• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Copyright
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Opportunities for calf-growing...
 Factors to consider in locating...
 Calves
 Programs for growing calves
 Minerals, vitamins, feed additives,...
 Economic considerations
 Summary and conclusions
 Literature cited
 Acknowledgments
 Tables 1-11
 Back Cover






Group Title: Bulletin - University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station - no. 761
Title: Growing calves in Florida
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027496/00001
 Material Information
Title: Growing calves in Florida
Series Title: Bulletin University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station
Physical Description: 48 p. : ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Bertrand, J. E ( Joseph Ezel ), 1924-
Publisher: Agricultural Experiment Stations, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1974
 Subjects
Subject: Calves -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Calves -- Feeding and feeds -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Bibliography: p. 29.
Statement of Responsibility: J.E. Bertrand ... et al..
General Note: Cover title.
Funding: Bulletin (University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station) ;
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027496
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 - 000929856
oclc - 18432852
notis - AEP0658

Table of Contents
    Copyright
        Copyright
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Table of Contents
        Table of Contents
    Opportunities for calf-growing operations
        Page 1
    Factors to consider in locating and starting calf-growing operations
        Page 2
        Feasibility for calf-growing operations
            Page 2
        Site selection and compliance with laws
            Page 2
    Calves
        Page 3
        Preconditioning
            Page 3
        Facilities
            Page 4
            Page 5
            Gain and length of growing period necessary for the greatest net return
                Page 4
        Cattle ownership, custom or contract growing
            Page 6
        Care upon arrival on farm and during the growing period
            Page 7
    Programs for growing calves
        Page 7
        Pasture programs
            Page 7
            Cool-season
                Page 7
                Page 8
                Page 9
                Page 10
                Page 11
                Page 12
            Warm-season
                Page 13
        Confinement feeding
            Page 14
            Silage
                Page 15
                Page 16
                Page 17
                Page 18
            Other confinement feeding
                Page 19
    Minerals, vitamins, feed additives, and other growth promotants
        Page 19
        Minerals
            Page 19
            Calcium and phosphorus
                Page 20
            Salt and trace minerals
                Page 20
            Magnesium
                Page 20
        Vitamins
            Page 20
            Vitamin A
                Page 21
            Vitamin E
                Page 21
        Feed additives
            Page 21
            Antibiotics
                Page 21
            Enzymes and tranquilizers
                Page 21
        Other growth promotants
            Page 22
    Economic considerations
        Page 22
        Marketing
            Page 22
            Market information
                Page 23
            Terms of sales
                Page 23
        Breakeven analysis
            Page 24
    Summary and conclusions
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
    Literature cited
        Page 29
    Acknowledgments
        Page 30
    Tables 1-11
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
    Back Cover
        Page 49
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




February 1974


GROWING CALVES IN FLORIDA


J. E. Bertrand, F. S. Baker, Jr., D. W. Beardsley,
H. L. Chapman, Jr., T. J. Cunha, J. F. Hentges, Jr.,
and W. K. Mathis


5;
&^ /** b' Jrak~



^ *'-y I --
cq-- -< r"




.i









~1t' r Aj )f
il ^ -7 ii '-^ -


Agricultural Experiment Stations
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
J. W. Sites, Dean for Research
University of Florida, Gainesville


Atin 761
















GROWING CALVES IN FLORIDA

J. E. Bertrand, F. S. Baker, Jr., D. W. Beardsley,
H. L. Chapman, Jr., T. J. Cunha,
J. F. Hentges, Jr., and W. K. Mathis

Associate Animal Scientist, Agricultural Research Center, Jay; Animal Husband-
man, Agricultural Research and Education Center, Quincy; Animal Nutritionist and
Center Director, Agricultural Research and Education Center, Belle Glade; Animal
Nutritionist and Center Director, Agricultural Research Center, Ona; Animal Nutri-
tionist and Chairman, Animal Science Department, Gainesville; Animal Nutritionist,
Animal Science Department, Gainesville; and Assistant Professor, Food and
Resource Economics Department, Gainesville, respectively.










First printing: February 1974
Second printing: November 1975


This public document was promulgated at an annual cost
of $1,072.50 or a cost of 210 per copy to present information
on the growing of light-weight calves to desired feedlot
weights in Florida.











CONTENTS



Page

Opportunities for Calf-Growing Operations _...............-..........---- 1
Factors to Consider in Locating and Starting Calf-Growing
Operations ....... --- ....... -............ .....-- 2
Feasibility for Calf-Growing Operations .....-~.................. 2
Site Selection and Compliance with Laws ...............-............... 2
Calves .. ---..-..-.........- ... ......- 3
Preconditioning --.....-.- ...-- ..... ...-----....... 3
Facilities ---.......-.. .. .........------.----- ....... .--.-----..... ---- 4
Gain and Length of Growing Period Necessary for
the Greatest Net Return ................---- 4
Cattle Ownership, Custom or Contract Growing ...................- 6
Care upon Arrival on Farm and during the Growing Period ....... 7
Programs for Growing Calves .................... ................ ................ 7
Pasture Programs -.-. ..- ...................................... 7
Cool-Season -.. ..............-........--........-- ....-- 7
W arm-Season .............. .............-. .. ..... -- -.. 13
Confinement Feeding ............... ....... .............. ..........-.... -... 14
Silage ......-- .... .........~.................. 15
Other Confinement Feeding ..........-...............--... -- ...- 19
Minerals, Vitamins, Feed Additives, and Other Growth Promotants .... 19
Minerals .......................---- -----..----- 19
Calcium and Phosphorus ........... .............- ....- ... 20
Salt and Trace Minerals ...................................... 20
Magnesium .....-................--............ ....--. 20
Vitamins ..-.-.---.- .......... ......... .. ... 20
Vitamin A -.....-.- ..--.... .....................-- ...- 21
Vitam in E ............ ............... .......................... ..... ..... 21
Feed Additives ........................................ ...----- 21
Antibiotics --................----........- ............---.....-.... -- 21
Enzymes and Tranquilizers ................ .................--- ...- 21
Other Growth Promotants ...............................--..- 22
Economic Considerations ................ ..-- .............--.--..-- .----- 22
Marketing ....... --- ....- ..... ...--.- ..-..- ......---.---- .-- 22
Market Information ......-.. .............. ........-...- 23
Terms of Sales .. .... ...........--.. ------..--- ...... .... 23
Breakeven Analyses ........- 24
Summary and Conclusions .... ...-- .- ... ...... .......................... ...... 25
Literature Cited ...-----................. .. .. ---- ..---... 29
Acknowledgments ........... .. .. .... ....- .. ....... ...--- 30
A appendix ....... ....... ........... ..... ----... --- ......- ...- 31








GROWING CALVES IN FLORIDA


OPPORTUNITIES FOR CALF-GROWING OPERATIONS

Cattlemen in Florida have an excellent opportunity to in-
crease their net incomes by growing calves to heavier weights.
This would provide more alternatives for marketing calves at
different times in Florida. It would allow for more uniform
marketing throughout the year. The end result should be
greater net returns. The decision on when to market, the weight
of calf to sell, the growing program to use, and what should
be done on other related matters would depend on the economics
involved and which program would provide the greatest net
return.
In 1971, the Florida Department of Agriculture reported that
538,893 head of calves were shipped out of Florida to 37 other
states. The Texas Panhandle area received most of these Florida
calves, followed by the Far West, the Southeast, and the Mid-
west in that order. The Midwest received only about 5% of the
calves shipped out. Florida calves are being used mostly in the
southern half of the United States from Florida to California.
Many Florida cattlemen are interested in keeping their
calves or in buying calves in the fall and growing them to feed-
lot weights of 550 to 750 pounds on winter grazing and other
feeding programs. Some of these feedlot weight cattle would
then be shipped out-of-state, whereas others would be kept in
Florida for finishing. In 1971, approximately 50,000 head of
feeder cattle were brought in from out-of-state. After the grow-
ing period, it would be best to keep the heavier feeder cattle in
Florida for finishing and send the lighter cattle out-of-state
since less freight would be involved in shipping them. Feedlots
in other parts of the country buy Florida calves on a year-round
basis. This is verified by the fact that calves are shipped out
of Florida during every month of the year.
Cow-calf production in Florida is highly seasonal, with about
45% of the calves marketed in the 4-month period from July
through October. This seasonal variation in marketing, with
year-round demand, results in large seasonal differences in
feeder cattle prices. In the period of 1955-70, average prices for
feeder cattle sold through Florida auctions were highest in
March, April, May, and June. The prices were lowest in October,
November, and December. This same general seasonal variation
in prices exists for feedlot weight cattle in Florida. However,






nearly 60% of all calves sold through Florida auctions weigh
less than 300 pounds.
Florida cattlemen can use winter grazing crops such as rye,
wheat, oats, ryegrass, and clover for growing calves. Summer
grazing from temporary grasses such as millet and sorghum-
sudangrass hybrids can be used. In addition, silage can be used
as a back-up or emergency source of feed in case the grazing is
not adequate due to inclement weather. Several feeding pro-
grams tested by scientists of the Florida Agricultural Experi-
ment Stations for growing calves to desired feedlot weights will
be discussed in this bulletin.

FACTORS TO CONSIDER IN LOCATING AND STARTING
CALF-GROWING OPERATIONS
Feasibility for Calf-Growing Operations
Many factors external to the farm, such as market prices
and feedlot demand, must be favorable for a calf-growing opera-
tion. Each cattleman considering such an operation must look
at his own situation to determine whether or not it would be
profitable for him. A calf-growing operation may be profitable
and add needed flexibility to the farm business, or it may be a
sad experience. Before making a decision, the cattleman must
determine what resources are available. The following outline
lists some important factors that must be considered in begin-
ning or expanding a calf-growing operation.
1). Land and feed supply.
a). Winter grazing-Small grain crops, ryegrass, clover, corn or
sorghum stubble, and other crop residues.
b). Summer grazing-permanent pasture and summer annual
grasses.
c). Other feeds-silage, hay, grain, etc.
2). Labor-family or hired.
3). Capital to pay for:
a). Feeder calves.
b). Pasture establishment and other feed.
c). Other inputs.
4). Management.
a). Marketing-buying the right kind of calves at a cheap price
and selling them at heavier weights at a good price.
b). Feeding-stocking rates, rotational grazing, and supplemental
feeding:
c). Cattle health.

Site Selection and Compliance with Laws
Other factors which must be given consideration are the
selection of a suitable site and the ability to comply with exist-
ing laws concerning the environmental effects of feedlot wastes.
The most important factors in site selection are weather,






nearly 60% of all calves sold through Florida auctions weigh
less than 300 pounds.
Florida cattlemen can use winter grazing crops such as rye,
wheat, oats, ryegrass, and clover for growing calves. Summer
grazing from temporary grasses such as millet and sorghum-
sudangrass hybrids can be used. In addition, silage can be used
as a back-up or emergency source of feed in case the grazing is
not adequate due to inclement weather. Several feeding pro-
grams tested by scientists of the Florida Agricultural Experi-
ment Stations for growing calves to desired feedlot weights will
be discussed in this bulletin.

FACTORS TO CONSIDER IN LOCATING AND STARTING
CALF-GROWING OPERATIONS
Feasibility for Calf-Growing Operations
Many factors external to the farm, such as market prices
and feedlot demand, must be favorable for a calf-growing opera-
tion. Each cattleman considering such an operation must look
at his own situation to determine whether or not it would be
profitable for him. A calf-growing operation may be profitable
and add needed flexibility to the farm business, or it may be a
sad experience. Before making a decision, the cattleman must
determine what resources are available. The following outline
lists some important factors that must be considered in begin-
ning or expanding a calf-growing operation.
1). Land and feed supply.
a). Winter grazing-Small grain crops, ryegrass, clover, corn or
sorghum stubble, and other crop residues.
b). Summer grazing-permanent pasture and summer annual
grasses.
c). Other feeds-silage, hay, grain, etc.
2). Labor-family or hired.
3). Capital to pay for:
a). Feeder calves.
b). Pasture establishment and other feed.
c). Other inputs.
4). Management.
a). Marketing-buying the right kind of calves at a cheap price
and selling them at heavier weights at a good price.
b). Feeding-stocking rates, rotational grazing, and supplemental
feeding:
c). Cattle health.

Site Selection and Compliance with Laws
Other factors which must be given consideration are the
selection of a suitable site and the ability to comply with exist-
ing laws concerning the environmental effects of feedlot wastes.
The most important factors in site selection are weather,






nearly 60% of all calves sold through Florida auctions weigh
less than 300 pounds.
Florida cattlemen can use winter grazing crops such as rye,
wheat, oats, ryegrass, and clover for growing calves. Summer
grazing from temporary grasses such as millet and sorghum-
sudangrass hybrids can be used. In addition, silage can be used
as a back-up or emergency source of feed in case the grazing is
not adequate due to inclement weather. Several feeding pro-
grams tested by scientists of the Florida Agricultural Experi-
ment Stations for growing calves to desired feedlot weights will
be discussed in this bulletin.

FACTORS TO CONSIDER IN LOCATING AND STARTING
CALF-GROWING OPERATIONS
Feasibility for Calf-Growing Operations
Many factors external to the farm, such as market prices
and feedlot demand, must be favorable for a calf-growing opera-
tion. Each cattleman considering such an operation must look
at his own situation to determine whether or not it would be
profitable for him. A calf-growing operation may be profitable
and add needed flexibility to the farm business, or it may be a
sad experience. Before making a decision, the cattleman must
determine what resources are available. The following outline
lists some important factors that must be considered in begin-
ning or expanding a calf-growing operation.
1). Land and feed supply.
a). Winter grazing-Small grain crops, ryegrass, clover, corn or
sorghum stubble, and other crop residues.
b). Summer grazing-permanent pasture and summer annual
grasses.
c). Other feeds-silage, hay, grain, etc.
2). Labor-family or hired.
3). Capital to pay for:
a). Feeder calves.
b). Pasture establishment and other feed.
c). Other inputs.
4). Management.
a). Marketing-buying the right kind of calves at a cheap price
and selling them at heavier weights at a good price.
b). Feeding-stocking rates, rotational grazing, and supplemental
feeding:
c). Cattle health.

Site Selection and Compliance with Laws
Other factors which must be given consideration are the
selection of a suitable site and the ability to comply with exist-
ing laws concerning the environmental effects of feedlot wastes.
The most important factors in site selection are weather,






topography, soil characteristics, and type of adjoining proper-
ties. Weather determines the cost of shelter to protect cattle
from the stress of muddy lots, hot sun, blowing cold winter
rains, and high relative humidity. Gain and feed conversion are
maximal only when feedlot cattle are comfortable. Topography
determines the cost of manure disposal, cost of compliance with
laws which prohibit surface movement of feedlot waste to ad-
joining properties, and cost of shelters which need sufficient
altitude to be well ventilated and cooled by surface wind move-
ment. Soil characteristics determine the potential for growing
pastures to be grazed or forage crops to be ensiled, made into
hay, or grazed. In many areas, the growing of crops in the
vicinity of confinement feedlots is a necessity as a means of
disposal of manure and liquid waste.
Feedlot operators must file plans with the Florida Depart-
ment of Pollution Control, Tallahassee, describing how they
intend to manage all waste from their operations, including
manure and dead animals. Large feedlots with daily manure
output larger than 500 pounds BOD (biological oxygen demand)
are required to retain a registered engineer to prepare a lengthy,
detailed application for a permit, while smaller feedlots are only
required to file a short application. It is estimated that 325
head of steers averaging 850 pounds in weight would have a
daily fecal output with a BOD of 500 pounds.
A recently rejuvenated law will prevent feedlot operators
from discharging liquid or solid waste into streams. Any un-
usual pollution potential which might constitute a "public nui-
sance" such as dust, odors, flies, and rodents must also be con-
trolled to avoid lawsuits. Existing county and city zoning laws
should be studied, along with projected plans for changes in
these laws, before selecting a site for a feedlot. Assurance must
be obtained that neighboring firms and individuals will consider
the feedlot compatible with their view of acceptable environ-
mental quality.

CALVES
Preconditioning
Preconditioning has been defined as a management procedure
that allows a calf to be weaned and treated so that it can go
into a feeding program with a minimum amount of stress. Most
of the practices involved in preconditioning calves are not new.
Preconditioning includes dehorning, castration, worming, im-
munization against diseases, and teaching calves to eat and
drink from troughs. The concept had its start in the early






topography, soil characteristics, and type of adjoining proper-
ties. Weather determines the cost of shelter to protect cattle
from the stress of muddy lots, hot sun, blowing cold winter
rains, and high relative humidity. Gain and feed conversion are
maximal only when feedlot cattle are comfortable. Topography
determines the cost of manure disposal, cost of compliance with
laws which prohibit surface movement of feedlot waste to ad-
joining properties, and cost of shelters which need sufficient
altitude to be well ventilated and cooled by surface wind move-
ment. Soil characteristics determine the potential for growing
pastures to be grazed or forage crops to be ensiled, made into
hay, or grazed. In many areas, the growing of crops in the
vicinity of confinement feedlots is a necessity as a means of
disposal of manure and liquid waste.
Feedlot operators must file plans with the Florida Depart-
ment of Pollution Control, Tallahassee, describing how they
intend to manage all waste from their operations, including
manure and dead animals. Large feedlots with daily manure
output larger than 500 pounds BOD (biological oxygen demand)
are required to retain a registered engineer to prepare a lengthy,
detailed application for a permit, while smaller feedlots are only
required to file a short application. It is estimated that 325
head of steers averaging 850 pounds in weight would have a
daily fecal output with a BOD of 500 pounds.
A recently rejuvenated law will prevent feedlot operators
from discharging liquid or solid waste into streams. Any un-
usual pollution potential which might constitute a "public nui-
sance" such as dust, odors, flies, and rodents must also be con-
trolled to avoid lawsuits. Existing county and city zoning laws
should be studied, along with projected plans for changes in
these laws, before selecting a site for a feedlot. Assurance must
be obtained that neighboring firms and individuals will consider
the feedlot compatible with their view of acceptable environ-
mental quality.

CALVES
Preconditioning
Preconditioning has been defined as a management procedure
that allows a calf to be weaned and treated so that it can go
into a feeding program with a minimum amount of stress. Most
of the practices involved in preconditioning calves are not new.
Preconditioning includes dehorning, castration, worming, im-
munization against diseases, and teaching calves to eat and
drink from troughs. The concept had its start in the early






1960's in the western and midwestern areas of the country. The
feedlot operator has been more in favor of preconditioning than
the cow-calf operator. Prices of preconditioned calves have not
consistently exceeded prices of other calves.
Disease control has received more publicity than other fac-
tors involved in preconditioning. To be successful, an immuni-
zation program should not start until maternal immunity has
disappeared. Also, immunity does not develop immediately. It
takes 3 to 4 weeks after vaccination to develop adequate pro-
tection. Rely on your local veterinarian for advice concerning
the immunization treatments to use.
A few Florida cattlemen incorporate some of the precon-
ditioning practices in handling their calves before they leave
the ranch as a matter of routine management. However, many
cattlemen do not have facilities for preweaning calves or they
may raise their cattle under range conditions that cannot be
readily modified to precondition calves. On the other hand, feed-
lot operators claim that preconditioned calves are more profitable
than calves that have not been preconditioned. They are be-
coming more sophisticated in their operations and are paying
more attention to where the calves originate and how they per-
form in the feedlot.

Facilities
Physical facilities for handling calves on the farm may differ
in design, degree of complexity, and cost. Basically, these fa-
cilities should be designed to handle calves with a minimum
amount of labor and time. A loading chute (equipped for double
decking), pens for sorting, a head gate or squeeze chute, and
scales are necessary facilities.

Gain and Length of Growing Period Necessary for the
Greatest Net Return
To grow calves profitably, they must make enough gain so
that their selling price will be sufficient to cover all costs, plus
an additional return to the grower. Normally, there will be a
negative margin between the price per hundredweight paid for
the calf and the price per hundredweight received for the feeder
at the end of the growing period. Making enough gain to over-
come an unfavorable cost-price margin is hindered by a shrink
in weight from purchase weight to delivery weight at the farm.
This shrink in weight often amounts to 6% or 7% of the pur-
chase weight. Under favorable conditions with newly arrived
calves, at least 2 to 3 weeks are required for them to recover







shipping shrink and actually begin gaining weight above their
purchase weight. Sickness resulting from shipping stress may
extend the recovery period to 4 to 6 weeks. Death losses that
often occur at this time will further extend the period that sur-
viving calves will require to recover shipping shrink and actually
begin gaining weight above their purchase weight. An example
is given in Table 1 to illustrate the economic effect of these
factors and their influence on the necessary breakeven selling
price of growing calves at various intervals of the growing
period.
The estimated cost per hundredweight gain, for both a 1.50
and a 1.75 pound per head daily gain, to a grower who does not
own the calves and is growing them on a cost of gain arrange-
ment is given in Table 2. It can be noted that the cost of gain
is lowered as the grazing period is lengthened. It is evident that
with growing calves a fast gain over a period of several months
is advantageous to the owner and/or grower operating with or
without a cost of gain contract (Tables 1 and 2).

Table 1
Illustration of costs and necessary breakeven selling prices in growing calves(a)
Selling price/cwt
Item Cost needed to break even
Cost 450 Ib. calf @ $35.00/cwt $157.50 $35.00
Trucking to farm $ 1.00
Delivered cost 423 lb. calf (6% shrink) $158.50 $37.47
Cost of regaining shrink (21 days)
Medication $2.00
Death loss (1%) $1.59
Supplemental feed $3.00
Interest (7% cost calf, 21 days) $0.65
Cost 1st 21 days $ 7.24
Cost 450 Ib. calf when shrink recovered $165.74 $36.83
Cost per month thereafter
Pasture $5.00
Supplemental feed $2.10
Interest (cost calf) $0.92
Cost/month $8.02
Cost end 1st month, wt 503 lb.
(1.75 Ib. daily gain) $173.76 $34.54
Cost end 2nd month, wt 555 Ib. $181.78 $32.75
Cost end 3rd month, wt 608 Ib. $189.80 $31.22
Cost end 4th month, wt 660 lb. $197.82 $29.97
Cost end 5th month, wt 713 Ib. $205.84 $28.87
(a) The basic concept would be the same, but the figures would change under different
conditions.






1960's in the western and midwestern areas of the country. The
feedlot operator has been more in favor of preconditioning than
the cow-calf operator. Prices of preconditioned calves have not
consistently exceeded prices of other calves.
Disease control has received more publicity than other fac-
tors involved in preconditioning. To be successful, an immuni-
zation program should not start until maternal immunity has
disappeared. Also, immunity does not develop immediately. It
takes 3 to 4 weeks after vaccination to develop adequate pro-
tection. Rely on your local veterinarian for advice concerning
the immunization treatments to use.
A few Florida cattlemen incorporate some of the precon-
ditioning practices in handling their calves before they leave
the ranch as a matter of routine management. However, many
cattlemen do not have facilities for preweaning calves or they
may raise their cattle under range conditions that cannot be
readily modified to precondition calves. On the other hand, feed-
lot operators claim that preconditioned calves are more profitable
than calves that have not been preconditioned. They are be-
coming more sophisticated in their operations and are paying
more attention to where the calves originate and how they per-
form in the feedlot.

Facilities
Physical facilities for handling calves on the farm may differ
in design, degree of complexity, and cost. Basically, these fa-
cilities should be designed to handle calves with a minimum
amount of labor and time. A loading chute (equipped for double
decking), pens for sorting, a head gate or squeeze chute, and
scales are necessary facilities.

Gain and Length of Growing Period Necessary for the
Greatest Net Return
To grow calves profitably, they must make enough gain so
that their selling price will be sufficient to cover all costs, plus
an additional return to the grower. Normally, there will be a
negative margin between the price per hundredweight paid for
the calf and the price per hundredweight received for the feeder
at the end of the growing period. Making enough gain to over-
come an unfavorable cost-price margin is hindered by a shrink
in weight from purchase weight to delivery weight at the farm.
This shrink in weight often amounts to 6% or 7% of the pur-
chase weight. Under favorable conditions with newly arrived
calves, at least 2 to 3 weeks are required for them to recover







Table 2
Growing calves on a cost of gain arrangement(a)
Cost/cwt gain
1.75 lb. 1.50 lb.
Item Cost/head daily gain daily gain

Cost 1st 21 days
Supplemental feed $3.00
Medication $2.00
Half of death loss
(shared with owner) $0.80
$5.80
Cost/month thereafter
Pasture $5.00
Supplemental feed $2.10
$7.10
Cost end 1st month pasture
(51 days after receiving) $12.90 $24.34 $28.67
Cost end 2nd month pasture $20.00 $19.05 $22.22
Cost end 3rd month pasture $27.10 $17.15 $20.07
Cost end 4th month pasture $34.20 $16.29 $19.00
Cost end 5th month pasture $41.30 $15.70 $18.36
(a) The basic concept would be the same, but the figures would change under different
conditions.


Cattle Ownership, Custom or Contract Growing
One of the most important decisions a farmer or cattleman
must make is whether he will own all the calves he grazes or
feeds, or whether he will run some part of the calves on a con-
tract or custom basis. The ownership of the calves determines
the financing required, has considerable effect on the way the
calves are fed and handled, determines the kind of accounting
necessary, and influences other factors in the operation. If the
cattleman or grower owns all the calves he is grazing or feed-
ing, he has complete control over buying, selling, management,
and financing. However, he must bear all risks and losses asso-
ciated with the calf-growing operation.
Many farmers, whose primary enterprises are cash crops,
prefer to graze cattle on a contract basis. This kind of arrange-
ment reduces the amount of investment and financing required,
spreads risks, and eliminates marketing requirements. Several
types of grazing arrangements are used in different parts of
the United States.
Cattlemen considering a livestock feeding contract of any
kind should carefully study the proposal to see that its provi-






sions will enable both parties to meet their objectives. Factors
that may bring about disagreements should be carefully con-
sidered and stated in the contract.

Care upon Arrival on Farm and during the Growing Period
Differences of opinion exist among cattlemen on the best
procedure for handling newly arrived calves that have not been
preconditioned. Size, health, condition of calves, distance they
have been trucked, time of year, and other factors should be
considered. It is beyond the scope of this publication to thor-
oughly discuss all aspects of the problem.
The prevention of further stress in newly arrived calves by
handling them as little as possible is of utmost importance. They
should be provided with easy access to clean water, fresh feed,
and shade in the warm months. Many calves will have to be
taught to eat feed. Some feeders prefer a pelleted ration, while
others do not. The total ration should contain adequate energy,
protein, minerals, and vitamins. Whether or not feeding is con-
tinued after the calves have recovered from the shipping stress,
it is still advisable to teach calves to eat when they first arrive
so that they will readily consume feed during future emergency
periods when pasture may be deficient.
Calves should be closely confined where they can be carefully
observed for about 3 weeks before they are turned to pasture.
Sick calves should be treated promptly and isolated until they
have recovered.
An experienced veterinarian familiar with local conditions
and history of the cattle should be consulted for specific recom-
mendations regarding inoculations and treatments. The only
general recommendation that can be made is to inject at least
1,000,000 IU of vitamin A as a preventive measure.

PROGRAMS FOR GROWING CALVES
Pasture Programs
Cool-Season
Small Grain Crops for Grazing.-Small grain crops (wheat,
oats, and rye) produce quality forage for grazing during the
fall, winter, and early spring in many areas of Florida. Properly
managed, these crops offer a good potential for the production
of beef when grazed by growing calves.
These small grain crops are usually planted with a grain drill
as early as possible in the fall. The planting dates will '1 ci..r






sions will enable both parties to meet their objectives. Factors
that may bring about disagreements should be carefully con-
sidered and stated in the contract.

Care upon Arrival on Farm and during the Growing Period
Differences of opinion exist among cattlemen on the best
procedure for handling newly arrived calves that have not been
preconditioned. Size, health, condition of calves, distance they
have been trucked, time of year, and other factors should be
considered. It is beyond the scope of this publication to thor-
oughly discuss all aspects of the problem.
The prevention of further stress in newly arrived calves by
handling them as little as possible is of utmost importance. They
should be provided with easy access to clean water, fresh feed,
and shade in the warm months. Many calves will have to be
taught to eat feed. Some feeders prefer a pelleted ration, while
others do not. The total ration should contain adequate energy,
protein, minerals, and vitamins. Whether or not feeding is con-
tinued after the calves have recovered from the shipping stress,
it is still advisable to teach calves to eat when they first arrive
so that they will readily consume feed during future emergency
periods when pasture may be deficient.
Calves should be closely confined where they can be carefully
observed for about 3 weeks before they are turned to pasture.
Sick calves should be treated promptly and isolated until they
have recovered.
An experienced veterinarian familiar with local conditions
and history of the cattle should be consulted for specific recom-
mendations regarding inoculations and treatments. The only
general recommendation that can be made is to inject at least
1,000,000 IU of vitamin A as a preventive measure.

PROGRAMS FOR GROWING CALVES
Pasture Programs
Cool-Season
Small Grain Crops for Grazing.-Small grain crops (wheat,
oats, and rye) produce quality forage for grazing during the
fall, winter, and early spring in many areas of Florida. Properly
managed, these crops offer a good potential for the production
of beef when grazed by growing calves.
These small grain crops are usually planted with a grain drill
as early as possible in the fall. The planting dates will '1 ci..r






sions will enable both parties to meet their objectives. Factors
that may bring about disagreements should be carefully con-
sidered and stated in the contract.

Care upon Arrival on Farm and during the Growing Period
Differences of opinion exist among cattlemen on the best
procedure for handling newly arrived calves that have not been
preconditioned. Size, health, condition of calves, distance they
have been trucked, time of year, and other factors should be
considered. It is beyond the scope of this publication to thor-
oughly discuss all aspects of the problem.
The prevention of further stress in newly arrived calves by
handling them as little as possible is of utmost importance. They
should be provided with easy access to clean water, fresh feed,
and shade in the warm months. Many calves will have to be
taught to eat feed. Some feeders prefer a pelleted ration, while
others do not. The total ration should contain adequate energy,
protein, minerals, and vitamins. Whether or not feeding is con-
tinued after the calves have recovered from the shipping stress,
it is still advisable to teach calves to eat when they first arrive
so that they will readily consume feed during future emergency
periods when pasture may be deficient.
Calves should be closely confined where they can be carefully
observed for about 3 weeks before they are turned to pasture.
Sick calves should be treated promptly and isolated until they
have recovered.
An experienced veterinarian familiar with local conditions
and history of the cattle should be consulted for specific recom-
mendations regarding inoculations and treatments. The only
general recommendation that can be made is to inject at least
1,000,000 IU of vitamin A as a preventive measure.

PROGRAMS FOR GROWING CALVES
Pasture Programs
Cool-Season
Small Grain Crops for Grazing.-Small grain crops (wheat,
oats, and rye) produce quality forage for grazing during the
fall, winter, and early spring in many areas of Florida. Properly
managed, these crops offer a good potential for the production
of beef when grazed by growing calves.
These small grain crops are usually planted with a grain drill
as early as possible in the fall. The planting dates will '1 ci..r






sions will enable both parties to meet their objectives. Factors
that may bring about disagreements should be carefully con-
sidered and stated in the contract.

Care upon Arrival on Farm and during the Growing Period
Differences of opinion exist among cattlemen on the best
procedure for handling newly arrived calves that have not been
preconditioned. Size, health, condition of calves, distance they
have been trucked, time of year, and other factors should be
considered. It is beyond the scope of this publication to thor-
oughly discuss all aspects of the problem.
The prevention of further stress in newly arrived calves by
handling them as little as possible is of utmost importance. They
should be provided with easy access to clean water, fresh feed,
and shade in the warm months. Many calves will have to be
taught to eat feed. Some feeders prefer a pelleted ration, while
others do not. The total ration should contain adequate energy,
protein, minerals, and vitamins. Whether or not feeding is con-
tinued after the calves have recovered from the shipping stress,
it is still advisable to teach calves to eat when they first arrive
so that they will readily consume feed during future emergency
periods when pasture may be deficient.
Calves should be closely confined where they can be carefully
observed for about 3 weeks before they are turned to pasture.
Sick calves should be treated promptly and isolated until they
have recovered.
An experienced veterinarian familiar with local conditions
and history of the cattle should be consulted for specific recom-
mendations regarding inoculations and treatments. The only
general recommendation that can be made is to inject at least
1,000,000 IU of vitamin A as a preventive measure.

PROGRAMS FOR GROWING CALVES
Pasture Programs
Cool-Season
Small Grain Crops for Grazing.-Small grain crops (wheat,
oats, and rye) produce quality forage for grazing during the
fall, winter, and early spring in many areas of Florida. Properly
managed, these crops offer a good potential for the production
of beef when grazed by growing calves.
These small grain crops are usually planted with a grain drill
as early as possible in the fall. The planting dates will '1 ci..r






on moisture conditions of the soil and availability of the land
after harvest of the warm-season crop. It is desirable to plant
half of the acreage 2 to 3 weeks before the other half and rotate
the calves between the two pastures as required for best utili-
zation of good quality forage. The seeding rates are normally
2 bushels of seed per acre for both wheat and rye and 3 bushels
of seed per acre for oats. A complete fertilizer (analysis and
amount depending on a soil test) is applied at planting time.
Additional applications of 100 to 150 pounds of ammonium ni-
trate per acre are usually made two to three times during the
grazing season as needed. Check with the agricultural exten-
sion representative in your area for more specific recommenda-
tions.
A 2-year study at the Agricultural Research Center, Ona
(ARC, Ona), showed daily gains of 1.88 and 1.70 pounds on
steers grazing oats and rye, respectively (16)1. The number of
acres required per steer was 1.00 for oats and 1.29 for rye.
In a grazing trial at the ARC, Jay, growing calves grazing
wheat gained faster than calves grazing rye or oats (2.16, 1.95,
and 1.84 pounds/head/day, respectively) (Appendix Table 1).
Calves grazing wheat gained significantly more than calves
grazing oats. Calves grazing rye, because of a higher stocking
rate per acre and a longer grazing period, had the highest total
gain per acre (513 pounds). In interpreting these results, it
should be kept in mind that half of the calves on each one of the
three small grain crops received a 12% protein high-energy ra-
tion on pasture at the level of 1% of body weight.
In a later trial at Jay, growing calves grazing wheat gained
faster than calves grazing either oats or rye (1.70, 1.60, and
1.47 pounds/head/day, respectively) (Appendix Table 2). Calves
grazing wheat had the highest beef gain (433 pounds) and net
return per acre, while calves grazing rye had the lowest beef
gain (370 pounds) and net return per acre. It should be kept
in mind that half of the calves on each treatment were supple-
mented as in the earlier study.
A summary of a 3-year study at the Agricultural Research
and Education Center, Quincy (AREC, Quincy), comparing oats
and rye pastures, with and without supplement, for steer calves
is presented in Table 3 (1). During periods of cold weather,
the calves were removed from pasture and fed snapped corn
and hay while the small grain recovered. The calves grazing
oats gained faster than those grazing rye. However, a greater
pasture acreage per head or more supplemental feed during

'Numbers in parentheses refer to Literature Cited.







Table 3
Oats and rye pastures, with and without corn supplement,
for steer calves AREC, Qunicy
Oats Rye
Item No grain Corn No grain Corn
No. of animals 21(a) 21(a) 21(a) 21(a)
Days 95 95 95 95
Avg initial wt, Ib. 526 526 521 526
Avg daily gain, Ib. 1.55 1.83 1.18 1.69
Pasture/head, acre 0.66 0.32 0.55 0.32
Ground snapped corn/head daily, Ib. 0.5 9.9 0.6 8.4
Grass hay/head daily, lb. 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2
Pasture and feed cost/cwt gain(b) $ 17.50 $ 18.02 $ 19.83 $ 17.96
(a) Seven head per treatment for each of the 3 years.
(b) Ground snapped corn cost=$41.67/ton, grass hay cost=$21.67/ton, and small grain
pasture cost= $35.00/acre.


periods of cold weather was required by the calves on oats. The
data suggested that increased cattle gains from supplemental
feeding on small grain pasture were not large enough to justify
the additional feeding expense, unless a greater stocking rate
was used along with supplementation.
Feeding a supplement to growing calves grazing small grain
crops (wheat, oats, and rye) at the ARC, Jay, increased gain but
also increased the cost of gain (Appendix Table 1). The composi-
tion of the pasture supplemental ration is listed in Table 4. The
net return per acre from supplemented calves grazing small
grain crops was similar to that of unsupplemented calves.
In a later trial at Jay, a highly significant increase in gain
resulted from supplemental feeding of growing calves grazing

Table 4
Pasture supplemental ration-ARC, Jay(a)
Ingredients % Lb./ton
Ground sorghum grain 96.85 1937
Urea-45% N 0.50 10
Salt (trace-mineralized) 0.50 10
Defluorinated rock phosphate 2.00 40
Antibiotic supplement(b) 0.15 3
Vitamin A supplement(c) + +
100.00 2000
(a) A 12% protein high-energy ration fed at the level of 1% of body weight daily.
(b) Zinc bacitracin supplement containing 10 g of the antibiotic per pound added at the level
of 30 g/ton or 15 mg/lb. of pasture supplemental ration.
(c) Vitamin A supplement containing 30,000 IU/g added at the level of 6 million IU/ton or
3,000 IU/lb. of pasture supplemental ration.






small grain crops (wheat, oats, and rye) (1.87 vs 1.26 pounds/
head/day) (Appendix Table 2). The pasture supplemental
ration was the same as used in the earlier study. Calves re-
ceiving a supplement on pasture produced a beef gain of 515
pounds per acre compared to 293 pounds per acre for unsupple-
mented calves. The net return per acre was somewhat higher
for supplemented calves in this trial.

Combinations of Winter Annual Grasses with or without
Clover for Grazing.-A mixture composed of a small grain crop
(wheat or rye) and ryegrass, with or without clover, for rota-
tional grazing by growing beef calves offers a longer grazing
period and a better potential for increasing beef production
when compared to grazing a small grain crop in a pure stand.
The small grain crop, if planted early enough in the fall, should
be ready for grazing early in November in north Florida, while
the ryegrass and clover should extend the grazing period into
late spring or early summer.
The small grain crop is usually planted as mentioned pre-
viously. The ryegrass and clover can be seeded over the small
grain with a cultipacker-seeder. As stated previously, it is de-
sirable to plant half-of the acreage 2 to 3 weeks before the
other half and rotate the calves between the two pastures for
best utilization of good quality forage. The seeding rates are
normally 11/4 to 2 bushels of seed per acre for both wheat and
rye (oats do not appear to be advantageous over wheat or rye),
12 to 20 pounds per acre for ryegrass, 8 to 12 pounds per acre
for crimson clover, and 4 to 6 pounds per acre for arrowleaf
clover. A complete fertilizer (analysis and amount depending
on a soil test) is applied at planting time. Additional applica-
tions of 100 to 150 pounds of ammonium nitrate per acre are
made two to three times during the growing season as needed.
Check with the agricultural extension representative in your
area for more specific recommendations.
At the ARC, Jay, calves rotationally grazing a mixture of
rye and ryegrass had an average daily gain of 1.66 pounds for
a period of 171 days (Appendix Table 3). The calves were
stocked at the rate of 1.60 calves per acre and produced 455
pounds of beef per acre.
In a later trial conducted for 154 days at Jay, the addition
of crimson clover to a mixture of rye and ryegrass for rota-
tional .grazing by growing calves slightly increased gain (1.58
vs. 1.51 pounds/head/day) and net return per head (Appendix
Table 4) at a stocking rate of 1.60 calves per acre.







The performance and economic data for growing calves graz-
ing different mixtures of cool-season annual grasses and legumes
at the ARC, Jay, are listed in Appendix Table 5. Calves rota-
tionally grazing rye in ryegrass and clover (crimson or arrow-
leaf) mixtures performed better than calves grazing wheat in
ryegrass and clover (crimson or arrowleaf) mixtures. Calves
grazing crimson clover in small grain crop (rye or wheat) and
ryegrass mixtures performed only slightly better than calves
grazing arrowleaf clover in small grain crop (rye or wheat)
and ryegrass mixtures.
Feeding a supplement to growing calves rotationally grazing
a mixture of rye and ryegrass at Jay produced a highly signif-
icant increase in gain over that of unsupplemented calves (1.90
vs. 1.51 pounds/head/day) (Appendix Table 4). However, the
cost of gain and the net return per head for supplemented calves
rotationally grazing a rye and ryegrass mixture were not as
good as those for unsupplemented calves.

Grazing Permanent and Temporary Pasture in Rotation.-
Tall fescue can produce extensive grazing in the northwestern
part of Florida during the cool season of the year. However,
it does not appear to offer high quality grazing and supplemental
feeding will usually improve beef gains. Grazing tall fescue and
a small grain crop (wheat or rye) in rotation does offer a long
grazing season and relatively good gains on growing beef calves.
At the ARC, Jay, calves grazing tall fescue and wheat in
rotation gained 1.10 pounds daily during a 173-day period, while
calves grazing tall fescue and rye in rotation gained 1.38 pounds
daily (Appendix Table 6). Due to the higher gain, calves graz-
ing tall fescue and rye in rotation had a lower cost of gain and
a higher net return per head.
Supplemented calves at Jay grazing tall fescue and wheat
in rotation gained 1.63 pounds daily compared to a gain of 1.10
pounds for unsupplemented calves (Appendix Table 6). The
pasture supplemental ration was similar to the one listed pre-
viously (Table 4). The gain of supplemented calves was slightly
more costly, but due to a much higher gain, it was more profit-
able. It should be kept in mind that the least cost per pound of
gain does not always produce the greatest net return.
In another study at Jay, conducted the following year, the
gain of supplemented calves grazing tall fescue and wheat in
rotation was 1.77 pounds daily compared to a gain of 1.47 pounds
daily for unsupplemented calves (Appendix Table 3). The cost







of gain and the net return per head in this study were better
for unsupplemented calves.

Grazing Permanent Pastures.--There are over 2,000,000
acres of improved permanent grass pastures on mineral soils of
south and central Florida.2 Much of this acreage is established
with Argentine or Pensacola bahiagrass. A considerable acreage
of pangolagrass is also used. Approximately 300,000 acres of
these permanent pastures are overseeded with white clover.3
The feeding value of permanent grass pastures on these
mineral soils varies considerably with the season of the year.
The majority of forage growth and the best quality forage is
usually available during spring and summer. However, these
forages can be used in calf-growing programs during the cool
season of the year.
Supplemental feeds to be used in calf-growing programs
during the cool season of the year on the mineral soils of south
and central Florida should be high in energy (9). The protein
content should be determined by the protein level of the forage.
The supplemental feed should also contain adequate levels of
phosphorus, cobalt, copper, iron, and vitamin A. Current in-
formation indicates that the most profitable level of supple-
mental feeding for calves grazing Pangola pasture is about 1.5%
of the body weight.
There are approximately 150,000 acres of organic soils that
are used for grazing cattle in Florida. Most of this acreage is
in the upper Everglades near Lake Okeechobee. The grasses
which do best in this area are Roselawn St. Augustine, para,
and Argentine bahia. The stocking rate on organic soils will
depend on the kind of grass, season of the year, fertility level,
and water control.
The grass produced on organic soils is generally somewhat
higher in protein than that produced on mineral soils. Chemical
analyses of forages used in grazing trials conducted for many
years at the AREC, Belle Glade, have shown that protein con-
tent of Roselawn St. Augustine grass varies from about 12% in
the fall to 16% during late spring when calculated on a dry
matter basis (14). The nutrient most lacking in forages pro-
duced on the organic soils is energy (9). The use of energy sup-
plements at the level of 0.5% to 1.0% of body weight usually
provides for adequate growth of calves (7). The two most
critical minerals are copper and phosphorus.

'Agronomy Advisory Committee. 1969. ARC, Ona.
'Ibid.







Warm-Season
Summer Annual Pastures for Grazing.-Millet and some of
the sorghum-sudangrass hybrids have a good potential for pro-
ducing an abundant amount of forage per acre during the sumn
mer in many areas of Florida. These forages can be used ad-
vantageously for growing calves prior to going into feedlots for
finishing.
Summer annual pastures, such as millet and sorghum-sudan-
grass hybrids, are usually planted with a grain drill during May
following winter small grain crops for grazing. The seeding rate
will vary from 20 to 40 pounds of seed per acre depending up-
on the particular summer annual grass planted. It is desirable
to plant half of the acreage 2 to 3 weeks before the other half
and rotate the calves between the two pastures. A complete
fertilizer (analysis and amount depending on soil test) is applied
at planting time. Additional applications of 100 pounds of
ammonium nitrate per acre are usually made two to three times
during the grazing season as needed. On organic soils in the
Everglades area, nitrogen fertilization is not needed. Check
with the agricultural extension representative in your area for
more specific recommendations.
In a 3-year study at the AREC, Quincy, yearling steers ini-
tially weighing 558 pounds gained 1.06 pounds per head daily
on annual millet pasture as compared to only 0.78 pound per
head daily for steers on perennial Argentine bahiagrass pas-
ture.4 Despite a greater cost per acre for millet pasture, feed
and pasture cost per hundredweight gain was lower for the
millet pasture cattle.
It can be noted in Appendix Table 7 that the over-all per-
formance at the ARC, Jay, in 1968 of calves grazing a sorghum-
sudangrass hybrid was better than that of calves grazing millet.
Calves grazing a sorghum-sudangrass hybrid had an average
daily gain of 1.90 pounds compared to 1.69 pounds for calves
grazing millet. The total beef gain per acre, the beef gain per
acre daily, and the cost of gain between the two grasses did not
differ very much. In interpreting these results, it should be
kept in mind that half of the calves on each one of the two sum-
mer annual pastures received a 12% protein high-energy ration
at the level of 1%0 of body weight. In a later study (1969) at
Jay, the over-all performance of calves grazing millet was very
similar to that of calves grazing a sorghum-sudangrass hybrid
(Appendix Table 7). Calves grazing a sorghum-sudangrass
'Baker, F. S., Jr. 1966. Unpublished data.







hybrid had an average daily gain of 1.36 pounds compared to
1.28 pounds for calves grazing millet. Due to heavy continuous
rain during the course of this trial, the animal performance on
both grasses was unsatisfactory. It should be kept in mind that
half of the calves on each treatment were supplemented as in
the earlier study.
A highly significant increase in average daily gain resulted
at the ARC, Jay, in 1968 when calves were supplemented while
grazing summer annual grasses (2.07 vs. 1.45 pounds/head/
day) (Appendix Table 8). The supplemented calves, however,
had a higher cost of gain and a higher net return per acre. A
highly significant increase in average daily gain resulted again
in 1969 at Jay when calves were supplemented while grazing
summer annual grasses (1.71 vs. 0.90 pounds/head/day) (Ap-
pendix Table 8).
Grazing Permanent Pastures.-The nutritive value of per-
manent pastures in south and central Florida increases greatly
during the warm season. Yield of forage greatly increases and
protein level is usually at the highest peak for the year. Total
digestible nutrients may increase to over 60% on a dry matter
basis (11).
Supplemental feed for calves grown on pasture in south and
central Florida should be high in energy (9). Most permanent
pastures grasses are low in energy. The pasture supplement
can include the cereal grains, citrus feeds, and molasses. Pas-
ture supplements should have a protein content of at least 12%.
They should also contain a minimum of 0.25% to 0.30% phos-
phorus, trace-mineralized salt, and vitamin A.
The most economical level of supplemental feed to use for
growing calves on permanent pastures during the warm season
is probably in the range of 0.5% to 1.5% of body weight. Re-
search has shown that Brahman cattle are usually more efficient
converters of forage but not as efficient converters of supple-
mental feed to gain as cattle of British origin (11).

Confinement Feeding
Confinement feeding in drylot of harvested crops (silage,
haylage, grain, green chop, etc.) to beef cattle merits serious
consideration because of the increased production of beef per
acre which can be obtained from harvested crops as compared
to grazing a similar acreage planted in temporary or permanent
pastures. The high price of farm land, the increase in popula-
tion and urbanization, and the increase in land use for recrea-






tion, along with an increase in the per capital consumption of
beef, are some of the reasons that the beef cattle producer will
be forced to consider more sophisticated methods of beef pro-
duction.

Silage
Silage is a feed that has a great potential for growing calves.
Corn silage is a good source of energy and can constitute the
major portion of the diet for beef cattle (18). It is superior as
a roughage to grass hay, grass silage, and forage sorghum silage
when fed as the principal constituent of the ration. Whole plant
corn silage can more than double the beef produced per acre
when compared to harvesting the corn as grain.
There are many different types of facilities and equipment
for storage and feeding of silage (13). The system that best
suits the particular farm situation would be the one to use.
Finely chopped silage material thoroughly packed in a suitable
storage structure so that air and rain are excluded will insure
good quality silage.
Above ground bunkers or trench silos in suitable locations
are probably the most economical storage structures for silage.
With either a trench or a bunker, it is desirable to concrete the
bottom to prevent a mud problem when removing silage.
One of the best structures for Florida is an above ground
bunker, with a reinforced concrete slab floor (4 to 6 inches thick)
and sides constructed of 2-inch by 6-inch penta-treated tongue
and groove lumber supported by posts set in concrete at 6-foot
intervals. The floor should be sloped slightly for drainage. The
structure can be open at both ends for easy access and to facili-
tate packing by driving from one end to the other during
filling. Depending on the size, a bunker of this type can be con-
structed for $3.00 to $5.00 per ton of silage capacity (corn sil-
age weighs approximately 35 pounds per cubic foot). With
either a trench or a bunker silo, a mechanical silage loader that
will load the silage into a feed wagon or truck represents a mod-
erate initial investment and offers a convenient way to handle
silage for feeding in bunks or troughs. A front end loader on a
tractor can be used to load the silage, but it will not leave the
face of the silage smooth and will leave considerable loose ma-
terial after loading. This results in more exposure and spoilage
than with a mechanical loader that cuts the silage smoothly off
the face of the stack.
Self-feeding silage directly from a trench or a bunker silo
through a movable stanchion-like gate has been used with some






degree of success. The gate is moved ahead as the silage is con-
sumed. However, this method of feeding silage is very wasteful
and may not be the most desirable.
An upright structure (either concrete stave or "oxygen limit-
ing"), equipped with an unloader and mechanical conveyors'
which distribute the silage to feed bunks, represents a substan-
tial initial investment. However, if labor is not readily available
or if wage rates are high, this method of feeding silage should
not be overlooked.
An upright structure, equipped with an unloader and a flight
conveyor to load the silage into a transit mixer-feeder wagon,
has been used successfully at the ARC, Jay. The transit mixer-
feeder wagon or truck can be equipped with scales (for weighing
in and out) and a drag unloader to deliver the silage into fence-
line feed bunks. The supplement (protein, mineral, and vitamin)
or grain to be fed along with the silage can be stored in a gravity
flow, hopper-bottom feed tank or bin equipped with a motor and
auger to elevate the supplement or grain into the wagon or
truck. A gravity flow, hopper-bottom tank or bin for a supple-
ment or grain can also be mounted high enough to drive the
wagon or truck under it for loading.
For best results, the calves should be confined for feeding
on concrete or hard-surfaced lots. It is necessary to provide a
shelter over the feed bunks. This shelter should be large enough
to protect the feed from rain, but not large enough to serve as
a shelter or shade for the calves. To further prevent the calves
from congregating around the feed bunks, the shelter or shade
for the calves should be located at the opposite end of the lot
away from the bunks. Water troughs, mineral boxes, and insect
control devices are also needed.
Grain Crop Silage.-Corn and sorghum (forage or grain)
are grain crops which can be grown in Florida for silage. Studies
at the ARC, Jay, showed that feeding 3 pounds of high-moisture
corn per head daily to calves (330 pounds initially) receiving
forage sorghum silage and a concentrate supplement in drylot
for a 173-day feeding period increased the gain by 0.23 pound
daily (1.77 vs. 1.54 pounds/head/day) (Appendix Table 6). The
composition of the concentrate supplement is listed in Table 5.
Calves receiving high-moisture corn in their forage sorghum
silage ration had a slightly higher cost of gain, but due to the
increased gain they were more profitable.
Calves fed corn silage plus a concentrate supplement for a
171-day feeding period at Jay had a higher gain (1.59 pounds/
head/day) than that (1.30 pounds/head/day) of calves fed for-






Table 5
Concentrate supplement (protein, mineral, and vitamin) fed in
silage rations ARC, Jay
Ingredients % Lb./ton


Soybean meal (44% protein) 83.195 1664
Urea-45% N 4.150 83
Salt (trace-mineralized) 4.150 83
Defluorinated rock phosphate 8.300 166
Antibiotic supplement(a) 0.130 2.6
Vitamin A supplement(b) 0.075 1.5
100.000 2000.1
(a) Zinc bacitracin supplement containing 40 g of the antibiotic per pound added at the level
of 104 g/ton or 52 mg/lb. of concentrate supplement.
(b) Vitamin A supplement containing 30,000 IU/g added at the level of 20.4 million IU/ton or
10,200 IU/lb. of concentrate supplement.


age sorghum silage plus supplement (Appendix Table 3). The
concentrate supplement was similar to the one listed previously.
The cost of gain and the net return per head for calves fed the
corn silage ration were better than the cost of gain and the net
return per head for the calves fed the forage sorghum silage
ration.
In another trial at Jay, calves fed corn silage and a concen-
trate supplement in drylot for a 154-day feeding period gained
0.23 pound per head daily more than calves fed grain sorghum
silage and a concentrate supplement in drylot (1.56 vs. 1.33
pounds/head/day) (Appendix Table 4). The economic data for
the calves fed the corn silage ration were again better than
those for calves fed the grain sorghum silage ration.
Animal performance and economic data obtained in one trial
with growing calves fed unrolled and rolled corn and grain
sorghum silages and a concentrate supplement at the ARC, Jay,
are presented in Appendix Table 9. For the 140-day feeding
period, calves fed rolled corn silage gained significantly faster
than those fed unrolled corn silage (1.40 vs. 0.99 pounds/head/
day). Calves fed rolled grain sorghum silage gained slightly
faster than those fed unrolled grain sorghum silage (1.11 vs.
1.06 pounds/head/day). It was felt that rolling should have
improved sorghum silage more than it improved corn silage, be-
cause sorghum grain kernels are small and hard and crimping
or crushing should render them less resistant to the digestive
processes and less liable to go through the animal intact.

Grass Silage.-Generally, results have been disappointing
with grass silage and haylage (40% to 55% moisture grass







silage) for growing calves in Florida. Millet and sorghum-
sudangrass hybrid silages have generally proven more satisfac-
tory than small grain and perennial grass silages from the
standpoint of yield and quality. Millet or sorghum-sudangrass
hybrid silage or haylage often does not give as good results as
comparable pasture, as illustrated by results of a 1971 feeding
trial at the AREC, Quincy (Table 6). In an earlier trial at
Quincy, with rye haylage versus sorghum-sudangrass hybrid
pasture, the results were somewhat more satisfactory for the
haylage-fed calves (Table 7).
The performance and economic data of supplemented and
unsupplemented calves on grazed and harvested (fed as silage)
millet at the ARC, Jay, are listed in Appendix Table 10. The
over-all performance of calves grazing millet was superior to

Table 6


Sorghum-sudangrass hybrid haylage versus millet pasture for
growing calves (1971)- AREC, Quincy


Daily grain supplement
1.0% body weight 1.5% body weight
Item Haylage(a) Pasture(b) Haylage(a) Pasture(b)
Initial wt, Ib. 546 547 546 546
Avg daily gain, Ib. 1.15 1.60 1.47 1.87
Feed and pasture
cost/cwt gain(c) $ 39.20 $ 25.25 $ 33.73 $ 24.19
(a) Sorghum-sudangrass hybrid haylage.
(b) Millet pasture.
(c) Ground snapped corn cost= $50.00/ton, sorghum-sudangrass hybrid haylage cost=
$20.00/ton, and millet pasture cost= $50.00/acre.
Source: Baker, F. S., Jr. 1971. Unpublished data.

Table 7
Rye haylage versus sorghum-sudangrass hybrid pasture for
growing calves (1970)-AREC, Quincy
Daily grain supplement
1.0% body weight 1.5% body weight
Item Haylage(a) Pasture(b) Haylage(a) Pasture(b)
Initial wt, Ib. 542 542 540 541
Avg daily gain, Ib. 1.74 1.54 1.82 1.93
Feed and pasture
cost/cwt gain(c) $ 23.23 $ 27.19 $ 23.56 $ 24.46
(a) Rye haylage.
(b) Sorghum-sudangrass hybrid pasture.
(c) Ground snapped corn cost=$45.00/ton, haylage cost=$20.00/ton, and sorghum-
sudangrass hybrid pasture cost= $54.51/acre
Source: Baker, F. S., Jr. 1970. Unpublished data.






that of calves receiving millet silage. Even at the conservative
cost for harvesting and storing millet silage used in these cal-
culations, the small increase in the amount of beef produced per
acre from this practice was not justified from the standpoint of
cost and return per acre.
Silage made from permanent pasture grasses such as Pan-
gola, bahia, Coastal bermuda, and Roselawn St. Augustine is
generally too low in energy to be satisfactory for the major
portion of a ration for growing calves. For example, results
of a series of trials comparing pangolagrass as silage, hay or
pasture indicated that gains of calves were lowest on the silage
treatment (17).

Other Confinement Feeding
Many purchased feedstuffs, besides the previously discussed
pastures and silages grown on the farm, are available in Florida
for growing calves. These include industrial by-product feeds
(sugarcane molasses, citrus molasses, citrus pulp and meal, pea-
nut meal, peanut hay, soybean meal, cottonseed meal, bran, mid-
dlings, screenings, vegetables, and other crop processing
wastes), grains (corn, sorghum, wheat, oats, rice, etc.), and
hays (baled, dehydrated, chopped, and pelleted).
Three feeding programs (Coastal bermudagrass hay and
supplement; corn silage and supplement; and a self-fed, least-
cost ingredient mixture) were compared with growing 500
pound calves supplied by the A. G. Dozier School for Boys, Mari-
anna (15). A summary of the results is shown in Appendix
Table 11. In each of these experiments, the total cost, including
labor, of weight gains was lowest with the self-fed concentrate
mixture.


MINERALS, VITAMINS, FEED ADDITIVES, AND OTHER
GROWTH PROMOTANTS
Minerals
Mineral supplementation is very necessary for growing
calves on pasture or in drylot. A calcium and phosphorus source,
salt, and trace minerals are recommended. Minerals should be
included in the ration and self-fed in a mineral box. It is sug-
gested that a two compartment mineral box, containing trace-
mineralized salt in one compartment and a complete mineral
mixture in the other compartment, be used. The calves can eat
trace-mineralized salt or the complete mineral mixture according






that of calves receiving millet silage. Even at the conservative
cost for harvesting and storing millet silage used in these cal-
culations, the small increase in the amount of beef produced per
acre from this practice was not justified from the standpoint of
cost and return per acre.
Silage made from permanent pasture grasses such as Pan-
gola, bahia, Coastal bermuda, and Roselawn St. Augustine is
generally too low in energy to be satisfactory for the major
portion of a ration for growing calves. For example, results
of a series of trials comparing pangolagrass as silage, hay or
pasture indicated that gains of calves were lowest on the silage
treatment (17).

Other Confinement Feeding
Many purchased feedstuffs, besides the previously discussed
pastures and silages grown on the farm, are available in Florida
for growing calves. These include industrial by-product feeds
(sugarcane molasses, citrus molasses, citrus pulp and meal, pea-
nut meal, peanut hay, soybean meal, cottonseed meal, bran, mid-
dlings, screenings, vegetables, and other crop processing
wastes), grains (corn, sorghum, wheat, oats, rice, etc.), and
hays (baled, dehydrated, chopped, and pelleted).
Three feeding programs (Coastal bermudagrass hay and
supplement; corn silage and supplement; and a self-fed, least-
cost ingredient mixture) were compared with growing 500
pound calves supplied by the A. G. Dozier School for Boys, Mari-
anna (15). A summary of the results is shown in Appendix
Table 11. In each of these experiments, the total cost, including
labor, of weight gains was lowest with the self-fed concentrate
mixture.


MINERALS, VITAMINS, FEED ADDITIVES, AND OTHER
GROWTH PROMOTANTS
Minerals
Mineral supplementation is very necessary for growing
calves on pasture or in drylot. A calcium and phosphorus source,
salt, and trace minerals are recommended. Minerals should be
included in the ration and self-fed in a mineral box. It is sug-
gested that a two compartment mineral box, containing trace-
mineralized salt in one compartment and a complete mineral
mixture in the other compartment, be used. The calves can eat
trace-mineralized salt or the complete mineral mixture according






that of calves receiving millet silage. Even at the conservative
cost for harvesting and storing millet silage used in these cal-
culations, the small increase in the amount of beef produced per
acre from this practice was not justified from the standpoint of
cost and return per acre.
Silage made from permanent pasture grasses such as Pan-
gola, bahia, Coastal bermuda, and Roselawn St. Augustine is
generally too low in energy to be satisfactory for the major
portion of a ration for growing calves. For example, results
of a series of trials comparing pangolagrass as silage, hay or
pasture indicated that gains of calves were lowest on the silage
treatment (17).

Other Confinement Feeding
Many purchased feedstuffs, besides the previously discussed
pastures and silages grown on the farm, are available in Florida
for growing calves. These include industrial by-product feeds
(sugarcane molasses, citrus molasses, citrus pulp and meal, pea-
nut meal, peanut hay, soybean meal, cottonseed meal, bran, mid-
dlings, screenings, vegetables, and other crop processing
wastes), grains (corn, sorghum, wheat, oats, rice, etc.), and
hays (baled, dehydrated, chopped, and pelleted).
Three feeding programs (Coastal bermudagrass hay and
supplement; corn silage and supplement; and a self-fed, least-
cost ingredient mixture) were compared with growing 500
pound calves supplied by the A. G. Dozier School for Boys, Mari-
anna (15). A summary of the results is shown in Appendix
Table 11. In each of these experiments, the total cost, including
labor, of weight gains was lowest with the self-fed concentrate
mixture.


MINERALS, VITAMINS, FEED ADDITIVES, AND OTHER
GROWTH PROMOTANTS
Minerals
Mineral supplementation is very necessary for growing
calves on pasture or in drylot. A calcium and phosphorus source,
salt, and trace minerals are recommended. Minerals should be
included in the ration and self-fed in a mineral box. It is sug-
gested that a two compartment mineral box, containing trace-
mineralized salt in one compartment and a complete mineral
mixture in the other compartment, be used. The calves can eat
trace-mineralized salt or the complete mineral mixture according







to their need. Self-feeding minerals in the feedlot or on pasture
is low-cost insurance against a possible need for them. Complete
details on minerals for beef cattle in Florida can be found in
Bulletin 683 published by the Florida Agricultural Experiment
Stations (12).

Calcium and Phosphorus
It is recommended that concentrate rations for calves in the
feedlot contain at least 0.35% calcium and 0.30% phosphorus.
In addition, the calves should be self-fed a complete mineral
mixture in a mineral box as stated previously.

Salt and Trace Minerals

It is recommended that a level of 0.5% to 1.0% of trace-
mineralized salt be included in the concentrate ration. If the
concentrate ration is to be the major part of the diet, then
0.5% salt should be sufficient. In addition, trace-mineralized
salt should be self-fed.
The trace minerals which should be contained in the salt are
iodine, copper, cobalt, iron, manganese, and zinc. The calves
may come from an area deficient in trace minerals or the feeds
could have been produced in such areas. The trace minerals
named here are therefore necessary to protect the calves against
a deficiency.

Magnesium
Grass tetany occurs on small grain pastures in many areas
of the South. Lately, it has occurred in some areas of north
Florida. Complete mineral mixtures are now available with
magnesium oxide in them. Magnesium oxide provides a high
concentration of magnesium which is highly available, econom-
ical, and palatable. Cattle fed this mineral mixture consume
about 4 ounces of it daily. This level of intake provides the
cattle with 1 ounce of magnesium oxide daily, which is enough
magnesium to prevent most cases of grass tetany with calves
on pasture.

Vitamins
Research has been conducted on vitamins for steers during
the past few years in Florida (8, 10). Vitamins A and E are
the two vitamins which may be needed to supplement rations
for calves.







to their need. Self-feeding minerals in the feedlot or on pasture
is low-cost insurance against a possible need for them. Complete
details on minerals for beef cattle in Florida can be found in
Bulletin 683 published by the Florida Agricultural Experiment
Stations (12).

Calcium and Phosphorus
It is recommended that concentrate rations for calves in the
feedlot contain at least 0.35% calcium and 0.30% phosphorus.
In addition, the calves should be self-fed a complete mineral
mixture in a mineral box as stated previously.

Salt and Trace Minerals

It is recommended that a level of 0.5% to 1.0% of trace-
mineralized salt be included in the concentrate ration. If the
concentrate ration is to be the major part of the diet, then
0.5% salt should be sufficient. In addition, trace-mineralized
salt should be self-fed.
The trace minerals which should be contained in the salt are
iodine, copper, cobalt, iron, manganese, and zinc. The calves
may come from an area deficient in trace minerals or the feeds
could have been produced in such areas. The trace minerals
named here are therefore necessary to protect the calves against
a deficiency.

Magnesium
Grass tetany occurs on small grain pastures in many areas
of the South. Lately, it has occurred in some areas of north
Florida. Complete mineral mixtures are now available with
magnesium oxide in them. Magnesium oxide provides a high
concentration of magnesium which is highly available, econom-
ical, and palatable. Cattle fed this mineral mixture consume
about 4 ounces of it daily. This level of intake provides the
cattle with 1 ounce of magnesium oxide daily, which is enough
magnesium to prevent most cases of grass tetany with calves
on pasture.

Vitamins
Research has been conducted on vitamins for steers during
the past few years in Florida (8, 10). Vitamins A and E are
the two vitamins which may be needed to supplement rations
for calves.







to their need. Self-feeding minerals in the feedlot or on pasture
is low-cost insurance against a possible need for them. Complete
details on minerals for beef cattle in Florida can be found in
Bulletin 683 published by the Florida Agricultural Experiment
Stations (12).

Calcium and Phosphorus
It is recommended that concentrate rations for calves in the
feedlot contain at least 0.35% calcium and 0.30% phosphorus.
In addition, the calves should be self-fed a complete mineral
mixture in a mineral box as stated previously.

Salt and Trace Minerals

It is recommended that a level of 0.5% to 1.0% of trace-
mineralized salt be included in the concentrate ration. If the
concentrate ration is to be the major part of the diet, then
0.5% salt should be sufficient. In addition, trace-mineralized
salt should be self-fed.
The trace minerals which should be contained in the salt are
iodine, copper, cobalt, iron, manganese, and zinc. The calves
may come from an area deficient in trace minerals or the feeds
could have been produced in such areas. The trace minerals
named here are therefore necessary to protect the calves against
a deficiency.

Magnesium
Grass tetany occurs on small grain pastures in many areas
of the South. Lately, it has occurred in some areas of north
Florida. Complete mineral mixtures are now available with
magnesium oxide in them. Magnesium oxide provides a high
concentration of magnesium which is highly available, econom-
ical, and palatable. Cattle fed this mineral mixture consume
about 4 ounces of it daily. This level of intake provides the
cattle with 1 ounce of magnesium oxide daily, which is enough
magnesium to prevent most cases of grass tetany with calves
on pasture.

Vitamins
Research has been conducted on vitamins for steers during
the past few years in Florida (8, 10). Vitamins A and E are
the two vitamins which may be needed to supplement rations
for calves.







to their need. Self-feeding minerals in the feedlot or on pasture
is low-cost insurance against a possible need for them. Complete
details on minerals for beef cattle in Florida can be found in
Bulletin 683 published by the Florida Agricultural Experiment
Stations (12).

Calcium and Phosphorus
It is recommended that concentrate rations for calves in the
feedlot contain at least 0.35% calcium and 0.30% phosphorus.
In addition, the calves should be self-fed a complete mineral
mixture in a mineral box as stated previously.

Salt and Trace Minerals

It is recommended that a level of 0.5% to 1.0% of trace-
mineralized salt be included in the concentrate ration. If the
concentrate ration is to be the major part of the diet, then
0.5% salt should be sufficient. In addition, trace-mineralized
salt should be self-fed.
The trace minerals which should be contained in the salt are
iodine, copper, cobalt, iron, manganese, and zinc. The calves
may come from an area deficient in trace minerals or the feeds
could have been produced in such areas. The trace minerals
named here are therefore necessary to protect the calves against
a deficiency.

Magnesium
Grass tetany occurs on small grain pastures in many areas
of the South. Lately, it has occurred in some areas of north
Florida. Complete mineral mixtures are now available with
magnesium oxide in them. Magnesium oxide provides a high
concentration of magnesium which is highly available, econom-
ical, and palatable. Cattle fed this mineral mixture consume
about 4 ounces of it daily. This level of intake provides the
cattle with 1 ounce of magnesium oxide daily, which is enough
magnesium to prevent most cases of grass tetany with calves
on pasture.

Vitamins
Research has been conducted on vitamins for steers during
the past few years in Florida (8, 10). Vitamins A and E are
the two vitamins which may be needed to supplement rations
for calves.







Vitamin A
The use of vitamin A in feeding calves is now almost routine.
Studies at the AREC, Belle Glade, showed that vitamin A was
beneficial to steers fed on good, green pasture (8).
Calves should be fed a level of at least 3,000 IU of vitamin
A per hundredweight. This means that a 500 pound calf would
be fed at least 15,000 IU of vitamin A daily.

Vitamin E
Research at the AREC, Belle Glade, has shown that vitamin
E was beneficial for steers being fed on pasture (8, 10). It has
been helpful both when administered orally or when injected.
Levels of 20 to 50 IU of vitamin E per animal per day were
used with beneficial results. This is a good guide to follow for
those who wish to try vitamin E with their calves. Another
good guide to use is to add at least 1 IU of vitamin E per 1,000
IU of vitamin A supplementation.

Feed Additives
Antibiotics
Antibiotics, such as chlortetracycline, oxytetracyline, the
bacitracins, and tylosin, are very helpful in the ration of grow-
ing calves. They are used at a low level (70 to 80 mg per head
daily) to increase gain (approximately 5%) and improve feed
efficiency (approximately 5%). The response obtained will
usually depend on the stress factors encountered on the farm.
Antibiotics have been most helpful with high roughage rations.
They are especially beneficial when high silage rations are used.
The reason for this is not known. It is estimated that the return
for each dollar invested in a low-level antibiotic is 3 dollars.
Many calf feeders use antibiotics at a level of 300 to 500 mg
per head daily for a period of 1 to 5 weeks when first starting
calves on feed or in combating high disease level outbreaks.
Just prior to this time, most calves have been subjected to a
number of stress conditions. Good results have been obtained
by using a combination of 350 mg of chlortetracycline and 350
mg of sulfamethiazine per head daily for the first 4 weeks when
calves are started on feed.

Enzymes and Tranquilizers
Many studies have been conducted with enzymes and tran-
quilizers during the past few years. These products have been







Vitamin A
The use of vitamin A in feeding calves is now almost routine.
Studies at the AREC, Belle Glade, showed that vitamin A was
beneficial to steers fed on good, green pasture (8).
Calves should be fed a level of at least 3,000 IU of vitamin
A per hundredweight. This means that a 500 pound calf would
be fed at least 15,000 IU of vitamin A daily.

Vitamin E
Research at the AREC, Belle Glade, has shown that vitamin
E was beneficial for steers being fed on pasture (8, 10). It has
been helpful both when administered orally or when injected.
Levels of 20 to 50 IU of vitamin E per animal per day were
used with beneficial results. This is a good guide to follow for
those who wish to try vitamin E with their calves. Another
good guide to use is to add at least 1 IU of vitamin E per 1,000
IU of vitamin A supplementation.

Feed Additives
Antibiotics
Antibiotics, such as chlortetracycline, oxytetracyline, the
bacitracins, and tylosin, are very helpful in the ration of grow-
ing calves. They are used at a low level (70 to 80 mg per head
daily) to increase gain (approximately 5%) and improve feed
efficiency (approximately 5%). The response obtained will
usually depend on the stress factors encountered on the farm.
Antibiotics have been most helpful with high roughage rations.
They are especially beneficial when high silage rations are used.
The reason for this is not known. It is estimated that the return
for each dollar invested in a low-level antibiotic is 3 dollars.
Many calf feeders use antibiotics at a level of 300 to 500 mg
per head daily for a period of 1 to 5 weeks when first starting
calves on feed or in combating high disease level outbreaks.
Just prior to this time, most calves have been subjected to a
number of stress conditions. Good results have been obtained
by using a combination of 350 mg of chlortetracycline and 350
mg of sulfamethiazine per head daily for the first 4 weeks when
calves are started on feed.

Enzymes and Tranquilizers
Many studies have been conducted with enzymes and tran-
quilizers during the past few years. These products have been







Vitamin A
The use of vitamin A in feeding calves is now almost routine.
Studies at the AREC, Belle Glade, showed that vitamin A was
beneficial to steers fed on good, green pasture (8).
Calves should be fed a level of at least 3,000 IU of vitamin
A per hundredweight. This means that a 500 pound calf would
be fed at least 15,000 IU of vitamin A daily.

Vitamin E
Research at the AREC, Belle Glade, has shown that vitamin
E was beneficial for steers being fed on pasture (8, 10). It has
been helpful both when administered orally or when injected.
Levels of 20 to 50 IU of vitamin E per animal per day were
used with beneficial results. This is a good guide to follow for
those who wish to try vitamin E with their calves. Another
good guide to use is to add at least 1 IU of vitamin E per 1,000
IU of vitamin A supplementation.

Feed Additives
Antibiotics
Antibiotics, such as chlortetracycline, oxytetracyline, the
bacitracins, and tylosin, are very helpful in the ration of grow-
ing calves. They are used at a low level (70 to 80 mg per head
daily) to increase gain (approximately 5%) and improve feed
efficiency (approximately 5%). The response obtained will
usually depend on the stress factors encountered on the farm.
Antibiotics have been most helpful with high roughage rations.
They are especially beneficial when high silage rations are used.
The reason for this is not known. It is estimated that the return
for each dollar invested in a low-level antibiotic is 3 dollars.
Many calf feeders use antibiotics at a level of 300 to 500 mg
per head daily for a period of 1 to 5 weeks when first starting
calves on feed or in combating high disease level outbreaks.
Just prior to this time, most calves have been subjected to a
number of stress conditions. Good results have been obtained
by using a combination of 350 mg of chlortetracycline and 350
mg of sulfamethiazine per head daily for the first 4 weeks when
calves are started on feed.

Enzymes and Tranquilizers
Many studies have been conducted with enzymes and tran-
quilizers during the past few years. These products have been







Vitamin A
The use of vitamin A in feeding calves is now almost routine.
Studies at the AREC, Belle Glade, showed that vitamin A was
beneficial to steers fed on good, green pasture (8).
Calves should be fed a level of at least 3,000 IU of vitamin
A per hundredweight. This means that a 500 pound calf would
be fed at least 15,000 IU of vitamin A daily.

Vitamin E
Research at the AREC, Belle Glade, has shown that vitamin
E was beneficial for steers being fed on pasture (8, 10). It has
been helpful both when administered orally or when injected.
Levels of 20 to 50 IU of vitamin E per animal per day were
used with beneficial results. This is a good guide to follow for
those who wish to try vitamin E with their calves. Another
good guide to use is to add at least 1 IU of vitamin E per 1,000
IU of vitamin A supplementation.

Feed Additives
Antibiotics
Antibiotics, such as chlortetracycline, oxytetracyline, the
bacitracins, and tylosin, are very helpful in the ration of grow-
ing calves. They are used at a low level (70 to 80 mg per head
daily) to increase gain (approximately 5%) and improve feed
efficiency (approximately 5%). The response obtained will
usually depend on the stress factors encountered on the farm.
Antibiotics have been most helpful with high roughage rations.
They are especially beneficial when high silage rations are used.
The reason for this is not known. It is estimated that the return
for each dollar invested in a low-level antibiotic is 3 dollars.
Many calf feeders use antibiotics at a level of 300 to 500 mg
per head daily for a period of 1 to 5 weeks when first starting
calves on feed or in combating high disease level outbreaks.
Just prior to this time, most calves have been subjected to a
number of stress conditions. Good results have been obtained
by using a combination of 350 mg of chlortetracycline and 350
mg of sulfamethiazine per head daily for the first 4 weeks when
calves are started on feed.

Enzymes and Tranquilizers
Many studies have been conducted with enzymes and tran-
quilizers during the past few years. These products have been







Vitamin A
The use of vitamin A in feeding calves is now almost routine.
Studies at the AREC, Belle Glade, showed that vitamin A was
beneficial to steers fed on good, green pasture (8).
Calves should be fed a level of at least 3,000 IU of vitamin
A per hundredweight. This means that a 500 pound calf would
be fed at least 15,000 IU of vitamin A daily.

Vitamin E
Research at the AREC, Belle Glade, has shown that vitamin
E was beneficial for steers being fed on pasture (8, 10). It has
been helpful both when administered orally or when injected.
Levels of 20 to 50 IU of vitamin E per animal per day were
used with beneficial results. This is a good guide to follow for
those who wish to try vitamin E with their calves. Another
good guide to use is to add at least 1 IU of vitamin E per 1,000
IU of vitamin A supplementation.

Feed Additives
Antibiotics
Antibiotics, such as chlortetracycline, oxytetracyline, the
bacitracins, and tylosin, are very helpful in the ration of grow-
ing calves. They are used at a low level (70 to 80 mg per head
daily) to increase gain (approximately 5%) and improve feed
efficiency (approximately 5%). The response obtained will
usually depend on the stress factors encountered on the farm.
Antibiotics have been most helpful with high roughage rations.
They are especially beneficial when high silage rations are used.
The reason for this is not known. It is estimated that the return
for each dollar invested in a low-level antibiotic is 3 dollars.
Many calf feeders use antibiotics at a level of 300 to 500 mg
per head daily for a period of 1 to 5 weeks when first starting
calves on feed or in combating high disease level outbreaks.
Just prior to this time, most calves have been subjected to a
number of stress conditions. Good results have been obtained
by using a combination of 350 mg of chlortetracycline and 350
mg of sulfamethiazine per head daily for the first 4 weeks when
calves are started on feed.

Enzymes and Tranquilizers
Many studies have been conducted with enzymes and tran-
quilizers during the past few years. These products have been








beneficial at times, whereas at other times there have not been
any beneficial effects. For the present, there is not enough evi-
dence to warrant making definite recommendations on their use.

Other Growth Promotants
Melengestrol acetate (MGA) is a hormone which closely re-
sembles progesterone in biological action and is used with
heifers. It suppresses estrus in feedlot heifers when fed at
levels of 0.35 to 0.50 mg per animal daily. A summary of 25
trials shows that it increased rate of gain 11.0% and feed effi-
ciency 7.5% (2). It must be removed from the feed at least 48
hours prior to slaughter.
Synovex is a combination of hormones and is used as an im-
plant. Synovex-H is a heifer implant and Synovex-S is a steer
implant. Synovex has given good results in many trials.
Ralgro (zeranol a protein anabolic agent) enhances the
retention of nitrogen if implanted in the ears of calves at a
level of 36 mg per head. The calves have to be implanted at
least 65 days prior to slaughter. Its value for growing calves
has not been researched thoroughly. However, it has given good
results in many trials, and its use is increasing.
Rapigain is another implant which is a combination of hor-
mones. Its value for growing calves has not been researched
as thoroughly as the other products.

ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
This section briefly discusses some important economic fac-
tors and useful management tools for calf-growing operations.
The manager of a calf-growing operation must be proficient in
many skills. He must be an over-all manager part of the time,
then he must be a supervisor or foreman, and sometimes he
must be a laborer. Too often, the management is neglected,
while the supervision and labor consume too much of the man-
ager's time.

Marketing
One of the most important management decision areas is
marketing. Improving technical production and internal eco-
nomic factors benefit the firm, but the biggest payoff for pro-
duction improvement is usually through the market. Market-
ing livestock involves all the activities associated with an
exchange of ownership. These activities include buying, selling,
negotiation of prices and other terms of sales, physical transfer








beneficial at times, whereas at other times there have not been
any beneficial effects. For the present, there is not enough evi-
dence to warrant making definite recommendations on their use.

Other Growth Promotants
Melengestrol acetate (MGA) is a hormone which closely re-
sembles progesterone in biological action and is used with
heifers. It suppresses estrus in feedlot heifers when fed at
levels of 0.35 to 0.50 mg per animal daily. A summary of 25
trials shows that it increased rate of gain 11.0% and feed effi-
ciency 7.5% (2). It must be removed from the feed at least 48
hours prior to slaughter.
Synovex is a combination of hormones and is used as an im-
plant. Synovex-H is a heifer implant and Synovex-S is a steer
implant. Synovex has given good results in many trials.
Ralgro (zeranol a protein anabolic agent) enhances the
retention of nitrogen if implanted in the ears of calves at a
level of 36 mg per head. The calves have to be implanted at
least 65 days prior to slaughter. Its value for growing calves
has not been researched thoroughly. However, it has given good
results in many trials, and its use is increasing.
Rapigain is another implant which is a combination of hor-
mones. Its value for growing calves has not been researched
as thoroughly as the other products.

ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
This section briefly discusses some important economic fac-
tors and useful management tools for calf-growing operations.
The manager of a calf-growing operation must be proficient in
many skills. He must be an over-all manager part of the time,
then he must be a supervisor or foreman, and sometimes he
must be a laborer. Too often, the management is neglected,
while the supervision and labor consume too much of the man-
ager's time.

Marketing
One of the most important management decision areas is
marketing. Improving technical production and internal eco-
nomic factors benefit the firm, but the biggest payoff for pro-
duction improvement is usually through the market. Market-
ing livestock involves all the activities associated with an
exchange of ownership. These activities include buying, selling,
negotiation of prices and other terms of sales, physical transfer








beneficial at times, whereas at other times there have not been
any beneficial effects. For the present, there is not enough evi-
dence to warrant making definite recommendations on their use.

Other Growth Promotants
Melengestrol acetate (MGA) is a hormone which closely re-
sembles progesterone in biological action and is used with
heifers. It suppresses estrus in feedlot heifers when fed at
levels of 0.35 to 0.50 mg per animal daily. A summary of 25
trials shows that it increased rate of gain 11.0% and feed effi-
ciency 7.5% (2). It must be removed from the feed at least 48
hours prior to slaughter.
Synovex is a combination of hormones and is used as an im-
plant. Synovex-H is a heifer implant and Synovex-S is a steer
implant. Synovex has given good results in many trials.
Ralgro (zeranol a protein anabolic agent) enhances the
retention of nitrogen if implanted in the ears of calves at a
level of 36 mg per head. The calves have to be implanted at
least 65 days prior to slaughter. Its value for growing calves
has not been researched thoroughly. However, it has given good
results in many trials, and its use is increasing.
Rapigain is another implant which is a combination of hor-
mones. Its value for growing calves has not been researched
as thoroughly as the other products.

ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
This section briefly discusses some important economic fac-
tors and useful management tools for calf-growing operations.
The manager of a calf-growing operation must be proficient in
many skills. He must be an over-all manager part of the time,
then he must be a supervisor or foreman, and sometimes he
must be a laborer. Too often, the management is neglected,
while the supervision and labor consume too much of the man-
ager's time.

Marketing
One of the most important management decision areas is
marketing. Improving technical production and internal eco-
nomic factors benefit the firm, but the biggest payoff for pro-
duction improvement is usually through the market. Market-
ing livestock involves all the activities associated with an
exchange of ownership. These activities include buying, selling,
negotiation of prices and other terms of sales, physical transfer







and transportation, and many other items. The right market-
ing decision will increase net income on any lot of calves.

Market Information
Considerable market information is available to the cattle-
man. Daily reports of prices and market supplies are carried
by radio, television, and local newspapers. Weekly, monthly,
and quarterly summaries of livestock market news are available.
Data indicating grazing conditions, feed supplies, and prospective
feed production are also given wide distribution from planting
time to harvest. An annual livestock inventory is issued each
January by the United States Department of Agriculture.

Terms of Sales
Some other important marketing factors are the terms of
sales. There are a number of variations in the manner in which
transactions are negotiated. Some of these variations for live
cattle marketing are discussed briefly below.
1) Selling by lot. Most calves are sold in lots varying in size
from two to several hundred head. There are obvious advantages
from the standpoint of both buyer and seller from selling in
relatively large lots. However, the problem of establishing price
in line with value becomes increasingly difficult as variation
within lot increases. Weight and quality should be kept as uni-
form as possible within a given lot.
2) Sorting versus grading. Probably the greatest area of
confusion in marketing calves is the difference between sorting
them prior to a sale or actually grading them. Rather than
actually grading the calves, many markets merely sort them as
to l's, 2's, and 3's based on a combination of conformation and
condition. However, condition may be stressed more than con-
formation, and higher grade calves may sell for a lower price.
Increased understanding and use of established grades will un-
doubtedly reduce the amount of confusion that exists in this
area.
3) Place, time, and method of weighing. Practically all calf
sales are made on the basis of weight. However, there is a wide
variation in where, how, and under what conditions the calves
are weighed. The place and time of weighing can be important
factors in the selling price of the calves. Weighing conditions,
such as after an overnight stand (off of feed and water), weighed
prior to a certain time in the morning, or f.o.b. farm weight with
an estimated percentage shrink (2% to 6%), for calves on the







and transportation, and many other items. The right market-
ing decision will increase net income on any lot of calves.

Market Information
Considerable market information is available to the cattle-
man. Daily reports of prices and market supplies are carried
by radio, television, and local newspapers. Weekly, monthly,
and quarterly summaries of livestock market news are available.
Data indicating grazing conditions, feed supplies, and prospective
feed production are also given wide distribution from planting
time to harvest. An annual livestock inventory is issued each
January by the United States Department of Agriculture.

Terms of Sales
Some other important marketing factors are the terms of
sales. There are a number of variations in the manner in which
transactions are negotiated. Some of these variations for live
cattle marketing are discussed briefly below.
1) Selling by lot. Most calves are sold in lots varying in size
from two to several hundred head. There are obvious advantages
from the standpoint of both buyer and seller from selling in
relatively large lots. However, the problem of establishing price
in line with value becomes increasingly difficult as variation
within lot increases. Weight and quality should be kept as uni-
form as possible within a given lot.
2) Sorting versus grading. Probably the greatest area of
confusion in marketing calves is the difference between sorting
them prior to a sale or actually grading them. Rather than
actually grading the calves, many markets merely sort them as
to l's, 2's, and 3's based on a combination of conformation and
condition. However, condition may be stressed more than con-
formation, and higher grade calves may sell for a lower price.
Increased understanding and use of established grades will un-
doubtedly reduce the amount of confusion that exists in this
area.
3) Place, time, and method of weighing. Practically all calf
sales are made on the basis of weight. However, there is a wide
variation in where, how, and under what conditions the calves
are weighed. The place and time of weighing can be important
factors in the selling price of the calves. Weighing conditions,
such as after an overnight stand (off of feed and water), weighed
prior to a certain time in the morning, or f.o.b. farm weight with
an estimated percentage shrink (2% to 6%), for calves on the







farm or directly out of the feedlot are normally stipulated.
Where calves are transported a long distance prior to weighing,
there is usually no adjustment made in the weights which are
taken. Every cattleman should have a tested set of livestock
scales.
4) Shrink. Shrink is an inevitable part of cattle marketing.
While shrink in live animals will vary greatly under different
conditions, the important point to remember is to minimize
shrink as much as possible through proper handling and keep-
ing cattle off of feed and water as briefly as possible in transit
and handling.
5) Time of payment. The time a cattleman must wait in re-
ceiving payment for his cattle is an element of cost. Under most
conditions, payment is received the day of sale.
6) Transportation and insurance. The costs of transporta-
tion and insurance are usually paid by the individual owning
the calves at that particular time.
7) Health. It is extremely difficult to assign an economic
value to health programs conducted by individual cattlemen,
although it is certainly an important factor in determining the
ultimate value of the calf.


Breakeven Analyses
The breakeven price formula is a useful tool for both sellers
and buyers of cattle in deciding what they are worth. The
breakeven price is figured as follows:
Breakeven price = Calf Weight' (Net pounds Feeding cost
price X of calf + \of gain X per pound)
Final sale weight of feeder

For example, what is a breakeven price for 300-pound calves
selling for $37.50 per hundredweight to a farmer planning to
graze them to 700 pounds at a cost of $22.00 per hundredweight
of gain? Using the breakeven price formula, we find:
Breakeven price = (0.3750' X 300) + (400 X $0.2200) = $200.50
700 700
= $0.2864 per pound or $28.64 per hundredweight.

Therefore, these calves costing $37.50 per hundredweight can
sell for $28.64 per hundredweight at the end of the grazing
period and the farmer would break even. If the farmer wants







$10.00 per head net return above his cost of gain we can figure:
Breakeven price = ($200.50 + $10.00) = $210.50
700 700
= $0.3007 per pound or $30.07 per hundredweight.

The feeders must sell for $30.07 per hundredweight at the
end of the grazing period in order to give the farmer a net re-
turn of $10.00 per head.
Now, calculating what calves are worth if the prices of
feeder cattle are established, the same breakeven formula is
used in another way.
SFinal sale Expected final /Net lbs. Feeding)
Breakeven price weight of sale price I of gain cost per
feeder X of feeder/-\ X pound
Initial weight of calf

Let us suppose that feeder cattle are expected to sell for
$29.50 per hundredweight and 300-pound calves will be fed to
700 pounds with a cost of gain of $22.00 per hundredweight.
Breakeven price = (700 X $0.2950) (400 X $0.2200) = $118.50
300 300
= $0.3950 per pound or $39.50 per hundredweight.

If we allow the farmer $10.00 per head net return, then:
Breakeven Price = ($118.50 $10.00) = $108.50
300 300
= $0.3617 per pound or $36.17 per hundredweight.

These two calculations can be used to figure a breakeven
price for feeder cattle with a given calf price, or to calculate a
price for calves given a feeder cattle price.


SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This bulletin has presented the results of many research
trials relative to growing calves to feedlot weights, conducted
by scientists of the Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations.
Also, much related information on growing calves has been
discussed. It appears that many calf-growing programs will
provide cattlemen with substantially increased net incomes.
Each cattleman should adopt the program that best suits his
particular farm situation.
There is a year-round demand for Florida calves and feeder







cattle. However, the supply of calves in Florida is largest in
the fall, and the price of these calves is lowest at that time.
The price for all weights of cattle is highest in the spring. This
situation favors the growing of calves in the state during the
cool season of the year. These calves can then be marketed as
feeders in the spring when the price is highest.
Small grain crops (wheat, oats, and rye) produce quality
grazing when rotationally grazed by growing calves during the
cool season in many areas of Florida. Wheat and rye appear
to be superior to oats. Beef production with calves grazing
small grain crops varies considerably from year to year, depend-
ing largely upon weather conditions (cold, moisture, sunlight,
etc.). Supplemental feeding of growing calves grazing small
grain crops is not always profitable. However, supplemental
feeding does allow a heavier stocking rate per acre, which may
be beneficial during grazing periods when forage growth is slow.
A mixture composed of a small grain crop (wheat or rye),
ryegrass, with or without clover for rotational grazing by grow-
ing calves offers a longer grazing period and a good potential
for beef production in many areas of Florida. Rye appears to
be better than wheat in such a mixture and crimson clover ap-
pears to be only slightly better than arrowleaf clover. Supple-
mental feeding of calves grazing this type of pasture does not
appear to be profitable under most conditions.
Tall fescue does not appear to offer quality grazing for grow-
ing calves. Grazing tall fescue and a small grain crop (wheat or
rye) in rotation has not given as good results as rotationally
grazing a small grain crop or a mixture of a small grain crop,
ryegrass, and clover.
The feeding value of permanent grass pastures for calves
during the winter in south and central Florida can be poor. How-
ever, the use of a supplemental feed high in energy, along with
adequate protein, minerals, and vitamin A, will improve the gain
of growing calves on these pastures.
Millet and some of the sorghum-sudangrass hybrids can be
used advantageously in many areas of Florida for growing calves
in the summer. These forages are high in moisture and low in
energy and supplemental feeding on pasture increases gain,
carrying capacity, and usually the net return per acre. Also,
the quantity of forage available for grazing from these grasses
will vary greatly from season to season and in different areas of
the state.
Permanent pastures (bahiagrasses, digitgrasses, bermuda
grasses, etc.) during the warm season of the year can produce






an abundant amount of forage for grazing by growing calves.
However, towards the latter part of the warm season, the
quality may decrease considerably. At that time, energy and/or
protein supplementation may be beneficial.
Silage is a feed that has a good potential for growing calves
in Florida. Corn and sorghum (forage and grain) are grain
crops which can be grown for storage and feeding as silage.
When grain crop silage is supplemented with a concentrate mix-
ture, containing protein (the major part as natural protein),
vitamin A, minerals, salt, and a low-level antibiotic, good gains
with growing calves can be obtained. Good grain crop silage is
a good source of energy and can be used as the major portion
(95% on an as-fed basis) of the ration for growing calves.
Corn silage has a higher nutritional value for growing calves
than sorghum silage. The addition of grain to a forage sorghum
silage ration for growing calves will substantially increase gain.
The crimping of corn or grain sorghum silage, before it is fed,
often improves its feeding value for growing calves.
Generally, results have been disappointing with grass silage
and haylage for growing calves. It appears to be more econom-
ical to use grasses (millet, sorghum-sudangrass hybrids, small
grain crops, and permanent pasture) for grazing.
Confinement feeding programs based on purchased feedstuffs
(grain, by-product feeds, etc.) may be profitable for growing
calves if low-cost feed mixtures can be formulated and self-fed.
The calcium, phosphorus, salt, trace minerals, vitamin A, and
possibly magnesium and vitamin E requirements of growing
calves over and above the amounts supplied by the forage and
energy feeds should be supplemented.
The use of feed additives, such as antibiotics, and other
growth promotants with growing calves is usually beneficial
and, in most cases, provides returns greater than their cost.
Some important economic factors and useful management
tools for calf-growing operations are discussed. Information
needed to make many market decisions is essential to the cattle-
man. Custom or contract feeding or grazing is quite popular
in many areas of the United States and appears to be of interest
in Florida.








LITERATURE CITED


1. Baker, F. S., Jr. 1966. Steer wintering rations in north Florida. Fla.
Agr. Exp. Sta. Circ. S-174.
2. Bertrand, J. E. 1968. The value of melengestrol acetate (MGA) in
the ration of beef heifers. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. WFES Mimeo. Rept.
68-4.
3. ..................-------. 1969. Programs for growing stocker beef calves
using sorghum silage, fescue, wheat, and rye. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta.
WFES Mimeo. Rept. 69-1.
4. Bertrand, J. E., and L. S. Dunavin, Jr. 1969. Small grain crops grazed
by supplemented and unsupplemented growing beef calves. Soil and
Crop. Sci. Soc. Fla. Proc. 29:203.
5. .......................... 1970. Summer annual grasses for growing stocker
beef calves in northwest Florida. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. WFES Mimeo.
Rept. 70-2.
6. Bertrand, J. E., L. S. Dunavin, Jr., and M. C. Lutrick. 1972. Corn and
grain sorghum silages (unrolled and rolled) for growing stocker beef
calves in northwest Florida. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. WFES Mimeo.
Rept. 72-1.
7. Chapman, H. L., Jr., F. M. Peacock, W. G. Kirk, R. L. Shirley, and
T. J. Cunha. 1964. Supplemental feeding of beef cattle on pastures
in south Florida. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 665.
8. Chapman, H. L., Jr., R. L. Shirley, A. Z. Palmer, C. E. Haines, J. W.
Carpenter, and T. J. Cunha. 1964. Vitamins A and E in steer fat-
tening rations on pasture. J. Anim. Sci. 23:669.
9. Chapman, H. L., Jr., D. W. Beardsley, T. J. Cunha, and W. K. McPher-
son. 1967. Developing calves and steers on pastures in south and
central Florida. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 719.
10. Chapman, H. L., Jr., R. L. Shirley, A. Z. Palmer, and J. W. Carpenter.
1971. Vitamins A and E in steer fattening rations. Fla. Agr. Exp.
Sta. Bull. 748.
11. Cunha, T. J., M. Koger, and A. C. Warnick. 1963. Crossbreeding Beef
Cattle. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.
12. Cunha, T. J., R. L. Shirley, H. L. Chapman, Jr., C. B. Ammerman,
G. K. Davis, W. G. Kirk, and J. F. Hentges, Jr. 1964. Minerals for
beef cattle in Florida. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull 683.
13. Dobie, J. B., and R. G. Curley. 1963. Materials handling for livestock
feeding. Calif. Agr. Exp. Sta. Ext. Serv. Circ. 517.
14. Haines, C. E., H. L. Chapman, Jr., R. J. Allen, Jr., and R. W. Kidder.
1965. Roselawn St. Augustine as a perennial pasture forage for
organic soils of south Florida. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 689.
15. Hentges, J. F., Jr. 1969. A comparison of feeding programs for grow-
ing beef calves after weaning. Proc. Beef Cattle Short Course,
University of Florida, Gainesville.
16. McCaleb, J. E., F. M. Peacock, and E. M. Hodges. 1964. Oats and rye
for grazing on Florida flatlands. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Circ. S-152.
17. Peacock, F. M., W. G. Kirk, E. M. Hodges, and J. E. McCaleb. 1972.
The use of oats, ryegrass, pangola digitgrass, silage, hay, and pas-
ture in growing calves. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. RC Mimeo. Rept. 72-3.
18. Perry, T. W. 1968. The value of corn silage for developing feeder
cattle, fattening steers, and cow-calf program. Proc. Beef Cattle
Short Course, University of Florida, Gainesville.
























ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This bulletin contains a summarization of many experiments on the
subject of growing calves to feedlot weights in Florida. Many scientists of
the Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations working at various locations
in the state have made valuable contributions. This publication also con-
tains much related information on the growing of calves. Grateful acknowl-
edgements are given to those who have contributed information or data.
Without their help only a partial coverage of this subject would have been
possible.

























APPENDIX















Appendix Table 1
Performance of supplemented and unsupplemented growing
calves grazing small grain crops (1968-69) -ARC, Jay
Item Wheat(a) Oats(b) Rye(c) Supp. (d) Unsupp.
Initial no. of animals 16(e) 16(e) 16(e) 24(f) 24(f)
Avg length of grazing, days 133 134 142 144 129
Avg initial wt, Ib. 386 394 389 390 389
Gain/acre, Ib. 500 413 513 540 410
Animal days/acre 231 224 263 261 217
Avg daily gain, Ib. 2.16a* 1.84b 1.95a,b 2.07 1.89
Stocking rate/acre(g) 1.74 1.67 1.85 1.81 1.68
Gain/acre/day, lb. 3.76 3.07 3.61 3.75 3.18

Feed cost/cwt gain
Pasture supplement(h) $ 3.53 $ 3.33 $ 3.73 $ 6.24 -
Pasture(i) $ 9.28 $ 10.63 $ 10.71 $ 8.96 $ 11.80
Total(j) $ 12.81 $ 13.96 $ 14.44 $ 15.20 $ 11.80
Calf cost/acre(k) $174.63 $171.07 $187.11 $183.53 $169.92
Feed cost/acre $ 64.05 $ 57.65 $ 74.08 $ 82.08 $ 48.38
Total cost/acre(j) $238.68 $228.72 $261.19 $265.61 $218.30
Final animal value/acre(l) $310.48 $283.81 $326.65 $330.16 $281.83
Net return/acre(j) +$ 71.80 +$ 55.09 +$ 65.46 +$ 64.55 +$ 63.53







(a) Wakeland wheat, two 2.5 acre plots (total 5 acres) per group of calves.
(b) Florida 500 oats, two 2.5 acre plots (total 5 acres) per group of calves.
(c) McNair Vita-Graze rye, two 2.5 acre plots (total 5. acres) per group of calves.
(d) Supplemented with a 12% protein high-energy ration at the level of 1% of body weight.
(e) Two groups of eight calves (four steers and four heifers) each. One group was supplemented while one group was not supplemented.
(f) Three groups of eight calves each One group grazed 5 acres of wheat, one group grazed 5 acres of oats, and the other group grazed
5 acres of rye.
(g) Additional test animals were added and removed as needed to keep the forage uniformly grazed. In all cases individual animal
weights were taken after an overnight shrink (fast from feed and water).
(h) Pasture supplemental ration cost= $52.71/ton.
(i) Pasture cost= $46.40/acre for wheat, $43.90/acre for oats, and $54.96/acre for rye.
(j) Does not include labor involved in feeding and caring for the calves.
(k) Calf cost= $26.00/cwt (includes cost of calves, hauling, veterinary costs, etc.).
(I) Animal value at end of trial= $26.50/cwt.
Denotes statistical significance at the 5% level (for the small grain crop comparison only). Means followed by letter "a" are
significantly different from those means not having "a" and those followed by "b" are significantly different from those not having "b".

c- Sources: Bertrand, J.E., and L.S. DunavinJr. 1969. Unpublished data in parts
Bertrand and Dunavin (4).
















Appendix Table 2
Performance of supplemented and unsupplemented growing
calves grazing small grain crops (1969-70)-ARC, Jay
Item Wheat(a) Oats(b) Rye(c) Supp.(d) Unsupp.
Initial no. of animals 16(e) 16(e) 16(e) 24(f) 24(f)
Avg length of grazing, days 147 154 147 156 142
Avg initial wt, lb. 317 318 309 317 313
0 Gain/acre, lb. 433 410 370 515 293
Animal days/acre 254 256 251 275 232
Avg daily gain, Ib. 1.70 1.60 1.47 1.87** 1.26
Stocking rate/acre(g) 1.73 1.66 1.71 1.76 1.63
Gain/acre/day, Ib. 2.94 2.66 2.51 3.29 2.05
Feed/cwt gain
Pasture supplement(h) $ 4.24 $ 4.19 $ 4.63 $ 6.81 $--
Pasture(i) $ 10.92 $ 11.72 $ 12.16 $ 9.08 $ 15.95
Total(j) $ 15.16 $ 15.91 $ 16.79 $ 15.89 $ 15.95
Calf cost/acre(k) $176.86 $170.24 $170.41 $179.93 $164.54
Feed cost/acre $ 65.64 $ 65.23 $ 62.12 $ 81.83 $ 46.73
Total cost/acre(j) $242.50 $235.47 $232.53 $261.76 $211.27
Final animal value/acre(l) $294.42 $281.36 $269.52 $321.88 $240.96
Net return/acre(j) +$ 51.92 +$ 45.89 +$ 36.99 +$ 60.12 +$ 29.69







(a) Wakeland wheat, two 2.5 acre plots (total 5 acres) per group of calves.
(b) Florida 501 oats, two 2.5 acre plots (total 5 acres) per group of calves.
(c) Wren's abruzzi rye, two 2.5 acre plots (total 5 acres) per group of calves.
(d) Supplemented with a 12% protein high-energy ration at the level of 1% of body weight.
(e) Two groups ofeight calves (seven steers and one heifer) each. One group was supplemented while one group was not supplemented.
(f) Three groups of eight calves each. One group grazed 5 acres of wheat, one group grazed 5 acres of oats, and the other group grazed 5 acres of rye
(g) Additional test animals were added and removed as needed to keep the forage uniformly grazed. In all cases individual animal weights were taken after
an overnight shrink (fast from feed and water).
(h) Pasture supplemental ration cost= $55.85/ton.
(i) Pasture cost= $47.23/acre for wheat, $47.98/acre for oats, and $45.01/acre for rye.
(j) Does not include labor involved in feeding and caring for calves.
(k) Calf cost= $32.25/cwt (includes cost of calves, hauling, veterinary costs,.etc.).
(I) Based on an animal value of $30.00 cwt at the end of the trial.
SSignificant at P< 0.01 (applies to the supplemented versus unsupplemented comparison only).
Source: Bertrand, J. E., and L. S. Dunavin, Jr. 1970. Unpublished data.


c01









Appendix Table 3
Evaluation of five different cool-season feeding regimes for
growing calves in northwest Florida (1968-69)- ARC, Jay
Silage Fescue and wheat Rye and ryegrass
Item Sorghum (a) Corn (b) Supp. (c) Unsupp. (d) mixture (e)
No. of animals 16(f) 15(f)(g) 16(f) 16(f) 16(f)
Length of trial, days 171 171 171 171 171
Avg initial wt, lb. 394 402 400 393 392
Avg final wt, Ib. 616 674 703 645 676
Avg gain/animal, Ib. 222 272 303 252 284
Avg daily gain, Ib. 1.30c** 1.59 a, b 1.77a 1.47 b, c 1.66 a, b
Feed cwt gain (h)
Forage sorghum silage 2548 -
Corn silage 2178 -
Concentrate supplement 117 100 -
Pasture supplement 301 -
Feed/animal/day, Ib.(h)
Forage sorghum silage 33.1 -
Corn silage 34.7 -
Concentrate supplement 1.5 1.6 -
Pasture supplement 5.3 -


Feed cost/cwt gain
Forage sorghum silage (i)
Corn silage (j)
Concentrate supplement (k)
Pasture supplement (I)
'Pasture (m)
Total


$ 12.74

$ 6.35


$ 19.09


$ 11.98
$ 5.42


$ 17.40


$ 7.93
$ 11.65
$ 19.58


$ 13.99
$ 13.99


$ 12.04
$ 12.04


cw
Wi







Avg cost/head (n) $108.35 $110.55 $110.00 $108.08 $107.80
Avg feed cost/head $ 42.38 $ 47.33 $ 59.33 $ 35.25 $ 34.19
Total cost/head (o) $150.73 $157.88 $169.33 $143.33 $141.99
Final value/head (p) $172.48 $188.72 $196.84 $180.60 $189.28
Net return/head(o) +$ 21.75 +$ 30.84 +$ 27.51 +$ 37.27 +$ 47.29
(a) Forage sorghum silage(95.6%)+ concentrate supplement (protein, mineral, and vitamin) (4.4%) in drylot.
(b) Corn silage (95.6%) + concentrate supplement (protein, mineral, and vitamin) (4.4%) in drylot.
(c) Tall fescue (Kentucky 31) and wheat (Wakeland) grazed in rotation- supplemented with a 12% protein high-energy ration at the level of 1% of
body weight.
(d) Tall fescue (Kentucky 31) and wheat (Wakeland) grazed in rotation unsupplemented.
(e) Rotational grazing of a rye (McNair Vita-Graze) and ryegrass (Gulf) mixture- unsupplemented.
(f) Two pens of eight steer calves each per treatment group.
(g) One animal was removed from experiment due to sickness; the data for that animal were eliminated.
(h) Does not include pasture.
(i) Forage sorghum silage cost= $10.09/ton.
(j) Corn silage cost= $11.00/ton.
(k) Concentrate supplement (protein, mineral, and vitamin) cost= $108.47/ton.
(I) Pasture supplemental ration cost= $52.71/ton.
(m) Pasture cost= $63.04/acre for tall fescue, $50.00/acre for wheat, and $54.72/acre for the rye and.ryegrass mixture.
(n) Calf cost= $27.50/cwt (includes cost of calves, hauling, veterinary costs, etc.).
(o) Does not include labor involved in feeding and caring for calves.
(p) Based on an animal value of $28.00/cwt at the end of the trial.

** Denotes statistical significance at the 1% level. Means followed by letter "a" are significantly different from those means not having "a";
those followed by "b" are significantly different from those not having "b"; etc.

Source: Bertrand, J. E., and L. S. Dunavin, Jr. 1969. Unpublished data.










Appendix Table 4
Evaluation of five different cool-season feeding regimes for
growing calves in northwest Florida (1969-70) ARC, Jay

Rye and ryegrass Rye, ryegrass, and crim-
Silage mixture son clover mixture,
unsupp. (e)
item Sorghum (a) Corn (b) Supp. (c) Unsupp. (d)pp (e)

No. of animals 16(f) 16(f) 16(f) 16(f) 16(f)
Length of trial, days 154 154 154 154 154
Avg initial wt, Ib. 398 402 398 396 408
Avg final wt, Ib. 602 643 690 628 651
Avg gain/animal, lb. 204 241 292 232 243
Avg daily gain, Ib. 1.33b** 1.56b 1.90a 1.51b 1.58b

Feed/cwt gain (g)
Grain sorghum silage 2545 -
Corn silage 2235 -
Concentrate supplement 134 118 -
Pasture supplement 291 -
Feed/animal/day, lb. (g)
Grain sorghum silage 33.8 -
Corn silage 35.0 -
Concentrate supplement 1.8 1.8 -
Pasture supplement 5.5 -


Feed cost/cwt gain
Grain sorghum silage (h)
Corn silage (i)
Concentrate supplement (j)
Pasture supplement (k)
Pasture (I)
Total


$ 14.00

$ 6.73


$ 20.73


$ 11.73
$ 5.92 -
$ 8.13
$ 9.66
$ 17.65 $ 17.79


$ 12.12
$ 12.12


$ 12.26
$ 12.26








Avg cost/head (m) $127.36 $128.64 $127.36 $126.72 $130.56
Avg feed cost/head $ 42.29 $ 42.54 $ 51.95 $ 28.12 $ 29.79

Total cost/head (n) $169.65 $171.18 $179.31 $154.84 $160.35
Final value/head (o) $180.60 $192.90 $207.00 $188.40 $195.30
Net return/head (n) +$ 10.95 +$ 21.72 +$ 27.69 +$ 33.56 +$ 34.95

(a) Grain sorghum silage (95%) + concentrate supplement (protein, mineral, and vitamin) (5%) in drylot.
(b) Corn silage (95%) + concentrate supplement (protein, mineral, and vitamin) (5%) in drylot.
(c) Rotational grazing of a mixture of rye (Wren's abruzzi) and ryegrass (Gulf) supplemented with a 12% protein high-energy ration at the level of
1% of body weight.
(d) Rotational grazing of a mixture of rye (Wren's abruzzi) and ryegrass (Gulf) unsupplemented.
(e) Rotational grazing of a mixture of rye (Wren's abruzzi), ryegrass (Gulf), and crimson clover (Dixie) unsupplemented.
(f) Two pens of eight steer calves each per treatment group.
(g) Does not include pasture.
(h) Grain sorghum silage cost = $11.00/ton.
(i) Corn silage cost = $10.50/ton.
S (j) Concentrate supplement (protein, mineral, and vitamin) cost = $100.39/ton.
(k) Pasture supplemental ration cost = $55.85/ton.
(I) Pasture cost = $45.01/acre for the rye and ryegrass mixture and $47.81/acre for the rye, ryegrass, and crimson clover mixture.
(m)Calf cost = $32.00/cwt (includes cost of calves, hauling, veterinary costs, etc.).
(n) Does not include labor involved in feeding and caring for calves.
(o) Based on an animal value of $30.00/cwt at the end of the trial.
Denotes statistical significance at the 1% level. Means followed by letter "a" are significantly different from those means not having "a" and those followed
by "b" are significantly different from those not having "b"
Source Bertrand, J. E., and L. S. Dunavin, Jr. 1970. Unpublished data.







Appendix Table 5


Performance of growing calves grazing winter
annual grasses and legumes (1970-71) ARC, Jay

Mixture of rye. Mixture of wheat.
ryegrass, and ryegrass, and -
Crimson Arrowleaf Crimson Arrowleaf
Item clover (a) clover (b) clover (c) clover (d)

Initial no. of animals 12(e) 12(e) 12(e) 12(e)
Avg length of grazing, days 147 148 146 148
Avg initial wt, Ib. 338 338 335 332
Gain/acre, lb. 539 535 521 497
Animal days/acre 274 261 269 272
Avg daily gain, lb. 1.97 2.05 1.94 1.83
Stocking rate/acre (f) 1.86 1.76 1.84 1.84
Gain/acre/day, lb. 3.66 3.61 3.57 3.37

Pasture cost/cwt gain (g) $ 9.20 $ 9.39 $ 9.53 $ 10.11

Calf cost/acre (h) $214.38 $202.85 $210.19 $208.31
Pasture cost/acre $ 49.59 $ 50.24 $ 49.65 $ 50.25
Total cost/acre (i) $263.97 $253.09 $259.84 $258.56
Final animal value/acre (j) $338.63 $217.67 $329.85 $321.29
Net return/acre (i) +$ 74.66 +$ 74.58 +$ 70.01 +$ 62.73

(a) Rotational grazing of a mixture of rye (Wren's abruzzi), ryegrass (Gulf), and crimson clover (Dixie).
(b) Rotational grazing of a mixture of rye (Wren's abruzzi), ryegrass (Gulf), and arrowleaf clover (Amclo).
(c) Rotational grazing of a mixture of wheat (Wakeland), ryegrass (Gulf), and crimson clover (Dixie).
(d) Rotational grazing of a mixture of wheat (Wakeland), ryegrass (Gulf), and arrowleaf clover (Amclo).
(e) Two groups of six calves (five steers and one heifer) each. Three 1.25 acre plots (tota- 3.75 acres) of the
respective pastures for each group initially containing six calves.
(f) Additional test animals were added and removed as needed to keep the forage uniformly grazed. In all
cases individual animal weights were taken after an overnight shrink (fast from feed and water).
(g) Pasture cost = $49.60/acre for the rye, ryegrass, and crimson clover mixture; $50.28/acre for the rye,
ryegrass, and arrowleaf clover mixture; $49.60/acre for the wheat, ryegrass, and crimson clover mixture;
and $50.28/acre for the wheat, ryegrass, and arrowleaf clover mixture.
(h) Calf cost = $34.10/cwt (includes cost of calves, hauling, veterinary costs, etc.).
(i) Does not include labor involved in caring for the calves.
(j) Based on an animal value of $29.00/cwt at the end of the trial.

Source: Bertrand, J. E., and L. S. Dunavin, Jr. 1971. Unpublished data.










Appendix Table 6


Evaluation of five different cool-season feeding regimes for growing
calves in northwest Florida (1967-68) ARC, Jay
Sorghum silage Fescue and wheat Fescue and rye,
unsupp. (e)
Item Corn (a) No corn (b) Supp. (c) Unsupp. (d)
No. of animals 15(fXg) 16(f) 16(f) 16(f) 16(f)
Length of trial, days 173 173 173 173 173
Avg initial wt, lb. 329 331 328 339 323
Avg final wt, lb. 636 597 610 530 562
Avg gain/animal, Ib. 307 266 282 191 239
Avg daily gain, Ib. 1.77a** 1.54a,b 1.63a,b 1.10c 1.38b,c

Feed/cwt gain (h)
Forage sorghum silage 1779 2362 -
Concentrate supplement 103 109 -
High-moisture corn 168 -
Pasture supplement 277
Feed/animal/day, Ib. (h)
Forage sorghum silage 31.5 36.4 -
Concentrate supplement 1.8 1.7 -
High-moisture corn 3.0 -
Pasture supplement 4.5 -


Feed cost/cwt gain
Forage sorghum silage (i)
Concentrate supplement (j)
High-moisture corn (k)
Pasture supplement (I)
Pasture (m)
Total


$ 8.90
$ 5.07
$ 3.70


$ 11.81
$ 5.37


$ 17.67 $ 17.18


$ 7.14
$ 11.85
$ 18.99


-

$ 17.45
$ 17.45


$ 14.43
$ 14.43








Avg cost/head (n) $ 87.58 $ 88.11 $ 87.31 $ 90.24 $ 85.98
Avg feed cost/head $ 54.25 $ 45.70 $ 53.55 $ 33.33 $ 34.49
Total cost/head (o) $141.83 $133.81 $140.86 $123.57 $120.47
Final value/head (p) $162.18 $152.24 $155.55 $135.15 $143.31
Net return/head (o') +$ 20.35 +$ 18.43 +$ 14.69 +$ 11.58 +$ 22.84

(a) Forage sorghum silage (86.8%) + concentrate supplement (protein, mineral, and vitamin) (5.0%) + high-moisture corn (8.2%) in drylot.
(b) Forage sorghum silage (95.6%) + concentrate supplement (protein, mineral, and vitamin) (4.4%) in drylot.
(c) Tall fescue (Kentucky 31) and wheat (Hadden) grazed in rotation pasture supplemental ration was fed at the level of 1% of body weight.
(d) Tall fescue (Kentucky 31) and wheat (Hadden) grazed in rotation unsupplemented.
(e) Tall fescue (Kentucky 31) and rye (Wren's abruzzi) grazed in rotation unsupplemented.
(f) Two pens of eight calves (seven steers and one heifer) each per treatment group.
(g) One animal broke a leg during the course of the experiment; the data for that animal were eliminated.
(h) Does not include pasture.
(i) Forage sorghum silage cost = $10.00/ton.
(j) Concentrate supplement (protein, mineral, and vitamin) cost = $98.53/ton.
(k) High-moisture corn cost = $44.00/ton.
(I) Pasture supplemental ration cost-- $51.57/ton.
(m)Pasture cost = $61.25/acre for tall fescue, $45.38/acre for wheat, and $48.88/acre for rye.
(n) Calf cost = $26.62/cwt (includes initial cost of calves, hauling, veterinary costs, etc.).
(o) Does not include labor involved in feeding and caring for the calves.
(p) Based on an animal value of $25.50/cwt at the end of the trial.
** Denotes statistical significance at the 1% level. Means followed by letter "a" are significantly different from those means not having "a"; those
followed by "b" are significantly different from those not having "b", etc.
Source: Bertrand (3).








Appendix Table 7
Performance of calves grazing two different summer annual grasses ARC, Jay
1968 1969
Item Millet (a) Grazer A (b) Millet (a) Grazer A (b)
Initial no. of animals 32(c) 32(c) 32(c) 32(c)
Avg length of grazing, days 110 104 77 69
Avg. initial wt, Ib. 509 498 530 537
Gain/acre, Ib. 629 638 335 323
Animal days/acre 373 336 262 238
Avg daily gain, lb. 1.69 1.90 1.28 1.36
Stocking rate/acre (d) 3.39 3.23 3.40 3.45
Gain/acre/day, Ib. 5.73 6.14 4.35 4.69

Feed cost/cwt gain
Pasture supplement (e) $ 5.48 $ 4.95 $ 6.76 $ 5.45
Pasture (f) $ 7.47 $ 7.37 $ 15.25 $ 15.74
Total (g) $ 12.95 $ 12.32 $ 22.01 $ 22.19
Calf cost/acre (h) $447.25 $416.93 $491.05 $504.85
Feed cost/acre $ 81.46 $ 78.60 $ 73.73 $ 71.67
Total cost/acre (g) $528.71 $495.53 $564.78 $576.52
Animal sales/acre (i) $546.01 $520.97 $571.65 $581.99
Net return/acre (g) +$ 17.30 +$ 25.44 +$ 6.87 +$ 5.47

(a) Gahi-1 millet, two 1.25 acre plots (total 2.5 acres) for each group of calves.
(b) Sorghum-sudangrass hybrid, two 1.25 acre plots (total 2.5 acres) for each group of calves.
(c) Four groups of eight calves (six steers and two heifers) each. Two groups were supplemented on pasture
and two similar groups were not supplemented.
(d) Additional test animals were added and removed as needed to keep the forage uniformly grazed. In all
cases, individual animal weights were taken after an overnight shrink (fast from feed and water).
(e) Pasture supplemental ration cost = $55.74/ton (1968),and $56.88/ton (1969).
(f) Pasture cost = Gahi-1 millet $46.95/acre (1968) and $51.09/acre (1969); and Grazer A $46.95/acre
(1968) and $50.85/acre (1969).
(g) Does not include labor involved in feeding and caring for the calves.
(h) Calf cost = $25.92/cwt (1968) and $27.25/cwt (1969) includes cost of calves, hauling, veterinary
costs, etc.
(i) Animal value at end of trial = $23.19 cwt (1968) and $ 26.75/cwt (1969).
Source: Bertrand and Dunavin (5).








Appendix Table 8
The effect of supplementation on the performance of calves grazing summer
annual grasses- ARC, Jay

1968 1969
Item Supp. (a) Unsupp. (b) Supp. (a) Unsupp. (b)
Initial no. of animals 32(c) 32(c) 32(c) 32(c)
Avg length of grazing, days 113 101 76 70
Avg initial wt, lb. 503 504 532 536
Gain/acre, Ib. 794 473 442 217
Animal days/acre 383 326 259 241
Avg daily gain, lb. 2.07** 1.45 1.71** 0.90
Stocking rate/acre (d) 3.39 3.23 3.41 3.44
Gain/acre/day, lb. 7.02 4.68 5.83 3.10

Feed cost/cwt gain
Pasture supplement (e) $ 8.32 $ 9.85 -
Pasture (f) $ 5.92 $ 9.94 $ 11.54 $ 23.54
Total (g) $ 14.24 $ 9.94 $ 21.39 $ 23.54
Calf cost/acre (h) $441.98 $421.96 $494.35 $502.45
Feed cost/acre $113.06 $ 47.02 $ 94.54 $ 51.08
Total cost/acre (g) $555.04 $468.98 $588.89 $553.53
Animal sales/acre (i) $579.56 $487.20 $603.51 $551.27
Net return/acre (g) +$ 24.52 +$ 18.22 +$ 14.62 -$ 2.26

(a) Supplemented with a 12% protein high-energy ration at the level of 1% of body weight.
(b) Unsupplemented.
(c) Four groups of eight calves (six steers and two heifers) each. Two groups grazed Gahi-1 millet and two
similar groups grazed Grazer A (sorghum-sudangrass hybrid).
(d) Additional test animals were added and removed as needed to keep the forage uniformly grazed. In all
cases individual animal weights were taken after an overnight shrink (fast from feed and water).
(e) Pasture supplemental ration cost = $55.74/ton (1968)and $56.88/ton(1969).
(f) Pasture cost = Gahi-1 millet $46.95/acre (1968) and $51.09/acre (1969); and Grazer A $46.95/acre
(1968) and $50.85/acre (1969).
(g) Does not include labor involved in feeding and caring for the calves.
(h) Calf cost = $25.92/cwt (1968) and $27.25/cwt (1969)- includes cost of calves, hauling, veterinary
costs, etc.
(i) Animal value at end of trial = $23.19/cwt (1968) and $26.75/cwt (1969).
** Significant at P<0.01 (when comparing gain obtained within each year).
Source: Bertrand and Dunavin (5).










Appendix Table 9
Evaluation of rolled silages for growing calves (1970-71) ARC, Jay


Item
No. of animals
Length of trial, days
Avg initial wt, Ib.
Avg final wt, Ib.
Avg gain/animal, lb.
Avg daily gain, Ib.


Corn silage (a) Grain sorghum silage (b)
Unrolled Rolled (c) Unrolled Rolled (c)
16(d) 16(d) 16(d) 16(d)
140 140 140 140
386 391 397 397
524 587 545 553
138 196 148 156
0.99 1.40* 1.06 1.11


Feed/cwt gain 2463 2015 2777 2645
Silage 2340 1914 2638 2513
Concentrate supplement 123 101 139 132
Feed/animal/day, Ib. 24.2 28.2 29.4 29.6
Silage 23.0 26.8 27.9 28.1
Concentrate supplement 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.5

Feed cost/cwt gain
Silage (e) $ 12.29 $ 10.29 $ 14.51 $ 14.14
Concentrate supplement (f) $ 6.33 $ 5.20 $ 7.16 $ 6.80
Total $ 18.62 $ 15.49 $ 21.67 $ 20.94
Avg cost/head (g) $124.49 $126.10 $128.03 $128.03
Avg feed cost/head $ 25.70 $ 30.36 $ 32.07 $ 32.67
Total cost/head (h) $150.19 $156.46 $160.10 $160.70
Gross value/head (i) $165.06 $184.91 $171.68 $174.20
Net return/head (h) +$ 14.87 +$ 28.45 +$ 11.58 +$ 13.50

(a) Corn silage (95%) + concentrate supplement (protein, mineral, and vitamin) (5%) in drylot.
(b) Grain sorghum silage (95%) + concentrate supplement (protein, mineral, and vitamin) (5%) in drylot.
(c) The silages were rolled in order to crimp the kernels of grain.
(d) Two groups of eight steer calves each.
(e) Corn silage (unrolled) cost = $10.50/ton, corn silage (rolled) cost = $10.75/ton, grain sorghum
silage (unrolled) cost = $11.00 /ton, and grain sorghum silage (rolled) cost =$11.25/ton.
(f) Concentrate supplement (protein, mineral, and vitamin) = $103.00/ton.
(g) Calf cost = $32.25/cwt (includes cost of calves, hauling, veterinary costs, etc.).
(h) Does not include labor involved in feeding and caring for calves.
(i) Based on an animal value of $31.50/cwt at the end of the trial.
*Significant at P<0.05 (this applies to the corn silage rolled and unrolled comparison only).
Source: Bertrand, Dunavin, and Lutrick (6).







Appendix Table 10
Gahi-1 millet (grazed and silage) for supplemented and unsupplemented calves
(1971)- ARC, Jay

Millet grazed (a) Millet silage (b)
Item Supp. (c) Unsupp. Supp. (c) Unsupp.
Initial no. of animals 16(d) 16(d) 16(d) 16(d)
Avg length of period, days 75 71 97 97
Avg initial wt, Ib. 549 557 546 541
Gain/acre, lb. 537 276 560 324
Animal days/acre 254 239 322 320
Avg daily gain, Ib. 2.11** 1.15 1.74** 1.01
Stocking rate/acre (e) 3.39 3.37 3.32 3.30
Gain/acre/day, Ib. 7.15 3.88 5.78 3.33

Feed/cwt gain (f)
Silage 2754 5357
Supplemental ration 299 388 -
Feed/animal/day, Ib. (f)
Silage 47.8 54.2
Supplemental ration 6.3 6.7 -

Feed cost/cwt gain
Pasture (g) $ 8.86 $ 17.24 -
Silage (h) $ 10.34 $ 20.12
Supplemental ration (i) $ 7.58 $ 9.84 -
Total (j) $ 16.44 $ 17.24 $ 20.18 $ 20.12
Calf cost/acre (k) $567.64 $572.51 $552.88 $544.52
Feed cost/acre $ 88.28 $ 47.58 $113.01 $ 65.19
Total cost/acre (j) $655.92 $620.09 $665.89 $609.71
Animal sales/acre (I) $715.84 $642.70 $708.26 $629.63
Net return/acre (j) +$ 59.92 +$ 22.61 +$ 42.37 +$ 19.92

(a) Gahi-1 millet, two 1.25 acre plots (total 2.5 acres) for each group of calves.
(b) Gahi-1 millet silage (same acreage as utilized in the grazing portion of the trial).
(c) Supplemented with a 12% protein high-energy ration at the level of 1% of body weight.
(d) Two groups of eight calves each.
(e) Additional test animals were added and removed as needed to keep the forage uniformly consumed.
In all cases individual animal weights were taken after an overnight shrink (fast from feed and water).
(f) Does not include pasture.
(g) Pasture cost = $47.57/acre.
(h) Silage cost = $7.51/ton (at feeding time).
(i) Supplemental ration cost = $50.73/ton.
(j) Does not include labor involved in feeding and caring for calves.
(k) Calf cost = $30.50 cwt (includes cost of calves, hauling, veterinary costs, etc.).
(I) Animals sold at auction for a net return of $29.85/cwt.
** Significant at P < 0.01. (This applies to each one of the two comparisons.)
Source: Bertrand, J. E., and L. S. Dunavin, Jr. 1971. Unpublished data.







Appendix Table 11
Comparison of three feeding programs for growing calves
Animal Science Department, Gainesville
Grass Corn Least-cost
1966 Experiment (112-day period) hay silage mixture (a)

Avg daily gain, Ib. 1.02 1.64 1.69
Feed cost/cwt gain (b) $29.00 $19.05 $20.86
Labor: hours/week 7 14 1
Daily feed intake, Ib. 14.7 16.0 13.2
Hay 8.9 -
Silage 9.7 (35.7) (c) -
Concentrate 12.9
Molasses 1.8 2.3 0.3
Supplement (d) 4.0 4.0 -



Grass Corn Least-cost
1967 Experiment (126-day period) hay silage mixture (a)

Avg daily gain, lb. 1.14 1.46 2.11
Feed cost/cwt gain (b) $24.68 $19.25 $19.98
Labor: hours/week 7 14 1
Daily feed intake, Ib. 12.9 14.3 15.4
Hay 8.9 -
Silage 10.3 (37.7) (c) -
Concentrate 15.4
Supplement (d) 4.0 4.0 -

(a) Composed of 41 Ib. steam dried citrus pulp, 41 lb. corn meal, 4 lb. alfalfa meal, 2 Ib. urea (45% N),
10 Ib. blackstrap molasses, 1 lb. defluorinated phosphate, and 1 lb. trace-mineralized salt. Protein
content was 11.8%. About 48% of the protein was from non-protein nitrogen (urea).
(b) Feed ingredient costs per ton were: Coastal bermudagrass hay, $30.00; corn silage, $8.00; black-
strap molasses, $20.50; least-cost mixture, $54.50; and supplement, $69.00.
(c) Figures in parentheses represent the amount of silage on an as-fed basis.
(d) Composed of 58 Ib. corn meal, 12 Ib. soybean meal (50%), 10 Ib. alfalfa meal, 4 lb. urea (45% N),
10 Ib. blackstrap molasses, 3 lb. defluorinated phosphate, and 3 Ib. trace-mineralized salt.
Source: Hentges (15).



































RIC>

j Sewing Mankind
0 1875 1975


NT *




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