• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Copyright
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Introduction
 Experimental procedure
 Results and discussion
 Summary
 Appendix
 Literature cited
 Acknowlegements






Group Title: Florida Agricultural Experiment Station bulletin no. 752
Title: Supplementing steers on pasture from weaning to feedlot and subsequent effect on finishing performance
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00047757/00001
 Material Information
Title: Supplementing steers on pasture from weaning to feedlot and subsequent effect on finishing performance
Series Title: Bulletin University of Florida, Agricultural Experiment Station
Physical Description: 21 p. : ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Pate, F. M ( Findlay Moye ), 1941-
Publisher: Agricultural Experiment Stations, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1972
 Subjects
Subject: Beef cattle -- Feeding and feeds -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references (p. 21).
Statement of Responsibility: F.M. Pate ... et al..
General Note: Cover title.
Funding: Florida Historical Agriculture and Rural Life
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00047757
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Marston Science Library, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida
Holding Location: Florida Agricultural Experiment Station, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the Engineering and Industrial Experiment Station; Institute for Food and Agricultural Services (IFAS), University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida
Resource Identifier: oclc - 18432722

Table of Contents
    Copyright
        Copyright
    Title Page
        Page 1
    Table of Contents
        Page 2
    Introduction
        Page 3
    Experimental procedure
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
    Results and discussion
        Page 8
        Animal performance and carcass quality
            Page 8
            Page 9
        Economic evaluation
            Page 10
            Page 11
    Summary
        Page 12
        Page 13
    Appendix
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
    Literature cited
        Page 21
    Acknowlegements
        Page 21
Full Text





HISTORIC NOTE


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

site maintained by the Florida
Cooperative Extension Service.






Copyright 2005, Board of Trustees, University
of Florida




November 1972


"l)etin 752


j L -7 I-
'' ^h, 4^L;1;--r:^ ^. 3 .^
Lc~c.7,

-~ ~ L .i;w


".. -I LE," -. .



Supplementing Steers on Pasture

from Weaning to Feedlot


id Subsequent Effect on


Finishing


Performance


F. M. Pate, C. E. Haines, R. E. L. Greene,
A. Z. Palmer, J. W. Carpenter, and D. W. Beardsley


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


2


d
r














CONTENTS


Page
Introduction ..----------------- --------- 3

Experimental Procedure ------------------------------------- -- 4

Results and Discussion --------------------- 8

Animal Performance and Carcass Quality --- 8

Economic Evaluation ------------------------- 10

Summary ----... .- ------ 12

Appendix --------------------------- ------ 14

Literature Cited.. ----- -- -- -- 21

Acknowledgments ------------------21










Agricultural Experiment Stations
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida, Gainesville
This public document was promulgated at an annual cost
of $1,195.95 or a cost of .120 per copy to inform Florida
cattlemen and feed manufacturers of the results of experi-
mental studies conducted to evaluate various systems of
feeding beef cattle.








SUPPLEMENTING STEERS ON PASTURE FROM
WEANING TO FEEDLOT AND SUBSEQUENT EFFECTS
ON FINISHING PERFORMANCE

F. M. Pate, C. E. Haines, R. E. L. Greene, A. Z. Palmer
J. W. Carpenter and D. W. Beardsley1

INTRODUCTION

In recent years there has been a pronounced trend toward
shipping weaned calves out of south Florida to be grown and fed
out in other areas, mostly out-of-state. This trend is reflected in
statistics on the outshipment of feeder calves from Florida which
increased from 155,138 in 1963 to 422,169 in 1970 (3).2 Of primary
concern to the Florida beef industry is the possible economic
advantages which might be realized if these calves were retained
and grown to feedlot weights in Florida.
The principal asset to any stocker operation is the availability
of good quality forages. Grazing trials conducted at the Ever-
glades Station (1, 4) have shown that the major pasture grasses
grown in this region will support 2 to 3 yearlings per acre per year
and produce around 1,000 pounds of gain. The fallacy in these
data, however, is that 90% to 92% of the total annual gain was
realized from March through October (6). During the winter,
stocking rates were reduced, and young cattle exhibited poor
weight gains. In order to maintain a sufficient number of calves
to utilize lush summer pastures it is essential that they be supple-
mented during this winter period. In a series of three experi-
ments Haines et al. (5) grew calves on St. Augustinegrass for one
year to study the value of limited supplementation during various
periods prior to finishing in drylot. They found that steers fed
limited amounts of concentrate (3 to 5 pounds per head daily)
during the winter and spring after fall weaning yielded the
highest net return from supplementation over the stocker and
finishing periods. Steers supplemented during these periods
also had faster rates of gain in the fattening period and showed a
slightly greater improvement in carcass grade. Calves supple-

1Pate, Asst. Professor (Asst. Animal Nutritionist); Haines, formerly Assoc. Pro-
fessor (Assoc. Animal Nutritionist); Beardsley, Professor (Animal Nutritionist)
and Director; Agricultural Research and Education Center, Belle Glade;
Greene, Professor (Agricultural Economist); Palmer, Professor (Meat Scientist);
Carpenter, Professor (Meat Scientist); Main Station, Gainesville.
2Numbers in parentheses refer to literature cited.








mented during the winter and again the following fall prior to
fattening in drylot had the lowest returns from supplementation,
and the poorest gains and improvement in grade.
Chapman et al. (2) state that it is important that adequate
good quality pasture be used when a supplemental feeding pro-
gram is followed in order for the supplement to provide additional
gain and grade rather than mere maintenance. Therefore, it is
conceivable that limited supplementation of calves on lush
summer pastures would be of equal or greater value than supple-
mentation of calves on poor winter pastures. It is recognized that
stocker steers which have been supplemented will remain on
inventory for a shorter time (2) and reach a definite slaughter
grade faster when finished (7). However, one major concern is the
effect supplementation may have on feedlot performance. Pea-
cock et al. (7) wintered heifer calves for 120 days on pasture at
different levels of supplementation prior to a 140-day finishing
period. They found a positive relationship between supplementa-
tion, winter gain, winter supplement utilization, and carcass
quality of the finished heifers. However, increasing winter gains
adversely affected daily gains and feed utilization during the
fattening period.
Since the economic value of supplementing stocker steers is
critical, particularly in south Florida where concentrate feed-
stuffs are more expensive due to shipping cost, it is important
that all aspects of supplementation be thoroughly evaluated. Can
the increased gain, higher stocking rate, reduced time on inven-
tory, and improved animal value realized from supplementa-
tion offset feed costs and possible adverse effects supplementa-
tion may have on animal performance during finishing?
This study was conducted to determine the value of feeding
various levels of concentrate to steers on pasture from weaning
to feedlot weights. The effect of supplementation level on steer
response on pasture and its subsequent influence on finishing
performance and carcass quality was measured. An economic
evaluation was conducted to determine the effect of supplemen-
tation level on production costs during the stocker and finishing
phases of steer feeding.

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

This study involved three consecutive feeding trials initiated
on October 25, 1963, November 23, 1964, and December 2, 1965;
reported herein as trials 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Each trial con-
sisted of a stocker phase in which four levels of a dry concentrate









Table 1. Percent composition of pasture and drylot concentrate mixtures.

Concentrate Mixture

Drylot
Pasture supplement finishing ration

Item Trial 1, 2, & 3 Trial 1 Trial 2 & 3

Ground snapped corn 40.0 28.2 39.6
Flaked corn 20.0
Dried citrus pulp 40.0 40.0 39.6
Cottonseed meal (41% C.P.) 20.0 10.0 19.8
Urea (262% C.P.) 0.8
Mineral mix1 1.0 1.0

SSee footnote 4 of text.

supplement (Table 1) were fed to crossbred steers (Angus-
Hereford-Brahman breeding) grazing Roselawn St. Augustine-
grass pasture. This was followed by a finishing phase in which
these steers were fed either in drylot or on pasture. In trial 3, a
fifth treatment was added in which molasses-Vegefat3 (90:10)
was fed free-choice to steers on pasture during both phases. An
experimental outline of the treatments used is presented in Table
2.
In each trial 8.4 acre pastures were used for each treatment
group in which a salt-trace mineral mixture4 was available free-
choice. In trials 1 and 3, 20 steers were allotted per treatment
group. In trial 2; 20, 24, 28, and 32 steers were assigned to treat-
ments 1 through 4, respectively, in order to equalize pasture
grazing pressure by steers fed different quantities of supple-
ment. When placed on pasture steers averaged 544, 445, and 526
pounds in weight for trials 1 through 3, respectively. The stocker
phase was terminated when steers reached an average treatment
weight of 750 pounds in trial 1 and 850 pounds in trials 2 and 3.
Steers in treatments 1, 2, and 3 were then full-fed finishing ra-
tions and offered 2 to 3 pounds of Pangola digitgrass hay per


3Vegefat is derived from a mixture of soya, cottonseed, and corn oil stock.The
molasses used was heavy millrun blackstrap produced from cane grown on
organic soil.
4Mineral mixture contained 40% defluorinated phosphate, 22.5% steamedbone-
meal, 20.0% iodized salt, 1.0% red oxide of iron, 3.2% copper sulfate, 0.15%
cobalt sulfate, 7.5% molasses, and 5.85% citrus meal.









Table 2. Experimental outline of feeding systems used-
Stocker Finishing
Treatment Phase Phase Trial

1 Pasture only Full-fedfinishing 1,2, & 3
ration in drylot
2 Pasture & 5 Ibs. dry Full-fed finishing
supplement/head/day1 ration in drylot 1,2, & 3
3 Pasture & 10 Ibs. dry Full-fed finishing
supplement/head/day' ration in drylot 1,2, & 3
4 Pasture & dry supplement Pasture & dry
free-choice supplement free-choice 1,2, & 3
5 Pasture & molasses- Pasture & molasses
Vegefatfree-choice Vegefatfree-choice 3

'Average concentrate intakes for treatments 2 and 3 were slightly under 5 and 10 pounds per head
daily. This was due to low intakes during the first few weeks of each trial when steers were
being adjusted to eating concentrate feedstuffs.

head daily in drylot (Table 1). Steers in treatment 4 in all trials
and treatment 5 in trial 3 continued to receive their respective
supplement free-choice on pasture until slaughtered. Finished
animals were slaughtered when an average treatment weight of
approximately 950, 1,000, and 1,050 pounds was reached in trials
1 through 3, respectively. Animal performance during the pas-
ture and drylot periods was measured as average weight gain,
days on test, average daily gain, and total feed intake (excluding
grass). During the drylot period, feed efficiency was calculated.
All steers were shipped 268 miles to Gainesville to be slaughter-
ed, except for treatments 3, 4, and 5 of trial 3, which were
shipped 160 miles to Plant City. Chilled carcass weight, quality
grade, dressing percentage, fat over eye, rib eye area, and esti-
mated percent yield were determined.
Pasture charges for steers fed no supplement, 5 pounds per
day, 10 pounds per day, dry concentrate free-choice, and
molasses-Vegefat free-choice were 8, 7, 6, 5, and 7 cents per
steer per day, respectively. These charges include interest on
capital outlay, pasture maintenance, fertilization, etc. Pasture
charges varied according to supplementation level, since steers
fed smaller amounts of supplement remained on pasture longer
during peak forage production periods. This happened because
studies were initiated in late fall. Also it was observed that
pastures in which steers were supplemented were not utilized
to maximum extent and stocking rate could have been increased.
Stocking rate was varied in trial 2 according to supplementation
rate. Labor charges during the stocker phase were 1, 2, 3, 4, and









2 cents per head daily for steers fed increasing amounts of con-
centrated and molasses-Vegefat, respectively. Charges for labor
and facilities during the finishing phase were 10 cents per head
daily for all steers. Ration costs calculated from existing feed
prices during the period trials were conducted are presented in
Table 3.
A comparison of relative economic returns was made
between treatments and trials by calculating for each treatment
the net return per steer and net return per steer per year. Net
return was calculated by subtracting initial steer cost, interest
on investment, feed cost, pasture cost, and feedlot cost from the
average price received per steer at slaughter. Final steer value
was based on dressed carcass weight and quality grade. Net
return per steer per year was calculated to show economic
returns for all treatments over the same time period. These data
are presented because feeding systems with shorter inventory
times permit greater numbers of cattle to be fed over an
extended period of time. Thus, economic comparisons between
feeding programs with different inventory times should be made
on a constant time period. Cost of gain was calculated for the
stocker phase and finishing phase by dividing input cost by live-
weight gain.


Table3. Feed prices.

Cost per Ton ($)

Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3
Item 1963-64 1964-65 1965-66

Ground snapped corn 48.28 50.71 56.13
Flaked corn 68.68 -
Driedcitruspulp 51.90 42.63 42.29
Cottonseed meal (41% C.P.) 75.92 75.69 98.79
Urea (262% C. P.) 100.00 -
Blackstrap molasses 30.88
Vegefat 200.00
Mineral mix 103.00 96.00 108.00

Complete Ration:1
Molasses-Vegefat mix 55.79
Pasture concentrate mix 63.25 60.49 67.13
Finishing rations2 65.55 60.91 67.61

'Includes $8.00 per ton mixing cost.
2Hay fed with finishing ration was valued at $32.50 per ton in trial 1 and $35.00 per ton in
trials 2 and 3.








RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Animal Performance and Carcass Quality

The effects of supplementation level on steer performance
during the stocker and finishing periods for trials 1, 2, and 3 are
presented in Appendix Tables A, B, and C, respectively. Average
data for all three trials are shcwn in Table 4. The rate of gain by
cattle on pasture was closely related to the quantity of supple-
ment fed. An average of all trials showed that feeding 4.74, 9.17
and 14.12 (free-choice feeding) pounds of concentrate per
head daily increased daily gain by 42%, 82%, 112%, respectively,
over steers not supplemented. These data suggest that when
concentrated feeding is limited to less than 10 pounds per head
daily a direct relationship exists between additional gain over
grass alone and supplementation level. Additional supplemen-
tation provided by free-choice feeding did not appear to be as
effective in producing additional gain. This response by steers
fed free-choice could be attributed to a reduction in forage
and/or concentrate utilization but is most likely due to a pro-
nounced decrease in forage intake. The stocker period was pro-
gressively shortened with increased supplementation. Steers fed
free-choice required less than half the time to reach finishing
weights than steers on pasture only.
The effect of supplementing stocker steers on subsequent
performance during finishing was erratic. In trial 2, supple-
mentation with 5 or 10 pounds of concentrate per head daily
during the stocker period seemed to enhance drylot gains, where-
as in trial 3 increasing supplementation levels appeared to
adversely affect rate of gain in drylot. However, an average of
the three trials indicated that limited supplementation during
the stocker phase had no consistent effect on finishing perform-
ance. An average of all trials showed that pasture finished steers
gained at a slower rate but required slightly less concentrate per
pound of gain than steers finished in confinement. The faster
rate of gain by steers finished on pasture in trial 1 and the poorer
concentrate-to-gain ratio by similarly treated steers in trial 2
were exceptions to this average comparison between treatments.
Pasture finished steers exhibited lower rates of gain during the
finishing phase than during the stocker phase (except for trial 1),
indicating that these steers did not consume enough energy to
insure the rapid gains usually obtained in drylot feeding. Con-
sidering both stocker and finishing phases, increasing supple-
mentation level was very instrumental in reducing inventory
time.








RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Animal Performance and Carcass Quality

The effects of supplementation level on steer performance
during the stocker and finishing periods for trials 1, 2, and 3 are
presented in Appendix Tables A, B, and C, respectively. Average
data for all three trials are shcwn in Table 4. The rate of gain by
cattle on pasture was closely related to the quantity of supple-
ment fed. An average of all trials showed that feeding 4.74, 9.17
and 14.12 (free-choice feeding) pounds of concentrate per
head daily increased daily gain by 42%, 82%, 112%, respectively,
over steers not supplemented. These data suggest that when
concentrated feeding is limited to less than 10 pounds per head
daily a direct relationship exists between additional gain over
grass alone and supplementation level. Additional supplemen-
tation provided by free-choice feeding did not appear to be as
effective in producing additional gain. This response by steers
fed free-choice could be attributed to a reduction in forage
and/or concentrate utilization but is most likely due to a pro-
nounced decrease in forage intake. The stocker period was pro-
gressively shortened with increased supplementation. Steers fed
free-choice required less than half the time to reach finishing
weights than steers on pasture only.
The effect of supplementing stocker steers on subsequent
performance during finishing was erratic. In trial 2, supple-
mentation with 5 or 10 pounds of concentrate per head daily
during the stocker period seemed to enhance drylot gains, where-
as in trial 3 increasing supplementation levels appeared to
adversely affect rate of gain in drylot. However, an average of
the three trials indicated that limited supplementation during
the stocker phase had no consistent effect on finishing perform-
ance. An average of all trials showed that pasture finished steers
gained at a slower rate but required slightly less concentrate per
pound of gain than steers finished in confinement. The faster
rate of gain by steers finished on pasture in trial 1 and the poorer
concentrate-to-gain ratio by similarly treated steers in trial 2
were exceptions to this average comparison between treatments.
Pasture finished steers exhibited lower rates of gain during the
finishing phase than during the stocker phase (except for trial 1),
indicating that these steers did not consume enough energy to
insure the rapid gains usually obtained in drylot feeding. Con-
sidering both stocker and finishing phases, increasing supple-
mentation level was very instrumental in reducing inventory
time.










Table 4. Effect of feeding various levels of concentrate to steers on pasture on
stocking and finishing performance-average of three trials.

Supplementation Level
(Ibs. per head daily)
Item
Free
0 5 10 choice


Stocker phase
Avg. initial weight (Ibs.)
Avg. weight gain (Ibs.)
Stocker period (days)
Avg. daily gain (lbs.)
Daily supplement intake (Ibs.)

Finishing phase
Avg. initial weight (Ibs.)
Avg. weight gain (Ibs.)
Finishing period (days)
Avg. daily gain (Ibs.)
Avg. daily feed intake (Ibs.)
Concentrate
Hay
Feed per lb. of gain (Ibs.)

Stocker & finishing phase
Avg. weight gain (Ibs.)
Days on test
Avg. daily gain (Ibs.)

Carcass data
Chilled carcass wt. (Ibs.)
Carcass grade'
Dressing percent2
Fat over eye (in.)
Ribeye area (sq. in.)
Estimated yield (%)3


505
314
424
0.74


506
322
238
1.35
9.16


Drylot
820 826 828
206 191 196
109 104 109
1.89 1.84 1.80


21.96
2.23
12.80


20.79
2.15
12.49


20.80
1.99
12.67


505
318
199
1.60
14.25


Pasture
822
177
124
1.43

16.99

11.90


520 511 518 495
533 403 347 323
0.98 1.27 1.49 1.53


581
10.4
56.6
0.37
10.49
50.2


603
10.8
59.3
0.41
10.35
49.6


607
10.9
59.3
0.48
10.49
49.2


601
10.8
59.9
0.48
10.47
49.2


SFederal quality grade: 9, 10, 11 = low, medium, and high good.
2Dressing percent = chilled carcass weight final feedlot weight.
3Percentof carcass weight in boneless, closely trimmed, retail cuts from round, loin, rib, and chuck.


Steers fed molasses-Vegefat free-choice in trial 3 exhibited
an improved rate of gain over steers receiving no supplement
(Appendix Table C). On a pound-for-pound basis molasses-
Vegefat was equal to the dry concentrate mix in producing addi-
tional gain over that obtained on pasture alone in this trial.
The most apparent problem with feeding molasses-Vegefat was








the low intake. Molasses-Vegefat consumption was only 3.07
pounds per head daily during the stocker period but increased to
6.00 pounds per steer daily during the finishing phase. The low
intake observed could be partially due to the fat content, since the
addition of fats to ruminant rations often reduces feed consump-
tion (8).
Average carcass data presented in Table 4 shows a slight
increase in dressing percentage and fat thickness over the loin
as the quantity of supplement fed on pasture increased.
Carcasses of steers which received supplement during the stocker
period tended to grade slightly higher than those of steers on
pasture alone, but the amount of supplement fed had little influ-
ence on carcass grade. There were no consistent effects of
supplementation level on other carcass measurements. Steers
fed molasses-Vegefat free-choice on pasture in trial 3 exhibited
less improvement in carcass grade and had a lower dressing
percentage and fat thickness than steers in the other four treat-
ments; however, these steers had a higher estimated percent
yield and a larger loin eye area (Appendix Table C).

Economic Evaluation

Data for evaluating the economics of feeding various levels
of concentrate to stocker steers on pasture for trials 1, 2, and 3
are presented in Appendix Tables D, E, and F, respectively.
Average values for the three trials are shown in Table 5. Stock-
ing cost per hundredweight of gain progressively increased as
the quantity of supplement fed increased. Supplemental feed
cost greatly exceeded pasture cost reductions realized from
reduced time on pasture. Although steers were not evaluated
at the end of the stocker phase, any improvement in live ani-
mal value which may have resulted from supplementation
would not have offset increased cost. In trial 3 cost per hundred-
weight of gain for steers fed molasses-Vegefat during the stocker
phase was less than that for steers fed dry concentrate, but
higher than cost of gain for steers on pasture only (Appendix
Table F). The advantage of molasses-Vegefat over the dry con-
centrate with respect to cost of gain was due to its lower cost per
ton. The above data point out the significant influence which
pasture forages have on the economics of growing cattle in south
Florida.
There were no trends in feedlot finishing cost to suggest a
relationship between the economics of drylot gain and supple-
mentation level during the previous pasture period. Also, there









Table 5. Effect of feeding various levels of concentrates to steers on pasture on
cost of production and returns per steer average of three trials.


Supplementation Level
Item (Ibs. per head daily)

Free
0 5 10 choice


Stocker phase
Pasture cost ($)1 38.13 26.88 21.39 17.94
Feed cost ($) 45.05 69.06 90.20
Mineral cost ($) 1.93 1.31 .88 .79
Cost/cwt. of gain ($) 12.76 22.89 28.36 34.25

Finishing phase
Pasture cost ($)2 12.43
Drylot cost ($)2 10.87 10.43 10.93 -
Feed cost ($) 81.61 74.07 77.27 67.00
Cost/cwt. of gain ($) 44.89 44.24 45.00 44.88
Stocker & finishing phase
Value/cwt. of carcass ($) 39.48 39.69 39.92 39.73
Final value/steer ($) 229.40 239.36 242.31 238.79
Initial value/steer ($) 107.15 107.24 107.35 107.04
Gain in value/steer ($) 122.25 132.12 134.96 131.75
Total feed cost ($) 83.54 120.43 147.21 157.99
Pasture & drylot cost ($) 49.00 37.31 32.32 30.37
Interest on capital outlay ($)3 10.82 8.42 7.28 6.67
Returns per steer ($)4 -21.11 -34.04 -51.85 -63.28
Returns per steer per year ($)5 -14.46 -30.83 -54.52 -71.50

'Pasture cost is equal to $0.09 per steer daily x number of days on pasture.
2Pasture and drylot cost during finishing is equal to $0.10 per steer daily x number of days in
finishing period.
3lnterest on capital outlay for steers only. Figured at 7.2% per year or .0197% per day (Interest =
cost per steer x .000197 x days on test). Interest on investment in pasture and drylot is included
in these respective costs.
4Return per steer = final value per steer initial cost per steer, feed cost, interest on capital outlay
for steers, pasture cost, and feedlot cost.
5Return per steer per year = return per steer + years on test (days on test +365).

were no consistent differences in the cost of finishing steers on
pasture and those fattened in drylot. Only in Trial 1 was a sub-
stantial savings in feed cost realized for steers finished on pasture
in comparison to those in drylot.
Generally, there was a slight increase in final value per steer
as the amount of supplement fed on pasture increased. This
relationship was partially due to the slight increase in the carcass
weight of steers fed higher levels of concentrate on pasture.








Economic calculations showed greater reductions in
returns per steer and returns per steer per year as the level of
concentrate fed on pasture increased. This trend can be directly
attributed to the high cost of dry concentrates relative to pasture
costs. During the finishing period average feed cost per hundred-
weight of gain for all treatments over all trials was $38.92. This
cost was exceedingly high and was a major factor contributing to
the negative returns obtained for the overall production systems
studied.
In trial 3 the most economical gains were obtained from
steers supplemented with molasses-Vegefat (Appendix Table F).
The economic advantage of this feeding system appeared to be
due to the combination of finishing on pasture and the lower cost
of the molasses-Vegefat mixture relative to dry concentrates.
Possibly, the economic advantage of pasture alone over
molasses-Vegefat supplementation expressed in the stocker
phase would have continued if steers in this treatment had
remained on pasture until slaughter.
It should be pointed out that the economic data presented
are based on estimated pasture costs and actual feed and steer
costs during the period the trials were conducted. Regardless of
this, the economic outline employed can serve as a guide for the
beef producer to insert cost values which apply to a particular
stocker and/or finishing operation and time period.


SUMMARY

Three trials, involving 282 steers, were conducted to deter-
mine the value of feeding various levels of supplement to stocker
steers on Roselawn St. Augustinegrass pasture. Steers were sub-
sequently finished in drylot or on pasture to measure the effect
of supplementation during the stocker period on finishing per-
formance. In each trial four groups of steers were fed concentrate
(snapped corn, citrus pulp, cottonseed meal) at a rate of 0, 5, 10
pounds per head daily or on a free-choice basis during the stocker
period. One trial involved a fifth treatment in which a molasses-
Vegefat mixture was fed free-choice. The stocker phase was
terminated when each group of steers reached an average
designated weight within a trial (750 to 850 pounds). Steers fed
limited amounts of concentrate were then placed in drylot and
finished to the same average group slaughter weight within a
trial (950 to 1050 pounds), while steers fed dry concentrate or
molasses-Vegefat free-choice remained on pasture until they








reached a similar slaughter weight. Animal performance and
economic data were recorded.
Results showed that rate of gain increased and stocking
time decreased as the quantity of supplement fed on pasture
increased. The dry concentrate supplement appeared to be more
effectively utilized if limited to less than 10 pounds per head daily
in comparison to free-choice feeding. Supplementation during
the stocker period had no consistent effect on subsequent feedlot
performance. Steers fed increasing amounts of supplement on
pasture tended to have a higher dressing percent and fat
thickness.
An economic analysis using input and output cost at the time
studies were conducted showed that it was unprofitable to feed
steers dry concentrate at any level throughout the stocker
period. Cost of gain during the stocker phase progressively
increased as the quantity of supplement fed increased. Supple-
menting steers on pasture at various levels had little influence
on cost of gain in drylot. The costs of gain of steers finished on
pasture and those fattened in confinement were similar. Con-
sidering both phases of production, increasing the level of con-
centrate feeding to stocker steers on pasture resulted in lower
returns.
The molasses-Vegefat mixture fed only in one trial was as
effective as the dry concentrate in improving rate of gain over
steers fed pasture only. However, the problem with feeding
steers molasses-Vegefat was their low intake of this mixture.
During the pasture period, gains by steers fed molasses-Vegefat
were more economical than gains of steers fed dry concentrate,
but less economical than gains from pasture alone. The feeding
of molasses-Vegefat to steers free-choice on pasture throughout
the stocker and finishing phases produced the most economical
gains of any production system studied in this trial.
The results of these studies support conclusions reached in
previous experiments that pasture is the cheapest source of
nutrients for stocker cattle in this area.










APPENDIX


Appendix Table A.


Effect of feeding various levels of concentrate to steers on
pasture on stocker and finishing performance in trial 1.


Supplementation Level
(Ibs. per head daily)
Item
Free
0 5 10 choice


20 20 20 20


Stocker phase
Avg. initial weight (Ibs.)
Avg. weight gain (Ibs.)
Stocker period (days)
Avg. daily gain (Ibs.)
Daily supplement intake (Ibs.)

Finishing phase
Avg. initial weight (Ibs.)
Avg. weight gain (Ibs.)
Finishing period (days)
Avg. daily gain (Ibs.)
Avg. daily feed intake (Ibs.)
Concentrate
Hay
Feed per lb. of gain (Ibs.)

Stocker + finishing phase
Avg. weight gain (Ibs.)
Days on test
Avg. daily gain (Ibs.)

Carcass data
Chilled carcass wt. (Ibs.)
Carcass grade'
Dressing percent2
Fat over eye (in.)
Ribeye area (sq. in.)
Estimated yield (%)3


545
234
264
0.89
4.39


544
244
222
1.10
8.23


Drylot
755 779 788
238 204 230
121 114 122
1.97 1.79 1.89


20.39
2.00
11.38


449
476
0.94


558
9.9
56.2
0.34
10.48
50.5


19.03
2.00
11.75


438
378
1.17


589
10.6
59.9
0.39
9.87
49.5


19.26
2.00
11.27


474
344
1.38


588
10.9
57.8
0.40
10.82
50.1


Number of steers


544
222
175
1.27
11.73

Pasture
766
191
99
1.93

17.10

8.86


413
274
1.51


562
10.5
58.1
0.44
9.82
49.3


'Federal quality grade: 9, 10, 11= low, medium, and high good, respectively.
2Dressing percent = chilled carcass weight -final feedlot weight.
3Percent of carcass weight in boneless, closely trimmed, retail cuts from round, loin, rib, and
chuck.















Appendix Table B. Effect of feeding various levels of concentrate to steers on
pasture on stocker and finishing performance in trial 2.


Supplementation Level
Item (Ibs. per head daily)

Free
0 5 10 choice


Number of steers

Stocker phase
Avg. initial weight (Ibs.)
Avg. weight gain (Ibs.)
Stocker period (days)
Avg. daily gain (Ibs.)
Daily supplement intake (Ibs.)
Finishing phase
Avg. initial weight (Ibs.)
Avg. weight gain (Ibs.)
Finishing period (days)
Avg. daily gain (Ibs.)
Avg. daily feed intake (Ibs.)
Concentration
Hay
Feed per Ib. of gain (Ibs.)

Stocker +finishing phase
Avg. weight gain (Ibs.)
Days on test
Avg daily gain (Ibs.)
Carcass data

Chilled carcass, wt. (Ibs.)
Carcass grade2
Dressing percent3
Fat over eye (in.)
Ribeye area (sq. in.)
Estimated yield (%)4


20 24 28 311


445
410
565
0.73


445
401
352
1.14
4.84
Drylot


445
405
280
1.45
9.33


856 847 851
187 151 170
105 79 88
1.78 1.91 1.93


21.92
2.02
13.44


597
670
0.89


584
10.4
56.0
0.30
10.59
50.9


23.46
1.96
13.30


552
431
1.28


584
10.3
58.5
0.35
10.38
50.3


22.39
1.94
12.59


445
391
227
1.72
14.49
Pasture

836
158
141
1.12

16.87

15.06


575 549
368 368
1.56 1.49


609
10.4
59.6
0.41
9.96
49.2


614
10.6
61.8
0.40
10.61
49.7


'One steer died during the experiment. Data for this animal not included.
2,3,4See footnotes 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Appendix Table A.








Appendix Table C. Effect of feeding various levels of concentrate to steers on pasture on stocker and finishing performance in trial 3.



Supplementation Level
(Ibs. per head daily)
Item
Molasses-
Free Vegefat
0 5 10 Choice Free choice



Number of steers 20 191 20 20 20
Stocker phase
Avg. initial weight (Ibs.) 526 526 529 525 529
Avg. weight gain (Ibs.) 322 324 317 340 333
Stocker period (days) 351 280 211 196 309
Avg. daily gain (Ibs.) 0.92 1.16 1.50 1.73 1.08
Daily supplement intake (Ibs.) 5.00 9.95 16.14 3.07

Finishing phase Drylot Pasture
Avg. initial weight (Ibs.) 848 851 846 865 862
Avg. weight gain (Ibs.) 193 219 187 182 206
Finishing period (days) 100 120 118 133 216












Finishing phase (cont.)


Avg. daily gain (Ibs.) 1.93 1.82 1.59 1.36 0.95
Avg. daily feed intake (Ibs.)
Concentrate 24.13 20.53 21.02 16.91 6.00
Hay 2.75 2.42 2.02 -
Feed per Ib. of gain (lbs.) 13.93 12.58 14.53 12.43 6.29

Stocker + finishing phase
Avg. weight gain (Ibs.) 515 543 504 522 539
Days on test 451 400 329 329 525
S Avg. daily gain (Ibs.) 1.14 1.36 1.53 1.58 1.03
Carcass data
Chilled carcass wt. (Ibs.) 601 637 625 626 601
Carcass grade2 11.0 11.6 11.3 11.3 10.1
Dressing percent3 57.7 59.5 60.5 59.8 56.3
Fat over eye (in.) 0.48 0.50 0.62 0.59 0.35
Ribeye area (sq. in.) 10.40 10.79 10.69 10.99 11.20
Estimated yield (%)4 49.3 48.9 48.3 48.6 50.7



One steer died during the experiment. Data for this animal not included.
2 3 4See footnote 1, 2, and 3, respectively, Appendix Table A.


Drylot


Pasture















Appendix Table D. Effect of feeding various levels of concentrate to steers on
pasture on cost of production in trial 1.

Supplementation Level
Item (Ibs. per head daily)

Free
0 5 10 choice
Stocker phase
Pasture cost ($)1 31.95 23.76 19.98 15.75
Feed cost ($) 36.62 57.71 64.96
Mineral cost ($) 2.52 1.04 .70 .34
Cost/cwt of gain (S) 16.34 26.25 32.13 36.51
Finishing phase

Pasture cost ($)2 9.90
Drylot cost ($)2 12.10 11.40 12.20 -
Feed cost ($) 84.80 74.80 80.99 53.54
Cost/cwt of gain ($) 40.71 42.25 40.52 33.21
Stocker+finishing phase

Value/cwt of carcass ($) 37.55 37.90 38.41 37.94
Final value/steer ($) 209.74 223.28 225.85 213.31
Initial value/steer ($)3 127.30 127.53 127.30 127.30
Gain in value/steer ($) 82.44 95.75 98.55 86.01
Total feed cost ($) 87.32 112.46 139.40 118.84
Pasture + drylot cost ($) 44.05 35.16 32.18 25.65
Interest on capital outlay ($)4 11.94 9.50 8.63 6.87
Returns per steer ($)5 -60.87 -61.37 -81.66 -65.35
Returns per steer per year ($)6 -46.68 -59.24 -86.69 -87.02



' Pasture cost is equal to $0.09 per steer daily x number of days on pasture.
2Pasture and drylot cost during finsihing is equal to $0.10 per steer daily x number of days in
finishing period.
3Purchase price of steers was $23.40 per cwt.
4Interest on capital outlay for steers only. Figured at 7.2% per year or .0197% per day (Interest =
cost per steer x .000197 x days on test). Interest on investment in pasture and drylot is included
in these respective costs.
5Return per steer = final value per steer initial cost per steer, feed cost, interest on capital
outlay for steers, pasture cost, and drylot cost.
6 Return per steer per year = return per steer years on test (days on test 365).














Appendix Table E. Effect of feeding various levels of concentrate to steers on
pasture on cost of production in trial 2.

Supplementation Level
(Ibs. per head daily)
Item
Free
0 5 10 choice


Stocker phase

Pasture cost ($)' 50.85 31.68 25.20 20.43
Feed cost ($) 51.53 79.02 99.45
Mineral cost ($) 2.06 2.18 1.16 1.45
Cost/cwt of gain ($) 12.90 21.29 26.02 31.03
Finishing phase

Pasture cost ($)2 14.10
Drylot cost ($)2 10.50 7.90 8.80 -
Feed cost ($) 73.74 59.11 62.92 71.89
Cost/cwt of gain ($) 45.05 44.38 42.19 54.42
Stocker + finishing phase
Value/cwt of carcass ($) 40.16 40.04 40.29 40.12
Final value/steer ($) 234.60 233.87 245.46 246.43
Initial value/steer ($)3 75.79 75.77 75.77 75.82
Gain in value/steer ($) 158.81 158.10 169.67 170.61
Total feed cost ($) 75.80 112.82 143.10 172.79
Pasture + drylot cost ($) 61.35 39.58 34.00 34.53
Interest on capital outlay ($)4 10.00 6.43 5.49 5.49
Returns per steer ($)5 11.66 -0.73 -12.92 -42.20
Returns per steer per year ($)6 6.35 -0.62 -12.82 -41.87



'2,45,6SSee respective footnotes in Appendix Table D.
3 Purchase price of steers was $17.02 per cwt.








Appendix Table F. Effect of feeding various levels of concentrate to steers on pasture on cost of production in trial 3.


Supplementation Level
Item (Ibs. per head daily)

Molasses-
Free Vegefat
0 5 10 choice Free choice


Stocker phase

Pasture cost ($)' 31.59 25.20 18.99 17.64 27.81
Feed cost ($) 46.99 70.46 106.18 26.48
Mineral cost ($) 1.22 0.71 0.78 0.58 0.84
Cost/cwt of gain ($) 10.19 22.50 28.46 36.59 16.56
Finishing phase
Pasture cost ($)2 13.30 21.60
Drylot cost ($)2 10.00 12.00 11.80 -
Feed cost ($) 86.30 88.29 87.91 75.57 36.16
Cost/cwt of gain ($) 49.90 45.79 53.32 48.83 28.04
Stocker + finishing phase

Value/cwt of carcass ($) 40.59 40.95 40.93 41.00 40.31
Final value/steer ($) 243.85 260.92 255.63 256.64 242.38
Initial value/steer ($)3 118.35 118.42 118.98 118.01 119.07
Gain in value/steer ($) 125.50 142.50 136.65 138.63 123.31
Total feed cost ($) 87.52 135.99 159.15 182.33 63.48
Pasture + drylot cost ($) 41.59 37.20 30.79 30.94 49.41
Interest on capital outlay ($)4 10.51 9.33 7.71 7.65 12.31
Returns per steer ($)' -14.12 -40.02 -61.00 -82.29 -1.89
Returns per steer per year ($)6 -11.42 -36.51 -67.70 -91.33 -1.31


'.',",',"See respective footnotes in Appendix Table D.
"Purchase price of steers was $22.50 er cwt.
















LITERATURE CITED


1. Allen, R. J., Jr. Summarization of grazing trial experiments. Everglades
Station Mimeo 57-11. 1957.
2. Chapman, H. L. Jr., D. W. Beardsley, T. J. Cunha, and W. K. McPherson.
Developing calves and steers on pastures in south and central Florida. Fla.
Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 719. 1967.
3. Florida Department of Agriculture. Florida Agricultural Statistics: Livestock
Summary 1970-71. Florida Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, Orlando.
1971.
4. Haines, C. E., H. L. Chapman, Jr., R. J. Allen, Jr., and R. W. Kidder. Roselawn
St. Augustinegrass as a perennial pasture forage for organic soils of south
Florida. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 689. 1965.
5. Haines, C. E., H. L. Chapman, Jr., R. W. Kidder, and R. E. L. Greene. Effects
of feeding limited amounts of concentrate to stocker steers on pasture. Fla.
Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 693. 1965.
6. Kidder, R. W., R. J. Allen, Jr., H. L. Chapman, Jr., and D. W. Beardsley.
Yield of Everglades pastures as measured by growth of yearling cattle. J.
Animal Sci. 16:1058. 1957.
7. Peacock, F. M., W. G. Kirk, E. M. Hodges, A. Z. Palmer, and J. W. Carpenter.
The effects of winter gains of beef calves on subsequent feedlot performance.
Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bul. 667. 1964.
8. Wise, M. B., E. R. Barrick, and T. N. Blumer. Finishing steers with grain on
pasture. North Caro. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 425. 1965.






ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to express their appreciation to the United
States Sugar Corporation, Clewiston, Florida for donating the
molasses; and Vegefat, Inc., East St. Louis, Illinois for supplying
the Vegefat used to formulate the molasses-Vegefat mixture fed
in trial 3 of this study.
















LITERATURE CITED


1. Allen, R. J., Jr. Summarization of grazing trial experiments. Everglades
Station Mimeo 57-11. 1957.
2. Chapman, H. L. Jr., D. W. Beardsley, T. J. Cunha, and W. K. McPherson.
Developing calves and steers on pastures in south and central Florida. Fla.
Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 719. 1967.
3. Florida Department of Agriculture. Florida Agricultural Statistics: Livestock
Summary 1970-71. Florida Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, Orlando.
1971.
4. Haines, C. E., H. L. Chapman, Jr., R. J. Allen, Jr., and R. W. Kidder. Roselawn
St. Augustinegrass as a perennial pasture forage for organic soils of south
Florida. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 689. 1965.
5. Haines, C. E., H. L. Chapman, Jr., R. W. Kidder, and R. E. L. Greene. Effects
of feeding limited amounts of concentrate to stocker steers on pasture. Fla.
Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 693. 1965.
6. Kidder, R. W., R. J. Allen, Jr., H. L. Chapman, Jr., and D. W. Beardsley.
Yield of Everglades pastures as measured by growth of yearling cattle. J.
Animal Sci. 16:1058. 1957.
7. Peacock, F. M., W. G. Kirk, E. M. Hodges, A. Z. Palmer, and J. W. Carpenter.
The effects of winter gains of beef calves on subsequent feedlot performance.
Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bul. 667. 1964.
8. Wise, M. B., E. R. Barrick, and T. N. Blumer. Finishing steers with grain on
pasture. North Caro. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 425. 1965.






ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to express their appreciation to the United
States Sugar Corporation, Clewiston, Florida for donating the
molasses; and Vegefat, Inc., East St. Louis, Illinois for supplying
the Vegefat used to formulate the molasses-Vegefat mixture fed
in trial 3 of this study.




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