ .................. ........... ........... 5
Experimental feeds ............. .............. ... ... ....... ......... 7
Presentaton of data ...... ...... ....... .. ........ ....... ............................ 7
Digestibility of the basal ration ..... ....................... 7
Digestibility of Napier grass silage ........ .... ... ............ ........ .............
Digestibility of Grotalaria intermedia silage ......... ... ..... ...................... ... ........ ..... 9
Digestibility of Natal grass hay........................ ......... .. .......... ......... 10
D discussion of results......................... ... .. .. .. .. ........ ..... ........ ............... 11
Sum m ary.. ~~....... ... ............... ....... .... .. ... ...... ....... ... .. ........... ......... 15
Literature cited ....................... ............ .... .... .......... ... .. ......... ..... ..... 15
Appendix tables ............... .............. ..... ..... ................................ 17


Many of the crops grown in the lower Coastal Plain area are
of tropical and sub-tropical types, some of which are not adapted
to other latitudes. An appreciable number of them have been
introduced from foreign lands having similar climate, but few
have been subjected to exact studies of their feeding value.
Three forage crops in the above category that are finding
increased use in the feeding of livestock are Napier grass, Natal
grass, and Crotalaria intermedia. The first, a perennial grass,
is adapted for silage and is being used in experimental feeding
of steers at this station. Napier grass also is used as a soiling
crop and as a pasture grass to a limited extent. Natal grass
is being used as hay in studies of nutrition at the Experiment
Station, and is fed at times to livestock in other parts of the
state. Crotalaria intermedia is a legume adapted to the lighter
sandy soils and matures in the late rainy season, so that it can
be preserved to best advantage as silage.
This report deals with the composition, coefficients of digesti-
bility, and digestible nutrients of Napier grass and C. intermedia

The study of Crotalaria intermedia silage was a part of a cooperative
investigation of the Crotalarias being conducted jointly by the Division of
Forage Crops and Diseases, Bureau of Plant Industry, United States
Department of Agriculture, and the Agronomy and Animal Husbandry
Departments of the Florida Agricultural Experiment Station. Mr. George
E. Ritchey was in charge locally for the Division of Forage Crops and
Diseases.






Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


silages and Natal grass hay. A summary of similar data for
dried grapefruit and orange cannery refuses (9)1, two other
new feeds, will be included in the discussion.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The Forage Crops Office of the Bureau of Plant Industry,
United States Department of Agriculture, has made a practice
of introducing plants that may be adapted to various parts of
this country. Florida has received many of these introductions.
Often these plants have not been cultivated previous to their
introduction, and therefore must be tested thoroughly before
they can be recommended for general use as feeds.
Among the points to be considered in the study of such new
crops are: their adaptation to soil and climate, resistance to
disease and pests, growth habits, yields, facility of production
and handling, methods of utilization, manner of preservation
depending on use, palatability to.livestock, possible toxicity,
composition, digestibility of the nutrients, and value of the
nutrients for productive purposes. The particular problems
undertaken in these studies were the determinations of the di-
gestible nutrients of Napier grass silage, C. intermedia silage
and Natal grass hay.
Descriptions2 of the crops follow:
Napier grass.-Pennisetum purpureum Schum. This species is native
to tropical Africa and was introduced into this country in 1913 by the
United States Department of Agriculture. It is a rank growing, cane-
like, non-saccharine perennial grass, developing clumps with many coarse,
leafy stalks. These stalks, as they approach maturity, branch from the
upper joints, sending up a fine, erect stem which bears a terminal seed-
spike. The seedspike is yellow when mature.
The usual method of propagation is by planting crown divisions, although
it may be done by means of seeds, canes, or mature joints. Plants are
spaced 18 to 24 inches apart in six-foot rows. Soils adapted to corn or
Japanese cane are suitable for this crop. The more fertile soils will produce
the heavier yields. This plant has a reputation for drouth resistance.
Napier grass has been recommended for a soiling crop, in which case
several cuttings can be made each season. When used as silage, the practice
has been to allow it to become more mature when yields of ten tons or more
per acre may be expected.

IFigures in parentheses (Italic) refer to "Literature Cited" in the back
of this bulletin.
2 Descriptions of Napier and Natal grasses are taken mainly from
Thompson (10), and of C. intermedia from McKee and Enlow (6).







Digestible Nutrient Content


Crotalaria intermedia Kotschy.-An introduction of this legume was
made in 1924, and accessioned as S.P.I. No. 60301, by the Bureau of Plant
Industry, United States Department of Agriculture. It is one of several
crotalarias introduced in an attempt to find a legume forage adapted to
the fine sandy loam soils of the coastal plains. It was found to be the most
palatable to cattle of those studied (2), with the exception of C. incana L.,
which was discarded because of insect attacks and poor seeding habits.
The taste is sweetish.
It is an upright, moderately branching and trifoliate annual. Flowers
are yellow, the standard conspicuously veined with purple. Seeds are about
one-eighth inch long and light in color. The stems become woody and many
of the leaves fall after the bloom stage. Mature height of the plant is six
to eight feet.
It is seeded at the rate of three pounds per acre in rows three feet wide
and cultivated much the same as corn. The high percentage of hard seeds
makes scarification desirable. Yields of three to ten tons of green material
have been obtained. If allowed to mature, it reseeds and volunteers a crop
the following year. Seed yields are at the rate of 300 to 500 pounds per
acre.
Crotalaria intermedia seems to be better adapted to making silage than
for use as either pasture or hay.
Natal grass.-Tricholaena rosea Nees. This South African grass is said
to have been brought to Florida as early as 1875. It is a tender perennial,
easily injured by cold, but if a part of the crop is allowed to mature seed,
it reseeds and acts as an annual. It grows to a height of two to three feet,
producing an abundance of leaves and tender stems. The seedhead is an
open panicle, at first pink or red in color, but fading to a lighter shade
and becoming downy at maturity. The wind borne seeds have spread this
plant over much of Florida. It has found favor as a cover crop in citrus
groves.
The principal advantage of Natal grass is its ability to grow on light
sandy soils where few other grasses will succeed. It is not used for pasture
where either carpet or bermuda grass will make satisfactory growth. For
hay, it should be cut in the early period of bloom. If the leaves begin to
dry and the stems have become woody, the resulting hay will be of poor
quality.
EXPERIMENTAL METHODS

Methods used in conducting the digestion trials were essen-
tially as recommended by Forbes and Grindley (3). The basal
ration per day consisted of one pound of prime cottonseed meal
and enough No. 1 federal grade alfalfa hay to supply slightly
more total digestible nutrients than required for maintenance
of each experimental animal. In the trials with each feed, one-
half of the alfalfa hay was replaced by the experimental feed.
In feeding, three pounds of silage replaced one pound of hay.
In every case the total ration provided an excess of digestible






Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


crude protein above the calculated requirements. Preliminary
periods were 10 days in length, and the experimental periods
consisted of four successive 5-day periods, except in the trials
with Napier grass silage which were only three 5-day periods.
Individual feedings for an entire trial were weighed into
separate paper bags on a solution balance, and samples were
taken before the beginning of the trial, except in the case of
the silages. The silages were weighed before the evening feed-
ing, and a one-kilo sample was taken each day. These were
dried and 5-day composite samples prepared.
Four steers (three Jerseys and one grade Hereford) ranging
in weight from 450 to 700 pounds were used in all trials. The
feed was given in two equal portions at 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
The steers were held in a dry lot for the first nine days of the
preliminary periods and then stanchioned in a barn. Water
was provided in buckets. Salt was offered in small boxes. Each
animal was brushed vigorously for one hour daily as a substitute
for exercise.
Feces were collected manually, and placed in covered galvan-
ized iron cans. The daily collections of feces were weighed,
mixed, and sampled separately at 9:00 a.m. each day. Twentieth
aliquots of each daily collection were taken in pyrex dishes, dried,
and used in the preparation of 5-day composite samples, for the
determination of the constituents other than nitrogen. Tripli-
cate five to 10 gram samples of the fresh feces were taken in
weighing bottles for daily determination of nitrogen, thus mini-
mizing nitrogen losses through the volatilization of ammonia.
Proximate analyses were made by methods of the Association
of Official Agricultural Chemists (1). Calcium, magnesium,
and phosphorus were determined by the method of Morris, Nel-
son, and Palmer (7).
Indirect calculations were made of the digestibility of the
nutrients. Coefficients of digestibility for cottonseed meal, as
compiled by Henry and Morrison (4), were used for that feed.
Coefficients for the alfalfa hay were calculated from the trial
on the basal ration of cottonseed meal and alfalfa hay, and were
used in the calculations with the Napier grass silage, C. inter-
media silage and Natal grass hay. The crude protein, as deter-
mined in the fresh feces, was used in all calculations to avoid
any error due to the volatilization of ammonia in the drying
process.






Digestible Nutrient Content


EXPERIMENTAL FEEDS
Alfalfa Hay.-The alfalfa hay used in these digestion trials
was purchased on the Kansas City market. It was second cutting
No. 1 federal grade.
Cottonseed Meal.-Prime, 41 percent.
Napier Grass Silage.-The crop was grown on low-lying sandy
soil and was a first year planting. It yielded 11.77 tons per acre
when ensiled October 12-14, 1933, in a trench silo 8 feet wide
at the bottom, 10 feet wide at the top, 9 feet deep, and 35 feet
long. The total yield of 31.05 tons was insufficient to fill the
silo to capacity. Some top spoilage and some "pocket" spoilage
occurred (thought to be due to yeast fermentation). The diges-
tion trials were conducted between January 31, and February
25, 1934.
C. intermedia Silage.-Grown cooperatively by the Forage
Crops Office, Bureau of Plant Industry, U. S. Department of
Agriculture, and the Agronomy Department of this station.
The crop was planted in rows three feet apart on a Norfolk
soil. Clean cultivation was practiced. It was harvested and
ensiled on September 12-13, 1933, when in the bud stage. The
yield was 3.6 to 7.4 tons per acre, more than corn would yield
on the same soil. The silo was opened on December 4, 1933 and
the digestion trials conducted between February 26 and March
29, 1934. The silage was being used concurrently in a double-
reversal feeding trial. It had a pungent odor, but there was
no indication of decay below the surface spoilage. It had a
lower dry matter content (27.13 percent) than once was con-
sidered essential for the ensiling of legumes (8), and was rela-
tively high in fiber content.
Natal Grass Hay.-Was grown on light Norfolk sandy soil
and was cut in September, 1932. It had a fair color but had
bleached some in curing and during the 22 months in storage.
Some heads contained mature seed.
PRESENTATION OF DATA
Digestibility of the Basal Ration.-Digestibility of nutrients
of alfalfa hay used in the basal ration was determined in the
third series of trials. No feed was refused by any of the ani-
mals, hence they maintained their weight or made slight gains.
Feed intakes per day, composition of the feeds, weight and com-
position of the feces, and digestibility of the nutrients by 5-day
periods are given in Appendix Tables A, B, D and E. Close






Digestible Nutrient Content


EXPERIMENTAL FEEDS
Alfalfa Hay.-The alfalfa hay used in these digestion trials
was purchased on the Kansas City market. It was second cutting
No. 1 federal grade.
Cottonseed Meal.-Prime, 41 percent.
Napier Grass Silage.-The crop was grown on low-lying sandy
soil and was a first year planting. It yielded 11.77 tons per acre
when ensiled October 12-14, 1933, in a trench silo 8 feet wide
at the bottom, 10 feet wide at the top, 9 feet deep, and 35 feet
long. The total yield of 31.05 tons was insufficient to fill the
silo to capacity. Some top spoilage and some "pocket" spoilage
occurred (thought to be due to yeast fermentation). The diges-
tion trials were conducted between January 31, and February
25, 1934.
C. intermedia Silage.-Grown cooperatively by the Forage
Crops Office, Bureau of Plant Industry, U. S. Department of
Agriculture, and the Agronomy Department of this station.
The crop was planted in rows three feet apart on a Norfolk
soil. Clean cultivation was practiced. It was harvested and
ensiled on September 12-13, 1933, when in the bud stage. The
yield was 3.6 to 7.4 tons per acre, more than corn would yield
on the same soil. The silo was opened on December 4, 1933 and
the digestion trials conducted between February 26 and March
29, 1934. The silage was being used concurrently in a double-
reversal feeding trial. It had a pungent odor, but there was
no indication of decay below the surface spoilage. It had a
lower dry matter content (27.13 percent) than once was con-
sidered essential for the ensiling of legumes (8), and was rela-
tively high in fiber content.
Natal Grass Hay.-Was grown on light Norfolk sandy soil
and was cut in September, 1932. It had a fair color but had
bleached some in curing and during the 22 months in storage.
Some heads contained mature seed.
PRESENTATION OF DATA
Digestibility of the Basal Ration.-Digestibility of nutrients
of alfalfa hay used in the basal ration was determined in the
third series of trials. No feed was refused by any of the ani-
mals, hence they maintained their weight or made slight gains.
Feed intakes per day, composition of the feeds, weight and com-
position of the feces, and digestibility of the nutrients by 5-day
periods are given in Appendix Tables A, B, D and E. Close






Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


agreement was secured between the results with the individual
animals.
Digestibility of Napier Grass Silage.-The silage used in the
trials had been cut at a rather mature stage of growth and stored
in a trench silo. Silage was removed from the end surface of
the silo each day. It was not protected from the rain, hence
slight variations occurred daily in the moisture content of the
silage. These variations tended to compensate. Refused feed
consisted of coarse pieces of stem. These stems were dried,
sampled and analyzed for calculating the correct nutrient intake.
The average composition of the three 5-day composite samples
of silage, the digestibility of the nutrients by three steers, and
the digestible nutrient content of the silage are given in Table 1.
Feed intakes per day, composition of the feeds, weights and
composition of the feeds refused, weights and composition of
the feces, and digestibility of the nutrients by 5-day periods,
are given in Appendix Tables A, B, C, D and F.
TABLE 1.-THE COMPOSITION, COEFFICIENTS OF DIGESTIBILITY, AND
DIGESTIBLE NUTRIENTS OF NAPIER GRASS SILAGE.
Dry Crude Crude I N-free Crude
Matter Protein I Fiber [Extract Fat Ash
percent percent percent ercperc percent percent
Composition................ 32.54 1.17 14.45 14.42 0.68 1.82
Steer
Coefficients of E-49 23.90 47.33 39.35 56.96
digestibility.......... E-50 30.76 51.25 39.83 76.75
E-51 32.55 51.83 41.38 60.38
Ave. 29.07 50.14 40.19 64.70
T.D.N.
Digestible nutrients ..... 0.34 7.25 5.80 0.44 14.38


The composition of the Napier grass silage was: 32.54 per-
cent dry matter, 1.17 percent crude protein, 14.45 percent crude
fiber, 14.42 percent nitrogen-free extract, 0.68 percent crude
fat, and 1.82 percent ash. The digestibility of the crude protein
by E-49, E-50 and E-51 varied from 23.90 to 32.55 percent, crude
fiber from 47.33 to 51.83 percent, nitrogen-free extract from
39.35 to 41.38 percent, and crude fat from 56.96 to 76.75 percent.
The results with E-52, given in Appendix Table F, were lower
for all constituents, the results for crude protein being negative.
The coefficients of digestibility by E-52 are not included, so that
the averages for the three remaining experimental animals are:






Digestible Nutrient Content


29.07 percent for protein, 50.14 percent for fiber, 40.19 percent
for nitrogen-free extract, and 64.70 percent for fat.
As determined from the above composition and digestibility,
the Napier grass silage contained 0.34 percent digestible crude
protein, 13.05 percent digestible carbohydrates, and 0.44 percent
digestible crude fat, or a total of 14.38 percent digestible nutri-
ents. Per hundredweight of dry matter, this amounts to 1.05
pounds of digestible crude protein and 44.16 pounds of total
digestible nutrients.
Digestibility of Crotalaria intermedia Silage.-The crop was
in the bud stage but rapidly becoming fibrous when it was
ensiled in an upright silo 10 feet in diameter and 20 feet high.
About half of the silage had been fed prior to the beginning
of the digestion trials, and several feet of silage remained at
the end. Thus, none of the silage near the surface that had
undergone excessive fermentation, nor that near the bottom
containing leachings from the upper part of the silo, was used
in the digestion trials. It was representative of the bulk of the
contents of the silo. Only one animal refused any portion of
the feed, E-51 leaving some coarse stems that were weighed
back, analyzed, and the nutrients deducted from the nutrients
offered. This occurred in each of the 5-day experimental periods.
The average composition of the four 5-day composite samples
of silage, digestibility of the nutrients by each of the four steers,
and digestible nutrient content of the silage are given in Table 2.
Feed intakes per day, composition of the feeds, weight and
composition of feed refusal by E-51, weight and composition of
the feces, and digestibility of the nutrients by 5-day periods are
given in Appendix Tables A, B, C, D and G.
TABLE 2.-THE COMPOSITION, COEFFICIENTS OF DIGESTIBILITY, AND
DIGESTIBLE NUTRIENTS OF Crotalaria intermedia SILAGE.
Dry Crude Crude N-free Crude J
Matter Protein Fiber Extract Fat Ash
Percent | percent I percent percent |percent I percent
Composition................. 27.13 3.30 12.52 8.34 0.77 2.20
Steer
Coefficients of E-49 62.02 26.20 36.10 65.25
digestibility..... ......... E-50 63.93 32.82 41.87 73.26
E-51 65.79 40.09 45.16 61.69
E-52 59.75 31.74 39.15 67.49
Ave. 62.87 32.71 40.57 66.92
T.D.N.
Digestible nutrients......' 2.08 4.10 3.38 0.52 10.72






Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


The composition of C. intermedia silage was: 27.13 percent
dry matter, 3.30 percent crude protein, 12.52 percent crude fiber,
8.34 percent nitrogen-free extract, 0.77 percent crude fat and
2.20 percent ash. Even with 5 percent less dry matter, this
legume silage contained nearly three times as much crude pro-
tein as did Napier grass silage. The digestibility of the crude
protein varied with the individual steers from 59.75 to 65.79
percent, the crude fiber from 26.20 to 40.09 percent, the nitrogen-
free extract from 36.10 to 45.16 percent, and the crude fat from
61.69 to 73.26 percent. Averages were: 62.87 percent of crude
protein, 32.71 percent of crude fiber, 40.57 percent of nitrogen-
free extract, and 66.92 percent of crude fat. Most variation
was observed in the digestibility of the crude fiber and nitrogen-
free extract. The agreement among the four steers in regard
to crude protein digestibility was excellent. The crude fiber
of this silage was less digestible and the nitrogen-free extract
equally digestible as compared with Napier grass silage.
The nutrients in the C. intermedia silage as calculated from
the above composition and digestibility were: 2.08 percent di-
gestible crude protein, 7.48 percent digestible carbohydrates,
0.52 percent digestible crude fat, or 10.72 percent total digestible
nutrients. On a dry matter basis, this is equivalent to 7.66
percent digestible crude protein and 39.48 percent total digestible
nutrients.
Digestibility of Natal Grass Hay.-Three steers consumed
the experimental rations completely, while the other refused
only a small amount of hay in the first 5-day period. The com-
position of the Natal grass hay, digestibility of the nutrients
by each of the four steers, and the digestible nutrients of the
hay are given in Table 3. Feed intakes per day, composition
of the feeds, weight and composition of feed refused by E-49
in the first 5-day period, weight and composition of the feces,
and digestibility of the nutrients by 5-day periods, are given in
Appendix Tables A, B, C, D and H.
The composition of the Natal grass hay was: 92.54 percent
dry matter, 3.66 percent crude protein, 39.49 percent crude fiber,
43.12 percent nitrogen-free extract, 1.44 percent crude fat, and
4.83 percent ash. The calcium and phosphorus contents were
0.54 and 0.26 percent respectively, which are rather high for
a grass hay. Digestibility coefficients for the nutrients varied
for the individual steers from -2.11 to 15.12 percent for crude
protein, 56.17 to 63.13 percent for crude fiber, 49.53 to 53.25 per-
cent for nitrogen-free extract, and 60.22 to 72.89 percent for






Digestible Nutrient Content


crude fat. Respective averages were: 8.16 percent (crude pro-
tein), 59.34 percent (crude fiber), 51.85 percent (nitrogen-free
extract), and 68.64 percent (crude fat). The results were con-
sistent for all the nutrients except crude protein, variation in
which case could be explained by the low protein content of the
hay. The low protein content is associated with the mature
stage of growth reached by the grass before the rainy season
subsided sufficiently to allow the curing of hay.
TABLE 3.-THE COMPOSITION, COEFFICIENTS OF DIGESTIBILITY, AND
DIGESTIBLE NUTRIENTS OF NATAL GRASS HAY.
MDry Crude Crude I N-free Crude
Matter Protein Fiber Extract Fat Ash
Percent I percent I percent Ipercent percent I percent

Composition ................... 92.54 3.66 39.49 43.12 1.44 4.83
Steer
Coefficients of E-49 7.35 59.87 52.79 60.22
digestibility.......... E-50 15.12 58.18 53.25 68.81
E-51 12.29 63.13 51.82 72.64
E-52 -2.11 56.17 49.53 72.89
Ave. 8.16 59.34 51.85 68.64
T.D.N.
Digestible nutrients...... 0.29 23.43 22.36 0.99 48.31

Digestible nutrients in the hay, calculated from the above
composition and digestibility, amounted to 0.29 percent crude
protein, 45.79 percent carbohydrates, 0.99 percent crude fat, or
48.31 percent total digestible nutrients. Or, the Natal grass hay
used in these trials contained 52.20 pounds of total digestible
nutrients per hundredweight of dry matter.

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
No difficulty was experienced in getting the animals to eat
the experimental rations. In general, satisfactory agreement
between the different animals and successive 5-day periods was
secured, except in the trials with Napier grass silage. In trials
with this feed, the results with only three of the animals were
consistent, hence the results with the other animal (E-52) were
not used in the calculations concerning this feed. All the trials
represented 80 steer-days, except the Napier grass silage trials
which totalled 45 steer-days.
Greatest discrepancies appeared in those instances where the
intake of the particular feed constituent from the experimental
feed was but a small fraction of the total intake of that con-








TABLE 4.-THE COMPOSITION, COEFFICIENTS OF DIGESTIBILITY AND DIGESTIBLE NUTRIENTS OF THE EXPERIMENTAL FEEDS, AS
COMPARED WITH THOSE OF SIMILAR STANDARD FEEDS.


Number
of
Analyse
or
Trials


KIND OF FEED


Napier grass silage-...........................
Corn silage, well matured*...............

Crotalaria intermedia silage ...............
Soybean silage, Florida analyses........
Alfalfa hay*..................... .........

Natal grass hay..............................
Timothy hay, all analyses* ...................

Grapefruit refuse, dried.......................
Dried orange peel...........................
Beet pulp, dried*... ...............

Napier grass silage........................
Corn silage, well matured*....................

Crotalaria intermedia silage..............
Soybean silage***--...........................
Alfalfa hay*.. ....................................

Natal grass hay....... .......................
Timothy hay........................

Grapefruit refuse, dried**......... ....
Dried orange peel**........................
Beet pulp, dried*............. .....


s
Dry Crude Crude
Matter Protein Fiber
I percent I percent I percent
COMPOSITION OF THE FEED
32.54 1.17 14.45
26.30 2.10 6.30

27.13 3.30 12.52
24.73 2.24 10.03
91.40 14.90 28.30

92.54 3.36 39.49
88.40 6.20 29.80

91.77 4.94 11.94
86.05 5.84 10.64
91.80 8.90 18.90
COEFFICIENTS OF DIGESTIBILITY
29.07 50.14
51. 65.

62.87 32.71
55.3 42.9
71. 43.

8.16 59.34
48. 50.

24.83 71.52
36.57 93.91
52. 83.


N-free
Extract
percent

14.42
15.40

8.34
9.08
37.30

43.12
45.00

69.60
64.74
59.60

40.19
71.

40.57
61.2
72.

51.85
62.

92.43
88.51
83.


On Dry Basis

Crude Crude
Fat Ash Protein T.D.N.
I percent percent percent percent


0.68
.80

.77
.74
2.30

1.44
2.50

1.06
.69
.90

64.70
82.

66.92
48.9
38.

68.64
50.

79.37
66.59











TABLE 4.-THE COMPOSITION, COEFFICIENTS OF DIGESTIBILITY AND DIGESTIBLE NUTRIENTS OF THE EXPERIMENTAL FEEDS, AS
COMPARED WITH THOSE OF SIMILAR STANDARD FEEDS.-Continued.


KIND OF FEED


Number
of
Analyses
or
Trials
I I


Napier grass silage..-..---.... -------.
Corn silage, well matured-.................

Crotalaria intermedia silage----......
Soybean silage.--....-----------
Alfalfa hay---....... ------------------

Natal grass hay............... ----------
Timothy hay....................--....----------

Grapefruit refuse, dried...................--
Dried orange peel.......................-...........
Beet pulp, dried......---.....---------- -
Henry and Morrison (4).
** Neal, Becker and Arnold (9).
*** Hopkins (5).


Dry Crude Crude
Matter Protein Fiber
percent I percent I percent
DIGESTIBLE NUTRIENTS


.34
1.07

2.08
1.24
9.09

.29
2.98

1.23
2.14
4.63


7.25
4.10

4.10
4.30
12.17

23.43
14.90

8.54
9.99
15.69


N-free
Extract
I percent

5.80
10.93

3.38
5.57
26.86

22.36
27.90

64.33
57.30
49.47


Crude
Fat
percent

.44
.66

.52
.36
.87

.99
1.25

.84
.05


Ash
percent
T.D.N.
14.38
17.59

10.72
11.92
50.08

48.31
48.59

75.99
69.55
69.79


On Dry Basis

Crude I
Protein I T.D.N.
Percent percent


44.16
66.88

39.48
48.20
54.79

52.22
54.97

82.80
80.82
76.02





Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


stituent from the entire ration. This may be a partial explana-
tion of the apparently low digestibility of the crude protein of
both Napier grass silage and Natal grass hay. However, in
actual practice, even as in the digestion trials, such feeds are
not relied upon as sources of digestible crude protein. The error
introduced on this account into the calculation of the total di-
gestible nutrient content of the feed is relatively small.
Napier grass silage, harvested as the seed heads began to
appear, was low in crude protein and high in crude fiber. A
high fiber content is presumed to depress the digestibility of
forages. This appears to have been the case in this instance
as seen when the nutrient content of this Napier grass silage is
compared with that of corn silage in Table 4, being most appar-
ent when the nutrients are computed to a dry matter basis.
Harvest of the C. intermedia was delayed in 1933 by heavy
rains so that the crop became more fibrous than desired. The
high fiber content of this plant at such a stage of maturity
appears again to have depressed the digestibility of the nutri-
ents, as seen in the comparison with soybean silage at the
Florida station, and with alfalfa hay. In common with other
legumes, it contained a considerable proportion of crude protein
in the dry matter, as compared with grasses.
Both C. intermedia silage cut at the same stage of growth,
and hay cut more mature, proved unsatisfactory as sole feeds
in earlier feeding trials. In another study, C. intermedia was
ensiled at four different stages of maturity. Cattle refused only
0.8 percent of that ensiled in the pre-bud stage, as compared
with 33.2 percent of that ensiled in the early bloom stage. This
plant increases quite rapidly in fiber content as it comes into
bloom.
Natal grass, of necessity, is harvested and cured into hay
at the close of the summer rainy season. Its habits of growth
are such that there are new blooms and a few mature seeds
on this plant in September. When cut at such a stage of ma-
turity, the fiber content is high, this usually being associated
with a depressed digestibility of the major nutrients. In this
instance the total digestible nutrients were only slightly below
those of timothy hay, while the digestible crude protein was
quite low.
The dried grapefruit and orange cannery refuses were dis-
cussed in detail in Florida bulletin 275. It may be pointed out
that these were fully equal to dried beet pulp in total digestible
nutrients. Their content of digestible crude protein is negligible.






Digestible Nutrient Content


SUMMARY
Napier grass, harvested as the seedspikes began to appear,
was low in crude protein and high in crude fiber. The silage
provided 0.34 percent of digestible crude protein and 14.38 per-
cent of total digestible nutrients. On the dry matter basis, it
provided only two-thirds as much total digestible nutrients as
corn silage.
Crotalaria intermedia harvested in the bud and early bloom
stage made palatable silage of good protein content but high
in fiber. It contained 2.08 percent digestible crude protein and
10.72 percent total digestible nutrients. Undoubtedly, this
legume should be harvested in the pre-bud or early bud stage
to make a higher quality feed.
Late-cut Natal grass hay was low in digestible crude protein,
but practically equal to timothy hay in total digestible nutrients.
Dried grapefruit and orange cannery refuses contain only
half as much crude protein as dried beet pulp, and were only
about one-half as digestible, due perhaps to the heat treatment
in the drying process. However, they exceed beet pulp in total
digestible nutrients, hence may be looked upon as important
energy-yielding feeding by-products.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Acknowledgments are made to Herbert Henley who cared for
the steers on digestion trials; to the late Arlington Henley, J. H.
Warrington, S. L. Mimms, and Jefferson Davis for manual col-
lection of the feces; and to W. T. Dunn, L. L. Rusoff, and I. I.
Rusoff for aid in analyses of the feed and feces samples. Three
Jersey steers were loaned to the Experiment Station by J. L.
Taylor for use in these digestion trials.

LITERATURE CITED
1. Association of Official Agricultural Chemists. Official and tentative
methods of analysis. Ed. 2, 535 p. illus. Washington, D. C. 1925.
2. BECKER, R. B., W. M. NEAL, P. T. Dix ARNOLD and A. L. SHEALY. A
study of the palatability and possible toxicity of eleven species of
Crotalaria, especially the toxicity of C. spectabilis Roth. Jour. Agr.
Res. 50: 911-922. 1935.
3. FORBES, E.B., and H. S. GRINDLEY. On the formulation of methods of
experimentation in animal production. Bul. Natl. Research Council,
Vol. 6, Part 2, No. 33: 17-27. 1923.
4. HENRY, W. A., and F. B. MORRISON. Feeds and feeding. 18th Ed.,
illus. Henry-Morrison Company, Madison, Wis. Pages 709-743. 1923.






Digestible Nutrient Content


SUMMARY
Napier grass, harvested as the seedspikes began to appear,
was low in crude protein and high in crude fiber. The silage
provided 0.34 percent of digestible crude protein and 14.38 per-
cent of total digestible nutrients. On the dry matter basis, it
provided only two-thirds as much total digestible nutrients as
corn silage.
Crotalaria intermedia harvested in the bud and early bloom
stage made palatable silage of good protein content but high
in fiber. It contained 2.08 percent digestible crude protein and
10.72 percent total digestible nutrients. Undoubtedly, this
legume should be harvested in the pre-bud or early bud stage
to make a higher quality feed.
Late-cut Natal grass hay was low in digestible crude protein,
but practically equal to timothy hay in total digestible nutrients.
Dried grapefruit and orange cannery refuses contain only
half as much crude protein as dried beet pulp, and were only
about one-half as digestible, due perhaps to the heat treatment
in the drying process. However, they exceed beet pulp in total
digestible nutrients, hence may be looked upon as important
energy-yielding feeding by-products.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Acknowledgments are made to Herbert Henley who cared for
the steers on digestion trials; to the late Arlington Henley, J. H.
Warrington, S. L. Mimms, and Jefferson Davis for manual col-
lection of the feces; and to W. T. Dunn, L. L. Rusoff, and I. I.
Rusoff for aid in analyses of the feed and feces samples. Three
Jersey steers were loaned to the Experiment Station by J. L.
Taylor for use in these digestion trials.

LITERATURE CITED
1. Association of Official Agricultural Chemists. Official and tentative
methods of analysis. Ed. 2, 535 p. illus. Washington, D. C. 1925.
2. BECKER, R. B., W. M. NEAL, P. T. Dix ARNOLD and A. L. SHEALY. A
study of the palatability and possible toxicity of eleven species of
Crotalaria, especially the toxicity of C. spectabilis Roth. Jour. Agr.
Res. 50: 911-922. 1935.
3. FORBES, E.B., and H. S. GRINDLEY. On the formulation of methods of
experimentation in animal production. Bul. Natl. Research Council,
Vol. 6, Part 2, No. 33: 17-27. 1923.
4. HENRY, W. A., and F. B. MORRISON. Feeds and feeding. 18th Ed.,
illus. Henry-Morrison Company, Madison, Wis. Pages 709-743. 1923.






Digestible Nutrient Content


SUMMARY
Napier grass, harvested as the seedspikes began to appear,
was low in crude protein and high in crude fiber. The silage
provided 0.34 percent of digestible crude protein and 14.38 per-
cent of total digestible nutrients. On the dry matter basis, it
provided only two-thirds as much total digestible nutrients as
corn silage.
Crotalaria intermedia harvested in the bud and early bloom
stage made palatable silage of good protein content but high
in fiber. It contained 2.08 percent digestible crude protein and
10.72 percent total digestible nutrients. Undoubtedly, this
legume should be harvested in the pre-bud or early bud stage
to make a higher quality feed.
Late-cut Natal grass hay was low in digestible crude protein,
but practically equal to timothy hay in total digestible nutrients.
Dried grapefruit and orange cannery refuses contain only
half as much crude protein as dried beet pulp, and were only
about one-half as digestible, due perhaps to the heat treatment
in the drying process. However, they exceed beet pulp in total
digestible nutrients, hence may be looked upon as important
energy-yielding feeding by-products.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Acknowledgments are made to Herbert Henley who cared for
the steers on digestion trials; to the late Arlington Henley, J. H.
Warrington, S. L. Mimms, and Jefferson Davis for manual col-
lection of the feces; and to W. T. Dunn, L. L. Rusoff, and I. I.
Rusoff for aid in analyses of the feed and feces samples. Three
Jersey steers were loaned to the Experiment Station by J. L.
Taylor for use in these digestion trials.

LITERATURE CITED
1. Association of Official Agricultural Chemists. Official and tentative
methods of analysis. Ed. 2, 535 p. illus. Washington, D. C. 1925.
2. BECKER, R. B., W. M. NEAL, P. T. Dix ARNOLD and A. L. SHEALY. A
study of the palatability and possible toxicity of eleven species of
Crotalaria, especially the toxicity of C. spectabilis Roth. Jour. Agr.
Res. 50: 911-922. 1935.
3. FORBES, E.B., and H. S. GRINDLEY. On the formulation of methods of
experimentation in animal production. Bul. Natl. Research Council,
Vol. 6, Part 2, No. 33: 17-27. 1923.
4. HENRY, W. A., and F. B. MORRISON. Feeds and feeding. 18th Ed.,
illus. Henry-Morrison Company, Madison, Wis. Pages 709-743. 1923.






16 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

5. HOPKINS, C. G. Composition and digestibility of corn ensilage, cowpea
ensilage, soja bean ensilage and corn fodder. Ill. Agr. Exp. Sta.
Bul. 43: 181-208. 1896.

6. McKEE, R., and C. R. ENLOW. Crotalaria, a new legume for the south.
U. S. Dept. Agr. Circ. 137: 1-30. 1931.
7. MORRIs, I. P., J. W. NELSON and L. S. PALMER. Quantitative determi-
nations of calcium, magnesium and phosphorus in feedstuffs and
cattle excreta. Indus. and Engin. Chem., Anal. Ed. 3: 164-167. 1931.

8. NEAL, W. M., and R. B. BECKER. A chemical study of ensiling soybeans.
Jour. Agr. Res. 46: 669-673. 1933.
9. NEAL, W. M., R. B. BECKER and P. T. Dix ARNOLD. The feeding value
and nutritive properties of citrus by-products. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta.
Bul. 275: 3-26. 1935.

10. THOMPSON, J. B. Some Florida grasses. Fla. Agr. Ext. Bul. 28: 2-42.
1921.






Digestible Nutrient Content


APPENDIX

TABLE A.-FEED INTAKE PER DAY OF STEERS USED IN DETERMINING THE
DIGESTIBILITY OF THE BASAL RATION, OF NAPIER GRASS SILAGE, OF
Crotalaria intermedia SILAGE, AND NATAL GRASS HAY.

Alfalfa Hay Cottonseed Meal Experimental Feed
Animal Trial Period
Number Number Number Amount Sample Amount Sample Amount I Sample
Pounds number pounds [ number pounds number

E-49 21 8.0 855 1.0 856
E-50 22 10.0 1.0
E-51 23 10.0 1.0
E-52 24 6.0 1.0

Napier Silage

E-49 13 I 4.0 628 1.0 629 12.0 646
II 4.0 1.0 12.0 647
III 4.0 1.0 12.0 648
E-50 14 I 5.0 1.0 15.0 646
II 5.0 1.0 15.0 647
III 5.0 1.0 15.0 648
E-51 15 I 5.0 1.0 ( 15.0 646
II 5.0 1.0 15.0 647
III 5.0 1.0 15.0 648
E-52 16 I 3.0 1.0 9.0 646
II 3.0 1.0 9.0 647
III 3.0 1.0 9.0 648

Crotalaria Silage


E-49



E-50


E-51


E-52


17


18


19


20


I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV
I
II
III
IV


1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0


Natal Grass Hay

E-49 .29 4.0 1111 1.0 1113 4.0 1112
E-50 30 5.0 1.0 5.0
E-51 31 5.0 1.0 5.0 "
E-52 32 3.0 1.0 3.0










TABLE B.-THE COMPOSITION OF THE FEEDS USED IN THE DIGESTION TRIALS.


SSample
Kind of Feed Number


Alfalfa hay, No. 1....................... 628
725
855
1111
Cottonseed meal...................... 629
726
856
1113

Napier grass silage.................. 646
647
648

Crotalaria intermedia silage...... 747
748
749
750

Natal grass hay.......................... 1112

Grapefruit refuse.......................... 1013

Dried orange peel................... 1212


I -
Dry Crude
Matter Protein
percent Ipercent

92.76 15.20
91.14 16.89
92.93 14.03
92.73 15.24

91.54 41.59
91.74 41.04
93.55 41.69
93.24 44.28

31.43 3.48
32.67 3.73
33.53 3.62

29.20 12.79
28.07 12.56
26.35 11.91
24.91 11.45

92.54 3.96

91.77 5.38

86.05 6.79


Composition of Dry Matter
Crude N-free Crude
Fiber Extract Fat Ash Ca
percent [ percent percent percent I percent

30.53 43.54 1.76 8.97 1.406
27.61 43.72 1.82 9.96 1.525
33.18 43.73 1.83 7.23 1.317
30.67 43.38 1.89 8.82 1.383

13.95 29.70 7.92 6.84 .227
12.58 32.07 7.79 6.52 .226
12.24 32.78 7.27 6.02 .230
12.56 30.25 6.53 6.38 .232

45.07 44.03 2.02 5.40 .290
43.46 44.57 2.10 6.14 .296
44.67 44.33 2.11 5.27 .289

48.64 31.43 2.92 4.22 .795
44.28 31.91 2.74 8.51 .779
46.82 29.53 2.74 9.00 .792
44.91 30.06 2.90 10.68 .774

42.67 46.59 1.56 5.22 .586

13.01 75.84 1.16 4.61 .787

12.37 75.24 .80 4.80 .725


Mg P
percent percent
-----3.
0.258 0.246 -
.300 .297
.126 .396
.180 .261 ?

.487 1.045
.307 1.045
.172 1.097
.460 1.062

.181 .284
.178 .307
.183 .304

.204 .236
.204 .256
.214 .242
.200 .223 ,

.310 .284

.288 .100

.252 .107













TABLE C.-THE WEIGHT AND COMPOSITION OF FEED REFUSED BY THE STEERS DURING THE DIGESTION TRIALS.

S5-Day Composition of Dry Matter
Animal Trial Period Feed Dry Crude Crude N-free Crude
Number Number Number Refused Matter Ash Protein Fiber Extract Fat
grams percent ] percent I percent percent percent percent
Basal Ration Plus Napier Grass Silage ____

E-49 13 I 65 92.63 4.92 5.60 44.31 43.95 1.22
E-50 14 I 17 92.44 3.84 4.15 49.68 41.32 1.01
E-51 15 I 2,306 92.93 6.89 9.02 38.35 43.75 1.99
II 356 92.95 5.44 7.48 44.06 41.16 1.86

Basal Ration Plus Crotalaria intermedia Silage

E-51 19 I 743 93.67 5.07 13.23 45.62 33.90 2.18
II 253 94.08 3.28 8.99 55.72 31.07 .94
III 173 93.52 3.33 8.82 54.22 32.65 .98 M"
IV 377 93.74 7.82 10.95 49.45 30.14 1.64

Basal Ration Plus Natal Grass Hay

E-49 29 I 141 91.71 5.34 6.96 44.91 41.56 1.23
_______








TABLE D.-THE WEIGHT AND COMPOSITION OF FECES FROM THE STEERS DURING THE DIGESTION TRIALS.

5-Day Total Composition of Dry Matter
Animal Trial Period Fresh Crude Dry Crude Crude N-free Crude
Number Number Number Feces Protein Matter Ash I Protein Fiber Extract Fat
Sgrams percent I percent percent I percent percent percent percent '1
Basal Ration
E-49 21 I 36,365 2.766 22.59 20.93 10.47 38.12 26.27 3.81
II 36,785 2.739 23.25 15.30 10.59 41.50 28.73 3.88
III 37,655 2.634 23.27 11.20 9.90 44.60 30.56 3.68
IV 39,363 2.477 22.99 10.42 10.09 48.22 27.34 3.93 3
E-50 22 I 47,644 2.838 23.62 26.26 10.76 35.22 24.27 3.49
II 48,141 2.758 21.11 12.48 11.40 42.93 29.39 3.80
III 51,947 2.488 21.30 10.57 10.65 44.39 30.52 3.87
IV 57,406 2.337 20.62 8.78 10.14 49.33 28.08 3.67
E-51 23 I 42,602 2.910 23.86 20.63 12.06 37.57 25.39 4.35
II 43,284 2.812 21.32 14.19 12.31 40.38 29.39 3.73
III 42,923 2.824 20.56 12.80 12.14 40.77 30.14 4.15
IV 47,077 2.662 20.66 11.73 11.12 42.89 30.29 3.97
E-52 24 I 31,016 2.613 21.83 26.94 10.55 37.94 21.22 3.35
II 34,917 2.507 19.13 13.75 11.09 42.59 28.97 3.60
III 36,588 2.362 18.20 10.28 10.68 47.58 27.73 3.73 C
IV 44,219 2.116 17.71 10.84 10.57 47.28 27.90 3.41 q

Basal Ration Plus Napier Grass Silage
E-49 13 I 40,590 2.084 22.88 11.68 8.31 40.16 37.29 2.56
II 42,516 2.108 22.83 8.73 8.43 41.13 39.14 2.57
III 43,081 2.029 21.94 9.17 8.27 41.36 38.84 2.46







TABLE D.-THE WEIGHT AND COMPOSITION OF FECES FROM THE STEERS DURING THE DIGESTION TRIALS.-Continued.


5-Day Total Com
Animal Trial Period Fresh Crude Dry Crud
Number Number Number Feces Protein Matter Ash Prote
grams percent percent I percent percel

E-50 14 I 46,965 2.189 24.01 10.88 8.2
II 52,366 2.021 22.65 9.10 7.8
III 51,567 1.939 21.13 8.11 8.2

E-51 15 I 41,745 2.079 23.58 9.14 8.4
II 51,639 2.025 22.92 9.46 8.3
III 50,183 2.002 21.76 9.93 8.3

E-52 16 I 36,674 2.132 21.11 9.59 9.2
II 35,983 2.144 20.63 7.96 9.1
III 40,082 1.941 17.92 8.10 9.4

Basal Ration Plus Crotalaria intermedia Silage

E-49 17 I 43,782 2.571 22.71 14.83 10.0
II 46,122 2.162 19.52 8.62 11.1
III 46,174 2.251 19.97 10.30 10.9
IV 39,065 2.300 21.14 11.84 10.8

E-50 18 I 47,565 2.608 23.25 15.84 11.0
II 1 50,119 2.543 21.24 9.51 11.1
III 50,405 2.325 21.41 10.58 10.4
IV 49,100 2.375 21.40 11.98 10.3

E-51 19 I 49,925 2.561 22.04 15.82 11.4
II 48,028 2.415 19.84 9.13 11.7
III 51,975 2.227 19.81 12.10 10.i
IV 51,062 2.189 18.59 9.88 10.7
___________ 1______________________ __________ 1_________ -__________ -____


positionn of Dry
e Crude
in Fiber
nt I percent

7 39.95
8 40.50
2 41.57

2 40.03
0 41.60
6 40.52

2 39.08
3 40.29
0 40.94



10 42.54
5 46.85
'7 46.60
0 45.76

8 44.12
0 45.92
,3 45.42
14 44.62

10 40.12
'9 43.69
i5 45.52
'8 46.62


Matter
N-free
Extract
percent

38.93
40.26
39.65

39.83
38.06
38.52

39.34
40.29
39.26



30.11
30.54
29.64
29.08

26.49
30.96
31.19
30.29

29.51
32.06
29.02
30.05


Crude
Fat
percent

1.97
2.26
2.45

2.58
2.58 co
2.67

2.77
2.33
2.30



2.52 0
2.84
2.49
2.52

2.47
2.51
2.38
2.77

3.15
3.33
2.71
2.67









TABLE D.-THE WEIGHT AND COMPOSITION OF FECES FROM THE STEERS DURING THE DIGESTION TRIALS.-Concluded.


Animal Trial
Number Number


E-52


E-49



E-50



E-51



E-52


5-Day
Period
Number


Total
Fresh Crude Dry
Feces Protein Matter
grams I percent percent

34,987 2.412 19.09
30,920 2.550 20.38
33,891 2.373 20.34
35,479 2.275 19.21

Basal Ration Plus Natal Gr


35,746
36,538
37,293
39,610

51,470
50,592
51,950
48,148

47,487
55,952
51,574
57,328

31,833
37,700
36,823
35,332


2.667
2.635
2.500
2.379

2.224
2.234
2.155
2.233

2.328
2.148
2.143
1.926

2.374
2.095
2.060
2.234


22.67
22.88
22.89
22.21

21.58
21.86
19.45
20.43

21.25
19.86
19.43
17.73

21.04
18.39
16.89
18.60


Composition of Dry Matter
Crude Crude I N-free Crude
Ash Protein Fiber Extract Fat
percent percent I percent percent percent

9.47 12.14 44.44 31.24 2.71
8.45 12.16 45.43 31.26 2.70
11.18 11.29 44.52 30.46 2.55
12.25 11.07 45.34 28.77 2.57

ass Hay

12.80 10.67 36.49 37.42 2.62
13.26 10.33 38.01 35.98 2.42
11.55 10.24 39.07 36.57 2.57
10.61 9.76 39.40 37.32 2.91

17.21 9.94 36.94 33.51 2.40
11.04 9.89 38.83 37.79 2.45
10.55 9.83 39.50 37.47 2.65
10.44 9.83 40.12 37.12 2.49

13.86 10.28 36.19 37.15 2.52
13.24 9.44 37.42 37.45 2.45
11.20 10.00 38.89 37.52 2.39
13.12 8.69 36.79 38.85 2.55

15.29 9.54 36.64 36.06 2.47
11.24 10.04 39.55 36.87 2.30
9.30 10.33 40.17 37.76 2.44
8.59 10.53 39.42 39.20 2.26







Digestible Nutrient Content


TABLE E.-THE DIGESTIBILITY OF THE NUTRIENTS OF THE ALFALFA HAY
USED IN THE BASAL RATION AS DETERMINED WITH FOUR STEERS IN FOUR
SUCCESSIVE FIVE-DAY PERIODS.


Animal
Number


E-49




E-50




E-51




E-52


Trial
Number


21




22




23




24


5-Day
Period
Number



II
III
IV
Average

I
II
III
IV
Average

I
II
III
IV
Average

I
II
III
IV
Average


Average "I" periods................................
Average "II" periods..............................
Average "III" periods............................
Average "IV" periods ..........................


Grand average.......................................


Coefficients of Digestibility
Crude Crude N-free Crude
Protein Fiber Extract Fat
percent percent percent percent

63.19 46.58 72.45 0.37
63.44 39.53 69.06 -4.99
64.09 33.03 79.63 -1.95
64.80 24.98 68.83 -12.70
63.88 36.03 69.11 -4.82

59.11 45.71 72.28 0.23
62.86 40.00 69.51 2.01
61.12 24.78 61.43 -20.62
59.45 18.90 65.86 -10.57
60.64 32.35 67.27 -7.24

62.90 47.77 73.91 -12.58
63.67 49.09 72.49 12.80
63.83 50.93 73.05 7.10
62.45 42.73 69.95 1.94
63.21 47.63 72.35 2.31

62.34 43.63 77.57 6.82
58.69 36.15 68.18 -0.52
59.32 28.45 69.78 -3.94
55.29 15.72 63.67 -12.00
58.91 30.99 69.80 -2.41


61.88 45.92 74.05 -1.29
62.16 41.19 69.81 2.32
62.09 34.30 70.97 -4.85
60.50 25.58 67.08 -8.33


61.66 36.75 69.63 -3.04







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


TABLE F.-THE DIGESTIBILITY OF THE NUTRIENTS OF NAPIER GRASS SILAGE
AS DETERMINED WITH FOUR STEERS IN THREE SUCCESSIVE FIVE-DAY
PERIODS.


Trial
Number


13



14



15



16


5-Day
Period
Number


I
II
III
Average

I
II
III
Average

I
III
III
Average

I
II
III
Average


Coefficients of Digestibility
Crude Crude N-free Crude
Protein IFiber Extract Fat
percent percent percent percent

26.46 49.88 41.23 55.28
19.59 43.55 36.10 52.53
25.95 48.52 40.79 62.75
23.90 47.33 39.35 56.96

25.76 52.46 39.48 89.22
26.11 46.47 34.79 70.38
39.93 54.63 45.10 71.74
30.76 51.25 39.83 76.75

35.18 56.90 36.98 68.25
24.68 42.25 38.56 53.18
38.83 56.69 47.36 61.52
32.55 51.83 41.38 60.38

-23.33 43.92 27.18 29.19
-6.54 45.24 32.64 64.07
-9.57 49.73 39.64 70.53
-12.79 46.36 33.30 55.40


Average "I" periods .. ............... ........ 16.02 50.79 36.22 60.49
Average "II" periods....................... ..... 15.96 44.38 35.52 60.04
Average "III" periods ........................... 23.79 52.39 43.22 66.64
Average all periods............. .......... .. 18.61 49.19 38.47 62.37


Average "I" periods* ......................... 29.13 53.08 39.23 70.92
Average "II" periods*......................... 23.46 44.09 36.48 58.70
Average "III" periods*......................... 34.90 53.28 44.42 65.34


Grand average*.............- 29.07 50.14 40.19 64.70

Omitting E-52, Trial 16.


Animal
Number


E-49



E-50



E-51



E-52







Digestible Nutrient Content


TABLE G.-THE DIGESTIBILITY OF THE NUTRIENTS OF Crotalaria intermedia
SILAGE AS DETERMINED WITH FOUR STEERS IN FOUR SUCCESSIVE FIVE-
DAY PERIODS.


Animal Trial
Number Number


E-49 17




E-50 18


E-51




E-52


19




20


5-Day
Period
Number


I
II
III
IV
Average

I
II
III
IV
Average

I
II
III
IV
Average
I
II
III
IV
Average


Average "I" periods......
Average "II" periods....
Average "III" periods-
Average "IV" periods..


Grand average..............


Coefficients of Digestibility
Crude Crude N-free Crude
Protein Fiber Extract Fat
percent I percent percent percent

55.44 32.29 30.88 62.49
66.19 22.97 39.19 55.96
57.06 20.05 30.78 52.40
70.92 28.82 44.32 77.29
62.02 26.20 36.10 65.25

65.86 39.87 55.55 75.58
61.02 31.07 42.45 75.20
65.79 30.24 31.11 77.80
62.95 28.67 35.60 63.'0
63.93 32.82 41.87 73.26

60.06 45.92 40.93 47.54
70.04 46.53 49.11 55.69
66.71 33.98 44.26 68.57
66.63 32.48 46.30 78.69
65.79 40.09 45.16 61.69

59.99 40.74 41.58 67.63
65.32 36.44 46.52 71.02
58.54 27.78 30.26 65.31
53.89 19.43 36.61 65.75
59.75 31.74 39.15 67.49


60.34 39.71 42.24 63.31
65.64 34.25 44.32 64.47
62.03 29.01 34.10 66.02
63.60 27.35 40.71 71.41


62.87 32.71 40.57 66.92
T_. ^ L _


I -

----------
----------
--- -- --






Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


TABLE H.-THE DIGESTIBILITY OF THE NUTRIENTS OF NATAL GRASS HAY
AS DETERMINED WITH FOUR STEERS IN FOUR SUCCESSIVE FIVE-DAY
PERIODS.


Animal Trial
Number Number


E-49




E-50




E-51




E-52


29




30




31




32


5-Day
Period
Number


I
II
III
IV
Average

I
II
III
IV
Average

I
II
III
IV
Average

I
II
III
IV
Average


Average "I" periods..........................
Average "II" periods.......................- .
Average "III" periods ..-.......................
Average "IV" periods .........................


Grand average ........................


Coefficients of Digestibility
Crude Crude N-free Crude
Protein Fiber Extract Fat
percent percent | percent percent


3.70
3.48
12.54
9.56
7.35

8.58
11.99
14.57
25.34
15.12

18.00
-5.24
18.04
18.35
12.29

4.93
-8.67
3.84
-8.52
-2.11


8.81
.39
12.25
11.18


67.22
61.60
57.21
53.56
59.87

57.75
53.48
60.24
61.24
58.18

67.81
56.52
62.34
65.86
63.13

60.53
49.82
58.88
55.45
56.17


63.33
55.36
59.67
59.03


8.16 59.34


54.35
55.60
52.69
48.57
52.79

55.55
46.20
54.25
57.00
53.25

55.01
46.57
54.78
50.92
51.82

51.54
46.73
53.81
46.06
49.53


67.74
75.78
62.72
34.72
60.22

66.35
63.67
65.63
79.59
68.81

73.87
62.89
82.92
70.87
72.64

63.57
69.66
77.52
80.82
72.89


54.11 67.88
48.78 68.00
53.88 72.20
50.64 66.50


51.85 68.64




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