Group Title: NFES mimeo rpt.
Title: Steer fattening trial at the North Florida Experiment Station
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00066008/00001
 Material Information
Title: Steer fattening trial at the North Florida Experiment Station
Series Title: NFES mimeo rpt.
Physical Description: 11 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Baker, F. S ( Frank Sloan ), 1921-
North Florida Experiment Station
Publisher: North Florida Experiment Station
Place of Publication: Quincy Fla
Publication Date: 1958
 Subjects
Subject: Beef cattle -- Feeding and feeds -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Statement of Responsibility: by F.S. Baker, Jr.
General Note: Caption title.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00066008
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 68967235

Full Text




NORTH FLORIDA EXPERIMENT STATION
Quincy, Florida
NFES Mimeo Rpt. 59-1 July 7, 1958

STEER FATTENING TRIAL AT THE NORTH FLORIDA EXPERIMENT STATION
By F. S. Baker, Jr.

SUMMARY
There was little difference in the performance of fattening steers implanted with
36 mg. stilbestrol and those receiving a 1000 mg. progesterone-20 mg. estradiol
benzoate (Synovex) implant. Cattle implanted with the hormones made somewhat larger
gains than the untreated controls.

Feeding all concentrates (ground snapped corn, citrus molasses, and cottonseed
meal) at one morning feeding, with hay and minerals self-fed, gave as good results
as feeding half of the concentrates in the morning and half in the evening.

Adding 1.5 grams Dynafac per head daily to the ration did not improve steer
gains, carcass yields, or carcass grades.

The tranquilizer hydroxyzine fed at the level of 2.5 mg. per head daily gave
promising but inconclusive results. Cattle on a 5.0 mg. level of hydroxyzine did not
perform as well as those on the 2.5 mg. level.

Feeding 2.5 pounds 41% cottonseed meal per head daily as the protein supplement
resulted in more feed consumption, faster gains, higher carcass yields, and higher
carcass grades than feeding the same ration with 2.0 pounds of 55% peanut oil meal
as the supplement. A mixture of the two meals gave results similar to those from
straight cottonseed meal.

INTRODUCTION
In previous work at the North Florida Station the use of diethylstilbestrol
(hereafter referred to as stilbestrol) with fattening steers resulted in faster, more
economical gains, heavier carcasses, and higher returns.1 Feeding 10 mg. stilbestrol
per head daily and implanting 24 or 36 mg. stilbestrol in the ear at the beginning
of the fattening period gave similar results.

Two comparisons of stilbestrol and progesterone-estradiol implants have resulted
in slight2but not conclusive differences in favcr of the progesterone-estradiol
implants. A Michigan study showed a greater response to progesterone-estradiol
implants than to stilbestrol feeding.3

In one fattening trial at the North Florida Station, steers fed 1.5 or 2.0 grams
per head daily of tetra alkylammonium stearate (Dynafac) per head dailygrad'
slightly higher and showed a greater net return than the controls.4 t -exp cents
have shown a marked response by fattening cattle to this additive. / ,

1 Baker, F. S., Jr. Master's Thesis. U. of Fla. 1957.
2 Baker, F. S., Jr. 1957. NFES Mimeo Rpts. 57-10 and 58-3.
3 Deans, R. J., et al. 1956. Mich. Mimeo Rpt. A.H. 5. \
4 Baker, F. S., Jr. 1957. NFES Mimeo Rpt. 58-2. .. -
5 Dyer, I. A., and J. McGregor. 1957. J. An. Sci. 16:1034. Armourf Ans isysis,
March, 1957.








-2-
Recent experiments have indicated that certain tranquilizers have growth-promoting
effects. This was discovered accidentally while testing oral levels for sedating
action, but growth response has occurred at levels lower than necessary for sedation.
Hydroxyzine (Tran Q, Pfizer) has given a particularly consistent response, and there
are indications that the response is greater in the presence of stilbestrol and
terramycin.7

In one trial at the North Florida Station, steers fed 2.0 pounds 55% peanut oil
meal made the same gain as similar cattle given 2.5 pounds 41% cottonseed meal as the
protein supplement. The cattle on the cottonseed meal ration ate slightly more feed,
graded higher, and had a greater net return than those on the peanut meal ration.

Feeding fattening cattle twice daily obviously requires more labor than once-
daily feeding. When steers are on full-feed and feed is in the trough most of the
time (as is customary in this area), the cattle are essentially self-fed. Under these
conditions, it seems logical to assume that little difference could be expected in
once- or twice-daily feeding of concentrates. Limited work at other stations has
shown little difference in results where concentrates were fed once or twice daily.9

PROCEDURE
Ninety-six Hereford, Angus, and mixed breed yearling- steers were purchased from
Blackwater Plantation, Quitman, Georgia, and trucked approximately 75 miles to Quincy.
The cattle were medium to choice in quality (average good) and were somewhat lighter
and thinner than the feeder cattle normally used. The purchase weight of these cattle
averaged 658 pounds, and they averaged approximately 665 pounds when started on test.

Each steer was individually neck chained. The cattle were weighed individually
at all times, and the neck chain number followed each carcass through the packing
house.

The steers were divided into twelve groups as equally as possible and fed the
following ration:

Ground snapped corn full-fed according to appetite.
Citrus molasses 5.0 pounds per head daily.
Protein supplement 2.50 pounds 41% cottonseed meal, 2.00 pounds 55%
peanut oil meal, or 2.25 pounds mixture of cottonseed
and peanut meals.
Coastal Bermuda grass hay self-fed.
Salt and steamed bonemeal self-fed separately.

The corn and protein supplement were mixed, and molasses was poured on top of the
dry feed in the trough. The cattle were given all the concentrates they would clean-
up between feedings. As shown above, the amounts of molasses and protein supplement
were held constant and the quantity of ground snapped corn was regulated according
to the appetite of the cattle.


6 Hale, W. H., et al. 1957. J. An. Sci. 16: 1020.
7 Beeson, W. M., T. W. Perry, F. N. Andrews, and M. Stob. 1958. Purdue Agr. Exp.
Sta. Mimeo Rpt. AH 229.
8 Baker, F. S.,Jr. NFES Mimeo Rpt. 58-3.
9 Morrison, F. B. 1956. Feeds and Feeding. 22nd. Ed.








-3-
Treatments of the various groups were:

Lot 1 Untreated control.
Lot 2 36 mg. stilbestrol implant.
Lot 3 200 mg. progesterone-20 mg. estradiol benzoate (SSM-7) implant.
Lot 4 1000 mg. progesterone-20 mg. estradiol benzoate (Synovex) implant.
Lot 5 -36 mg. stilbestrol implant; twice daily feeding.
Lot 6 Same as Lot 2.
Lot 7 Same as Lot 5,
Lot 8 36 mg. stilbestrol implant; 1.5 grams Dynafac per head daily.
Lot 9 36 mg. stilbestrol implant; 2.5 mg. hydroxyzine (Tran Q) per
head daily,
Lot 10 36 mg. stilbestrol implant; 5.0 mg. hydroxyzine (Tran Q) per
head daily.
Lot 11 36 mg stilbestrol implant; 2.00 pounds 55% peanut oil meal per
head daily as protein supplement.
Lot 12 36 mg. stilbestrol implant; 2.25 pounds mixture 41% cottonseed
meal and 55% peanut meal as protein supplement.
All lots received 41% cottonseed meal as the protein supplement except Lots 11 and 12
as noted. All groups were fed concentrates once daily with the exception of Lots 5
and 7, which were fed morning and evening. Hormone implants were made once at the
beginning of the experimental period. Feed additives (Dynafac and Tran Q) were mixed
with the protein supplement before incorporating in the ration.

The cattle were weighed on two consecutive days and the averages of the two weight
(not shrunk) were taken as the initial weights. Final weights were taken after
trucking three miles to Quincy, and these Quincy weights were shrunk three percent.
Thus the initial weights were not shrunk, while the final weights were shrunk 3.6
percent (0.6 percent actual shrink in trucking to Quincy plus 3.0 percent calculated
shrink). The one final shrunk weight was used in calculating gains, in determining
carcass yields, and in figuring the gross return per head.

All cattle were slaughtered the same day and a few hours after removed from the
feedlot. To avoid any prejudice in grading, the carcasses could not be assigned to
experimental groups until traced back through carcass serial numbers, as the carcasses
were not sorted into experimental groups on the rail. Composite grades by Experiment
Station and packing house personnel and U. S. graders were reported. The cattle
were ribbed, and notes on marbling were considered in determining grades. Carcass
weights and yields were baed on warm weights of carcasses and shrouds less 2.0 percent

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Hormone Implants.-Table 1-580 contains results of the comparison between stil-
bestrol and progesterone-estradiol implants. Steers implanted with stilbestrol
(Lots 2 and 6) and those with the progesterone-estradiol implants (Lots 3 and 4)
gained faster and yielded heavier carcasses than the untreated controls (Lot 1).
Carcass grading, market value, or net return above costs of cattle and feed did not
differ greatly between the various treatments. The average net return for the two
stilbestrol groups were somewhat higher, but it should be noted that the results of
the two stilbestrol-implanted groups did not agree closely.

In contrast to a preceding trial, the progesterone-estradiol implants did not
produce larger or more economical gains than the stilbestrol implants.10


10 See footnote 2, page 1,












cn (D < 1
(D0 0







co (D
0




(,
0 0


000
0 4
010
1' 0
00 B 0

p *
' 0
0 0

V D
0 ^
0 o'



'a NLO
CD p
0
4 0
0 *


0 (D 0 (D
c+ 0



1'd 0 0'd H H C

C+ ffC+ Cd'd

0(D(0 0o a 0


02 (D (D
0 a ''
H 0 00
0 0' 00




0)
C 0 -,a C 0










S0\0 0 H0 OW 0)
* * **ir | l\4
^jM000ON t'
*F~----sO~sm h- O


044




0 Q0

V) (O CD (
(D (D
CD0 a


H"OO


0
00
0











Crt4 M -
00 0o 0o.o0*
00
0 0 H ( h


4000
0 0


(N,
oN


H
NO


co>
0 *D 0
D00% 0
co
ciDo'- t
(0 H e
02 '1
0
9m a


p
0
H 0


p
H <0

$ I
pr
**


IO M M F0
1o to I

- m 1a- 0 0 00
S0 0 0 0 0
(D


IQ... IQ. IPoloN,

0m Oa 0 N- -K I- I o
W4- o m 04 0o

SO
C)OCO)POO .4 I .0







MHM 0 M o
(o NM h 0 0
0 o 0
* 0 I-'*0
P.0 P. 0
S0

(Do
M I-' -' CD


tNo H 4
0. mOOMHM-- 1

O ss/OOsw O,0 N


H -. 0
oo W
* zr
0 0
Go P*
000


o00
o' o 0


ol 0
O\O










o~o
0\
^^~~~


'. 0
N) F---2
0N)0\-~


000
t 0-


No


00
N) N) "Qo
* 9
'. H o
o 0 0


M

C- 0 .0 0'
mo e
0-~u-
IR0 0"


N,
NMN M-- 0
'0 0 0





M CO 4
10 0 10 --z









osv-I O on


P00
Ff 0 0\ -P
H -
0oPo -


*
CN
-4


0 04


00. () CD


P' o 0 P P
FL 1DJla,



m o PQ
0CO 0 (D 0 0

S00 t3



( -J N) 4- -- N)
QMP 02 e'.
P.. B 0 o
P-J 0'-C -I

'-J
















0 3 03 H


H 0 1%
)O* 0 HO


0 o%

^j^


S o
ge
N, 03
N,3 CO4-




>P


\o O\n 0;
CO 0 \- 0C








Carcasses weighing more than 700 pounds wore sold at a discount of $4.00 per cwt.
for choice and $2.00 for the good grade (Table 7-580). The Lot 1 (control) cattle had
only one heavy carcass, while Lot 2 (stilbestrol) had two, and Lot 4 (Synovex) had
three. This discount on heavy carcasses contributed slightly to less favorable net
returns of Lots 2 and 4 than might normally be expected. Had the heavy carcasses not
been discounted, Lot 1 would have had approximately $3.50 more net return per head;
Lot 2 would have had $7.00 more Lot 3 would have had $3.50 more; and Lot 4 would have
had $10,50 more.

Once- and twice-daily feeding.--As shown in Table 2-580, there was little
difference in results ftom onde- and twie-a-day feeding The relatively poor per-
formance of Lot 2 resulted in slightly less average gain for the once-daily feeding,
but the higher carcass yield of the once-a-day steers resulted in slightly heavier
carcasses, Net returns per head did not differ much between the cattle on the two
systems of feeding.

Dynafac in the ration.-Table 3-580 shows that 1.5 grams Dynafac per head daily
did not improve results. Unlike the preceding trial,ll the Dynafac cattle (Lot 8)
did not grade higher and had a smaller net return than the control cattle (Lots 2
and 6). As previously stated, results of the two control groups unfortunately did
not agree very closely, and a reliable comparison is not possible. Consequently,
more work is necessary before any conclusion can be reached regarding Dynafac in
the ration.

Tranquilizer (hydroxvzine) in the ration,--Table 4580. gives the results of the
trial with the tranquilizer hydroxyzine in the ration. As previously stated, results
of the two control groups (Lots 2 and 6) do not agree very closely, thus preventing
a good comparison between the control and the groups receiving hydroxyzine (Lots 9
and 10). However, it is evident that the steers fed the 2.5 mg. level of hydroxyzine
(Lot 9) made an excellent and economical gain and that the carcass yield and grading
of this lot was very satisfactory. Also, the financial return from the Lot 9 steers
was the highest of any pen in the experiment. Performance of steers on the 5.0 mg.
level of hydroxyzine (Lot 10) was not as satisfactory as that of the steers on the
2.5 mg. level, which is in agreement with results of a recent test at Purdue.12

The Purdue study included a comparison of hydro-yzine with no hormone or anti-
biotic versus hydroxyzine with both stilbestrol implants and terramycin. Response to
hydroxyzine was obtained only in the presence of the hormone and antibiotic. Although
an antibiotic was not used in the test reported in this mimeo sheet, stilbestrol was
implanted as previously described. As in the Purdue experiment,-2.5 and 5.0 mg. levels
of hydroxyzine did not produce any apparent sedation.

Cottonseed versvs peanut oil meal as a protein sunolement.--Steers fed peanut
meal as the protein supplement (Lot 11) ate less feed and gained less than similar
cattle fed cottonseed meal (Lots 2 and 6) (Table 5-580). The cottonseed meal cattle
yielded heavier carcasses, had higher carcass yields, and graded higher. Because of
the relatively small spread in prices received for the various grades (Table 7-580)
and the price discount of heavier carcasses in the cottonseed meal groups, the peanut
meal cattle sold for only about $1.00 per cwt, less than the cottonseed meal cattle.
Likewise, difference in net return above costs between the peanut and cottonseed meal
cattle was not great. Performance of the cattle fed a mixture of equal weights of
peanut and cottonseed meals (Lot 12) was similar to that of the cattle on straight
cottonseed meal rations.

11 See footnote 4, page 1.
12 See footnote 7, page 2.



















? 1

(ID" 9

(C &S







D C. O
'1'






CD O N^
*d
*p ?^ **


H

0


"a
. I

C
*









H
0


* 0


Hs ~ pa H
:^> 0
*sM?^^^1^! 9O.^
.s1aea^ 'syB e0


HID I0f

WWaa


H
0%8
O': -I
C7%
m


oa Hosoo o o p
a NS S0 K)F 0 I 0
aR* r


N?3 h0
Oft iF3 ho -w1 o a








iq .l q
^ 's '. '


ao"
H3


(m H


r
* t







* m


Pto
fOft'
0%


s.






















2 004-







~0 0f






co











B%0
i- -P-







'0'J1 O0
s0' ou3





-* C


~siiufi


*








-7-
Table 3-580. Dynafac in a Fattening Ration.

Lot 2 Lot 6
Control


Number steers
Number days
Average initial weight
Average final weight
Average gain
Average daily gain


Average Daily Ration:
Ground snapped corn
Citrus molasses
41% cottonseed meal
Coastal Bermuda hay
Feed Per 100 Pounds Gain:
Concentrates
Hay
Minerals (salt & bonemeal)
*Cost


8
149
666
1014
349
2.34


18.08
4.89
2.50
1.98

1089
84
2.8
$22.78


149
664
1083
419
2.81


20.06
4.89
2.50
1.28

977
46
2.4
$20.12


Lot 8
1.5 gm. Dynafac per head
daily
8
149
664
1026
362
2.43


18.41
4.89
2.50
2.67

1062
110
3.4
$22.69


Laughter and Financial Data:
Average sale weight 1014
Average carcass weight 624
Average carcass yield (percent) 61.54
Carcass grades --
3 low choice
2 high good
2 ave. good
1 low good
,Market value per cwt. carcasses $43.79
**Market value per cwt. on foot 26.95
Average cost per cwt. feeder steer 18.13
Average cost per head feeder steer 120.75
Average feed cost 79.38
Average cost cattle and feed 200.13
Gross return per steer 273.27
Average net return above cost cattle
and feed 73.14


1083
669
61.82
ave. choice
low choice

ave. good
low good
$43.07
26.63
18.13
120.38
84.26
204.64
288.40


83.76


1026
625
60.93
ave. choice
low choice

ave. good
low good
$44.10
26.87
18.13
120.38
82.16
202.54
275.69


73.15


* See Table 6-580 for feed prices.
** See Table 7-580 for price received for carcasses.


S1














O> m





0O 0
o cn




0


(o 0
0 0






0a
Di
&S


tooe
0 (DOB

0

to m W


a to


(0~ DO
19t a "


0 0C
H 0O

0
C+
0
S,^


(D CD
000

0W"


0 4



TO 0





0 a

(D
CD 0
(no,1


;-4 oa m z
0W~WVh 10' r0


N)N)
O~ 4:-0;
* 3 S-C S S 3 S \ S
o~h ;r -O~
F'o4:-a'ori '-


00 1o H m>
, 0a0 ,, 0 O%- Os
%0 O VII O %0
o0 'CH H -W o
so so Our nV 0 o 9


hj rom
CDi r
4 H* 0

a Wa
0

& (o
TO


H
<^5
O7 '
S- l
"i


' 0 H' 0.

o I S 0 H\0o

a a R o* M
0 P'
00
0


HH


0
S

0 0
-&


to)ea4 P* 0

M 55 0 W 0 MO
\ H O sO Oio O
So op6


0P4 H
a HM
00 0 (
0 I"" 0 0
oo 0 H'



(DO
00









04 0

To
o -'


0





O I-'d-.








0I


* 0
\ 0
M l) P- O


0 O

M -
N



s0 N)0-'3s




* ot
H O0P'





'0H`'0
* S
'0








a H'0o
N) H o>
H to a e-
** S
4 : -


P 0





01 0



I
0



Ij


H
1'o
Zo !A *0
mo a


1 -P- 0



m 0%


















M-'
0 NO % 0
*0 0 0S 0S









Hu ->'
0'0 fO"O (


H 0'1
N 0 I- Oa%








S00 H
\ 10 C% 0%

















N) \0 ON 0'p







0m


S(D 0 C:
H 2 cU B* 10


C+ 0
1 O 0

0 0

m 0 0
co o 1
1 0
H'
**e


0
0
a











Ct



tI.












0
3o

sj


0






N)
V.


y

a
p. <






'0
'V c+
'1
0


1

















'HH


'i H 0 .
> H
C&%m ww-.1>


Ch4O4O
gill







ci-s
g a8s


NH
61gne


&$.




8
v


,-H I-O jJN
I 1 1 I- '







P% o. o0

(0o
C.


P> 3-M Oa (-
*~3k OO>UlCjO Oq o
9 9 9 9 9 Ca oaB O Q i3
0&~ ~~~ 0 4> sj NO( UOOOP
a s o. oC


'Jl 0 m0 H 0 ;
- W 0
P CtO I


V1t


aJ H ( H W H

S 0 d
ca 0 O ) (f 0-o

IE8 fl> 8


g 1 -1 0





0j h) <-
H *
1.4 H0t
W 9








-0 N) '0 I-.'
* 9
~, <
'.53


r
0A) NO cr









w-
* 5




S0 O


; as
'. 0 0\.'

04







ha'
W\
wj


II
1|


t a
u <
8 (
n


H

0


I*
t^
;^f


9



8^ '.0
o t3 o%-,



* 9
01^


H NPs- 0
OC NO c>O


Hl


0 \n







ci







&
0CD

an







-10-


Table 6-580. Feed Prices Used.


Ground snapped corn
Citrus molasses
41% cottonseed meal
55% peanut oil meal
Coastal Bermuda hay
Salt
Steamed bonemeal
Dynafac
Tran Q tranquilizer
Stilbestrol implant
Synovex implant
SSM-7 implant


Per Ton
$ 40.00
27.50
65.00
65.00
20.00
30.00
90.00


$ 1.45/lb.
0.80/gram hydroxyzine
0.09/each
1.75/each
1.75/each


Table 7-580. Prices Received for Carcasses.
Per Cwt.
U.S. Choice under 650 Ibs. $ 46.00
U.S. Choice 650 700 Ibs. 44.00
U.S. Choice over 700 Ibs. 42.00
U.S. Good under 650 Ibs. 44.00
U.S. Good 650 700 lbs. 43.00
U.S. Good over 700 Ibs. 42.00
U.S. Standard 41.00






-11-


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Chas. Pfizer and Compahy, Terre Haute, Indiana, furnished the stilbestrol
implants and Tran Q (hydroxyzihe) for this experiment.

The Squibb Institute of Medical Researdhi New Brunswick, N. J., supplied
the Synovex and SSk-7 implants.







































FSB
400 cc
7/7/58




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