• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Credits
 Introduction
 Statement of the problem
 Review of literature
 Experimental methods
 Presentation and discussion of...
 General discussion
 Summary and conclusions
 Acknowledgement
 Literature cited
 Appendix
 Copyright
 Back Cover














Group Title: Bulletin - University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station ; 275
Title: feeding value and nutritive properties of citrus by-products
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027666/00001
 Material Information
Title: feeding value and nutritive properties of citrus by-products
Series Title: Bulletin - University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station ; 275
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Arnold, P. T. Dix.
Neal, W. M.
Becker, R. B.
Publisher: University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
Publication Date: 1935
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027666
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
    Introduction
        Page 3
    Statement of the problem
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
    Review of literature
        Page 7
    Experimental methods
        Page 8
        Page 9
    Presentation and discussion of the data
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
    General discussion
        Page 17
        Page 18
    Summary and conclusions
        Page 19
    Acknowledgement
        Page 19
    Literature cited
        Page 20
    Appendix
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
    Copyright
        Page 27
    Back Cover
        Page 28
Full Text


January, 1935


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



THE FEEDING VALUE

AND NUTRITIVE PROPERTIES OF

CITRUS BY-PRODUCTS

I. The Digestible Nutrients of Dried Grapefruit and
Orange Cannery Refuses, and the Feeding Value of
the Grapefruit Refuse for Growing Heifers.

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


Figure 1.-These heifers show the good condition and gloss of the hair
produced by 120 days on a ration of sugarcane or sorghum silage, dried
grapefruit refuse, and cottonseed meal.

Bulletins will be sent free to Florida residents upon application to
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA


Bulletin 275








EXECUTIVE STAFF

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

MAIN STATION, GAINESVILLE

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

ANIMAL HUSBANDRY
A. L. Shealy, D.V.M., Animal Husbandman**
R. B. Becker, Ph.D., Dairy Husbandman
W. M. Neal, Ph.D., Associate in Animal
Nutrition
D. A. Sanders, D.V.M., Veterinarian
M. W. Emmel, D.V.M., Asst. Veterinarian
W. W. Henley, B.S.A., Asst. Animal Hus-
bandman
P. T. Dix Arnold, B.S.A., Assistant Dairy
Husbandman

CHEMISTRY AND SOILS
R. W. Ruprecht, Ph.D., Chemist**
R. M. Barnette, Ph.D., Chemist
C. E. Bell, Ph.D., Associate
R. B. French, Ph.D., Associate
H. W. Winsor, B.S.A., Assistant
H. W. Jones, M.S., Assistant

ECONOMICS, AGRICULTURAL
C. V. Noble, Ph.D., Agricultural Economist**
Bruce McKinley, A.B., B.S.A., Associate
Zach Savage, M.S.A., Associate
A. H. Spurlock, M.S.A., Assistant

ECONOMICS, HOME
Ouida Davis Abbott, Ph.D., Specialist**
L. W. Gaddum, Ph.D., Biochemist
C. F. Ahmann, Ph.D., Physiologist
J. T. Hall, Jr., B.S.Ch.E., Asst. Physiologist
ENTOMOLOGY
J. R. Watson, A.M., Entomologist**
A. N. Tissot, Ph.D., Associate
H. E. Bratley, M.S.A., Assistant
J. W. Kea, B.S.A., Assistant
HORTICULTURE
A. F. Camp, Ph.D., Horticulturist**
G. H. Blackmon, M.S.A., Horticulturist
A. L. Stahl, Ph.D., Associate
F. Jamison, Ph.D., Truck Horticulturist
R. J. Wilmot. M.S.A., Specialist, Fumigation
Research
R. D. Dickey, B.S.A., Assistant Horticulturist
PLANT PATHOLOGY
W. B. Tis0ale, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist**
George F. Weber, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
R. K. Voorhees, M.S., Assistant
Erdman West, M.S., Mycologist
Lillian E. Arnold, M.S., Assistant Botanist

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


BOARD OF CONTROL

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

BRANCH STATIONS

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

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

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

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

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


FIELD STATIONS

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










THE FEEDING VALUE AND NUTRITIVE PROPERTIES

OF CITRUS BY-PRODUCTS


I. The Digestible Nutrients of Dried Grapefruit and Orange
Cannery Refuses, and the Feeding Value of the Grapefruit
Refuse for Growing Heifers.


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


CONTENTS

Introduction ................ .............. .. .. ......... .. ....
Statem ent of the Problem ........ .... ............. ......... .......... ......
Review of Literature... ......................... .... .. .............. .... .... ......
Experimental M ethods ......... ...... .... ......
Presentation and Discussion of the Data.........
Palatability of Dried Grapefruit Cannery Refuse........
Digestibility of Dried Grapefruit Cannery Refuse ............
Digestibility of Dried Orange Peel ....................................
Discussion of Digestion Trials .............................
Feeding Trial wih Growing Heifers. ...............
General D discussion ...... ...... ...... .... .............
Summary an] Conclusions....... .. ... ..... .. .. .... ...........
Acknow ledgm ents....... ....................... ....
Literature Cited......................
Appendix... ..... ........ ... ... ...


Page
3
4
7
8
10
10
.. .... 10
... .. .... 11
........... ... ..... .... 412
.... ................... .....
.... ....... ......... 17
..... ........ 10
. .. ...... ..... .. .. ..... 10

10

...........- 20
21


The use of dried citrus fruit by-products for livestock feeding
was suggested by F. A. McDermott, holder of a Florida Citrus
Exchange fellowship at the Mellon Institute, in 1916. Since that
time the matter has received attention in California, and more
recently in Florida. At the present time there is a limited amount
of dried grapefruit cannery refuse reaching the market.
The citrus industry is one of the principal sources of income
to the state through the marketing of fresh and canned fruit.
However, there is a proportion of the crop that drops in the
grove, is not fit to pick, is culled out in the packinghouse, or
remains as refuse at the canning plant. Much of this part of
the crop has not been utilized in any manner, except as fertilizer.
Some outlet is needed for this part of the crop that will return
more than fertilizer value to the grower, especially when it is
remembered that a large part of the groves in the state have not
reached their mature yields, and the crop is increasing year by
year.
A method of utilization of citrus cannery refuse that would
change this material from a liability to an asset to the cannery,
and also provide an outlet for cull fruit, would be of inestimable
value to the citrus industry. If, at the same time, a valuable





Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


feed for livestock were produced, less feed material from other
sections of this country and from foreign countries would be
needed. The fact that a valuable feed could be produced from
citrus cannery refuse should stimulate investigations on the
mechanical problems of drying these products. Much work re-
mains on this phase of the problem.
This report presents the composition, coefficients of digestibil-
ity, and the digestible nutrients of dried grapefruit cannery
refuse, and of dried orange peel, and the results of a short feed-
ing trial with growing heifers in which dried grapefruit cannery
refuse was the principal source of digestible nutrients.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
At the present time the peel, rag and seed of the fruit which
constitute cannery refuse are a liability to the cannery, due to
the necessity for their disposal. A very small amount is fed to
livestock in the fresh state; some is returned to the groves as
fertilizer, and a considerable amount is dumped in the woods to
decay. There is some evidence that the citrus peel oil in the
fresh refuse will flavor milk when fed to cows in production,
so that the feeding of this fresh product to dairy cows, except
dry cows, cannot be advised.
The amount of this refuse from the canneries in this state is
indicated from the data in Table 1, compiled from data by the
Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, U. S. Department
of Commerce.
Almost one-fifth of the grapefruit crop is canned as either
juice or hearts each season. Two-thirds of this part of the crop
constitutes the refuse of which the canneries must make some
disposition. This grapefruit refuse together with the small
amount of orange refuse amounts to about 65,000 tons in an
average season. This quantity will increase as the demand for
canned fruit is developed.
Dr. C. V. Noble, Agricultural Economist of the Florida Agri-
cultural Experiment Station, has supplied the authors with data
for the 1931-32 season, which was considered normal. Based
on nine estimates for oranges, 10 for grapefruit, and four for
tangerines, there were 8.0 percent, 13.7 percent, and 10.0 per-
cent, respectively, of these fruits left in the groves. Based on
37 estimates for oranges and 36 estimates for grapefruit and
tangerines, it was estimated that 2.75 percent of the oranges,
3.37 percent of the grapefruit, and 4.01 percent of the tangerines
taken to the packinghouses found their way to the cull pile.






The Feeding Value of Citrus By-Products


TABLE 1.-CITRUS CANNERY REFUSE AVAILABLE IN FLORIDA DURING THE
FIVE SEASONS OF 1929-34.*
Total Amount of
Season Field Boxes Percent of Fresh Cannery Refuse**
to Canneries Fruit as Refuse pounds

GRAPEFRUIT

1929-30 ................. .. 1,639,923 74.2 109,580,934
1930-31 -......................... 2,892,705 69.4 180,667,298
1931-32 ...... ............... 932,864 64.9 54,505,898
1932-33 .............. ............i 2,525,992 67.6 153,696,759
1933-34 .. ............... 2,369,058 66.6 141,950,574

Average-...................................... ....................64,040 tons

ORANGES

1929-30 .............-........ 36,514 70.9 2,328,684
1930-31 ......................... 61,351 71.8 3,963,285
1931-32 .. :.......:::: .......... 36,362 71.7 2,345,349
1932-33 .----.-.. 60,720 70.0 3,824,666
1933-34 .......... ........... 55,848 70.7 3,555,531

Average ............................... .................. 1,602 tons
Total per season ............. ................. ... .... ............. ..65,642 tons

*Computed by Dr. C. V. Noble, Agricultural Economist of the Florida
Agricultural Experiment Station from data compiled by the Bureau of
Foreign and Domestic Commerce, U. S. Department of Commerce.
**This represents the difference between the weight of the field boxes
received, and the net weights of the canned products.

Leading fruit men estimate that 10 percent of the fruit now
marketed is of such low grade that it does not pay the market-
ing expenses. The market for fruit of higher quality is injured
by this competition of low grade fruit. Considering (a) the
amount of fruit that drops or is left in grove, (b) the amount
that reaches the cull pile, (c) the refuse from the canneries,
and (d) the low grade fruit that reaches the market, there is
from one-fifth to one-fourth of the citrus crop that would be
available for the production of livestock feeds. The cannery
refuse and the cull pile at the packinghouse are the parts of this
supply that first merit attention, due to the problem of their
disposal.
The method of drying cannery refuse remains near the experi-
mental stage. The product now on the market in Florida is
passed through corrugated rollers that tend to disintegrate the
fibrous structure of the peel and express a part of the water.





Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


Also, a part of the citrus peel oil is expressed in this operation.
From the rollers the refuse is conveyed to a five-compartment
drier which is heated by a fuel oil furnace. Circulation of the
heated air is assured by means of pressure and suction fans.
In the first compartment the material is heated to near the boil-
ing point as it is agitated by rotary paddles. It is passed from
compartment to compartment with continuous agitation until
discharged at the outlet with a moisture content of 10 percent
or less. The dried product takes up atmospheric moisture slowly.
The physical condition of this feed is determined by the
processing method. The fresh refuse is cut into narrow strips
as it passes through the corrugated rollers. The length of these
strips varies due to the size of the pieces of peel, and the amount
of breaking as they pass through the drier. The final product
consists of flakes and shreds of the dried refuse, somewhat
coarser than beet pulp. The pieces are hard and slightly brittle;
however, dairymen state that when soaked like beet pulp, the
fresh texture is recovered. In the dry state it can be ground
into a meal with a hammer mill, although there is nothing to
indicate that such is desirable for cattle feeding.
In color, the dried grapefruit refuse varies from a golden
brown to a bright gold. The dried orange peel has a more red-
dish tint. The brightest product is secured by the use of lower
drying temperatures.
The characteristics of this material that set it aside from the
usual stock feeds are: high content of citric acid, pectin, 'and
soluble sugars, and the presence of glucosides, pigments, and
essential oils. The physiological effects of these constituents on
large animals remain to be investigated. The first concern of
the stock feeder is the palatability of a product and the amount
of digestible nutrients that it contains.
In addition to knowing the palatability and digestible nutrient
content, it is necessary when making the final evaluation of a
feed, to compare the value of the nutrients in actual feeding
practice with those of the most similar known feed, and to study
the effects of long continued feeding of the product to determine
any special beneficial or harmful effects on the animal. Further,
it is desirable to study the effects that specific constituents
might have on the animal. None of this information was avail-
able for dried grapefruit cannery refuse, and very little for any
of the dried citrus by-products.






The Feeding Value of Citrus By-Products


REVIEW OF LITERATURE

McDermott (7) holder of a Florida Citrus Exchange fellow-
ship with the Mellon Institute, suggested in 1916 that the dried
by-product from the manufacture of various products from cull
fruits might have a place as livestock feed.
The only feeding trial reported with cattle using dried grape-
fruit cannery refuse was conducted by Scott (14) at this station
in 1925-26. He used a product, furnished by the Florida Citrus
Exchange, that analyzed 18.00 percent moisture, 5.25 percent
fat, 5.31 percent crude protein, 61.69 percent nitrogen-free ex-
tract and ash, and 9.75 percent crude fiber. The six Jersey cows
to which this product was fed gave increased milk yields as a
result of additions of the dried grapefruit refuse to their rations.
Studies concerning the composition, coefficients of digestibility,
and digestible nutrients of dried fruit by-products have been
conducted at the California (8, 9) and Virginia (5) stations.
The data from these studies are summarized in Table 2.
TABLE 2.-THE COMPOSITION, COEFFICIENTS OF DIGESTIBILITY, AND DIGEST-
IBLE NUTRIENTS OF CIT.iUS AND OTHER FRUIT BY-PRODUCTS.
SDry Crude I Crude N-Free Crude
Dried Fruit By-Product Matter Proteinl Fiber Extract Fat Ash
percent ] percent I percent i percent percent I percent
COMPOSITION OF THE PRODUCT
Orange pulp (8) ........ 87.50 7.70 7.81 66.96 1.68 1 3.35
Lemon pulp (9) ........ 92.90 6.39 15.00 65.24 1.23 5.04
Raisin pulp (8) ............ 88.68 9.58 19.32 45.57 10.54 3.67
Pineapple pulp (9) ...... 83.60 3.81 13.88 61.94 0.71 3.26
Olive pulp (9) .............. 92.02 5.91 36.45 31.54 15.63 2.49
Olive pulp* (9) .......... 95.11 13.99 19.27 31.04 27.39 3.43
Apple pomace (5) ....... 86.68 4.31 17.03 69.76 5.13 3.77
COEFFICIENTS OF DIGESTIBILITY
Orange pulp .. ............ 89.33 78.54 83.73 95.40 48.89
Lemon pulp .............- 81.43 46.18 60.33 92.01 27.44
Raisin pulp ... .......... 44.78 24.13 18.54 52.01 90.16
Pineapple pulp ........... 74.56 20.75 69.62 79.75 neg.
Olive pulp ....... ........... 19.09 neg. neg. 20.27 86.02
App'e pomace ............. 67. 37. 54. 80. 32.
DIGESTIBLE NUTRIENTS T.D.N.


Orange pulp ....... ............ 6.05 6.54 63.88 0.82 78.3:
Lemon pulp... ..... ........ 2.95 9.05 60.03 0.34 72.81
Raisin pulp ..... .............. ........ 2.31 3.58 23.70 9.50 50.9
Pineapple pulp ........................ 0.79 9.66 49.40 0.00 59.8!
Olive pulp .......................... .........- 0.00 0.00 6.39 13.44 36.6;
Apple pomace ..1................ ....... 1,59 5.79 55.81 1.64 66.8:
Prepared from pitted olives.
1 Figures in parentheses (Italic) refer to "Literature Cited", page 20.


I
0
8
5
3
8





Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


The orange pulp referred to in Table 2 was the dried residue
from the manufacture of orange juice, orange oil, or other orange
extracts. Dried lemon pulp was the rind, pulp, and seeds after
the extraction of citric acid. Dried raisin pulp consisted of the
various wastes with most of the sugar extracted. Pineapple
pulp contained the outer skin, trimmings, and cores after juice
extraction. The first analysis of olive pulp represented a sample
from the commercial preparation of olive oil. This pulp con-
tained the pits, and was used in the digestion trials. The second
sample represented a pit-free pulp and hence was lower in fiber.
Dried apple pomace was the dried residue from cider manu-
facture.
Digestion trials at the California station were conducted with
five wethers, using a basal ration of alfalfa hay. Preliminary
periods were 10 days in length and experimental periods 15 days.
A basal ration of mixed grain and corn silage was used with
cows at the Virginia station in the studies with dried apple
pomace.
These citrus and apple by-products are seen to be low in protein
and fiber, and high in nitrogen-free extract. They are essentially
carbohydrate feeds and are highly digestible. One trial at the
California station (13) with dried orange pulp showed it to be
equivalent to beet pulp for milk production. Fresh pulp was
not found to have any effect on percent of fat in the milk.
Nothing was mentioned of any flavor being imparted to the milk
when as much as 20 pounds of the fresh pulp was fed daily,
nor was mention made of the particular extracts from which
this pulp was a residue. The citrus peel oils may have been
removed in the process of manufacture.

EXPERIMENTAL METHODS
The palatability of the dried grapefruit refuse was tested in
the dairy herd of the Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
by offering small portions to the individual cows of the dairy
herd after they had received the usual offering of corn silage
and grain feed.
The methods used in conducting the digestion trials were
essentially as recommended by Forbes and Grindley (3). The
basal ration per day consisted of one pound of prime cottonseed
meal and enough No. 1 federal grade alfalfa hay to supply
slightly more than the requirement of total digestible nutrients
for maintenance. In the trials with the feeds to be tested, one-
half of the alfalfa hay was replaced by the particular feed. In





The Feeding Value of Citrus By-Products


every case the requirement for digestible crude protein was
exceeded by the total ration. Preliminary periods were 10 days
in length, and the experimental periods consisted of four suc-
cessive five-day periods.
Four steers, three Jerseys and one grade Hereford, ranging
in weight from 450 to 700 pounds, were used in all the trials.
The individual feeds for an entire trial were weighed into sepa-
rate bags on a solution balance before the beginning of a trial.
Samples were taken at that time. The feed was given in two
equal portions at 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. The steers were held
in a dry lot for the first nine days of the preliminary periods and
then stanchioned in a barn. Water was provided in buckets.
Salt was offered in small boxes. Each animal was brushed
vigorously for one hour daily as a substitute for exercise.
Feces collections were manual. The daily collections of feces
were weighed and sampled separately at 9:00 a.m. each day.
Triplicate five to 10 gram samples were taken in weighing bottles
for the determination of nitrogen, thus avoiding volatilization
of any ammonia. A twentieth aliquot was taken in pyrex dishes,
dried, and used in the preparation of five-day composite samples,
for the determination of the other constituents.
Proximate analyses were made by the methods of the Associa-
tion of Official Agricultural Chemists (1). Calcium, magnesium,
and phosphorus were determined by the method of Morris, Nel-
son, and Pa'mer (10).
Indirect calculations were made of the digestibility of the
nutrients. The coefficients of digestibility for cottonseed meal,
as compiled by Henry and Morrison (4), were used for that feed.
Coefficients for the alfalfa hay were calculated from the trial
on the basal ration of cottonseed meal and alfalfa hay, and were
used in the calculations with the dried grapefruit cannery refuse,
and with the dried orange peel. The crude protein as determined
in the fresh feces was used in all calculations to avoid any error
due to the volatilization of ammonia.
To secure some information as to the general feeding qualities
and effect of the dried grapefruit refuse on the animal, a feeding
trial was conducted with eight native and grade Hereford heifers.
The ration used was 30 pounds of sugarcane silage, 15 pounds
of dried grapefruit refuse, and 5 pounds of prime cottonseed
meal daily per thousand pounds liveweight. The cottonseed meal
supplied the requirement for digestible crude protein. Sorghum
silage was substituted for the sugarcane silage at the end of 80
days. These feeds were mixed and fed to the lots in equal offer-





Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


ings, morning and evening. Water and salt were available at
all times. Finely ground feeding bonemeal was offered to Lot 1.
Blood samples were taken at the beginning of the trial and
at the end of the first, second, and fourth 30-day periods. These
samples were analyzed for calcium and inorganic phosphorus in
the blood plasma by the methods of Kramer and Tisdal (6), and
Fiske and Subbarow (2), respectively. Hemoglobin determina-
tions were made by the Newcomer method (12).
The heifers were weighed on three successive days at each
30-day interval. Feed records were kept, and feed samples taken
and analyzed for the calculation of the efficiency of the ration.
General observations were made on the condition of the animals.

PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF THE DATA*
Palatability of Dried Grapefruit Cannery Refuse.-One pound
of dried grapefruit refuse was offered to each of 31 cows in the
dairy herd after they had eaten their regular evening offering
of corn silage and mixed grain. The refusal was weighed. Only
one individual refused the product on all six occasions. Four-
teen cows tasted it when first offered, their appetites for this
product increasing progressively. The refusal decreased from
29.8 pounds to 6.0 pounds out of the 31 pound daily offering
over the six-day test.
Four steers used in the digestion trials refused a small part
of their feed at the first offering when it was used to replace a
part of the alfalfa hay in the ration of alfalfa hay and cottonseed
meal. At no other time during the 30-day period was there any
refusal.
Eight heifers, just off grass pasture, were used in the feeding
trial. A 10-day preliminary period was allowed in which to
determine their appetites for a ration of sugarcane silage, grape-
fruit refuse and cottonseed meal. When the bulk of their rations
was reduced to the quantities fed in the actual trial, they refused
only 60 pounds of feed in the entire trial. This refusal consisted
almost totally of coarse pieces of silage.
Digestibility of Dried Grapefruit Cannery Refuse.-The four
steers used in the digestion studies refused no feed after the
first offering of the preliminary period. They maintained their
weight or made slight gains. The composition of the grapefruit
refuse, digestibility of the nutrients by each of the four steers,
and the digestible nutrient content of the product are given in
A preliminary report appeared in a recent press bulletin (11).






The Feeding Value of Citrus By-Products


Table 3. Feed intakes per day, digestibility of the nutrients by
5-day periods, weight and composition of the feces, and compo-
sition of the feeds are given in Appendix Tables A, C, E and F.

TABLE 3.-THE COMPOSITION, COEFFICIENTS OF DIGESTIBILITY, AND DIGEST-
IBLE NUTRIENTS OF DRIED GRAPEFRUIT REFUSE.


Dry Crude Crude N-Free Crude
Matter Protein Fiber Extract Fat Ash
Percent percent percent percent t percent percent

Composition .............. 91.77 4.94 11.94 69.60 1.06 1 4.23
Steer
Coefficients of E-49 24.46 67.51 92.11 74.01
digestibility E-50 19.32 73.81 92.39 88.78
E-51 33.07 81.04 93.19 79.31
E-52 22.48 63.72 92.04 75.38
Ave. 24.83 71.52 92.43 79.37

Digestible nutrients ...................! 1.23 8.54 64.33 0.84 T75.99


The composition of the dried grapefruit refuse was: 91.77
percent dry matter, 4.94 percent crude protein, 11.94 percent
crude fiber, 69.60 percent nitrogen-free extract, 1.06 percent
crude fat, and 4.23 percent ash. The digestibility of the crude
protein as shown by the individual steers varied from 19.32
percent to 33.07 percent, crude fiber from 63.72 percent to 81.04
percent, nitrogen-free extract from 92.04 percent to 93.19 per-
cent, and of crude fat from 74.01 percent to 88.78 percent. Re-
spective averages were: 24.83 percent (protein), 71.52 percent
(fiber), 92.43 percent (N-free extract), and 79.37 percent (fat).
As determined from the above composition and digestibility,
the dried grapefruit refuse contained 1.23 percent digestible
crude protein, 72.87 percent digestible carbohydrates, 0.84 per-
cent digestible crude fat, or a total of 75.99 percent digestible
nutrients. The total digestible nutrients per hundredweight of
dry matter were 82.80 pounds.
Digestibility of Dried Orange Peel.-The same amounts of
dried orange peel were fed as of the dried grapefruit refuse.
Live weights of the steers were maintained and no feed was
refused after the initial offering. The composition of the dried
orange peel, digestibility of the nutrients by each of the four
steers, and the digestible nutrient content of the product are
given in Table 4. Feed intakes per day, coefficients of digesti-
bility by five-day periods, weight and composition of the feces,
and composition of the feeds are given in Appendix Tables A,
D, E and F.


(





]






Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


TABLE 4.-THE COMPOSITION, COEFFICIENTS OF DIGESTIBILITY, AND DIGEST-
IBLE NUTRIENTS OF DRIED ORANGE REFUSE.
I Dry I Crude I Crude N-Free Crude
SMatter Protein Fiber Extract Fat Ash
I percent percent percent I percent percent percent
Composition .................. 86.05 5.84 10.64 64.74 0.69 4.13
Steer
Coefficients of E-49 44.30 90.18 89.35 -30.45
digestibility E-50 26.41 84.92 86.64 11.80
E-51 31.21 89.36 86.38 11.84
E-52 44.36 111.16 91.65 33.15
Ave. 36.57 93.91 88.51 6.59
Digestible nutrients ............... 2.14 9.99 57.30 0.05 69.55

The composition of the dried orange peel was: 86.05 percent
dry matter, 5.84 percent crude protein, 10.64 percent crude
fiber, 64.74 percent nitrogen-free extract, 0.69 percent crude fat,
and 4.13 percent ash. The dry matter, nitrogen-free extract,
and crude fat were lower than in the dried grapefruit refuse,
the ash nearly the same, and the crude protein slightly higher.
The digestibility of the crude protein varied with the individual
steers from 26.41 percent to 44.36 percent, the crude fiber from
84.92 percent to 111.16 percent, the nitrogen-free extract from
86.38 percent to 91.65 percent, and crude fat from -30.45 per-
cent to 33.15 percent. The apparent high digestibility of the
fiber with one steer and the negative coefficient for crude fat
with one of the others were not surprising when the small pro-
portion of crude fiber and crude fat in the total ration derived
from the dried orange peel are considered. Averages were:
36.57 percent of crude protein, 93.1 percent for crude fiber, 88.51
percent for nitrogen-free extract, and 6.59 percent for crude fat.
The nutrients in the dried orange peel as calculated from the
above composition and digestibility were: 2.14 percent digestible
crude protein, 67.29 percent digestible carbohydrates, and 0.05
percent digestible crude fat, or a total of 69.55 percent digestible
nutrients. This latter amount is equivalent to 80.82 pounds of
digestible nutrients per hundredweight of dry matter.
Discussion of Digestion Trials.-Coefficients of digestibility
varied most for the crude fiber and crude protein in both sets
of trials, and for crude fat in the dried orange peel trials. Varia-
tions in these cases can be explained by the small proportion of
the total intake of these constituents in the ration that were
derived from the citrus by-products. The apparent low digesti-
bility of the crude protein may be due to several factors, namely:





The Feeding Value of Citrus By-Products


(a) the heating of the protein during the drying process which
tends to make it less digestible, (b) the presence of non-protein
nitrogen compounds in the citrus fruit that are not digestible,
or (c) an apparent depression of digestibility as observed at the
Virginia station (5) when a high carbohydrate feed such as apple
pomace was added to a basal ration low in protein. This last
factor should not be of importance in these trials, since the in-
take of digestible crude protein was more than adequate in all
cases.
The coefficients of digestibility as determined for the nitrogen-
free extract were remarkably consistent. As this constituent
made up 75 percent of the dry matter in both citrus by-products,
the variations observed in the digestibility of the other constit-
uents had but a small effect on the measure of the total digestible
nutrient content of these feeds. The low content of digestible
crude protein precludes either dried grapefruit refuse or dried
orange peel from being an important source of this nutrient.
Feeding Trial With Growing Heifers.-Eight native and grade
Hereford heifers ranging in weight from 207 to 520 pounds
were available for this trial. They were divided into two lots,
the three larger in Lot 1 and five smaller in Lot 2. They were
fed 30 pounds of sugarcane silage, 15 pounds of dried grapefruit
refuse, and 5 pounds of prime cottonseed meal per day per thou-
sand pounds liveweight. Sorghum silage was substituted for
the sugarcane silage at the end of 80 days. Lot 1 was continued
on feed for 60 days and Lot 2 for 120 days. Live weights of the
individual animals and feed and nutrient intakes for the lots
are given in Table 5.
The ration was very palatable, as only 60 pounds of feed were
refused during the entire trial. This refusal consisted of coarse
pieces of silage. Lot 1 took 14 pounds of salt in 60 days; Lot 2,
18 pounds in the first 60 days, and 22 pounds in the second 60
days, or an average of 2.08 pounds per head each 30 days. Lot 1,
allowed bonemeal, consumed 18 pounds in 60 days, or three
pounds per head per month.
Rate of gain varied from 0.98 to 2.40 pounds per day, except
for No. 26. Fecal examination showed that this animal was in-
fested heavily with stomach worms. Her gain in weight for the
120-day period was only 21 pounds. Since such an infestation
interferes with the utilization of feed, her weight and one-fifth
of the nutrient intake were deducted from Lot 2, before calcu-
lating the economy of gains on this ration.
Digestible crude protein and total digestible nutrient intakes











TABLE 5.-THE LIVEWEIGHT, AND FEED AND DIGESTIBLE NUTRIENT INTAKES OF HEIFERS FED SILAGE, DRIED GRAPEFRUIT
CANNERY REFUSE, AND COTTONSEED MEAL.


30-Day
Period Lot
Number Number


Animal
Number


I 1 19
20
22



II 1 19
20
22



I 2 23
24
25
26
27


Initial Final
Weight Weight
pounds pounds

520 581
350 395
432 459

1,302 1,435


581 665
395 437
459 530

1,435 1,632


207
270
277
274
320

1,348


217
309
305
304
363

1,498


Feed Intake Nutrient Intake
Cotton- Digestible Total
Grape- seed Crude Diges-ible
Silage fruit Meal Protein Nutrients
pounds i pounds pounds pounds j pounds





1,188 594 197 71.4 753.6





1,544 772 232 85.0 954.9







1,188 594 197 71.4 753.6


T. D. N. Per 100
Pounds Gain
Total Net*
pounds pounds




565.9 321.9





484.7 299.7







502.4 277.8





TABLE 5.-THE LIVEWEIGHT, AND FEED AND DIGESTIBLE NUTRIENT INTAKES OF HEIFERS FED SILAGE, DRIED GRAPEFRUIT
CANNERY REFUSE, AND COTTONSEED MEAL (continued).


30-Day
Period Lot
Number Number


II 2


Animal
Number


23
24
25
26
27



23
24
25
26
27



23
24
25
26
27


Initial
Weight
pounds

217
309
305
304
363

1,498

237
347
317
289
399

1,589

279
387
347
312
424

1,749


Final
Weight
pounds

237
347
317
289
399

1,589

279
387
347
312
424

1,749

337
418
395
295
505

1,950


Feed Intake


Silage
pounds






1,526






1,652






1,800


Cotton-
Grape- seed
fruit Meal
pounds pounds





Nutrient Intake
Digestible Total
Crude Digestil
Protein Nutrier
pounds pound






84.9 945.8






102.2 1,048.1






117.2 1,162.1


Average 488.0


374.7


257.9
298.1


Net total digestible nutrients per hundred weight of gain were calculated by deducting maintenance at the rate of 7.925
pounds daily per thousand pounds liveweight from the total nutrient intake. The weight of No. 26 and one-fifth of the
nutrient intake were deducted before making this calculation for Lot 2.


T. D. N. Per 100
ble Pounds Gain
its Total Net*
s pounds pounds






S 455.8 281.4


612.0






426.5





Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


were calculated from actual analyses of the feeds by applying
the coefficients of digestibility for the silage and cottonseed meal
as given by Henry and Morrison (4), and for the grapefruit
refuse as given in Table 3. Fifty-four percent of the dry matter,
and 60 percent of the total digestible nutrients were provided
by the dried grapefruit refuse. The digestible nutrient intake
per hundredweight gain varied from 426 to 612 pounds, or an
average of 488 pounds. The extremes were for periods 3 and 4
with Lot 2, and variations in fill may account for a part of the
difference, especially since the periods were successive. When
a maintenance requirement (of 7.925 pounds of digestible nutri-
ents daily per thousand pounds liveweight) was deducted from
the total nutrient intake, the average net requirement per hun-
dredweight of gain 'became 298 pounds, with a range from 258
to 375 pounds. This is an economy of gain comparable with that
secured with rather heavy grain feeding.
Blood samples were taken on three successive days at the
beginning of the trial and at the end of the first, second, and
fourth 30-day periods. Calcium and inorganic phosphorus were
determined on the composite citrated blood plasma samples, and
hemoglobin on the daily samples. Detailed results are given in
Table 6.
No significant variations were observed in any of these con-
stituents. Even though Lot 1 consumed bonemeal at the rate
of 3.0 pounds per head per month, the inorganic phosphorus was
no higher than in Lot 2. Also, the inorganic phosphorus in the
blood plasma of Lot 2 did not decrease during the entire trial.
However, a decrease would not be expected, since all the heifers
had free access to bonemeal on pasture previously. Cottonseed
meal also is one of the high phosphorus feeds.
The effect of the total ration was markedly laxative. A soft
jelly-like consistency of the feces was observed during the entire
trial. Sugarcane silage used in these rations is considered to be
moderately laxative, and cottonseed meal relatively constipating.
It was presumed that pectin was the constituent having this laxa-
tive effect, although the high citric acid content of the feed may
have contributed.
All of the animals had a sleek, thrifty appearance, were alert,
and had bright eyes. The sleek, oily appearance of the coat of
hair was similar to that secured by feeding bran, oats, and lin-
seed meal. Even No. 26 did not seem to be "out of condition",
and failure to make gains was the only casual symptom of the
parasitic infestation. Every animal except No. 26 improved in






The Feeding Value of Citrus By-Products


thickness of flesh while on the ration. Figure 1 shows Lot 2
at the end of 120 days on the ration of silage, grapefruit refuse
and cottonseed meal.

TABLE 6.-THE CALCIUM AND INOGRANIC PHOSPHORUS CONTENT OF THE
BLOOD PLASMA, AND THE HEMOGLOBIN CONTENT OF THE BLOOD OF
HEIFERS FED SILAGE, DRIED GRAPEFRUIT CANNERY REFUSE AND COTTON-
SEED MEAL.
Animal D A T E
Number 7/16-18 8/15-17 9/14-16 I 11/13-15
CALCIUM PER 100 ML. OF CITRATED BLOOD PLASMA
amgs. mgs. m gs. mgs.

19 11.66 12.29 10.65 ..........
20 11.11 .......... 10.59 ..........
22 11.88 11.47 10.06
23 11.66 11.35 10.24 11.23
24 12.21 10.76 9.83 11.35
25 11.88 11.00 9.65 11.00
26 11.66 11.35 10.24 10.82
27 11.66 11.12 9.42 11.88
PHOSPHORUS PER 100 ML. OF CITRATED BLOOD PLASMA

19 7.09 8.13 6.85 ..........
20 6.54 7.60 6.02 ..........
22 5.56 10.87 6.85 .........
23 5.38 7.78 6.80 7.81
24 5.36 7.49 6.01 6.45
25 6.43 7.14 7.66 8.03
26 5.08 6.76 6.85 7.09
27 5.19 6.76 6.29 5.83
HEMOGLOBIN PER 100 ML. OF BLOOD
S gs. | gs. gs. gs.

19 11.10 9.68 11.35 ......
20 13.37 11.65 12.94 ..........
22 10.80 9.68 9.82
23 11.66 8.48 9.01 12.02
24 12.48 11.29 12.49 17.29
25 11.74 9.82 9.52 12.70
26 15 25 11.44 10.20 11.87
27 13.84 12.98 13.29 19.29

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The bitter taste of the grapefruit caused by its narangin
glucosidee) content, or the sourness caused by the citric acid,
did not seem to detract from the palatability of the product. The
effect of the drying process is not known. The grapefruit refuse
was consumed with relish by almost all the animals having access
to it. Dried orange peel seemed to be equally palatable. This





Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


is contrary to the results of the California station (8, 9, 13)
Where orange pulp ground into a meal, and lemon pulp from
citric acid manufacture, had to be fed in combination with other
feeds in order to insure consumption.
Both the grapefruit refuse and orange peel were similar in
chemical composition to the orange and lemon pulps studied at
the California station (8, 9). They have slightly less fiber and
crude fat than the dried apple pomace investigated at the Vir-
ginia station (5). The low fiber content and high proportion
of nitrogen-free extract place these feeds in the group of con-
centrates. Their high degree of digestibility was evidenced both
by the actual results of the digestion trials, and by the lesser
quantity of feces voided by the steers when these feeds were
substituted for one-half of the alfalfa hay of the basal ration.
There was no indication of a deficiency of roughage when 3.0
pounds of silage and 1.5 pounds of grapefruit refuse were fed
per each hundred pounds of liveweight. This is less than the
"Rule of Thumb" recommendations for roughage in feeding
practice.
It would seem that these feeds could be substituted for such
a feed as beet pulp and for at least a part of the carbohydrate
feeds like corn.
So far as could be determined from a 120-day feeding trial
the general effects of the grapefruit refuse on the animal were
favorable. It was fed at a much higher level than would be
followed in general feeding practice. The glossy, oily appear-
ance of the coat of hair and the thrift of the animals receiving
the grapefruit refuse make it appear that this feed belongs in
that group of feeds prized by stockmen for their beneficial
effect on the animal. The particular constituent, or constituents,
producing this effect is not known.
Even though the results of the digestion trials and the feeding
trial indicate that dried grapefruit refuse and dried orange
peel are good sources of digestible carbohydrates, longer con-
tinued feeding trials and actual comparisons with some of the
standard feeds for fattening and for milk production are neces-
sary for a final evaluation. Further studies of the physiological
effects on the animal are desirable. Too little is known of the
effect of fruit by-products upon animal welfare.






The Feeding Value of Citrus By-Products


SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Dried grapefruit cannery refuse and dried orange peel were
palatable to cattle, contrary to the findings elsewhere with or-
ange and lemon pulp.
The citrus by-products were low in crude protein, fiber, and
fat. They were high in nitrogen-free extract, which was 88-92
percent digestible. Total digestible nutrients per hundred
pounds of dry matter were 82.80 and 80.82 pounds for grape-
fruit and orange refuse, respectively. The results of the diges-
tion trials placed these feeds in the class of high carbohydrate
concentrates.
Dried grapefruit and orange cannery refuses have a laxative
action when fed as a large proportion of the ration. General
effects of the dried grapefrut refuse were favorable as indicated
by thrifty appearance, gloss of the coat of hair, and improve-
ment in thickness of flesh.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Acknowledgments are made to Herbert Henley who cared
for the steers on digestion trials; to Arlington Henley, J. H.
Warrington, S. L. Mimms, and T. J. Davis for manual collec-
tion of the feces; and to W. T. Dunn, L. L. Rusoff, and I. I. Rusoff
for aid in analyses of the feed and feces samples. Three Jersey
steers were loaned to the experiment station by J. L. Taylor for
use in the digestion trials. A part of the experimental feeds
were donated by R. B. Webster. Dr. M. W. Emmel made micro-
scopic examinations of fecal samples for the determination of
parasitic infestations.






The Feeding Value of Citrus By-Products


SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Dried grapefruit cannery refuse and dried orange peel were
palatable to cattle, contrary to the findings elsewhere with or-
ange and lemon pulp.
The citrus by-products were low in crude protein, fiber, and
fat. They were high in nitrogen-free extract, which was 88-92
percent digestible. Total digestible nutrients per hundred
pounds of dry matter were 82.80 and 80.82 pounds for grape-
fruit and orange refuse, respectively. The results of the diges-
tion trials placed these feeds in the class of high carbohydrate
concentrates.
Dried grapefruit and orange cannery refuses have a laxative
action when fed as a large proportion of the ration. General
effects of the dried grapefrut refuse were favorable as indicated
by thrifty appearance, gloss of the coat of hair, and improve-
ment in thickness of flesh.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Acknowledgments are made to Herbert Henley who cared
for the steers on digestion trials; to Arlington Henley, J. H.
Warrington, S. L. Mimms, and T. J. Davis for manual collec-
tion of the feces; and to W. T. Dunn, L. L. Rusoff, and I. I. Rusoff
for aid in analyses of the feed and feces samples. Three Jersey
steers were loaned to the experiment station by J. L. Taylor for
use in the digestion trials. A part of the experimental feeds
were donated by R. B. Webster. Dr. M. W. Emmel made micro-
scopic examinations of fecal samples for the determination of
parasitic infestations.






Florida Agrciultural Experiment Station


LITERATURE CITED
1. Association of Official Agricultural Chemists. Official and tentative
methods of analysis. Ed. 2, 535p. illus. Washington, D. C. 1925.
2. FISKE, C. H. and Y. SUBBAROW. The colorimetric determination of
phosphorus. Jour. Biol. Chem. 66; 375-400. 1925.
3. FORBES, E. B. and H. S. GRINDLEY. On the formulation of methods of
experimentation in animal production. Bul. Natl. Research Council,
Vol. 6, Part 2, No. 33; 17-27. 1923.
4. HENRY, W. A. and F. B. MORRISON. Feeds and Feeding. 18th ed. illus.
Henry-Morrison Company, Madison, Wis. Pages 723 and 726. 1923,
5. HOLDAWAY, C. W., W. B. ELLETT, J. F. HEART, and M. P. MILLER.
The importance of properly balanced rations in trials to determine
digestibility as shown in experiments with dried apple pomace. Va.
Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bul. 32; 3-18. 1927.
6. KRAMER, BENJAMIN and F. S. TISDAL. A simple technique for the
determination of calcium and magnesium in small amounts of
serum. Jour. Biol. Chem. 47; 475-481. 1921.
7. MCDERMOTT, F. A., as summarized by S. S. WALKER. The utilization
of cull citrus fruits in Florida. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 135; 2-16.
1917.
8. MEAD, S. W. and H. R. GUILBERT. The digestibility of certain fruit
by-products as determined for ruminants. Part 1. Dried orange
pulp and raisin pulp. Calif. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 409; 3-11. 1926.
9. MEAD, S. W. and H. R. GUILBERT. The digestibility of certain fruit
by-products as determined for ruminants. Part 2. Dried pineapple
pulp, dried lemon pulp, and dried olive pulp. Calif. Agr. Exp. Sta.
Bul. 439; 3-11. 1927.
10. MORRIS, H. P., J. W. NELSON, and L. S. PALMER. A quantitative de-
termination of calcium, magnesium, and phosphorus in feedstuffs
and cattle excreta. Indus. and Engin. Chem., Anal. Ed. 3; 164-167.
1931.

11. NEAL, W. M., R. B. BECKER, and P. T. DIx ARNOLD. Dried grapefruit
refuse-a valuable feed. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Press Bul. 466; 1-2.
1934.
12. NEWCOMER, H. S. A new optical instrument for the determination of
hemoglobin in blood. Jour. Biol. Chem. 55; 569-574. 1923.
13. REGAN, W. M. and S. W. MEAD. The value of orange pulp for milk
production. Calif. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 427; 3-16. 1927.
14. SCOTT, J. M. Grapefruit refuse as a dairy feed. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta.
Ann. Rpt. 25R-26R. 1926.






APPENDIX

TABLE A.-FEED INTAKE PER DAY OF STEERS USED IN DETERMINING THE DIGESTIBILITY OF THE BASAL RATION, OF DRIED
GRAPEFRUIT CANNERY REFUSE, AND OF DRIED ORANGE PEEL.


Alfalfa Hay
ount Sample
nds number

8.0 855

0.0 855

0.0 855

6.O 855


Animal
Number


E-49 ........-

E-50 ..........

E1

E-52 ..........


E-49 ............

E-50 ..........

E -51 ............

E-52 ..........


E-49 ............

E-50 ..........

E-51 ..........

E-52 ..........


Cottonseed Meal


Trial
Number


21
^


Am
pou


Grapefruit Refuse Dried Orange


Amount Sample
pounds number


Amount
pounds

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0


1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0


1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0


Amount Sa
pounds nun


I Sample
Number

856

856

856

856


1013

1013

1013

1013


1213

1213

1213

1213


Peel
mple
mber
















212
0

cc.
cc

Co





212
212 S


1212

1212


1014

1014

1014

1014


1

1


855

855

855

855


1211

1211

1211

1211






Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


TABLE B.-THE DIGESTIBILITY OF THE NUTRIENTS OF THE ALFALFA HAY


USED IN THE BASAL RATION AS DETERMINED WITH
FOUR SUCCESSIVE FIVE-DAY PERIODS.


Animal Trial
Number Number


E-49 21




E-50 22


E-51




E-52





Average
Average
Average
Average


24


Coefficients of


5-Day
Period
Number

I
II
III
IV
Average

I
II
III
IV
Average

I
II
III
IV
Average

I
II
III
IV
Average


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


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


Crude
Protein
percent

63.19
63.44
64.09
64.80
63.88

59.11
62.86
61.12
59.45
60.64

62.90
63.67
63.83
62.45
63.21

62.34
58.69
59.32
55.29
58.91


61.88
62.16
62.09
60.50


61.66


Crude
Fiber
percent

46.58
39.53
33.03
24.98
36.03

45.71
40.00
24.78
18.90
32.35

47.77
49.09
50.93
42.73
47.63

43.63
36.15
28.45
15.72
30.99


45.92
41.19
34.30
25.58


36.75


FOUR STEERS IN


Digestibility
N-Free Crude
Extract Fat
percent [percent

72.45 0.37
69.06 -4.99
79.63 -1.95
68.83 -12.70
69.11 -4.82

72.28 0.23
69.51 2.01
61.43 -20.62
65.86 -10.57
67.27 -7.24

73.91 -12.58
72.49 12.80
73.05 7.10
69.95 1.94
72.35 2.31

77.57 6.82
68.18 -0.52
69.78 -3.94
63.67 -12.00
69.80 -2.41


74.05
69.81
70.97
67.08


69.63


-1.29
2.32
-4.85
-8.33


-3.04






The Feeding Value of Citrus By-Products


TABLE C.-THE DIGESTIBILITY OF THE NUTRIENTS OF DRIED GRAPEFRUIT
CANNERY REFUSE AS DETERMINED WITH FOUR STEERS IN FOUR Suc-
CESSIVE FIVE-DAY PERIODS.


Animal
Number


E-49




E-50




E-51




E-52


Trial
Number


25




26




27




28


5-Day
Period
Number

I
II
III
IV
Average

I
II
III
IV
Average

I
II
III
IV
Average
I
II
III
IV
Average


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


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


( Coefficients of


Crude
Protein
percent

-11.01
17.43
61.80
29.62
24.46

20.69
4.37
36.47
15.76
19.32

26.86
34.13
37.54
33.74
33.07

22.81
21.57
21.27
24.26
22.48


14.84
19.38
39.27
25.85


24.83


Crude
Fiber
percent


71.52


Digestibility
N-Free Crude
Extract Fat
percent percent

91.07 36.22
90.90 57.87
95.67 108.46
90.79 93.49
92.11 74.01

92.13 85.52
90.32 81.27
93.49 101.75
93.62 86.59
92.39 88.78

94.85 68.27
91.52 61.29
93.14 93.5b
93.23 94.13
93.19 79.31

94.11 90.80
91.64 54.44
90.58 75.91
91.81 80.36
92.04 75.38


45.09
20.26
108.06
96.64
67.51

76.53
55.94
66.47
96.31
73.81

88.53
60.32
74.68
100.60
81.04

95.91
42.19
29.16
87.63
63.72


76.52
44.68
69.59
95.30


70.20
63.72
94.91
88.64


79.37


I

I


93.04
91.10
93.22
92.36


92.43






Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


TABLE D.-THE DIGESTIBILITY OF THE NUTRIENTS OF DRIED ORANGE PEEL
AS DETERMINED WITH FOUR STEERS IN FOUR SUCCESSIVE FIVE-DAY
PERIODS.


Trial
Number


Coefficients of Digestibility
5-Day Crude I Crude N-Free Crude
Period Protein Fiber Extract Fat
Number percent I percent I percent percent


Animal
Number


E-49




E-50




E-51




E-52


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


Grand average.


49.40
60.43
33.24
34.13
44.30

18.85
27.14
29.19
30.47
26.41

30.16
30.83
29.99
33.86
31.21

40.04
55.75
51.01
30.64
44.36


34.61
43.54
35.86
32.28


36.57


107.98
102.92
48.82
82.99
90.18

90.57
73.63
87.81
87.65
84.92

91.60
85.74
101.26
78.82
89.36

108.51
114.32
116.25
105.55
111.16


99.67
98.65
88.54
88.75


93.91


90.60
92.98
84.43
89.40
89.35

84.72
87.29
86.35
88.21
86.64

88.25
82.65
86.55
88.09
86.38

90.84
91.50
93.45
90.81
91.65


88.60
88.61
87.70
89.13


88.51


-92.42
-75.91
-5.12
51.65
-30.45

60.41
-12.01
1.56
-2.77
11.80

30.22
17.25
-4.14
4.00
11.84

33.99
21.71
48.80
28.09
33.15


8.05
-25.72
10.28
20.24


33 I
II
III
IV
Average
34 I
II
III
IV
Average

35 I
II
III
IV
Average

36 I
II
III
IV
Average


I






The Feeding Value of Citrus By-Products


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


Animal Trial
Number Number


5-Day
Period
Number


Io I Composition of Dry Matter
Total -
Fresh Crude Dry I Crude Crude N-Free Crude
Excreta IProtein I Matter Ash Protein Fiber Extract Fat
grams percent I percent I percent percent percent | percent percent


BASAL RATION


I 36,365
II 36,785
III 1 37,655
IV 39,363
I 47,644
II 48,141
III 51,947
IV 57,406
I 42.602
II 43,284
III 42,923
IV 47,077
I 31,016
II 34,917
III 36,588
IV 44.219
BASAL RATION


31,805
30,636
21,523
24,342
35,857
42,433
30,921
35,292
32,451
36,441
36,196
33,783
22,428
23,211
23,378
20,978


2.766
2.739
2.634
2.477
2.838
2.758
2.488
2.337
2.910
2.812
2.824
2.662
2.613
2.507
2.362
2.116


22.59
23.25
23.27
22.99
23.62
21.11
21.30
20.62
23.86
21.32
20.56
20.66
21.83
19.13
18.20
17.71


20.93
15.30
11.20
10.42
26.26
12.48
10.57
8.78
20.63
14.19
12.80
11.73
26.94
13.75
10.28
10.84


10.47
10.59
9.90
10.09
10.76
11.40
10.65
10.14
12.06
12.31
12.14
11.12
10.55
11.09
10.68
10.57


38.12
41.50
44.60
48.22
35.22
42.93
44.39
49.33
37.57
40.38
40.77
42.89
37.94
42.59
47.58
47.28


PLUS DRIED GRAPEFRUIT REFUSE


3.460
3.175
3.595
3.772
3.237
2.951
3.467
3.367
3.470
2.978
2.945
3.219
3.338
3.243
3.224
3.545


20.91
21.14
22.30
22.69
20.28
18.43
22.64
19.00
21.12
19.96
19.16
18.98
23.16
20.17
21.34
20.54


16.44
11.75
12.74
13.65
16.21
15.59
13.57
15.03
16.55
12.37
13.51
12.81
20.77
11.43
13.01
12.92


14.70
13.54
13.57
14.23
13.95
14.01
13.75
15.01
14.56
13.73
14.19
14.60
14.75
13.91
14.11
15.15


37.38
42.54
37.57
34.89
36.46
37.47
39.82
35.54
36.31
39.47
38.59
36.26
32.76
40.97
40.57
35.94


BASAL RATION PLUS DRIED ORANGE PEEL


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


27,570
23,944
30,621
29,823
39,322
38,845
38,629
37,720
36,400
37,883
35,533
35,418
23,876
19,741
19,700
22,628


3.266
3.593
3.221
3.292
3.289
3.188
3.170
3.225
3.347
3.204
3.432
3.371
3.133
3.472
3.575
3.470


20.51
22.40
20.99
18.44
21.60
19.80
19.22
18.79
20.92
20.78
20.31
20.27
20.25
20.82
19.94
18.36


16.99
16.44
11.25
11.63
22.70
15.58
14.02
12.81
19.47
15.38
14.14
12.31
25.09
14.46
13.67
12.77


15.01
15.59
15.25
14.42
14.75
15.22
15.82
15.54
14.85
14.83
16.07
15.42
15.16
16.85
17.32
17.08


33.62
33.82
38.47
38.96
30.01
35.80
34.78
36.46
33.31
33.12
33.53
37.48
30.19
34.49
35.73
35.65


E-49



E-50


E-50


E-52





E-49


E-52


26.27
28.73
30.56
27.34
24.27
29.39
30.52
28.08
25.39
29.39
30.14
30.29
21.22
28.97
27.73
27.90



28.06
28.98
32.83
34.11
30.31
30.01
29.95
31.11
29.02
30.96
30.63
33.01
28.78
30.29
29.43
32.73


3.81
3.88
3.68
3.93
3.49
3.80
3.87
3.67
4.35
3.73
4.15
3.97
3.35
3.60
3.73
3.41


3.42
3.19
3.29
3.12
3.07
2.92
2.91
3.31
3.56
3.47
3.08
3.32
2.94
3.40
2.88
3.26


29.73
29.34
31.79
31.85
29.36
29.97
31.97
31.57
29.34
33.61
32.69
31.29
26.67
30.66
29.90
31.07


BASAL RATION


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


-------












TABLE F.-THE COMPOSITION OF FEEDS USED IN DIGESTION AND FEEDING TRIALS.

Composition of Dry Matter
Sample Dry Crude Crude N-Free Crude
Kind of Feed _Number Matter Protein Fiber Extract Fat Ash Ca Mg P
Percent percent percent I percent percent -percent percent percent percent
Alfalfa Hay, No. 1 ........... 855 92.93 14.03 33.18 43.73 1.83 7.23 1.317 0.126 0.396
1211 90.41 15.59 35.20 39.10 1.59 8.52 1.290 .118 .225
Sugarcane Silage ............. 1373 23.93 3.34 39.39 50.78 1.76 4.73 .343 .195 .181
1374 23.32 3.27 36.98 50.68 2.46 6.61 .365 .242 1.167
Sorghum Silage .............. 1377 24.17 3.12 29.30 59.40 3.13 5.05 .211 .254 .175
Cottonseed Meal ..... 856 93.55 41.69 12.24 32.78 7.27 6.02 .230 .172 1.097
1014 93.44 43.74 9.00 34.27 6.60 6.39 .241 .184 1.121
1213 89.74 43.11 11.74 30.93 7.53 6.69 .236 .187 1.208
1375 89.62 43.22 13.33 30.03 6.81 6.61 .241 .161 1.175
1378 91.12 41.93 14.94 29.43 7.08 6.62 .225 .147 1.149
Grapefruit Refuse ...... 1013 91.77 5.38 13.01 75.84 1.16 4.61 .787 .288 .100
1376 90.54 5.49 12.28 76.25 1.89 4.09 .689 .352 .097
1379 89.86 5.64 11.93 75.67 1.77 4.99 .746 .378 .107
Dried Orange Peel .......... 1212 86.05 6.79 12.37 75.24 0.80 4.80 .725 .252 .107

























If information of a related character, additional to that
contained in the foregoing bulletin, would be of service,
you are cordially invited to write for it. List of bulletins
on the sundry phases of Florida agriculture also will be
furnished on request. Criticisms of the contents, and
suggestions for making these bulletins more helpful to
farmers and growers, will be received with appreciation.
Address
STATE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, GAINESVILLE
Wilmon Newell, Director

















BULLETINS FURNISHED FREE FROM
FLORIDA FARM SERVICE AGENCIES

Results of the investigations and research carried on at the Florida
Agricultural Experiment Stations are recited in the bulletins pub-
lished by this farm service agency. During the period of approaching
50 years that have elapsed since the work was begun, in 1887, more
than 270 of these bulletins have been issued. In print at the present
and available for distribution are some 95 of them, covering nearly
as many subjects vitally important to farmers, fruit growers, live-
stock raisers and truck crop producers. Any of these bulletins will
be furnished free on application, as will a list giving the titles, from
which selections may be made.
Application in practical agriculture of research findings, according
to methods of demonstrated merit, is described in bulletins which the
Florida Agricultural Extension Service publishes. Dealing primarily
with the "how" of doing the things that research endeavor has shown
to be feasible, these bulletins bring together science and practice.
Titles of the 25 issues now in stock will be supplied free on receipt
of request. Bulletins desired then may be obtained through the offices
of county farm and home demonstration agents or from the office of
publication.
Communications for either the Agricultural
Experiment Stations or the Agricultural Ex-
tension Service-both cooperative agencies of
state and federal governments-should be ad-
dressed to Gainesville, Florida, where they are
operated under the College of Agriculture in
the University of Florida, which also has a
division of resident teaching.




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