Group Title: Mimeo report - University of Florida North Florida Experiment Station ; 66-1
Title: Ground snapped versus ground shelled corn with various roughages for fattening steers
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00066034/00001
 Material Information
Title: Ground snapped versus ground shelled corn with various roughages for fattening steers
Series Title: NFES mimeo rpt.
Physical Description: 8 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: 1965
 Subjects
Subject: Beef cattle -- Feeding and feeds -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Beef cattle -- Carcasses -- Grading   ( lcsh )
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Statement of Responsibility: F.S. Baker, Jr.
General Note: Caption title.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00066034
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 69661201

Full Text
/0



NORTH FLORIDA EXPERIMENT STATION
Quincy, Florida

August 7, 1965

North Florida Station Mimeo Report NFS 66-1


GROUND SNAPPED VERSUS GROUND SHELLED CORN WITH VARIOUS ROUGHAGES FOR
FATTENING STEERS

by F. S. Baker, Jr.l

SUMMARY

Feedlot performance and carcass characteristics were similar from feeding ground snapped
corn rations in which the cob and shuck furnished all the roughage and with ground shelled
corn rations with cottonseed hulls as roughage. With snapped corn at $39.74, shelled corn at
$54.20, and cottonseed hulls at $22.38 per ton, net returns were higher from the ground
snapped corn rations.

Adding $24 per ton citrus molasses to either ground snapped or ground shelled-cottonseed
hull rations did not greatly affect results.

Feeding a ground shelled corn ration with self-fed grass hay as roughage resulted in
lower roughage intake than where roughage materials were included in the feed mixtures.

Cattle fed ground peanut hulls as roughage with a ground shelled corn ration consumed
less feed, gained less, had lighter carcass weights, and had smaller net returns than those
fed either ground shelled corn-cottonseed hull or ground snapped corn rations.

INTRODUCTION

Increasing use of picker-shellers for harvesting corn in the Southeast has resulted in
a decreasing supply of snapped corn with a corresponding increase in the amount of shelled
corn. Also, shelled corn brought in from the Corn Belt to augment the local grain supply
further increases the shelled corn available. While shelled corn may be substituted for
snapped corn as an energy feed in steer fattening rations, use of shelled corn results in a
need for suitable roughage which, in the past, has been largely furnished by the cob and
shuck in snapped corn.

Large quantities of grass hay are available in the Southeast, but use of this hay for
roughage in fattening rations appears to be limited to smaller feeding operations. Much of
the hay is of low quality, and if self-fed with a high grain ration, lack of palatability
may prevent adequate roughage intake, especially in larger operations where feeding cannot
be carefully regulated. Furthermore, grass hay cannot be satisfactorily ground and uniformly
mixed with grain rations. Roughage materials which may be mixed with grain include peanut
hulls, which are of very low quality, and cottonseed hulls, which are preferred by many
cattle feeders.

To evaluate the aforementioned roughage materials, a steer fattening trial was conducted
in which either grass hay was self-fed or the roughages were included in ground shelled corn
rations at approximately the same level as the cob and shuck in comparable ground snapped
corn rations.



1 Animal Husbandman, North Florida Experiment Station, Quincy.








PROCEDURE

Sixty good grade short yearling Angus, Hereford, and Angus-Hereford crossbred feeder
steers weighing approximately 585 pounds were purchased in Alabama auctions. After the
cattle overcame the shipping shrink and regained the purchase weight, they were individually
tagged, weighed, and allotted as equally as possible to six experimental groups of ten head
each. Cost of feed during the preliminary period between purchase and start of the test was
added to the purchase price, and the total was the cost of the cattle going on trial.

Rations fed the six experimental lots are shown in Table 1. All groups were given free
access to grass hay for the first week while the grain mixtures were being increased to full-
feed. After the cattle were consuming all the concentrates they would clean-up between once-
a-day early morning feedings, hay was discontinued with all groups except Lot 3, which was
self-fed grass hay throughout the trial. Citrus molasses was top dressed on the feed
mixtures of Lots 1, 3, 4, and 6 at the morning feedings. The cattle were confined to a
peanut hull-bedded steer feeding barn with 60 square feet of pen space and 2 feet of trough
space per steer. The trial was started on March 9, and the cattle were slaughtered on June
29. Each steer was given a 24 mg, stilbestrol ear implant at the beginning of the trial.

It will be noted that protein concentrate levels were slightly higher in feed mixtures
supplemented with citrus molasses (Table 1); this was done to compensate for the low protein
content of the molasses.

Average daily feed intake for each lot is presented in Table 2, the first part of the
table (ending with the line, "Total feed intake") shows feed consumption on an "as fed"
basis; in the latter part of the table, cob and shuck in ground sr-pped corn are included in
the roughage and weight of citrus molasses is adjusted to ad 85 percent dry matter basis.
This permits more accurate comparison of feed intake of groups fed molasses and those with
no molasses.

It can be seen that cattle in Lot 6 were fed slightly less citrus molasses than those
in Lots 1, 3, and 4. This was done because of the 10 percent blackstrap molasses in the
ground peanut hulls fed to Lot 6; consumption of combined citrus and blackstrap molasses is
shown in Table 5 under "Average Daily Rationt.

Final weights were taken in the early morning after trucking three miles to the packing
plant in Quincy. Individual final weights were shrunk 3 percent, and the shrunk weights
were used in calculating gain, carcass yield, and sale price per hundredweight. Carcass
weights were hot weights less 2 1/2 percent. Quality grade, degree of marbling, and yield
grade (fat cover over ribeye, ribeye area, estimated kidney fat, and estimated cutout) were
determined for each carcass by a USDA grader.

Average costs of individual feeds and feed mixtures are given in Table 3. Costs of
feed mixtures include a charge of $7.00 per ton for milling and mixing. Prices received for
carcasses are shown in Table 4.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

As shown in Table 5, there was no difference in either gain, carcass weight, or carcass
grade of steers fed ground snapped corn (Lots 1 and 2) and those fed ground shelled corn-
cottonseed hull rations (Lots 4 and 5). Net returns above costs were higher for cattle fed
the ground snapped corn rations because of the lower cost of the snapped corn mixtures.
Snapped corn was purchased at average cost of $39.74, shelled corn at $54.20, and cottonseed
hulls at $22.38 per ton (Table 3). Thus a mixture of 3 parts shelled corn and 1 part cotton-
seed hulls (fed to Lots 4 and 5) cost $46.25 per ton as compared to $39.74 per ton for










Table 1.-Rations Fed.


Lot 1
Feed Mixture Percent
Ground snapped corn 90.00
60% protein supplement 8.75
Mineral mixture 1.25
Total 100.00
Plus limited allowance citrus molasses.

Lot 2
Feed Mixture
Ground snapped corn 91.25
60% protein supplement 7.50
Mineral mixture 1.25
Total 100.00

Lot 3
Feed Mixture
Ground shelled corn 90.00
60% protein supplement 8.75
Mineral mixture 1.25
Total 100.00
Plus limited allowance citrus molasses
grass hay.

Lot 4
Feed Mixture
Ground shelled corn 67.50
Cottonseed huls 22.50
60% protein supplement 8.75
Mineral mixture 1.25
Total 100.00
Plus limited allowance citrus molasses.


Lot 5
Feed Mixture
Ground shelled corn
Cottonseed hulls
60% protein supplement
Mineral mixture
Total


68.75
22.50
7.50
1.25
100.00


Lot 6
Feed Mixture
Ground shelled corn 67.50
Ground peanut hulls
(+ 10% molasses) 22.50
60% protein supplement 8.75
Mineral mixture 1.25
Total 100.00
Plus limited allowance citrus molasses.


Pounds
per ton
1800
175
25
2000




1825
150
25
2000


1800
175
25
2000
and self-fed




1350
450
175
25
2000




1375
450
150
25
2000




1350

450
175
25
2000






-4-


Table 2.-Average Daily Feed Intake.


Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6

Ground snapped corn 18.18 19.21 -

Ground shelled corn 13.26 13.19 15.59 10.31

Cottonseed hulls 4.40 5.10

Ground peanut hulls 3.43
(+ 10% molasses)

60% protein supplement 1.77 1.58 1.29 1.71 1.70 1.33

Mineral mixture 0.25 0.26 0.18 0.24 0.28 0.19

Total mixed feed (20.20) (21.05) (14.73) (19.54) (22.67) (15.26)

Citrus molasses 3.79 3.79 3.79 3.37

Grass hay 0.24 0.21 2.86 0.24 0.29 0.29

Total feed intake 24.23 21.26 21.38 23.57 22.96 18.92

Pounds concentrates* 18.80 16.25 17.87 18.28 17.57 14.90
Percent concentrates 79.72 76.43 86.20 79.75 76.53 81.50

Pounds roughage* 4.78 5.01 2.86 4.64 5.39 3.38
Percent roughage 20.28 23.57 13.80 20.25 23.47 18.50

Adjusted intake* 23.58 23.57 20.73 22.92 22.96 18.28


*Cob and shuck in snapped corn included in roughage; molasses adjusted to 85% dry matter
basis.











Table 3.-Average Costs of Various Feeds and Feed fixtures.

Feed or Ration Price per Ton

Ground snapped corn $39.74

Ground shelled corn 54.20

Cottonseed hulls 22.38

Ground peanut hulls + 10% molasses 18.00

60% protein supplement 97.69

Mineral mixture 84.00

Citrus molasses 24.00

Grass hay 22.50


Ration number 1* 47.42

Ration number 2* 51.09

Ration number 3* 53.19

Ration number 4* 52.67

Ration number 5* 57.57

Ration number 6* 51.99



*Price includes $7.00 per ton milling and mixing charge
for mixed feed.



Table 4.-Prices Received for Carcasses.

Grade Price cwt. carcass

U. S. Choice $44.00

U. S. Good 42.00

U. S. Standard 36.00










Table 5.-Feedlot Results and Carcass Data.


Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6
Ground shelled
Ground snapped Ground shelled Ground shelled Ground shelled corn + peanut
corn + citrus Ground snapped corn + hay + corn + c.s. hulls corn + c. s. hulls + citrus
molasses corn citrus molasses + citrus molasses hulls molasses


Number head
Number days
Avg. initial weight
Avg. final weight
Avg. gain
Avg. daily gain
Average Daily Ration:
Mixed ration
Citrus molasses
Grass hay
Corn*
Feed Per 100 Pounds Gain:
Concentrates**
Roughage**
Mineral
Cost
Carcass and Financial Data
Avg. slaughter wegith
Avg. carcass weight
Avg. carcass yield
Avg. carcass grade
Avg. price cwt. carcass
Avg. price cwt. on foot
Avg. cost cwt. feeders
Avg. cost head feeders
Avg. feed cost
Avg. cost cattle and feed
Sale price per head
Net return above costs


10
112
583
850
267
2.38

20.20
3.79
0.24
(13.64)

805
200
11
$24.09

950
514
60.43
Low choice
$43.61
26.36
19.61
114.37
64.32
178.69
224.09
45.40


10
112
584
855
271
2.42

21.05

0.21
(14.41)

661
207
11
$22.44

855
503
58.82
High gd./low ch.
$43.44
25.55
19.61
114.54
60.82
175.36
218.48
43.12


* Included in total for mixed ration.
** Cob and shuck in snapped corn included in roughage.


10
112
584
836
252
2.25

14.73
3.79
2.86
(13.26)

816
127
8
$25.29

836
503
60.22
High good
$43.06
25.93
19.61
114.52
63.66
178.18
216.72
38.54


10
112
584
859
276
2.46

19.54
3.79
0.24
(13.19)

760
188
10
$25.24

859
510
59.37
High gd./low ch.
$43.19
25.64
19.61
114.50
69.53
184.03
220.34
36.31


10
112
583
849
265
2.37

22.67

0.29
(15.59)

730
227
12
$27.90

849
511
60.20
Low choice
$43.38
26.12
19.61
114.40
74.03
188.43
221.65
33.22


10
112
584
776
192
1.71

14.92
3.71
0.29
(10.31)

895
197
11
$28.68

776
460
59.32
Avg./high good
$42.31
25.10
19.61
114.52
55.07
169.59
194.74
25.15


25 15


36.31


45.40 43.1











snapped corn fed with equal results to Lots 1 and 2. Adding $24 per ton citrus molasses to
the ground snapped corn ration (Lot 1) resulted in the same gain, 11 pounds per head
heavier carcass weight, and only $2.28 per head higher net return than the snapped corn
ration without molasses (Lot 2). With the ground shelled corn-cottonseed hull ration,
feeding citrus molasses did not affect carcass weight but did lower fed cost enough to give
$3.09 higher net return (Lots 4 and 5). It will be noted in Table 3 that citrus molasses
did not affect adjusted feed intake with either the snapped corn or shelled corn-cottonseed
hull ration.

Steers fed a ground shelled corn ration with self-fed grass hay as roughage (Lot 3) had
a lower roughage intake than any of the other groups, which had roughage mixed in the ration
(Table 2). With prevailing corn prices and grass hay at $22.50 per ton, net return above
costs was slightly lower with the ground shelled corn-hay ration than with the snapped corn
rations (Lots 1 and 2).

Cattle fed a ground shelled corn ration with ground peanut hulls as roughage had a
smaller feed intake, slower gain, lighter carcass weight, slightly lower carcass grade, and
smaller net return than any of the other groups. With the lighter yearling feeder steers
used, ground peanut hulls compared less favorably with other roughage materials than in a
preceding trial when older cattle were fed.2/

Detailed carcass data in Table 6 reveal small differences between all groups except
Lot 6 (fed the ground shelled corn-ground peanut hull ration) which had less finish, and as
previous mentioned, considerably lighter weight carcasses.


2/NFES Mimeo Report 64-7 (1964).










Table 6.-Carcass Study

Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6
Ground shelled
Ground snapped Ground shelled Ground shelled Ground shelled corn + peanut
corn + citrus Ground snapped corn + hay + corn + c.s. hulls corn + c.s. hulls + citrus
molasses corn citrus molasses + citrus molasses hulls molasses

Carcass weight 514 503 503 510 511 460
Maturity A- A- A- A- A- A-
Conformation High Good Avg. Good High Good Avg./High Good High Good Avg. Good
Marbling Modest- Small+ Small- Modest- Small+ Small-
USDA grade Low choice High Good/ High Good High Good/low Low Choice Avg./High
low choice choice good
Ribeye area(sq. in.) 10.93 11.15 10.80 11.00 11.16 10.29
Ribeye area/cwt. carcass(sq. in.) 2.13 2.22 2.15 2.16 2.18 2.24
Fat cover ribeye (in.) 0.47 0.39 0.45 0.40 0.43 0.31
Est. kidney fat (Ibs.) 14.40 13.10 14.60 16.40 14.90 8.5
USDA yield grade 3.0 2.6 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.4


FSB
8/16/65
300 CC




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