• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Credits
 Table of Contents
 Introduction
 Review of literature
 Pearl millet pasture for lactating...
 Pearl millet pasture for dairy...
 Discussion
 Summary and conclusions
 Literature cited














Group Title: Bulletin - University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station ; 527
Title: Value of pearl millet pasture for dairy cattle
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027590/00001
 Material Information
Title: Value of pearl millet pasture for dairy cattle
Series Title: Bulletin - University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station ; 527
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Marshall, Sidney P.
Sanchez, A. B.
Somers, H. L.
Arnold, P. T. Dix
Publisher: University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027590
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Page 1
    Credits
        Page 2
        Page 3
    Table of Contents
        Page 4
    Introduction
        Page 5
    Review of literature
        Page 6
    Pearl millet pasture for lactating cows
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
    Pearl millet pasture for dairy heifers
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
    Discussion
        Page 17
    Summary and conclusions
        Page 18
        Page 19
    Literature cited
        Page 20
Full Text
NOV 25 1953

October 1953


Bulletin 527


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS
WILLARD M. FIFIELD, Director
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA






Value of

Pearl Millet Pasture

For Dairy Cattle


SIDNEY P. MARSHALL, A. B. SANCHEZ, H. L. SOMERS
and P. T. DIx ARNOLD


Fig. 1.-These cows thrive on pearl millet on the Experiment Station farm.










BOARD OF CONTROL

Hollis Rinehart. Chairman, Miami
J. Lee Ballard, St. Petersburg
Fred H. Kent, Jacksonville
Wm. H. Dial, Orlando
Mrs. Alfred I. duPont, Jacksonville
Georne W. ,.-i 1. T1, F. Lauderdale
W Glenn : .11 ,,. i,,
W. F. Powers, Secretary, Tallahassee
EXECUTIVE STAFF
J. Hillis Miller, Ph.D., President
J. Wayne Reitz, Ph.D., Provost for Agr."
Willard M. Filield, M.S., Director
J. R. Beckenbach. Ph.D., Asso. Director
L. 0. Gratz, Ph.D., Assistant Director
Rogers L. Bartley, B.S., Admin. Mgr.'
Geo. R. Freeman, B.S., 'arm Superintendent


MAIN STATION, GAINESVILLE

AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS
H. G. Hamilton, Ph.D., Agr. Economist 1 :
R. E. L. Greene, Ph.D., Agr. Economist :
M. A. Brooker, Ph.D., Agr. Economist 3
Zach Savage, M.S.A., Associate
A. H. Spurlock, M.S.A., Agr. Economist
D. E. Alleger, M.S., Associate
D. L. Brooke, M.S.A., Associate
M. R. Godwin, Ph.D., Associate3
W. K. McPherson, M.S., Economist
Eric Thor, M.S., Asso. Aur. Economist 3
Cecil N. Smith, M.A., A As gr. Economist
Levi A. Powell, Sr., M.S.A., Assistant
Orlando, Florida (Cooperative USDA)
G. Norman Rose, B.S., Asso. Agri. Economist
J. C. Townsend, Jr., B.S.A., Agricultural
Statistician '
J. B. Owens, B.S.A., Agr. Statistician 2

AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING
Frazier Rogers, M.S.A., Agr. Engineer] 3
J. M. Myers, M.S.A., Asso. Agr. Engineer
J. S. Norton, M.S., Asst. Agr. Engineer

AGRONOMY
Fred H. Hull, Ph.D., Agronomist '
G. B. Killinger, Ph.D., Agronomist
H. C. Harris, Ph.D., Agronomist
R. W. Bledsoe, Ph.D., Agronomist
W. A. Carver, Ph.D., Agronomist
Fred A. Clark, M.S., Associate
E. S. Horner, Ph.D., Assistant
A. T. Wallace, Ph.D., Assistant 3
D'. E. McCloud, Ph.D., Assistant'
G. C. Nutter, Ph.D., Asst. Agronomist

ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND NUTRITION
T. J. Cunha, Ph.D., Animal Husbandman 1
G. K. Davis, Ph.D., Animal Nutritionist3
R. L. Shirley, Ph.D., Biochemist
A. M. Pearson, Ph.D., Asso. An. Husb.1
John P. Feaster, Ph.D., Asst. An. Nutri.
H. D. Wallace, Ph.D., Asst. An. Husb.3
M. Koger, Ph.D., An. Husbandman '
J. F. Hentges, Jr., Ph.D., Asst. An. Husb.
L. R. Arrington, Ph.DI., Asst. An. Hush.
DAIRY SCIENCE
E. L. Fouts, Ph.D., Dairy Technologist 13
R. B. Becker, Ph.D., Dairy Husbandman 3
S. P. Marshall, Ph.D., Asso. Dairy Husb.3
W. A. Krienke, M.S., Asso. Dairy Tech.'
P. T. Dix Arnold, M.S.A., Asso. Dairy Itusb. 3
Leon Mull, Ph.D., Asso. Dairy Tech.3
H. H. Wilkowske, Ph.D., Asst. Dairy Tech.3
James M. Wing, Ph.D., Asst. Dairy Husb.


EDITORIAL
J. Francis Cooper, M.S.A., Editor3
Clyde Beale, A.B.J., Associate Editor3
J. N. Joiner, B.S.A., Assistant Editor 3
William G. Mitchell, A.B.J., Assistant Editor
Samuel L. Burgess, A.B.J., Assistant Editor

ENTOMOLOGY
A. N. Tissot, Ph.D., Entomologist I
L. C. Kuitert, Ph.D., Associate
H. E. Bratley, M.S.A., Assistant
F. A. Robinson, M.S., Asst. Apiculturist
R. E. Waites, Ph.D., Asst. Entomologist
HOME ECONOMICS
Ouida D. Abbott, Ph.D., Home Econ.1
R. B. French, Ph.D., Biochemist
HORTICULTURE
G. H. Blackmon, M.S.A., Horticulturist1
F. S. Jamison, Ph.D., Horticulturist34
Albert P. Lorz, Ph.D., Horticulturist
R. K. Showalter, M.S., Asso. Hort.
R. A. Dennison, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.
R. Sharpe, M.S., Asso. Horticulturist
V. F. Nettles, Ph.D., Asso. Horticulturist
F. S. Lagasse, Ph.D., Horticulturist2
It. D. Dickey, M.S.A., Asso. Hort.
L. H. Halsey, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
C. B. Hall, Ph.D., Asst. Horticulturist
Austin Griffiths, Jr., B.S., Asst. Hort.
S. E. McFadden, Jr., Ph.D., Asst. Hort.
C. H. VanMiddelem, Ph.D., Asst. Biochemist
Buford D. Thompson, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
M. W. Hoover, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.

LIBRARY
Ida Keeling Cresap, Librarian

PLANT PATHOLOGY
W. B. Tisdale, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist 1
Phares Decker, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
Erdman West, M.S., Botanist & Mycologist
Robert W. Earhart, Ph.D., Plant Path.2
Howard N. Miller, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Path.
Lillian E. Arnold, M.S., Asso. Botanist
C. W. Anderson, Ph.D., Asst. Plant Path.
POULTRY HUSBANDRY
N. R. Mehrhof, M.Agr., Poultry Husb.13
J. C. Driggers, Ph.D., Asso. Poultry Husb.3
SOILS
F. B. Smith, Ph.D., Microbiologistl
Gaylord M. Volk, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
J. R. Neller, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
Nathan Gammon, Jr., Ph.D., Soils Chemist
Ralph G. Leighty, B.S., Asst. Soil Surveyor2
G. D. Thornton, Ph.D., Microbiologist
C. F. Eno, Ph.D., Asst. Soils Microbiologist
H. W. Winsor, B.S.A., Assistant Chemist
R. E. Caldwell, M.S.A., Asst. Chemist
V. W. Carlisle, B.S., Asst. Soil Surveyor
J. H. Walker, M.S.A., Asst. Soil Surveyor
William K. Robertson, Ph.D., Asst. Chemist
0. E. Cruz, B.S.A., Asst. Soil Surveyor
W. G. Blue, Ph.D., Asst. Biochemist
J. G. A. Fiskel, Ph.D., Asst. Biochemist 3
L. C. Hammond, Ph.D., Asst. Soil Physicist a
H. L. Breland, Ph.D., Asst. Soils Chem.

VETERINARY SCIENCE
D. A. Sanders, D.V.M., Veterinarian 13
M. W. Emmel, D.V.M., Veterinarian 5
C. F. Simpson, D.V.M., Asso. Veterinarian
L. E. Swanson, D.V.M., Parasitologist
W. R. Dennis, D.V.M., Asst. Parasitologist
E. W. Swarthout, D.V.M., Asso. Poultry
Pathologist (Dade City)










BRANCH STATIONS

NORTH FLORIDA STATION, QUINCY
W. C. Rhoades, Jr., M.S., Entomologist in
Charge
R. R. Kincaid, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
L. G. Thompson, Jr., Ph.D., Soils Chemist
W. H. Chapman, M.S.. Agronomist
Frank S. Baker, Jr., B.S., Asst. An. Husb.
Frank E. Guthrie, Ph.D., Asst. Entomologist
Mo' ile Unit, Monticello
R. W. Wallace, B.S., Associate Agronomist
Mobile Unit, Marianna
R. W. Lipscomb, M.S., Associate Agronomist
Mobile Unit, Pensacola
R. L. Smith, M.S., Associate Agronomist
Mo' ile Unit, Chipley
J. B. White, B.S.A., Associate Agronomist

CITRUS STATION, LAKE ALFRED
A. F. Camp, Ph.D., Vice-Director in Charge
W. L. Thompson, B.S.. Entomologist
R. F. Suit, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
E. P. Ducharme, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Path.
C. R. Stearns. Jr., B.S.A., Asso. Chemist
J. W. Sites, Ph D., Horticulturist
H. O. Sterlin-, B.S., Asst. Horticulturist
H. J. Reitz, Ph.D., Horticulturist
Francine Fisher, M.S., Asst. Plant Path.
I. W. Wander, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
J. W. Kesterson, M.S., Asso. Chemist
R. Hendrickson, B.S., Asst. Chemist
Ivan Stewart, Ph.D., Asst. Biochemist
D. S. Prosser, Jr., B.S., Asst. Engineer
R. W. Olsen, B.S., Biochemist
F. W .Wenzel. Jr., Ph.D., Chemist
Alvin H. Rouse, M.S., Asso. Chemist
H. W. Ford, Ph.D., Asst. Horticulturist
L. C. Knorr, Ph.D., Asso. Histolorist 4
R. M. Pratt, Ph.D., Asso. Ent.-Pathologist
W. A. Simanton, Ph.D., Entomologist
E. J. Deszyck, Ph.D., Asso. Horticulturist
C. D. Leonard. Ph.D., Asso. Horticulturist
W. T. Long, M.S., Asst. Horticulturist
M. H. Muma, Ph.D., Asso. Entomologist
F. J. Reynolds, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.
W. F. Spencer, Ph.D., Asst. Chem.
R. B. Johnson, Ph.D., Asst. Entomologist
W. F. Newhall, Ph.D., Asst. Entomologist
W. F. Grierson-Jackson, Ph.D., Asst. Chem.
Roger Patrick, Ph.D., Bacteriologist
Marion F. Oberbacher, Ph.D., Asst. Plant
Physiologist
Evert J. Elvin, B.S., Asst. Horticulturist
R. C. J. Koo, Ph.D., Asst. Biochemist
J. R. Kuykendall, Ph.D., Asst. Horticulturist

EVERGLADES STATION, BELLE GLADE
W. T. Forsee, Jr., Ph.D., Chemist in Charge
R. V. Allison, Ph.D., Fiber Technologist
Thomas Bregger, Ph.D., Physiologist
J. W. Randolph, M.S., Agricultural Engr.
R. W. Kidder, M.S.. Asso. Animal Husb.
C. C. Seale, Associate Agronomist
N. C. Hayslip, B.S.A. Asso. Entomologist
E. A. WolE, M.S., Asst. Horticulturist
W. H. Thames, M.S., Asst. Entomologist
W. G. Genung, M.S., Asst. Entomologist
Frank V. Stevenson, M.S.. Asso. Plant Path.
Robert J. Allen, Ph.D., Asst. Agronomist
V. E. Green, Ph.D., Asst. Agronomist
J. F. Derby. Ph.D.. Asst. Plant Path.
V. L. Guzman, Ph.D., Asst. Hort.
J. C. Stephens, B.S., Drainage Engineer -
A. E. Kretschmer, Jr., Ph.D., Asst. Soils
Chem.
Charles T. Oznkli. Ph.D., Aast. Chemi*+
Thomas L. Meade, Ph.D., Asst. An. Nutri.
D. S. Harrison, M.S., Asst. Agri. Engr.


F. T. Boyd, Ph.D., Asso. Agronomist
M. G. Hamilton, Ph.D., Asst. Horticulturist
J. N. Simons, Ph.D, Asst. Viro'o ist
D. N. Beardsley, M.S., Asst. Animal Husb.

SUB-TROPICAL STATION, HOMESTEAD
Geo. D. Ruehle, Ph.D.. Vice-Dir. in Charge
D 0. Wolfenbarger, Ph.D., Entomologist
Francis B. Lincoln, Ph.D., Hr ol' urist
Robert A. Conover, Ph.D., Plant Path.
John L. Malcolm, Ph D., Asso. Soils Chemist
R. W. Harkness, Ph.I., Asst. Chemist
R. Bruce Ledin. Ph.D.. ast Hort.
J. C. Noonan, M.S., Asst. Hort.
M. H. Gallatin, B.S., Soil Conservationist 2

WEST CENTRAL FIORIDA STATION,
BROOKSVILLE
Marian W. Hazen, M.S., Animal Husband-
man in Charge2

RANGE CATTLE STATION, ONA
W. G. Kirk, Ph.D.. Vice-Director in Charge
E. M. Hodges, Ph.D., Agronomist
D. W. Jones, M.S., Asst. Soil Technologist

CENTRAL FLORIDA STATION. SANFORD
R. W. Ruprecht, Ph.D., Vice-Dir. in Charge
J. W. Wilson, ScD. Entomologist
P. J. Westgate, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.
Ben F. Whitner, Jr., B.S.A., Asst. Hort.
Geo. Swank, Jr., Ph.D., Asst. Plant Path.

WEST FLORIDA STATION, JAY
C. E. Hutton, Ph.D., Vice-Director in Charge
H. W. Lundy, B.S.A., Associate Agronomist

SUWANNEE VALLEY STATION,
LIVE OAK
G. E. Ritchey, M.S., Agronomist in Charge
GULF COAST STATION, BRADENTON
E. L. Spencer, Ph.D Soils Chemist in Charge
E. G. Kelsheimer. Ph.D.. Entomolo-ist
David G. A. Kelbert, Asso. Horticulturist
Robert O. Magie. Ph.D.. Plant Pathologist
J. M. Walter. Ph.D. Plant Pathologist
S. S. Woltz, Ph D.. Asst. Horticulturist
Donald S. Bur-is, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
C. M. Geraldson, Ph.D., Asst. Horticulturist

FIELD LABORATORIES

Watermelon, Grape. Pasture-Leesburg
J. M. Crall, Ph.D., Associate Plant Path-
ologist Acting in Charge
C. C. Helms, Jr., B.S., Asst. Agronomist
L. H. Stover, Assistant in Horticulture
Strawlerry-Plant City
A. N. Brooks, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
Vegetables-Hastings
A. H. Eddins, Ph.D., Plant Path. in Charge
E. N. McCubbin, Ph D., Horticulturist
T. M. Dobrovsky, Ph.D., Asst. Entomologist
Pecans-Monticello
A. M. Phillips, B.S., Asso. Entomologist
John R. Larre, M.S., Asso. Plant Path.
Frost Forecasting-Lakeland
Warren O. Johnson, B.S., Meteorologist in
Charge 2

1 Head of Department
SIn cooperation with U. S.
3 Cooperative, other divisions, U. of F.
SOn leave
















CONTENTS
PAGE

INTRODUCTION .......- ....-.. ....- ---- --.- --.-.--- ---.--... --. ---....-.-----. 5

REVIEW OF LITERATURE .......... ... ............. .. ...... .......... .... 6

PEARL MILLET PASTURE FOR LACTATING COWS ...-......-.. .-................ 6

Method of Procedure ....... ....... ... .......... ... ..... .--......... 6

Experim ental Results -........-... ... .................. -- --. ... 8

Distribution of Feed Supply ..... ... ........-.. .................... 9

Composition of Millet Pasture ....... ..... ...... ..- .......-.. ........ 9

Body Weight Changes and Milk Production ......................... 11

Total Digestible Nutrients Obtained from Pasture ................... 12

Alfalfa Hay Equivalent Obtained from Pasture -.................. 13

Feed Replacement and Calculated Production Costs -..-. ....-... 13

PEARL MILLET PASTURE FOR DAIRY HEIFERS ................ .....--... 14

Method of Procedure ................... ...... ..... ... ................... 14

Experimental Results .............. ..... .. 15

Body Weights, Gains and Supplemental Feeding ..................... 16

Returns per Acre from Pasture ... .. ............... 17

D ISCUSSION ...... -.. .. ....... .... ..... ... ...... ..... 17

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ... ... ......... .. .........- 18

LITERATURE CITED ................................ ... .. .. ... 20








Value of Pearl Millet Pasture
for Dairy Cattle
SIDNEY P. MARSHALL, A. B. SANCHEZ, H. L. SOMERS
and P. T. Dix ARNOLD

INTRODUCTION
Lactating dairy cows are unexcelled as producers of animal
products for human food and require large amounts of nu-
tritious feed to support milk production and body maintenance.
Liberal amounts of quality feeds also are required to grow
young stock into herd replacements having the physical char-
acteristics necessary for many years of high milk production.
Providing an adequate supply of quality feed for the dairy herd
at an economical cost is one of the principal problems con-
fronting dairymen.
Pastures generally provide the cheapest source of nutrients,
since grazing with cattle eliminates cost and losses of nu-
trients associated with harvesting, processing, storing and feed-
ing of crops. Although permanent pastures usually are the
most economical sources of feed, there are many occasions
when dairymen could use temporary summer grazing crops to
advantage (Fig. 1).
A survey of Florida dairymen (9)1 revealed that the per-
centage of feed derived from pasture during the months of
June, July, August and September averaged 22.1 percent in
1950, 25.0 percent in 1951 and 27.7 percent for July, August
and September, 1952 (information not collected for June, 1952).
This survey indicates that more pasture is needed to supply a
larger proportion of feed for dairy cattle during the summer.
Temporary pastures, which can be produced within a few weeks,
will provide grazing while additional permanent pastures are
being established. Such pastures also may be used for supple-
mental forage during summer drought periods.
Pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.) is the most
commonly used summer temporary pasture in Florida (2) be-
cause of its rapid growth, high yielding ability and resistance
to diseases and root-knot nemotode. Information on its feed-
ing value and the returns that might be anticipated from the
utilization of millet pasture is presented here to help dairymen
in planning their programs.
'Italic figures in parentheses refer to Literature Cited in the back.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


REVIEW OF LITERATURE

In trials at the Mississippi station (8) pearl millet was supe-
rior to Tift sudan or grain sorghum as a summer grazing pas-
ture. It was reported that in 1950 lactating cows grazed 1,261
pounds of total digestible nutrients per acre from millet pasture
while grain sorghum provided 830 pounds. During the follow-
ing year 2,056 pounds of total digestible nutrients were obtained
per acre from pearl millet while Tift sudan supplied 1,480
pounds.
Pearl millet proved to be the best temporary grazing pasture
tested at the Georgia station (4). The millet, grown on good
land, fertilized liberally and grazed rotationally, required only
0.3 of an acre to provide all the forage a dairy cow would
consume.
Millet was planted broadcast on well-drained sandy soil types
fertilized with manure and commercial fertilizers and grazed
rotationally with dairy cows at the Sandhill station of South
Carolina (3). Total digestible nutrients obtained per acre an-
nually ranged from 959 to 1,950 pounds, with an average of
1,420 pounds for four years.
No information has been noted in the literature on the feed-
ing value of millet pasture for dairy heifers. Although some
data have been reported on the use of millet pasture by cows,
more complete information is needed on its nutritive value for
lactating cows. Therefore, this experiment was planned to
study the feeding value of pearl millet pasture for lactating
cows and growing heifers under Florida dairy conditions; to
determine the amount of total digestible nutrients that may
be obtained per acre; seasonal distribution of the feed supplied
and the quality of feed produced; and to collect information
on production costs.

PEARL MILLET PASTURE FOR LACTATING COWS
METHOD OF PROCEDURE
Three two-acre fields of Orlando fine sand were seeded to
pearl millet in the spring of 1950, 1951 and 1952 after winter
oat grazing on these areas had been concluded. The millet
production procedure followed was essentially that recom-
mended by Henderson (5). Seed and a mixed fertilizer were
drilled simultaneously in two-foot rows on a prepared seedbed.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


REVIEW OF LITERATURE

In trials at the Mississippi station (8) pearl millet was supe-
rior to Tift sudan or grain sorghum as a summer grazing pas-
ture. It was reported that in 1950 lactating cows grazed 1,261
pounds of total digestible nutrients per acre from millet pasture
while grain sorghum provided 830 pounds. During the follow-
ing year 2,056 pounds of total digestible nutrients were obtained
per acre from pearl millet while Tift sudan supplied 1,480
pounds.
Pearl millet proved to be the best temporary grazing pasture
tested at the Georgia station (4). The millet, grown on good
land, fertilized liberally and grazed rotationally, required only
0.3 of an acre to provide all the forage a dairy cow would
consume.
Millet was planted broadcast on well-drained sandy soil types
fertilized with manure and commercial fertilizers and grazed
rotationally with dairy cows at the Sandhill station of South
Carolina (3). Total digestible nutrients obtained per acre an-
nually ranged from 959 to 1,950 pounds, with an average of
1,420 pounds for four years.
No information has been noted in the literature on the feed-
ing value of millet pasture for dairy heifers. Although some
data have been reported on the use of millet pasture by cows,
more complete information is needed on its nutritive value for
lactating cows. Therefore, this experiment was planned to
study the feeding value of pearl millet pasture for lactating
cows and growing heifers under Florida dairy conditions; to
determine the amount of total digestible nutrients that may
be obtained per acre; seasonal distribution of the feed supplied
and the quality of feed produced; and to collect information
on production costs.

PEARL MILLET PASTURE FOR LACTATING COWS
METHOD OF PROCEDURE
Three two-acre fields of Orlando fine sand were seeded to
pearl millet in the spring of 1950, 1951 and 1952 after winter
oat grazing on these areas had been concluded. The millet
production procedure followed was essentially that recom-
mended by Henderson (5). Seed and a mixed fertilizer were
drilled simultaneously in two-foot rows on a prepared seedbed.







Value of Pearl Millet Pasture for Dairy Cattle


Before the initial grazing the millet was cultivated once with
16-inch sweeps for weed control.
The three plots of millet were grazed rotationally. At the
end of each grazing period the stubble was mowed, if neces-
sary, to control seedhead formation and keep the millet in a
vegetative state. Stubble was mowed about six inches above
the ground in 1950, but was mowed at about 31.S-inch height
during the following two years. Applications of about 100
pounds of nitrate of soda (16 percent N) were made after each
rotation when it was thought that the stand and vitality of
the plants would justify it. The planting dates, seeding rates
and fertilization practices for each year are shown in Table 1.

TABLE 1.-PLANTING DATES, SEEDING RATES AND FERTILIZATION PRACTICES
BY YEARS FOR PEARL MILLET GRAZED BY LACTATING COWS.

Year

1950 1951 1952
Planting date ......................... ....... Mi arch 28 April 20 May 16
Seeding rate per acre, lbs ................ 15 14 12
Mixed fertilizer applied per acre,
lbs. .................... ...... ..... ...... .... 400 415 400
Number of nitrogen topdressings .... 4 4 3
Amount of N applied per acre per
topdressing, lbs ........................... 16 16.5 16

4-7-5 fertilizer used in 1950 and 1952. 4-8-8 used in 1951.

Grazing was initiated with lactating Jersey and Guernsey
cows when the millet was 14 to 22 inches tall. The cattle were
kept on the pasture continually except when removed for milk-
ing. Pasture rotation cycles averaged 21 days in length, with
each plot being grazed about seven days. Approximately 14
days were required after mowing for the new shoots to attain
grazing height.
The cows were milked twice daily and milk weights were
recorded. Butterfat percentage of one day's production for
each cow was determined biweekly. The animals were weighed
after the morning milking on three consecutive days at the
beginning, the end, and at 28-day intervals during the grazing
season.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


Concentrate mixtures containing 16 percent of crude protein
were offered each cow at the rate of 1 pound per 3.5 pounds of
4 percent fat-corrected milk produced. Adjustments of concen-
trate allowances were made in accordance with production at
two-week intervals. The concentrate mixtures with dates used
are shown in Table 2. Common salt, steamed bonemeal and an
anemia-preventive mineral mixture were offered free choice.
Fresh water and shade were provided in each pasture, and the
cattle were sprayed regularly for fly control.

TABLE 2.-CONCENTRATE MIXTURES USED DURING MILLET GRAZING
EXPERIMENTS.

Mixtures Used
INGREDIENTS 5/14/50- 7/17/51- 6/10/52-
7/16/51 9/9/51 | 9/17/52
Percent Percent I Percent

Cottonseed meal, 41 percent ........ 11.4 --
Peanut meal, 45 percent ............... 10.2 11.4
W heat bran ........... ......... ..... 36.6 36.6 21.7
Hom iny feed ..................................... 50.0 51.2 43.2
O ats .................. ............. ......... ....- 21.7
Salt ............ .......................... 1.0 1.0 1.0
Bone m eal ............ .... ............. 1.0 1.0 1.0

Crude protein -.- ............. .......- .. 16.0 16.0 16.0
Total digestible nutrients ............ 74.7 76.1 75.7

Cottonseed meal, 41~, crude protein, became unavailable in 1951 and was replaced
by peanut meal. In 1952 the composition was changed to improve palatability.

Samples of forage representing the plant portions consumed
by the cows were taken during the first, third and fourth pas-
ture rotations of 1952. Moisture and crude protein analyses
were made on these samples by methods of the Association of
Official Agricultural Chemists (1).

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

The time interval from planting until the initiation of graz-
ing ranged from 25 to 47 days, with the periods becoming
shorter with the later plantings. The length of grazing seasons
ranged from 100 to 123 days and was influenced most by the
variations in dates that grazing was begun. In late August
productivity of the millet began to decline rapidly with the
forage growth becoming inadequate to justify continuation of
grazing about mid-September.






Value of Pearl Millet Pasture for Dairy Cattle


Early weed and grass growth was controlled by cultivation.
Mowing the stubble following grazing of millet effectively con-
trolled later weed growth. The subsequent grass infestation
was considered too small to deter millet growth or to contribute
significantly to the feed supply of the cattle.
Distribution of the Feed Supply.-In 1950 and 1951 millet
pasture provided a rather uniform supply of feed until the
latter part of August, when the decline in forage growth oc-
curred. The proportion of the annual yield of total digestible
nutrients obtained each week from millet pasture ranged largely
between 5 and 8 percent until late August or early Sep-
tember. The later planting in 1952 was not ready for grazing
until June 10, when environmental conditions were very favorable
for rapid growth. Therefore, a large number of cows were
required during the first rotation to consume this growth of
forage and to establish a differential in plant size between plots
equivalent to one week's growth. During succeeding rotations
the trend was similar to that of other years, but the weekly
percentage was slightly higher, due to the shorter total grazing
period. The percentages of total disgestible nutrients obtained
from millet pasture each week of the grazing season each year
are shown in Fig. 2.
Composition of Millet Pasture.-Forage samples taken during
the first, third and fourth pasture rotations in 1952 contained
12.3, 15.4 and 15.8 percent of dry matter and 2.88, 3.69 and 3.40
percent of crude protein, respectively. The first-rotation sample
of June 18, 1952, was lower in dry matter and crude protein
content than subsequent ones. However, its crude protein con-
tent on the dry-matter basis was comparable to that of the other
samples. The date and rotation number at the time millet
samples were taken and their dry matter and crude protein
content are shown in Table 3.
An excellent quality of forage was maintained throughout
the grazing season, even though the quantity declined during
the latter part of the period. Mowing the stubble after each
grazing and topdressing with about 16 pounds of nitrogen
per acre after each of the first three or four rotations resulted
in the production of new, succulent shoots that were palatable
and nutritious. The relatively high crude protein analysis
(3.40 percent) and low dry matter content (15.8 percent) for
the fourth-rotation forage sample taken on August 22 indicates











11
110 0 1950
10
A 1951 ".
9
8 1952
8


S6
^ 5- & D
S4
I. 3-
2


May June July August September
MONTHS

Fig. 2.-Percentage of the annual yield of total digestible nutrients grazed each week from pearl millet pasture by
lactating cows.







Value of Pearl Millet Fasture for Dairy Cattle


that good quality was maintained during the latter part of the
grazing season.

TABLE 3.-CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF PEARL MILLET FORAGE SAMPLES, 1952.

Pasture Dry Crude Protein
Date Rotation Matter, Fresh Dry Matter
Collected Number Percent Forage, Basis,
Percent Percent

6-18-52 1 12.3 2.88 23.4

7-30-52 3 15.4 3.69 23.9

8-22-52 4 15.8 3.40 21.5



Analyses for pearl millet pasture listed by Morrison (6) are
20.6 percent of dry matter and 2.1 percent of crude protein.
This crude protein content calculated on the dry-matter basis
is 10.2 percent. The samples of millet pasture taken in 1952
were significantly higher in crude protein, particularly on the
dry basis, and lower in dry matter than these analyses, indi-
cating that this pasture was of higher quality than those re-
ported by Morrison.
Body Weight Changes and Milk Production.-Jersey and
Guernsey cows used in the trials averaged 829.3 pounds initial
weight. There was little variation in average weights of the
groups used during the different years. Fluctuations in body
weight during 1950 and 1952 were relatively small, with average
gains per animal of four and six pounds for the respective
years. Body weight losses for 1951 averaged 26 pounds per
cow, with 15 of the 17 cows used showing some losses during
the experiment.
Daily milk production for all cows during the successive years
averaged 25.2, 29.1 and 25.4 pounds, with a three-year average
of 26.6 pounds of milk testing 4.9 percent of butterfat. Ex-
pressed as 4 percent fat-corrected milk, the average daily
production per cow was 28.6, 33.1 and 29.1 pounds for the re-
spective years. Results of the grazing experiment with cows
are presented in Table 4.
Persistency of milk production was good while cattle were
on millet pasture. The production trend during the first two








Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


weeks the cows grazed millet was similar to that of the pre-
ceding terminal two weeks on white clover-Dallis grass pas-
ture. The good persistency at the relatively high production
levels, accompanied by small average changes in body weight,
indicates that millet was nutritious and that forage consump-
tion per cow was large.

TABLE 4.-VALUE OF MILLET PASTURE GRAZED WITH LACTATING COWS, BY
YEARS AND THE AVERAGE FOR THREE YEARS.


Dates of grazing .......................
Length of grazing period, days ......
Number of pasture rotations ........
Av. daily carrying capacity of
pasture, cows per acre ................


Av. initial weight of cows, lbs ..
Av. change in body weight, lbs.


Av. daily milk production per cow,
lb s. .......... .. ... .. ..
Av. daily production 4 percent fat-
corrected milk, per cow, lbs.


T.D.N. obtained per acre from
pasture, lbs. ........ ................
Alfalfa hay equivalent obtained
per acre from pasture, tons
Percent of required T.D.N. ob-
tained from pasture ...........-
Av. daily concentrate consumption
per cow lbs. ............ .... ...- .....


Calculated feed replacement value
of grazing per acre -.............
Calculated cost of pasture pro-
duction, per acre ** --................
Net value from pasture, per acre ..


1950

May 14-
Sept. 13
123.0
5.7

1.4


Three-
Year I year
1951 1952 Average

May 25- June 10-
Sept. 9 Sept. 17 -
108.0 100.0 110.3
5.0 5.0 5.2

2.0 2.6 2.0


824.0 835.0 829.0 829.3
+4.0 26.0 +6.0 -5.0



25.2 29.1 25.4 26.6

28.6 33.1 29.1 30.3



,681.4 2,008.1 2,648.5 2,112.7

1.67 2.00 2.63 2.10

61.5 58.0 61.9 60.5


8.3


9.1


$93.52 $112.00 $147.28 $117.60

$45.02 $ 46.80 $ 40.46 $ 44.09
$48.50 $ 65.20 $106.80 $ 73.50


Determined by multiplying alfalfa hay equivalent by an evaluation of $56.00 per ton.
** Calculated production costs were based on assessments as follows: millet seed, $0.16
per pound, 4-7-5 fertilizer, $41.00 per ton; 4-8-8 fertilizer, $45.00 per ton ; nitrate of soala,
$66.00 per ton and land rent, $2.00 per acre for the period of time utilized for millet
production. Assessments per acre for cultural practices were: breaking land, $2.33; top-
dressing nitrogen fertilizer, $1.17; disking, $1.40; drilling seed and mixed fertilizer, $4.20;
cultivating millet, $2.33; and mowing, $1.17 per acre.

Total Digestible Nutrients Obtained from Pasture.-The
pounds of total digestible nutrients grazed per acre from millet


1







Value of Pearl Millet Pasture for Dairy Cattle


were 1,681.4, 2,008.1 and 2,648.5 for the respective years, with
a three-year average of 2,112.7 pounds. The average daily
intake per cow of total digestible nutrients from millet was
adequate to support body maintenance plus a daily production
of 10 pounds of 4 percent fat-corrected milk.
The smaller amount of total digestible nutrients obtained
from millet in 1950 was due partly to damages by frost and
coverage of young plants by wind-blown soil on April 13 and
14. With heavier and more sensitive stocking in 1951 and
1952, the fields of millet were grazed more rapidly while the
stems were smaller and the forage more succulent. This prac-
tice helped to increase the amount of total digestible nutrients
obtained per acre during these years.
Alfalfa Hay Equivalent Obtained from Pasture.-One of the
most practical methods of expressing the value of pasture is
in terms of the amount of a well-known roughage that would
be required to replace it. Alfalfa hay was selected as the
reference feedstuff for comparison, since the high crude pro-
tein content of the millet was more comparable to that of le-
gumes than to the values listed previously for grasses or cereals.
Likewise, the milk production trend during the first two weeks
on millet was comparable to that of the terminal two weeks
on pastures predominately legume (white clover). The total
digestible nutrient value of 50.3 (6) was used to calculate the
alfalfa hay equivalent. The feed obtained annually from millet
was calculated to be equivalent to 1.67, 2.00 and 2.63 tons of
alfalfa hay for the respective three years.
Feed Replacement Value and Calculated Production Costs.-
Financial benefits that may be anticipated from the production
and utilization of a pasture is an important factor in deter-
mining the practicability of adopting the crop as a feedstuff.
Therefore, a plan should be employed for crediting the returns
derived from pasture and debiting the production costs in order
to determine the net balance realized from its utilization.
The procedure used for evaluating returns from pasture was
to calculate the feed replacement value derived per acre from
millet by multiplying its alfalfa hay equivalent by a market
price of $56.00 per ton for alfalfa hay. Costs of fertilizers,
seed and land rent were based on prevailing market prices.
Assessments for cultural practices were made in accordance
with local charges per acre for custom work where fields are
10 acres or larger.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


Fertilizer and seed costs per ton were: 4-7-5 fertilizer, $41.00;
4-8-8 fertilizer, $45.00; nitrate of soda (16 percent nitrogen),
$66.00; and millet seed, $320.00. Assessments per acre for the
cultural operations were as follows: breaking land, $2.33;
disking, $1.40; drilling seed and mixed fertilizer, $4.20; culti-
vating millet, $2.33; topdressing nitrogen fertilizer $1.17; and
mowing, $1.17 per acre. Land rental charges were $4.00 per
acre, with $2.00 being assessed against the production of mil-
let. The remaining $2.00 per acre was charged against the
production of winter oats grown on this land during the other
part of the year.
Production costs per acre for millet averaged $44.09; the
annual variations were relatively small. Calculated feed re-
placement values obtained per acre were $93.52, $112.00 and
$147.28 for the respective years. Successive annual rises in
feed replacement value were accompanied by corresponding
increases in net profits of $48.50, $65.20 and $106.80 per acre.

PEARL MILLET PASTURE FOR DAIRY HEIFERS

METHOD OF PROCEDURE
Three plots of Scranton loamy fine sand averaging about 2.4
acres each were seeded to pearl millet in 1950, 1951 and 1952
following winter oats. The planting procedure, fertilization
methods, cultural practices and management program were
essentially the same as described under millet for lactating
cows. The planting dates, seeding rates and fertilizer appli-
cations for each year are shown in Table 5.

TABLE 5.-PLANTING DATES, SEEDING RATES AND FERTILIZATION PRACTICES
BY YEARS FOR PEARL MILLET GRAZED BY HEIFERS.

SYear
1950 1951 1952

Planting date ............................. March 29 May 29 May 19
Seeding rate per acre, lbs ..... .... 15 15 12.1
4-7-5 fertilizer applied per acre, lbs. 330 366 404
Number of nitrogen topdressings .. 3.3 3 2.7
Amount of N applied per acre per
topdressing, lbs ........................... 16.5 16.3 14.2







Value of Pearl Millet Pasture for Dairy Cattle


Grazing was initiated when the millet was 14 to 22 inches
tall. The heifers were kept on the pastures continually except
when removed for weighing (Fig. 3). The animals were weighed
on three consecutive days at the beginning, at the end and at
28-day intervals during the experiment.
Two pounds of 16 percent crude protein concentrate (Table
2) were offered daily per animal during 1950. No concentrate
was fed during the subsequent two years. Common salt,
steamed bonemeal and an anemia-preventive mineral mixture
were offered free choice. Shade and fresh water were provided
in each pasture and the animals were sprayed regularly for
fly control.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Grazing was started 24 to 48 days after planting, with the
shorter interval required for the planting made latest in spring.
Length of grazing season ranged from 80 to 105 days. There
were 4 to 5.3 pasture rotations per year.
Cultivation of millet prior to the initiation of grazing effec-
tively controlled grass growth during the early portion of the
grazing season. Parts of the Scranton loamy fine sand fields
were poorly drained and became water-logged during periods

Fig. 3.-Thrifty dairy heifers over 10 months of age will make satisfac-
tory growth on millet pasture alone. Small or thin animals between the
ages of 7 and 10 months need supplemental feed to make normal gains.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


of heavy rainfall in July and August. This condition deterred
the growth of millet, while crab grass spread and provided sig-
nificant amounts of grazing beginning in early August.

Body Weights, Gains and Supplemental Feeding.-The heifers
used for grazing in 1950 averaged 502 pounds initial weight.
They made average daily gains of 1.01 pounds, which was 136
percent of the growth rate considered normal (7) for heifers
of their ages. These animals were fed two pounds of concen-
trate daily each, but they did not show much interest in this
supplemental feed and the manger seldom was licked clean.
Therefore, no concentrate was offered during the succeeding
two years. Average initial weight of the heifers, average

TABLE 6.-VALUE OF MILLET PASTURE GRAZED WITH DAIRY HEIFERS, BY
YEARS AND THE AVERAGE FOR THREE YEARS.


Year


Dates of grazing .... .....................
Length of grazing period, days ...-
Number of pasture rotations .....


Av. initial weight, lbs. ...................
Av. daily gain per heifer, lbs. .....
Gains expressed as percentage *
normal growth rate ............-
Av. gain per acre, lbs........


T.D.N. obtained per acre from
pasture, lbs. ............ ..............
Alfalfa hay equivalent obtained
per acre from pasture, tons ....


Percent of required T.D.N. ob-
tained from pasture .....-
Av. daily concentrate consumption
per animal, lbs. ........................


Calculated feed replacement value
of grazing, per acre ..................
Calculated cost of pasture produc-
tion, per acre ............ .............
Net value from pasture, per acre


V.
M
A


1,


1950 1951 1952

[ay 16- |June 25- June 12-
ug.28 Sept. 12 Sept. 5
105.0 80.0 86.0
5.3 5.0 4.0


502.0 417.0 574.0
1.01 1.18 0.83

136.0 164.0 96.0
210.5 239.1 211.1



,384.6 1,602.7 1,993.1
1.38 1.59 1.98



81.6 100.0 100.0

2.0 0.0 0.0


$ 77.28 $ 89.04 $110.88
40.37 $ 39.25 $ 37.43
$ 36.91 $ 49.79 $ 73.45


The standard growth curve of Jersey females reported by Ragsdale (Mo. Agr. Exp. Sta.
Bul. 336. 1934) was used for the comparison.


I Three-
year
Average


90.3
4.8


497.7
1.01

132.0
220.2


1,660.1
1.65



93.9




$ 89.07
$ 39.02
$ 53.38


_


$






Value of Pearl Millet Pasture for Dairy Cattle


daily gains in body weight and information on the grazing
results are presented in Table 6.
Small heifers with an average initial weight of 417 pounds
were used in 1951. They gained an average of 1.18 pounds
daily, which was 164 percent of the normal growth rate.
In 1952 most of the heifers used were over 15 months of age
and some were in rather high condition when placed on millet.
A few small animals between the ages of seven and ten months
also were used. Several of the older heifers in high condition
and a few of the younger ones that were small or thin gained
at subnormal rates, thereby lowering the average growth rate
for the group. The average daily gain of 0.83 pounds was 96
percent of the normal growth rate for their ages.
Returns per Acre from Pasture.-Gains in body weight per
acre of millet grazed were 210.5, 239.1 and 211.1 pounds for
the respective years. The total digestible nutrients obtained
per acre from pasture during the successive years was 1,384.6,
1,602.7 and 1,993.1 pounds and was equivalent to 1.38, 1.59 and
1.98 tons of alfalfa hay. Ascending annual feed replacement
values of $77.28, $89.04 and $110.88 obtained per acre from
millet pastures during the successive years were accompanied
by corresponding increases in net profits per acre of $36.91,
$49.79 and $73.45. The lower yield obtained per acre in 1950
was due partly to damage from frost and coverage of some
young plants by wind-blown soil on April 13 and 14.

DISCUSSION
Yield of total digestible nutrients per acre and length of
grazing season were larger for millet pasture grazed by lac-
tating cows than for that utilized by heifers. These differences
appeared to be due largely to the poorly drained Scranton loamy
fine sand becoming water-logged during the rainy season of
July and early August, thereby causing a reduction in growth
of the millet and a shortening of the grazing period. Some
of the nitrogen topdressings were omitted during this period
of impaired plant growth; this probably caused some reduction
in yield of nutrients. Mixed fertilizer applications on the pas-
tures grazed by heifers in 1950 and 1951 also were slightly
smaller than those made on the pastures grazed by cows dur-
ing the same years.






Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


Well-developed dairy heifers in good condition were able
to make satisfactory growth on millet pasture alone between
the ages of seven and ten months, while small and/or thin
animals in this age range gained at subnormal rates. Thin or
small young heifers grazing millet pasture should be observed
closely to determine if supplemental feeding is needed. Animals
in thrifty condition and above ten months of age generally
gained at rates above normal for their ages on millet pasture
without supplemental feed.
Average daily concentrate consumption per cow for the three
years was 8.6 pounds. This supplied 39.5 percent of the cal-
culated total digestible nutrient intake, with the remaining
60.5 percent being derived from pasture. Small portions of
the concentrate offerings were refused by some cows fed as
little as seven or eight pounds daily. The feed mangers of
many cows often were left without being licked clean of con-
centrate. These conditions indicate that the concentrate al-
lowances frequently were adequate to satisfy the cow's appe-
tite and were excessive in a significant number of cases. Smaller
offerings of concentrate probably would not have affected ad-
versely milk production nor body weight changes and would
have increased the percentage of nutrients obtained from pas-
ture.
Attractive profits which may be derived from the use of
millet pasture by dairy cattle depend principally upon produc-
tion of high yields of quality forage, accompanied by efficient
and complete utilization of the feed produced. Annual produc-
tion costs for millet pasture were relatively constant, with
many of the assessments being for fixed operations. There-
fore, profits realized from millet pasture depended largely up-
on feed replacement value obtained per acre. Factors required
for obtaining large amounts of nutrients from millet pasture
are: planting on adapted soil types, control of weeds, liberal
fertilization, rotational grazing and adequate stocking. The
forage should be grazed while in a tender, succulent stage and
the stubble should be mowed following rotation to stimulate
the production of new growth. Recommendations for produc-
tion of millet pasture may be obtained from your county agent.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Pearl millet pastures planted following winter oats provided
grazing for dairy cattle from May or June (depending upon
planting date) usually through the early part of September.







Value of Pearl Millet Pasture for Dairy Cattle


The pastures were kept in a vegetative and palatable condi-
tion by rotational grazing, mowing stubble following each graz-
ing to stimulate production of new shoots, and by topdressing
with nitrogen fertilizer. Forage samples taken during the
first, third and fourth rotations of 1952 contained 12.3, 15.4 and
15.8 percent of dry matter and 2.88, 3.69 and 3.40 percent of
crude protein, respectively, indicating that excellent pasture
quality was maintained throughout the grazing season.
Lactating cows grazing millet pasture produced an average
of 30.3 pounds of 4 percent fat-corrected milk daily. Per-
sistency was good, even at higher production levels, and changes
in body weight during the experiments were relatively small.
An annual average of 2,112.7 pounds of total digestible nu-
trients per acre was obtained from millet by the cows. They
derived 60.5 percent of their total digestible nutrient intake
from pasture while on millet pasture. This was adequate to
support the requirement for body maintenance plus a daily
production of ten pounds of 4 percent fat-corrected milk.
Heifers above ten months of age and in thrifty condition
usually gained at rates above normal for their ages while graz-
ing millet pasture. Animals seven to 10 months of age that
were well-developed and in good condition made satisfactory
gains on pasture alone, but small or thin heifers in this age
range grew at subnormal rates.
The millet pasture grazed by heifers provided an annual
average of 1,660.1 pounds of total digestible nutrients per acre.
This lower yield appeared to be due principally to the poorly-
drained soil becoming too wet during the rainy season and
thereby causing a reduction in growth of the millet.
The profitableness of utilizing millet pastures with dairy
cattle is dependent principally upon production and efficient
utilization of high yields of quality forage. Calculated produc-
tion costs were rather constant at $37.43 to $46.80 per acre,
while average annual feed replacement values of the pasture
ranged from $77.28 to $147.28 per acre.
Dairymen needing summer grazing who have land adapted
for growing pearl millet can profit by the production and utiliza-
tion of this feed crop. Land used for growing millet during
the summer may be planted to oats in the fall to produce fall,
winter and spring grazing.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


LITERATURE CITED

1. ASSOCIATION OF OFFICIAL AGRICULTURAL CHEMISTS. Official and tenta-
tive methods of analysis. 7th ed. 1950.

2. BLASER, R. E., W. E. STOKES, J. D. WARNER, G. E. RITCHEY and G. B.
KILLINGER. Pastures for Florida. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 409.
1945.

3. FIRES, E. W., J. R. DAWSON, J. P. LAMASTER and G. H. WISE. Experi-
ments with annual crops and permanent pastures to provide grazing
for dairy cows in the sandhill region of the Southeast. USDA Tech.
Bul. 805. 1941.

4. GEORGIA COASTAL PLAIN EXPERIMENT STATION 27TH ANNUAL REPORT.
Temporary grazing crops recommended for economical milk produc-
tion. Bul. 44: 36. 1947.

5. HENDERSON, J. R. Recommended practices for the production of field
crops and pastures for the calendar year 1950. (Mimeographed)
Florida Agricultural Extension Service. 1950.

6. MORRISON, F. B. Feeds and Feeding. 21st ed. The Morrison Publish-
ing Co. 1948.

7. RAGSDALE, A. C. Growth standards for dairy cattle. Mo. Agr. Exp.
Sta. Bul. 336. 1934.

8. ROARK, D. B., J. T. MILES, J. W. LUSK and W. C. COWSERT. Milk pro-
duction from pearl millet, grain sorghum and Tift sudan. Proc.
Asso. Sou. Agr. Workers 49th Ann. Convention: 76-77. 1952.

9. USDA BUREAU AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, Orlando, Florida, cooperating
with Fla. Dept. of Agr., Dairy Div. Milk production and feed reports.
1950-52.




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