Group Title: Mimeo report - Quincy, Florida Agricultural Research and Education Center ; NF-1974-2
Title: Corn silage with different levels of grain for finishing cattle in dry lot
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00066054/00001
 Material Information
Title: Corn silage with different levels of grain for finishing cattle in dry lot
Series Title: Quincy AREC mimeo report
Physical Description: 5 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Baker, F. S ( Frank Sloan ), 1921-
Agricultural Research and Education Center (Quincy, Fla.)
Publisher: North Florida Experiment Station
Place of Publication: Quincy Fla
Publication Date: 1973
 Subjects
Subject: Beef cattle -- Feeding and feeds -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Corn -- Silage -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: F.S. Baker, Jr.
General Note: Caption title.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00066054
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 70002131

Full Text
00




Agricultural Research and Education Center- -----..--.-.-
Quincy, Florida | ,r j r'N" r i
October 19, 1973 t

Quincy AREC Miimeo Report NF-1974-2 I

CORU1 SILAGE WITH DIFFERENT LEVELS OF GRAIIN OR
FIiISiING CATTLE INIDRY LOT. L ... "
.AS. Un v.of Forida
F. S. Baker, Jr.1 -- .

In 1968, Dr. T. W. Perry, Purdue University, reviewed extensive work conducted in the
iidwest with corn-corn silage finishing rations (Proc. 1968 Fla. Beef Cattle Short Course).
It was concluded that cattle fed one-half to two-thirds full-feed of corn silage and from
one-half to one-third full-feed of corn will generally perform most satisfactorily when
their combined rate and economy of gain is considered. These levels of silage and corn may
be recommended for southeastern feedlots; however, experience of ilorth Florida feeders in-
dicate that under some conditions cattle performance on high levels of corn silage may not
be as satisfactory as that obtained with similar rations in the lidwest. Possible explana-
tions include:

1. Southern corn silage may not be as high in energy value as that produced in the
Midwest.

2. Todays need for maximum gains and finishing at an early age may necessitate higher
levels of concentrates and lower levels of silage in finishing rations. This ap-
pears very probable with heavy-weaning, growth Florida calves (particularly
exotic crosses), which must make maximum gains after weaning if they are to be
finished at desirable weights. Also, lightweight Florida calves fed to 500-pound
slaughter weights undoubtedly need high concentrate rations.

3. Modern methods of processing grains, such as steam flaking and high moisture fer-
mentation, significantly improve utilization of the grain and enhance its value
in relation to that of silage.

4. Recent studies on associative effects of feeds indicate that the productive energy
value of a feed may vary with the proportion of the feed in the total ration
(Ohio research, J. Anim. Sci. 34:851, 1972).

A series of feeding trials was initiated at AREC, Quincy, to determine the performance
and carcass characteristics of heavy Florida calves fed in dry lot from weaning to slaughter
on corn silage with different levels of high moisture corn.

1972-1973 trial. Heavy Angus crossbred calves (1/8 to 1/4 Brahman) all sired (AI) by
one bill were trucked from Cocoa to Quincy shortly after weaning for a feeding trial
comparing various levels of corn silage-high moisture corn. The calves, which were precon-
ditioned at the ranch, averaged 471 pounds when shipped from Cocoa and 488 pounds 17 days
later when started on the experimental rations. Levels of corn silage-rolled high moisture
corn and feedlot results for Phase I, Phase II, and the entire trial are summarized in
Table 1.


I/Professor (Animal Husbandman) Agricultural Research and Education Center, Quincy, Florida.







-2-


Table 1. Feedlot results.

Phase I
Lot 20 Lot 21 Lot 22 Lot 23 Lot 24
minimum grain Moderate grain' Heavy grain
hii Corn None 1%BI D* 1BIUD* 2%BI.D* Full-feed
Corn silage Full-feed Full-feed Full-fed Full-feed None
Days 101 101 101 101 101
Initial wt. 489 490 488 488 488
Final wt. (4% shrink) 669 765 786 797 801
Gain 180 275 298 309 313
Avg. daily gain 1.78 2.72 2.95 3.06 3.10
Feed per head daily **:
Corn silage 29.5(10.6) 24.4(8.8) 20.7(7.4) 16.7(6.0) 0
HM corn 0 6.0(4.4) 9.2(6.8) 12.3(9.1) 16.1(12.0)
Supplement 1.9(1.7) 1.8(1.6) 1.8(1.6) 1.8(1.6) 1.8(1.6)
Citrus molasses 1.5(1.0) 1.5(1.0) 1.5(1.0) 1.5(1.0) 1.5(1.0)
Hay(at start only) 0.9(0.8) 0.7(0.6) 0.6(0.5) 0.6(0.5) 0.9(0.7)
Total/day 33.8(14.1) 34.4(16.5) 33.8(17.4) 32.9(18.2) 20.4(15.3)
Dry matter consumed,
%body wt. 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.4
Feed 100 lbs. gain
(10% moisture) 878 671 656 663 547
Feed cost 100 lbs. gain*** $22.18 $19.14 $19.78 $20.98 $20.36
*Body weight daily
**Numhers not in parentheses, gross wt; numbers in parentheses, dry matter.
***Corn, $1.80/bushel(No. 2 basis); corn silage, $14/ton(65% moisture).


Phase II.


Ii corn
Corn silage
Days
Initial wt.
Final wt.
Gain
Avg. daily gain
Feed per head daily**:
Corn silage
lHl corn
Supplement
Citrus molasses
Total per day
Dry matter consumed,
%body wt.
Feed 100 lbs. gain
(10% moisture)
Feed cost 100 lbs. gain***
*Body weight daily


Lot 20
ilinimum grain
1%BWD*~
Full-feed
136
669
1011
342
2.52

31.5(11.3)
8.5(6.3)
2.1(1.9)
2.0(1.3)
44.1(20.8)

2.5

917
$26.10


Lot 21
Moderate
lBI TD*
Full-feed
101
765
1012
247
2.44

18.6(6.6)
13.0(9.7)
2.1(1.9)
2.0(1.3)
35.7(19.5)

2.2

890
$28.44


Lot 22
grain
2%BWD*
Full-feed
101
786
1021
235
2.32

8.3(3.0)
16.4(12.2)
2.0(1.8)
2.0(1.3)
28.7(18.3)

2.0

876
$30.70


Lot 23
Heavy
Full-feed
5 Ibs. day
80
797
1016
219
2.74

5.2(1.8)
17.7(13.
2.0(1.9)
2.0(1.3)
26.9(18.

2.0

738
$26.62


Lot 24
grain
Full-feed
Hone
80
801
1018
217
2.71

0
2) 18.1(13.4)
2.0(1.9)
2.0(1.3)
2) 22.1(16.6)

1.8

681
$25.91


**Numbers not in parentheses, gross wt.; numbers in parentheses, dry matter.
***Corn, $1.80 bushel (No. 2 basis); corn silage, $14 ton (65% moisture).


I







Entire trial
Lot 20 Lot 21 Lot 22 Lot 23 Lot 24
Minimum grain lioderate grain Heavy grain
% concentrates (dry matter) 37 55 69 76 97
% 1M1 corn* 12(20) 27(39) 41(53) 49(60) 80(80)
% silage* 77(61) 61(43) 46(29) 38(23) 0 (0)
Days 237 202 202 181 181
Initial wt. 439 490 488 488 488
Final wt. 1011 1012 1021 1016 1018
Gain 522 522 533 528 530
Avg. daily gain 2.20 2.58 2.64 2.92 2.93
Feed per head daily*:
Corn silage 30.7(11.0) 21.5(7.7) 14.5(5.2) 11.6(4.2) 0(0)
MI corn 4.9(3.6) 9.5(7.1) 12.8(9.5) 14.7(10.9)17.0(12.6)
Supplement 2.0(1.8) 1.9(1.8) 1.9(1.8) 1.9(1.7) 1.9(1.7)
Citrus molasses 1.8(1.2) 1.7(1.1) 1.7(1.1) 1.7(1.1) 1.7(1.1)
Hay (start only) 0.3(0.3) 0.4(0.3) 0.4(0.3) 0.3(0.3) 0.6(0.5)
Total/day 39.7(17.9) 35.0(18.0) 31.3(17.9) 30.2(18.2)21.2(15.9)
Dry matter consumed,
% body wt. 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.1
Feed 100 lbs. gain
(10% moisture) 904 774 753 694 602
Feed cost 100 lbs. gain** $24.75 $23.53 $24.59 $23.32 $22.63
F. C. + 0.10 head daily 29.29 27.41 28.38 26.75 26.05
*Numbers not in parentheses, gross wt.; numbers in parentheses, dry matter.
**Corn, $1.80 bushel (No. 2 basis); corn silage, $14/ton (65% moisture).


Carcass characteristics of the five feedlot groups are shown
Table 2. Carcass characteristics


in Table 2.


iii
Days fed
Slaughter wt.
Hot carcass wt.
Hot carcass wt.-2%
Dressing percentage
Conformation*
11aturity-
Degree marbling**
Grade*
Fat cover, in.
iibeye area, sq. in.-
Kidney & pelvic fat, %
*Average good, 10; high good,
**Small -. 10: small, 11.


Lot 20
.nimum grain
237
1011
629
617
61.00
10.6


A
10.6
11.0
0.58
10.17
3.2
11; low choice


Lot 21 Lot 22
Moderate grain
202 202
1012 1021
630 635
617 623
61.00 61.00
11.8 11.6
A A
10.1 11.3
10.9 11.6
0.80 0.64
10.27 10.81
3.4 3.0


Lot 23 Lot 24
Heavy grain
181 181
1016 1018
632 634
620 621
61.00 61.00
11.9 11.9
A A
10.3 10.4
11.2 11.4
0.84 0.73
9.92 10.10
3.5 3.4


e, 12.


As shown in tables 1 and 2, each of the five groups was fed to approximately the same
final weight (both live and carcass weight). The minimum grain group (Lot 20) required
237 days, the moderate grain groups (lots 21 and 22) 202 days, and the heavy grain groups
(lots 23 and 24) 181 days in the feedlot. Differences among the five groups in carcass
grade and other carcass characteristics were not great. Similar carcasses were produced
with the five rations; however,with higher levels of grain, less time on feed was required.
It is interesting to note that performance of Lot 21, with a 27% corn dry matter level in
Phase I, a 50% level in Phase II, and a 39% average level for the entire trial, was
comparable to that of Lot 22, with corn dry matter levels of 39%, 67%, and 53%, respectively,
for Phase I, Phase II, and the entire trial. A like comparison can be made with the two
heavy grain groups, lots 23 and 24, which shows that cattle performance was not greatly


--









affected by relatively small changes in the corn-corn silage rations. Although cattle gains
increased with increasing levels of grain, increases of 20% or more in corn dry matter levels,
with corresponding decreases in corn silage dry matter levels, appear necessary to make
appreciable improvement in cattle gains.

Results of a similar experiment at the University of Illinois (Ill. AS-657a, 1970) agree
closely with results reported herein, with the exception that gain and feed conversion with
silage and no grain in the Illinois trial were comparable to that with silage plus IfI corn
at 1% of body weight daily (Lot 21) in this Florida trial. This was undoubtedly due to the
50% grain content of the Illinois silage compared to about 40% grain content of the Florida
silage (dry matter basis).

If a charge of $0.10 per head daily for non-feed costs is added to costs of feed (No. 2
corn, $1.80 bushel; and 65% moisture corn silage, $14 ton), the lots fed higher levels of
corn had a small advantage in cost of gain. In fact, with $14/ton silage, the groups fed
higher levels of silage would not have had an advantage in cost of gain with No. 2 corn
priced at $2.40 per bushel. Furthermore, if torn were priced at $2.40 per bushel, corn
silage would probably be priced higher than $14 per ton. To make estimates of feed cost of
gain with varying prices of corn and corn silage, the following comparison based on results
of this trial may be helpful:

Comparison Lot 24 (no silage) with Lot 20 (minimum grain)
(1) Corn was worth 4.32 times as much as corn silage (wet weight)
(2) Corn was worth 2.12 times as much as corn silage (dry matter)
With Lot 21 (moderate grain)
(I) Corn was worth 4.04 times as much as corn silage (wet weight)
(2) Corn was worth 1.97 times as much as corn silage (dry matter)
With Lot 23 (heavy grain)
(1) Corn was worth 4.91 times as much as corn silage (wet weight)
(2) Corn was worth 2.37 times as much as corn silage (dry matter)

Comparison Lot 23 (Heavy grain + silage) with Lot 20 (minimum grain)
(1) Corn was worth 4.12 times as much as corn silage (wet weight)
(2) Corn was worth 2.03 times as much as corn silage (dry matter)
With Lot 21 (moderate grain)
(1) Corn was worth 3.48 times as much as corn silage (wet weight)
(2) Corn was worth 1.71 times as much as corn silage (dry matter)

Comparison Lot 21 (moderate grain) with Lot 23 (heavy grain-silage)
(1) Corn was worth 4.81 times as much as corn silage (wet weight)
(2) Corn was worth 2.38 times as much as corn silage (dry matter)

To illustrate, if a decision is needed on whether to feed a high-grain ration similar
to that fed to Lot 23, or to feed only a moderate level of grain such as fed to Lot 21;

Assume high moisture corn is worth $90 ton (wet, 25% moisture); or $102 ton (No. 2 basis),
or $2.85 bushel
$90
4.81 = $18.71

Higher level of silage as fed to Lot 21 would be justified if silage cost $18.71 ton,
or less, (wet).
Conversely, if silage costs $20 ton (wet) $20 X 4.81 = $96.20
Additional corn could be added to a ration, such as fed to Lot 21, if I1. corn costs
less than $96.20 ton (wet).







-5-

It should be noted that these calculations are only approximations based on comparisons
of results of this one trial. The estimates are based only on feed costs and do not include
non-feed costs (estimated $0.10 per head daily). It should also be pointed out that results
of Lot 22 (moderate grain) were not included in these comparisons because of poor performance
by the group in Phase II which would have made feed replacement estimates unreliable in com-
parison with that of other groups. Finally, it might be generally stated that corn was worth
from 3.48 to 4.91 times as much as corn silage on a wet weight basis, and 1.71 to 2.37 times
as much as corn silage on a dry matter basis, depending on which groups were compared. A
further study will be conducted in 1973-1974.

ACKNOTLEDGEEIIT

Appreciation is expressed to A. Duda & Sons for furnishing calves for this study.


400 copies




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