• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Copyright
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Introduction
 Review of literature
 Materials and methods
 Results and discussion
 Economic evaluation
 Summary
 Literature cited
 Back Cover






Group Title: Bulletin - University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station - no. 783
Title: Forage systems, beef production, and economic evaluations, south central Florida
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027488/00001
 Material Information
Title: Forage systems, beef production, and economic evaluations, south central Florida
Series Title: Bulletin University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station
Physical Description: 14 p. : ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Peacock, F. M ( Fentress McCoughan ), 1922-
Publisher: Agricultural Experiment Stations, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1976
 Subjects
Subject: Beef cattle -- Cow-calf system -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Beef cattle -- Economic aspects -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Bibliography: p. 14.
Statement of Responsibility: F.M. Peacock ... et al..
General Note: Cover title.
Funding: Bulletin (University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station) ;
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027488
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Marston Science Library, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida
Holding Location: Florida Agricultural Experiment Station, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the Engineering and Industrial Experiment Station; Institute for Food and Agricultural Services (IFAS), University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida
Resource Identifier: aleph - 000929872
oclc - 18434676
notis - AEP0677

Table of Contents
    Copyright
        Copyright
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Table of Contents
        Table of Contents
    Introduction
        Page 1
    Review of literature
        Page 1
    Materials and methods
        Page 2
        Pasture programs
            Page 2
            Program 1
                Page 2
            Program 2
                Page 3
            Program 3
                Page 3
        Breed groups
            Page 3
        General management
            Page 4
        Data analysis
            Page 4
    Results and discussion
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Beef production
            Page 4
            Year effects
                Page 4
            Reproductive traits
                Page 4
        Production traits
            Page 7
            Calf production per cow
                Page 8
            Calf production per acre
                Page 8
    Economic evaluation
        Page 8
        Method used in computing costs and returns
            Page 9
            Page 10
        Annual income and expenses
            Page 11
            Page 12
    Summary
        Page 13
    Literature cited
        Page 14
    Back Cover
        Page 15
Full Text





HISTORIC NOTE


The publications in this collection do
not reflect current scientific knowledge
or recommendations. These texts
represent the historic publishing
record of the Institute for Food and
Agricultural Sciences and should be
used only to trace the historic work of
the Institute and its staff. Current IFAS
research may be found on the
Electronic Data Information Source
(EDIS)

site maintained by the Florida
Cooperative Extension Service.






Copyright 2005, Board of Trustees, University
of Florida






Bulletin 783 (t)


I//
K.


August 1976


FORAGE SYSTEMS, BEEF PRODUCTION, AND ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS,
SOUTH CENTRAL FLORIDA


F. M. Peacock, E. M. Hodges.
R. E. L. Greene, W. G. Kirk,
M. Koger. and J. R. Crockett


Agricultural Experiment Siations Institute of Food and Aqriculiural Sciences
Un;vers;t of Florida, Gainesille J W. Sites. Dean for Research











FORAGE SYSTEMS, BEEF PRODUCTION, AND
ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS,
SOUTH CENTRAL FLORIDA

F. M. Peacock, E. M. Hodges, R. E. L. Greene,
W. G. Kirk, M. Koger, and J. R. Crockett

Mr. Peacock is an Associate Animal Husbandman and Dr. Hodges
is an Agronomist, Agricultural Research Center, Ona. Dr. Greene
is an Agricultural Economist, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Dr. Kirk is Animal Scientist, Emeritus, Agricultural Research Cen-
ter, Ona. Dr. Koger is an Animal Geneticist, University of Florida,
Gainesville. Dr. Crockett is an Associate Animal Geneticist, Agri-
cultural Research and Education Center, Belle Glade.













This public document was promulgated at an annual cost
of $1,230.56 or a cost of 121/4 cents per copy to provide in-
formation on the relative economics of cow-calf operations
on different pasture programs in south central Florida.












CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ..... ...... ..................... 1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE .................................... ................................................................. 1
MATERIALS AND METHODS .................................... ................................... .......... ........ 2
Pasture Programs ................................................. ............................ ................................. 2
Program 1 ............. ............... .................................... .............. .............................. 2
P ro g ra m 2 ..................................................................................... ................................ .............................
Program 3 ......................................................... ........... 3
B reed G rou p s ................... ........ ................................................ .......................................................... ....
General Management .................................................................................. 4
D ata A na ly sis .......................... ...... ............. ........................... ............................................. .. 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................ ................................... 4
Beef Production ...................................................... ................. ......... 4
Y ea r effects .......................... ....................... ......... ............................................. ............... 4
Reproductive traits ............................................................ .............................. 4
Production Traits ............................................. ................... ......................... 7
Calf production per cow ............................ .................................. 8
C alf produ action per acre ............................................................................................. .................. 8
ECONOMIC EVALUATION ................................................................ ........... 8
Method Used in Computing Costs and Returns ......................................... ............... 9
Annual Income and Expenses .......................... ................................. ....................... 11
SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 13
LITERATURE CITED ........................... ..................................... .... ................. ........ ......... 14







FORAGE SYSTEMS, BEEF PRODUCTION, AND
ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS,
SOUTH CENTRAL FLORIDA

INTRODUCTION
Production systems for cow-calf programs may vary from
total confinement to all unimproved native pastures. The ideal
forage system for a cow-calf program would furnish optimal
nutrition for the productive cycle of a brood cow over a 12-month
period. Forage plants in Florida are seasonal in growth and a
single variety will not provide a year-around supply of quality
forage. A major factor determining which system is best is their
relative economic returns. A 5-year study was made to evaluate
the comparative cow-calf production on native range, a native-
improved pasture combination and improved grasses-irrigated
white clover. The relative economics of the systems were cal-
culated.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Beef production from native flatwood ranges has been com-
paratively low. Camp (2)1 reported a 34.4 % calf crop on flatwood
ranges in Alachua County, Florida. Reports by Kirk et al. (7)
on research at Penney Farm, Florida, showed native cows weigh-
ing 645 pounds in September lost 104 pounds by the following
March. These cattle made rapid gains from March to June, but
there was a decrease in rate of gain from June to September
due to a steady deterioration in quality of forage. Lack of nu-
tritious forages resulted in death loss, failure of animals to de-
velop, limited milk production, and failures of many animals to
breed. Kirk et al. (8) reported that cows on native range at the
Agricultural Research Center, Ona, averaged a 61% calf crop
and yearly calf gains of 17.7 pounds per acre when 50% of the
native pasture was burned annually.
Jones et al. (9) reported that native and improved pastures,
used in combination, supplement each other. Winter feed supply
was greatly increased by deferred grazing, resulting in a re-
duction in seasonal weight and death losses, and an increase in
productivity of the herd.
Forage crops that are frost tolerant and which grow during
the winter season fill a valuable place in the nutritional needs
of beef cattle in Florida. Hodges et al. (6) reported steers gained
1Numbers in parenthesis refer to Literature Cited.







FORAGE SYSTEMS, BEEF PRODUCTION, AND
ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS,
SOUTH CENTRAL FLORIDA

INTRODUCTION
Production systems for cow-calf programs may vary from
total confinement to all unimproved native pastures. The ideal
forage system for a cow-calf program would furnish optimal
nutrition for the productive cycle of a brood cow over a 12-month
period. Forage plants in Florida are seasonal in growth and a
single variety will not provide a year-around supply of quality
forage. A major factor determining which system is best is their
relative economic returns. A 5-year study was made to evaluate
the comparative cow-calf production on native range, a native-
improved pasture combination and improved grasses-irrigated
white clover. The relative economics of the systems were cal-
culated.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Beef production from native flatwood ranges has been com-
paratively low. Camp (2)1 reported a 34.4 % calf crop on flatwood
ranges in Alachua County, Florida. Reports by Kirk et al. (7)
on research at Penney Farm, Florida, showed native cows weigh-
ing 645 pounds in September lost 104 pounds by the following
March. These cattle made rapid gains from March to June, but
there was a decrease in rate of gain from June to September
due to a steady deterioration in quality of forage. Lack of nu-
tritious forages resulted in death loss, failure of animals to de-
velop, limited milk production, and failures of many animals to
breed. Kirk et al. (8) reported that cows on native range at the
Agricultural Research Center, Ona, averaged a 61% calf crop
and yearly calf gains of 17.7 pounds per acre when 50% of the
native pasture was burned annually.
Jones et al. (9) reported that native and improved pastures,
used in combination, supplement each other. Winter feed supply
was greatly increased by deferred grazing, resulting in a re-
duction in seasonal weight and death losses, and an increase in
productivity of the herd.
Forage crops that are frost tolerant and which grow during
the winter season fill a valuable place in the nutritional needs
of beef cattle in Florida. Hodges et al. (6) reported steers gained
1Numbers in parenthesis refer to Literature Cited.







up to 712 pounds per acre on carpetgrass-white clover pastures
when soil conditions and seasonal rains were conducive for
abundant growth. However, droughts during clover growth re-
sulted in gains of only 82 pounds per acre, illustrating the com-
plete dependence of clover production on favorable moisture
conditions. Marshall (12) reported average weight gains by
dairy heifers on white clover-Pangola digitgrass pastures of
272 pounds per acre during a 90-day clover grazing period and
380 pounds per acre after a decline in clover for 157 days, with a
total of 652 pounds per acre on the white clover-Pangola digit-
grass pastures. A report by Hodges et al. (5) showed beef gains
of 1,050 pounds per acre from irrigated grass-white clover pas-
tures. In a more recent study, Hodges et al. (6) reported 889
pounds of beef gains from grass-white clover irrigated pastures.
Anderson and Hipp (1) outlined estimated costs and returns
from five situations for 1,000-cow herds ranging from a highly
intensive, all-improved, irrigated, Pangola digitgrass-clover pas-
ture to an extensive ranch utilizing 15,000 acres of native flat-
woods range. Omitting land taxes, because of the wide variations
in land value and tax rates, they found the all-native range situ-
ation to yield a return of $16.57 per cow and $1.10 per acre to
land and management, with the all-improved 2,000-acre Pangola
digitgrass and bahiagrass or bermudagrass pasture situation
yielding $3.86 per cow and $1.93 per acre. The 1,200-acre irri-
gated Pangola digitgrass-clover situation returned $11.03 per
cow and $9.19 per acre to land and management, highest per
acre return of all situations. Koger et al. (11) reported net re-
turns from cow-calf programs on different pasture systems at
the Beef Research Unit, Gainesville, Florida, to be highest from
non-irrigated white clovergrass pastures and lowest from all im-
proved grass pastures. They concluded the negative economic
return from the all-grass system was due to high costs of ferti-
lizer and supplemental feed relative to quantity of beef produced.

MATERIALS AND METHODS
Pasture Programs
All pastures were located on typical "flatwoods" soils, mostly
Myakka fine sand. These were subject to surface flooding during
summer months and had a low water holding capacity.
Program 1. Forage available for grazing consisted entirely
of native grasses, Aristida and Andropogon spp. The total of
772 acres of native range was used in this program. The area







up to 712 pounds per acre on carpetgrass-white clover pastures
when soil conditions and seasonal rains were conducive for
abundant growth. However, droughts during clover growth re-
sulted in gains of only 82 pounds per acre, illustrating the com-
plete dependence of clover production on favorable moisture
conditions. Marshall (12) reported average weight gains by
dairy heifers on white clover-Pangola digitgrass pastures of
272 pounds per acre during a 90-day clover grazing period and
380 pounds per acre after a decline in clover for 157 days, with a
total of 652 pounds per acre on the white clover-Pangola digit-
grass pastures. A report by Hodges et al. (5) showed beef gains
of 1,050 pounds per acre from irrigated grass-white clover pas-
tures. In a more recent study, Hodges et al. (6) reported 889
pounds of beef gains from grass-white clover irrigated pastures.
Anderson and Hipp (1) outlined estimated costs and returns
from five situations for 1,000-cow herds ranging from a highly
intensive, all-improved, irrigated, Pangola digitgrass-clover pas-
ture to an extensive ranch utilizing 15,000 acres of native flat-
woods range. Omitting land taxes, because of the wide variations
in land value and tax rates, they found the all-native range situ-
ation to yield a return of $16.57 per cow and $1.10 per acre to
land and management, with the all-improved 2,000-acre Pangola
digitgrass and bahiagrass or bermudagrass pasture situation
yielding $3.86 per cow and $1.93 per acre. The 1,200-acre irri-
gated Pangola digitgrass-clover situation returned $11.03 per
cow and $9.19 per acre to land and management, highest per
acre return of all situations. Koger et al. (11) reported net re-
turns from cow-calf programs on different pasture systems at
the Beef Research Unit, Gainesville, Florida, to be highest from
non-irrigated white clovergrass pastures and lowest from all im-
proved grass pastures. They concluded the negative economic
return from the all-grass system was due to high costs of ferti-
lizer and supplemental feed relative to quantity of beef produced.

MATERIALS AND METHODS
Pasture Programs
All pastures were located on typical "flatwoods" soils, mostly
Myakka fine sand. These were subject to surface flooding during
summer months and had a low water holding capacity.
Program 1. Forage available for grazing consisted entirely
of native grasses, Aristida and Andropogon spp. The total of
772 acres of native range was used in this program. The area







up to 712 pounds per acre on carpetgrass-white clover pastures
when soil conditions and seasonal rains were conducive for
abundant growth. However, droughts during clover growth re-
sulted in gains of only 82 pounds per acre, illustrating the com-
plete dependence of clover production on favorable moisture
conditions. Marshall (12) reported average weight gains by
dairy heifers on white clover-Pangola digitgrass pastures of
272 pounds per acre during a 90-day clover grazing period and
380 pounds per acre after a decline in clover for 157 days, with a
total of 652 pounds per acre on the white clover-Pangola digit-
grass pastures. A report by Hodges et al. (5) showed beef gains
of 1,050 pounds per acre from irrigated grass-white clover pas-
tures. In a more recent study, Hodges et al. (6) reported 889
pounds of beef gains from grass-white clover irrigated pastures.
Anderson and Hipp (1) outlined estimated costs and returns
from five situations for 1,000-cow herds ranging from a highly
intensive, all-improved, irrigated, Pangola digitgrass-clover pas-
ture to an extensive ranch utilizing 15,000 acres of native flat-
woods range. Omitting land taxes, because of the wide variations
in land value and tax rates, they found the all-native range situ-
ation to yield a return of $16.57 per cow and $1.10 per acre to
land and management, with the all-improved 2,000-acre Pangola
digitgrass and bahiagrass or bermudagrass pasture situation
yielding $3.86 per cow and $1.93 per acre. The 1,200-acre irri-
gated Pangola digitgrass-clover situation returned $11.03 per
cow and $9.19 per acre to land and management, highest per
acre return of all situations. Koger et al. (11) reported net re-
turns from cow-calf programs on different pasture systems at
the Beef Research Unit, Gainesville, Florida, to be highest from
non-irrigated white clovergrass pastures and lowest from all im-
proved grass pastures. They concluded the negative economic
return from the all-grass system was due to high costs of ferti-
lizer and supplemental feed relative to quantity of beef produced.

MATERIALS AND METHODS
Pasture Programs
All pastures were located on typical "flatwoods" soils, mostly
Myakka fine sand. These were subject to surface flooding during
summer months and had a low water holding capacity.
Program 1. Forage available for grazing consisted entirely
of native grasses, Aristida and Andropogon spp. The total of
772 acres of native range was used in this program. The area







was divided into 5 pastures, each burned on alternate years. The
cows on native range were provided supplemental feed to the
extent necessary to prevent extreme weight loss. An average of
555 pounds of hay, 52 pounds of 41% cottonseed meal, and 52
pounds of citrus meal were fed per cow for an average of 109
days annually, beginning in December.
Program 2. This program included a combination of 73 acres
of improved pasture plus 315 acres of native grasses for a 60-
cow herd. The improved pastures included 40 acres of Pensacola
bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum Flugge.) and 33 acres of Pan-
gola digitgrass (Digitaria decumbens Stent.). Approximately 20
acres of the bahiagrass was grown in conjunction with hairy
indigo (Indigofera hirsuta Linn.), and the remaining 20 acres
was in combination with non-irrigated Hubam sweetclover (Meli-
lotus-alba Desv.) and white clover (Trifolium repens L.). The
cattle had access to the native grasses continuously and were
given access to the various fields of improved grasses on a rota-
tional basis.
The fertilizer program for Pangola digitgrass was 400
pounds of 8-8-8 plus 150 pounds of ammonium nitrate per acre.
Bahiagrass received a similar amount of complete fertilizer plus
100 pounds of ammonium nitrate per acre. The legume pastures
received 250 pounds per acre of 0-8-24 fertilizer annually with
extra application of potassium on the white clover.
Cattle on this program received 43 pounds hay, 65 pounds
cottonseed meal, and 31 pounds of citrus meal per cow for an
average of 72 days annually from January to April.
Program 3. This program included only improved grass
pastures: 70 acres of Pangola digitgrass, 27 acres of irrigated
Pangola digitgrass overseeded with white clover, and 10 acres
of bahiagrass. Pasture fertilization in program 3 followed the
same pattern as described for program 2.
Cattle in program 3 were maintained in a healthy state at all
times. For the most part, they maintained good weights from
grazing only. During three of the five years the cows on this
program were fed hay during the winter for an average of 55
days. An average of 280 pounds of hay per cow per year was
Sfed during the 5-year trial.

Breed Groups
The herds on each of the forage programs included approxi-
mately 60 cows, consisting of the following five breed groups:
10 Brahman (B), 10 3/ Brahman-l1/ Shorthorn (B3), 20 1/







was divided into 5 pastures, each burned on alternate years. The
cows on native range were provided supplemental feed to the
extent necessary to prevent extreme weight loss. An average of
555 pounds of hay, 52 pounds of 41% cottonseed meal, and 52
pounds of citrus meal were fed per cow for an average of 109
days annually, beginning in December.
Program 2. This program included a combination of 73 acres
of improved pasture plus 315 acres of native grasses for a 60-
cow herd. The improved pastures included 40 acres of Pensacola
bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum Flugge.) and 33 acres of Pan-
gola digitgrass (Digitaria decumbens Stent.). Approximately 20
acres of the bahiagrass was grown in conjunction with hairy
indigo (Indigofera hirsuta Linn.), and the remaining 20 acres
was in combination with non-irrigated Hubam sweetclover (Meli-
lotus-alba Desv.) and white clover (Trifolium repens L.). The
cattle had access to the native grasses continuously and were
given access to the various fields of improved grasses on a rota-
tional basis.
The fertilizer program for Pangola digitgrass was 400
pounds of 8-8-8 plus 150 pounds of ammonium nitrate per acre.
Bahiagrass received a similar amount of complete fertilizer plus
100 pounds of ammonium nitrate per acre. The legume pastures
received 250 pounds per acre of 0-8-24 fertilizer annually with
extra application of potassium on the white clover.
Cattle on this program received 43 pounds hay, 65 pounds
cottonseed meal, and 31 pounds of citrus meal per cow for an
average of 72 days annually from January to April.
Program 3. This program included only improved grass
pastures: 70 acres of Pangola digitgrass, 27 acres of irrigated
Pangola digitgrass overseeded with white clover, and 10 acres
of bahiagrass. Pasture fertilization in program 3 followed the
same pattern as described for program 2.
Cattle in program 3 were maintained in a healthy state at all
times. For the most part, they maintained good weights from
grazing only. During three of the five years the cows on this
program were fed hay during the winter for an average of 55
days. An average of 280 pounds of hay per cow per year was
Sfed during the 5-year trial.

Breed Groups
The herds on each of the forage programs included approxi-
mately 60 cows, consisting of the following five breed groups:
10 Brahman (B), 10 3/ Brahman-l1/ Shorthorn (B3), 20 1/







was divided into 5 pastures, each burned on alternate years. The
cows on native range were provided supplemental feed to the
extent necessary to prevent extreme weight loss. An average of
555 pounds of hay, 52 pounds of 41% cottonseed meal, and 52
pounds of citrus meal were fed per cow for an average of 109
days annually, beginning in December.
Program 2. This program included a combination of 73 acres
of improved pasture plus 315 acres of native grasses for a 60-
cow herd. The improved pastures included 40 acres of Pensacola
bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum Flugge.) and 33 acres of Pan-
gola digitgrass (Digitaria decumbens Stent.). Approximately 20
acres of the bahiagrass was grown in conjunction with hairy
indigo (Indigofera hirsuta Linn.), and the remaining 20 acres
was in combination with non-irrigated Hubam sweetclover (Meli-
lotus-alba Desv.) and white clover (Trifolium repens L.). The
cattle had access to the native grasses continuously and were
given access to the various fields of improved grasses on a rota-
tional basis.
The fertilizer program for Pangola digitgrass was 400
pounds of 8-8-8 plus 150 pounds of ammonium nitrate per acre.
Bahiagrass received a similar amount of complete fertilizer plus
100 pounds of ammonium nitrate per acre. The legume pastures
received 250 pounds per acre of 0-8-24 fertilizer annually with
extra application of potassium on the white clover.
Cattle on this program received 43 pounds hay, 65 pounds
cottonseed meal, and 31 pounds of citrus meal per cow for an
average of 72 days annually from January to April.
Program 3. This program included only improved grass
pastures: 70 acres of Pangola digitgrass, 27 acres of irrigated
Pangola digitgrass overseeded with white clover, and 10 acres
of bahiagrass. Pasture fertilization in program 3 followed the
same pattern as described for program 2.
Cattle in program 3 were maintained in a healthy state at all
times. For the most part, they maintained good weights from
grazing only. During three of the five years the cows on this
program were fed hay during the winter for an average of 55
days. An average of 280 pounds of hay per cow per year was
Sfed during the 5-year trial.

Breed Groups
The herds on each of the forage programs included approxi-
mately 60 cows, consisting of the following five breed groups:
10 Brahman (B), 10 3/ Brahman-l1/ Shorthorn (B3), 20 1/







Shorthorn-1/2 Brahman (F1), 10 /1 Shorthorn-14 Brahman (Bi),
and 10 Shorthorn (S). The B, B3, and one-half the F, cows were
mated to Shorthorn bulls, while the S, B,, and one-half the F1
cows were mated to Brahman bulls, producing all crossbred
calves.

General Management
The cattle on all programs were bred in a restricted season
of 105 days extending from March 15 to June 30. All calves
were weaned in early September.
Replacement heifers were grown together from weaning and
were placed in their respective herds just prior to the breeding
season.
Cows were culled on the basis of repeated reproductive fail-
ure or failure to raise a calf.

Data Analysis
Individual performance data were recorded annually for
pregnancy status, calf survival, weaning rate, age of calf at
weaning, weaning weight, estimated 205-day weight, and mar-
ket grade of calf. Separate analyses were made for production
and reproduction data. Sources of variability analyzed in pro-
duction data were year, forage program, breeding of calves,
sex and first order interactions. All of these facors except sex
were analyzed for reproduction.
The data were analyzed by least squares methods for dispro-
portionate frequency distribution for both analyses as outlined
by Harvey (3).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Beef Production
The results from the separate analyses for reproduction and
production traits are presented in Tables 1 and 2.
Year effects. Year had significant main effects for all pro-
duction traits and survival rate. These responses were due to the
effect of yearly variations in rainfall and temperature on the
amount, quality, and distribution for forage. Year effects were
included in the analyses to achieve statistical precision in the
evaluation of forage systems and breed groups.
Reproductive traits. Birth rate and weaning rate were sig-
nificantly influenced by forage systems. The least squares means







Shorthorn-1/2 Brahman (F1), 10 /1 Shorthorn-14 Brahman (Bi),
and 10 Shorthorn (S). The B, B3, and one-half the F, cows were
mated to Shorthorn bulls, while the S, B,, and one-half the F1
cows were mated to Brahman bulls, producing all crossbred
calves.

General Management
The cattle on all programs were bred in a restricted season
of 105 days extending from March 15 to June 30. All calves
were weaned in early September.
Replacement heifers were grown together from weaning and
were placed in their respective herds just prior to the breeding
season.
Cows were culled on the basis of repeated reproductive fail-
ure or failure to raise a calf.

Data Analysis
Individual performance data were recorded annually for
pregnancy status, calf survival, weaning rate, age of calf at
weaning, weaning weight, estimated 205-day weight, and mar-
ket grade of calf. Separate analyses were made for production
and reproduction data. Sources of variability analyzed in pro-
duction data were year, forage program, breeding of calves,
sex and first order interactions. All of these facors except sex
were analyzed for reproduction.
The data were analyzed by least squares methods for dispro-
portionate frequency distribution for both analyses as outlined
by Harvey (3).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Beef Production
The results from the separate analyses for reproduction and
production traits are presented in Tables 1 and 2.
Year effects. Year had significant main effects for all pro-
duction traits and survival rate. These responses were due to the
effect of yearly variations in rainfall and temperature on the
amount, quality, and distribution for forage. Year effects were
included in the analyses to achieve statistical precision in the
evaluation of forage systems and breed groups.
Reproductive traits. Birth rate and weaning rate were sig-
nificantly influenced by forage systems. The least squares means







Shorthorn-1/2 Brahman (F1), 10 /1 Shorthorn-14 Brahman (Bi),
and 10 Shorthorn (S). The B, B3, and one-half the F, cows were
mated to Shorthorn bulls, while the S, B,, and one-half the F1
cows were mated to Brahman bulls, producing all crossbred
calves.

General Management
The cattle on all programs were bred in a restricted season
of 105 days extending from March 15 to June 30. All calves
were weaned in early September.
Replacement heifers were grown together from weaning and
were placed in their respective herds just prior to the breeding
season.
Cows were culled on the basis of repeated reproductive fail-
ure or failure to raise a calf.

Data Analysis
Individual performance data were recorded annually for
pregnancy status, calf survival, weaning rate, age of calf at
weaning, weaning weight, estimated 205-day weight, and mar-
ket grade of calf. Separate analyses were made for production
and reproduction data. Sources of variability analyzed in pro-
duction data were year, forage program, breeding of calves,
sex and first order interactions. All of these facors except sex
were analyzed for reproduction.
The data were analyzed by least squares methods for dispro-
portionate frequency distribution for both analyses as outlined
by Harvey (3).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Beef Production
The results from the separate analyses for reproduction and
production traits are presented in Tables 1 and 2.
Year effects. Year had significant main effects for all pro-
duction traits and survival rate. These responses were due to the
effect of yearly variations in rainfall and temperature on the
amount, quality, and distribution for forage. Year effects were
included in the analyses to achieve statistical precision in the
evaluation of forage systems and breed groups.
Reproductive traits. Birth rate and weaning rate were sig-
nificantly influenced by forage systems. The least squares means







Table 1. Analysis of variance for reproductive traits of cows on different pas-
ture programs.
Mean squares

Source D.F. Birth rate Weaning rate Survival

Year (Y) 4 0.0666 0.1838 0.1411**
Program (P) 2 2.6228** 2.4333** 0.0019
Remainder
Birth and weaning 847 0.1707 0.1810
Survival 628 -- 0.0288

SSignificantly different at P<.05.
** Significantly different at P<.01.


Table 2. Analysis of variance for production traits of cows on different pas-
ture programs.
Mean squares

Mean 205-day Market Weaning
Source D.F. weight weight grade age

Years (Y) 4 28606** 64339** 36.27** 5537.7**
Program (P) 2 705705** 310788** 241.00"* 19241.3**
Y x P 8 8191* 16388** 6.73* 2378.0"*
Remainder 590 4178 2048 1.31 848.6
Significantly different at P<.05.
*Significantly different at P<.01.


Table 3. Adjusted means for birth, weaning, and survival rate for cows on
three different pasture programs.

Pasture program Birth rate % Weaning rate % Survival %

Native 65 63 97
Combination 78 75 97
All improved 83 81 96



for birth, weaning and survival rates are presented in Table 3.
The average birth rates were 65%, 78%, and 83% for cows graz-
ing native, combination, and all-improved pasture programs, re-
spectively. These variations were probably the result of the con-
dition of the cows at the beginning of the breeding season and
quality of forage during the time bulls were in the herds.







Native forages declined in quality beginning in late summer,
reaching a minimum during the winter months. This resulted in
thin cows at the beginning of the breeding season. Even though
the quality of native forage improved during the spring, the
quantity and quality was not sufficient for a high percentage
calf crop, especially for cows nursing calves.
Cows on the combination program stayed healthier through-
out the year than cows on the native range, because the im-
proved pastures were available during spring and summer
months, and were supplemented with hairy indigo pasture in the
fall. Quality of forage during the winter months was low but
higher than that for forage produced on the native range, due
mostly to deferred grazing of Pangola digitgrass. During favor-
able seasons for clover growth, Hubam sweetclover furnished
high quality feed from late February until the bahiagrass started
growth in the spring. These various plants, supplemented by
native forages, along with deferred grazing, kept feed available
most of the time. (The exception was in the winter from late
January until clover was available.) Cows on the combination
programs were in better condition when the spring breeding sea-
son began and improved in condition during the breeding season,
resulting in a higher reproductive rate than that achieved by
cows on native pasture.
The all-improved pasture program provided an abundance of
forage during most of the year. During three of the five years it
was necessary to provide hay while waiting for clover to reach
grazing height. Quality and quantity of forage during the fall
and winter months was sufficient to maintain cows in good con-
dition. Irrigated clover, beginning in January and February
each year, along with Pangola digitgrass provided enough quali-
ty forage so that cows gained weight and were in good breeding
condition. Koger et al. (10) suggested the possibility of some
qualitative influence of clover, over and above its effects on
weights and gains of cows that increased their breeding ef-
ficiency.
Weaning rates were 63%, 75%, and 81% respectively for
cattle grazing the native, combination, and all-improved pasture
systems. Death loss of calves was relatively low for all forage
systems, with survival rate being 97%, 97%, and 96% for the
native, combination, and all-improved pasture systems, respec-
tively. Since survival rates were similar for the three groups,
weaning rates followed the same general pattern as birth rates.







Shorthorn-1/2 Brahman (F1), 10 /1 Shorthorn-14 Brahman (Bi),
and 10 Shorthorn (S). The B, B3, and one-half the F, cows were
mated to Shorthorn bulls, while the S, B,, and one-half the F1
cows were mated to Brahman bulls, producing all crossbred
calves.

General Management
The cattle on all programs were bred in a restricted season
of 105 days extending from March 15 to June 30. All calves
were weaned in early September.
Replacement heifers were grown together from weaning and
were placed in their respective herds just prior to the breeding
season.
Cows were culled on the basis of repeated reproductive fail-
ure or failure to raise a calf.

Data Analysis
Individual performance data were recorded annually for
pregnancy status, calf survival, weaning rate, age of calf at
weaning, weaning weight, estimated 205-day weight, and mar-
ket grade of calf. Separate analyses were made for production
and reproduction data. Sources of variability analyzed in pro-
duction data were year, forage program, breeding of calves,
sex and first order interactions. All of these facors except sex
were analyzed for reproduction.
The data were analyzed by least squares methods for dispro-
portionate frequency distribution for both analyses as outlined
by Harvey (3).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Beef Production
The results from the separate analyses for reproduction and
production traits are presented in Tables 1 and 2.
Year effects. Year had significant main effects for all pro-
duction traits and survival rate. These responses were due to the
effect of yearly variations in rainfall and temperature on the
amount, quality, and distribution for forage. Year effects were
included in the analyses to achieve statistical precision in the
evaluation of forage systems and breed groups.
Reproductive traits. Birth rate and weaning rate were sig-
nificantly influenced by forage systems. The least squares means







Shorthorn-1/2 Brahman (F1), 10 /1 Shorthorn-14 Brahman (Bi),
and 10 Shorthorn (S). The B, B3, and one-half the F, cows were
mated to Shorthorn bulls, while the S, B,, and one-half the F1
cows were mated to Brahman bulls, producing all crossbred
calves.

General Management
The cattle on all programs were bred in a restricted season
of 105 days extending from March 15 to June 30. All calves
were weaned in early September.
Replacement heifers were grown together from weaning and
were placed in their respective herds just prior to the breeding
season.
Cows were culled on the basis of repeated reproductive fail-
ure or failure to raise a calf.

Data Analysis
Individual performance data were recorded annually for
pregnancy status, calf survival, weaning rate, age of calf at
weaning, weaning weight, estimated 205-day weight, and mar-
ket grade of calf. Separate analyses were made for production
and reproduction data. Sources of variability analyzed in pro-
duction data were year, forage program, breeding of calves,
sex and first order interactions. All of these facors except sex
were analyzed for reproduction.
The data were analyzed by least squares methods for dispro-
portionate frequency distribution for both analyses as outlined
by Harvey (3).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Beef Production
The results from the separate analyses for reproduction and
production traits are presented in Tables 1 and 2.
Year effects. Year had significant main effects for all pro-
duction traits and survival rate. These responses were due to the
effect of yearly variations in rainfall and temperature on the
amount, quality, and distribution for forage. Year effects were
included in the analyses to achieve statistical precision in the
evaluation of forage systems and breed groups.
Reproductive traits. Birth rate and weaning rate were sig-
nificantly influenced by forage systems. The least squares means







Shorthorn-1/2 Brahman (F1), 10 /1 Shorthorn-14 Brahman (Bi),
and 10 Shorthorn (S). The B, B3, and one-half the F, cows were
mated to Shorthorn bulls, while the S, B,, and one-half the F1
cows were mated to Brahman bulls, producing all crossbred
calves.

General Management
The cattle on all programs were bred in a restricted season
of 105 days extending from March 15 to June 30. All calves
were weaned in early September.
Replacement heifers were grown together from weaning and
were placed in their respective herds just prior to the breeding
season.
Cows were culled on the basis of repeated reproductive fail-
ure or failure to raise a calf.

Data Analysis
Individual performance data were recorded annually for
pregnancy status, calf survival, weaning rate, age of calf at
weaning, weaning weight, estimated 205-day weight, and mar-
ket grade of calf. Separate analyses were made for production
and reproduction data. Sources of variability analyzed in pro-
duction data were year, forage program, breeding of calves,
sex and first order interactions. All of these facors except sex
were analyzed for reproduction.
The data were analyzed by least squares methods for dispro-
portionate frequency distribution for both analyses as outlined
by Harvey (3).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Beef Production
The results from the separate analyses for reproduction and
production traits are presented in Tables 1 and 2.
Year effects. Year had significant main effects for all pro-
duction traits and survival rate. These responses were due to the
effect of yearly variations in rainfall and temperature on the
amount, quality, and distribution for forage. Year effects were
included in the analyses to achieve statistical precision in the
evaluation of forage systems and breed groups.
Reproductive traits. Birth rate and weaning rate were sig-
nificantly influenced by forage systems. The least squares means







Production Traits
The effect of forage system on weaning weight, 205-day
weight, market grade, and age at weaning was highly significant,
as shown in Table 2. The adjusted values for these traits are
given in Table 4.
The adjusted weaning weight of calves was 380, 457, and 504
pounds from the native, combination, and all-improved pastures,
respectively. Market grade showed the same response as wean-
ing weight with values of 8.7 for the native and 9.7 and 10.9 for
the combination and all-improved grass-clover pasture programs.
This combination of effects shows the influence of an improved
annual balance of quality, quantity, and distribution of forage.
The improvement in pasture program resulted in heavier, fat-
ter calves. The heavier calves on the improved grass-clover pas-
ture probably resulted from the effect of clover on the milk pro-
duction of the cow and the higher quality roughage available to
the calves.
Slight variations in the ranking of weaning weight and 205-
day weight were due principally to the influence of forage sys-
tem on calving interval. All calves were weaned at the same
time. Weaning age for calves produced on native pasture 209
days compared to 220 days for the combination and 229 days
for calves produced on the all-improved pastures. Calves on all-


Table 4. Adjusted means for number weaned, age at weaning, weaning weight,
205-day weight, calf production, and market grade score of calves
from cows on different programs.
Pasture program
Native All
Item Unit Native plus improved improved

Number weaned no. 38.2 44.2 48.6
Age at weaning days 209 220 229
Weaning weight Ibs. 380 457 504
205-day weight Ibs. 378 432 459
Calf production:
per cows Ibs. 241 340 406
per acre Ibs. 19 52 228
Market grade score* no. 8.7 9.7 10.9

* 8, High Standard; 9, Low Good; 10, Good; and 11, High Good








improved pastures were born 20 days earlier than those on native
pasture.
Calf production per cow. Calf production per cow was cal-
culated by multiplying weaning rate (Table 3) by weaning
weight (Table 4). The average beef production per cow was 241
pounds for native pasture, 340 pounds for the combination, and
406 pounds for improved grass-clover. Average yearly cow
weights in December were 889 pounds, 942 pounds, and 1,017
pounds for the three systems, respectively.
Calf production per acre. Calf production on native pasture
stocked at one cow per 12.74 acres was 19 pounds per acre. The
combination program, 5.34 acres native pasture and 1.24 acres
improved pasture per cow, produced 52 pounds per acre. The
all-improved system, 1.33 acres improved grasses and .45 acre
clover-grass pasture per cow, produced 228 pounds of calf per
acre.
Improvements in quality, quantity, and distribution of forage
throughout the year resulted in earlier calving, faster gains,
heavier calves, higher production per cow, and a higher produc-
tion per unit of land resources.

ECONOMIC EVALUATION

An economic evaluation was made for each program using
physical input-output data obtained in the experiment and cost
and price data as they existed at the end of the experiment, 1966.
Costs for interest charge, breeding fees, labor on cattle, veteri-
nary, medicines, insurance, taxes, depreciation of cows, depreci-
ation and repairs of building and fences, and irrigation were not
included due to variations of these items among operations. Only
those items of input which were measured and for which costs
were established were used in the evaluation.


Table 5. Average acres per cow for cows grazing native, native plus im-
proved, and all-improved grass and clover pastures.
Native plus
Item Native improved All improved

Pasture (acre)
Native 12.74 5.34
Improved 1.24 1.33
Improved-irrigated
clover grass .45








improved pastures were born 20 days earlier than those on native
pasture.
Calf production per cow. Calf production per cow was cal-
culated by multiplying weaning rate (Table 3) by weaning
weight (Table 4). The average beef production per cow was 241
pounds for native pasture, 340 pounds for the combination, and
406 pounds for improved grass-clover. Average yearly cow
weights in December were 889 pounds, 942 pounds, and 1,017
pounds for the three systems, respectively.
Calf production per acre. Calf production on native pasture
stocked at one cow per 12.74 acres was 19 pounds per acre. The
combination program, 5.34 acres native pasture and 1.24 acres
improved pasture per cow, produced 52 pounds per acre. The
all-improved system, 1.33 acres improved grasses and .45 acre
clover-grass pasture per cow, produced 228 pounds of calf per
acre.
Improvements in quality, quantity, and distribution of forage
throughout the year resulted in earlier calving, faster gains,
heavier calves, higher production per cow, and a higher produc-
tion per unit of land resources.

ECONOMIC EVALUATION

An economic evaluation was made for each program using
physical input-output data obtained in the experiment and cost
and price data as they existed at the end of the experiment, 1966.
Costs for interest charge, breeding fees, labor on cattle, veteri-
nary, medicines, insurance, taxes, depreciation of cows, depreci-
ation and repairs of building and fences, and irrigation were not
included due to variations of these items among operations. Only
those items of input which were measured and for which costs
were established were used in the evaluation.


Table 5. Average acres per cow for cows grazing native, native plus im-
proved, and all-improved grass and clover pastures.
Native plus
Item Native improved All improved

Pasture (acre)
Native 12.74 5.34
Improved 1.24 1.33
Improved-irrigated
clover grass .45








improved pastures were born 20 days earlier than those on native
pasture.
Calf production per cow. Calf production per cow was cal-
culated by multiplying weaning rate (Table 3) by weaning
weight (Table 4). The average beef production per cow was 241
pounds for native pasture, 340 pounds for the combination, and
406 pounds for improved grass-clover. Average yearly cow
weights in December were 889 pounds, 942 pounds, and 1,017
pounds for the three systems, respectively.
Calf production per acre. Calf production on native pasture
stocked at one cow per 12.74 acres was 19 pounds per acre. The
combination program, 5.34 acres native pasture and 1.24 acres
improved pasture per cow, produced 52 pounds per acre. The
all-improved system, 1.33 acres improved grasses and .45 acre
clover-grass pasture per cow, produced 228 pounds of calf per
acre.
Improvements in quality, quantity, and distribution of forage
throughout the year resulted in earlier calving, faster gains,
heavier calves, higher production per cow, and a higher produc-
tion per unit of land resources.

ECONOMIC EVALUATION

An economic evaluation was made for each program using
physical input-output data obtained in the experiment and cost
and price data as they existed at the end of the experiment, 1966.
Costs for interest charge, breeding fees, labor on cattle, veteri-
nary, medicines, insurance, taxes, depreciation of cows, depreci-
ation and repairs of building and fences, and irrigation were not
included due to variations of these items among operations. Only
those items of input which were measured and for which costs
were established were used in the evaluation.


Table 5. Average acres per cow for cows grazing native, native plus im-
proved, and all-improved grass and clover pastures.
Native plus
Item Native improved All improved

Pasture (acre)
Native 12.74 5.34
Improved 1.24 1.33
Improved-irrigated
clover grass .45








> Method Used in Computing Costs and Returns

Items of costs and returns for each program were calculated
in terms of average per cow. Prices and costs rates used are
shown in Table 6.
Production of beef was based on the total weight of calves
weaned from each forage system (Table 4). The value of beef
produced was based on the state average price for slaughter
calves for the months of September, 1965 and 1966. Price of beef
for the three systems was adjusted on the basis of the state
average of various market grades of calves and the amount of
spread between grades.
The per cow charge for fertilizer and lime was based on the
average amount applied per acre on each program divided by the
number of cows on the program. Cost per ton was the average
price actually paid for these materials, including cost of spread-
ing.
-4

Table 6. Prices and cost rates in calculating income and expenses.
Item Unit Average rate

Price of beef
State average price for
feeder calves grading:1
Low good hundredweight $21.00
Medium good hundredweight 22.94
High good hundredweight 24.88

Fertilizer, top dressing, and lime2
Complete fertilizer ton 45.00
0-8-24 ton 40.00
Ammonium nitrate ton 75.00
Muriate of potash ton 70.00
Lime ton 9.00
Feed and minerals
Hay ton 25.00
Cottonseed meal ton 80.00
Citrus meal ton 38.70
Common salt ton 32.00
Minerals ton 72.00
Seed
Clover-Hubam hundredweight 20.00

1 State average price for September 1965 and 1966.
2 Cost includes spreading on field.









Table 7. Average input, annual costs and
grass plus clover pastures.


returns per cow for cows grazing native, native plus improved grasses, and all-improved


Native plus Improved grasses
Native improved grasses and clover

Item Amount Value Amount Value Amount Value

Returns: Ib $ Ib $ Ib $
Value of beef produced 241 50.61 340 78.00 406 101.01
Production costs:
Pasture treatment:
Fertilizer:
Complete fertilizer 237 5.33 500 11.25
0-8-24 169 3.38 133 2.66
Ammonium nitrate 102 3.82 133 4.99
Muriate of potash -25 .88
Lime 339 1.52 500 2.25
Total 14.05 22.03
Seed:
Hubam clover 5 1.00 -
Supplemental feeds:
Hay 555 6.94 43 .54 280 3.50
Cottonseed meal 52 2.08 65 2.60 -
Citrus meal 52 1.01 31 .60 -
Common salt 35 .56 34 .54
Minerals 39 1.40 37 1.33 17 .61
Total 11.99 5.61 4.11
Total costs of production1 11.99 20.66 26.14
Returns above fertilizer and feed costs 38.62 57.34 74.87

1 Fertilizer and feed costs







Charges for supplemental feeds and minerals were those ac-
tually paid for feeds used. Hay harvested on the experiment was
charged at the estimated cost to purchase such hay.

Annual Income and Expenses

Returns above feed and fertilizer costs on the three systems
are given in Table 7. The data are summarized in Table 8 and
are expressed on a cost per calf and per pound of beef basis. The
cost per cow varied from $11.99 for the all native system to
$26.14 for the all-improved grass-clover systems. The value of
beef produced per cow on the all native system was $50.61 and
on the all-improved grass-clover system, $101.01. The value of
beef produced exceeded the specified cash expenses by $38.62 per
cow for the native system and increased with intensification to
$74.87 for the all-improved grass-clover system. Cost per hun-
dredweight of beef produced was $4.98 on the all-native system,
$6.08 on the native pasture combination, and $6.47 on the all-
improved grass-clover system.
Returns above feed and fertilizer costs for the beef enter-
prises are summarized in Table 9 on a per pound, per calf, per
cow, and per acre basis. The net returns per calf were $60.77 on
native, $77.30 on the native plus improved pasture, and $93.13
on the all-improved grass-clover system. Net returns per acre

Table 8. Average cost of beef per calf and per pound of beef for cows grazing
native, native plus improved, and all-improved clover and grass
pastures.
Native plus Improved grasses
Item Native improved grasses and clover

Cost per calf ($)
Fertilizer and lime -18.73 27.20
Seed 1.33
Supplemental feeds
and minerals 19.03 7.48 5.07
Total 19.03 27.54 32.27

Cost per pound of beef (C)
Fertilizer and lime 4.13 5.45
Seed .30
Supplemental feeds
and minerals 4.98 1.65 1.02
Total 4.98 6.08 6.47










Table 9. Net returns from beef production-average over a five-year period for
improved clover and grass pastures.


cows grazing native, native plus improved, and all-


Native plus Improved grasses
Item Native improved grasses and clover

Returns per hundredweight of beef
Value of beef 21.00 22.94 24.88
Cost of production 4.98 6.08 6.47
Returns above fertilizer and feed costs 16.02 16.86 18.41

Returns per calf
Value of beef 79.80 104.84 125.40
Cost of production 19.03 27.54 32.27
Returns above fertilizer and feed costs 60.77 77.30 93.13

Returns per cow
Value of beef 50.61 78.00 101.01
Cost of production 11.99 20.66 26.14
Returns above fertilizer and feed costs 38.62 57.34 74.87

Returns per acre
Value of beef 3.99 11.93 56.73
Cost of production .94 3.14 14.69
Returns above fertilizer and feed costs 3.05 8.79 42.04


hr /







were $3.05, $8.79, and $42.04 on the three systems, respectively.
Returns above feed and fertilizer costs increased with intensi-
fication of forage systems with improvement in quality, quantity,
and distribution of forage throughout the year.
These data support the ranch enterprise budgets, based on
the same elements of cash expense, presented by Anderson and
Hipp (1).

SUMMARY
The average birth rate, weaning rate, and survival rate from
cows on the native pasture (Program 1) was 65%, 63%, and
97% respectively, compared to 78%, 75%, and 97% from the
native-improved grass combination (Program 2) and 83%, 81%
and 96% from all-improved grass-clover (Program 3).
The productive response of cows to the pasture forages pro-
vided by the three management systems was clearly demon-
4 strated. This response was due to improvement in quality, quan-
tity, and year-round distribution of forage.
The average weaning weight, 205-day weight, market grade,
and age at weaning were significantly influenced by forage sys-
tem. Weaning weights for the three systems were 380 pounds,
457 pounds, and 504 pounds; 205-day weights were 378 pounds,
432 pounds, and 459 pounds; market grade values were 8.7, 9.7,
and 10.9; and weaning age was 209 days, 220 days, and 229
days for the native, native-grass combination and all-improved
grass-clover systems, respectively. Calf production per cow was
241 pounds for the native, 340 pounds for the combination, and
406 pounds for the all-improved grass-clover pasture system.
Calf production per acre for the native pasture was 19 pounds,
for the combination 52 pounds per acre and for the improved
grass-clover, 228 pounds per acre.
Average cow weight for the three forage systems was 889
pounds, 942 pounds, and 1,017 pounds for the native, combina-
tion, and all-improved systems, respectively.
All units of measurement, except for calf survival, clearly
demonstrated the value of and use of forages relative to the sea-
son and productive cycle of the brood cow. Returns above feed
and fertilizer costs for the three forage systems in order of in-
creasing intensification were $16.02, $16.86, and $18.41 per
hundredweight of calf; $60.77, $77.30. and $93.13 per calf;
$38.62, $57.34, and $74.87 per cow; and $3.05, $8.79, and $42.04
per acre, respectively. Returns were positively related to pasture
improvement.








LITERATURE CITED

1. Anderson, C. L., and T. S. Hipp. 1973. Requirements and returns for
1000-cow beef herds on flatwood soils in Florida. Fla. Agr. Ext. Cir.
385.
2. Camp, Paul D. 1932. A study of range cattle management in Alachua
County, Florida. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 248.
3. Harvey, Walter R. 1960. Least-squares analysis of data with unequal
subclass numbers. A.R.S.-20-8. U.S.D.A
4. Hodges, E. M., D. W. Jones, and W. G. Kirk. 1953. Winter clovers in
Central Florida. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 517.
5. Hodges, E. M., D. W. Jones, and W. G. Kirk. 1952. Pasture irrigation.
Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Ann. Rep. 273.
6. Hodges, E. M., W. G. Kirk, and D. W. Jones. 1953. Pasture irrigation.
Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Ann. Rep. 312.
7. Kirk, W. G., A. L. Shealy, and Bradford Knappe, Jr. 1945. Weight
changes of cattle on Florida range. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 418.
8. Kirk, W. G., E. M. Hodges, F. M. Peacock, L. L. Yarlett, and F. G.
Martin. Production of cow-calf herds: effect of burning native range
and supplemental feeding. J. Range Management. 20:153-157.
9. Jones, D. W., E. M. Hodges, and W. G. Kirk. 1960. Year-round graz-
ing on combination of native and improved pastures. Fla. Agr. Exp.
Sta. Bul. 554A.
10. Koger, M., W. G. Blue, G. B. Killinger, R. E. L. Greene, H. C. Harris,
J. M. Myers, A. C. Warnick, and N. Gammon, Jr. 1961. Beef produc-
tion, soil and forage analyses, and economic returns from eight pasture
programs in North Central Florida. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bul. 631.
11. Koger, M., W. G. Blue, G. B. Killinger, R.E.L. Greene, J. M. Myers,
N. Gammon, Jr., A. C. Warnick, and J. R. Crockett. 1970. Production
and economic returns from five pasture programs in North Central
Florida. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bul. 740.
12. Marshall, Sidney P. 1969. White clover-Pangolagrass and white clover-
Coastal bermudagrass pastures for dairy heifers. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta.
Bul. 613.













ksstituto at Foad MW AgiFtwal kliamu

TEACHINII FAI
RESEARCH
EXTENSION




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