Front Cover
 Table of Contents

Title: Chipley B.D.U. field day
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00080911/00001
 Material Information
Title: Chipley B.D.U. field day
Series Title: Chipley B.D.U. field day
Physical Description: Book
Publisher: North Florida Experiment Station
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00080911
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 173683259

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
        Page i
    Table of Contents
        Page ii
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
Full Text

ncy NREC Research Report NREC 85

Ouincy NFREC Research Report NFREC 85-1

Chipley Beef Demonstration Unit

Eleventh Annual Meeting
Chipley, Florida
Thursday, April 11, 1985

Florida Cooperative Extension Service
IFAS Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida, Gainesville
John T. Woeste, Dean for Extension
UlN vl 1 I i R ITYl OF F1 I 1



The Chipley Beef Demonstration Unit is an on-going commercial

cattle operation sponsored by the University of Florida Coopera-

tive Extension Service. The principal function of the unit is to

demonstrate comprehensive livestock-forage systems applicable for

Northwest Florida beef producers. The unit also serves as an ed-

ucational center to instruct individuals in daily livestock man-

agement practices. This is accomplished through field days,

clinics, farm demonstrations and individual visitation by pro-

ducers. The unit is open to the public weekly and dates of spe-

cific demonstrations can be obtained from your local County Ex-

tension Director.

David L. Prichard
Extension Livestock


Jim Clemmons, Farm Manager, CBDU, Chipley, Florida

R. P. Cromwell, Extension Agricultural Engineer, University of
Florida, Gainesville

E. J. Golding, Animal Scientist, University of Florida, NFREC,

D. D. Hargrove, Animal Scientist, University of Florida,

D. L. Prichard, Extension Livestock Specialist, University of
Florida, NFREC, Quincy

Eddie Wilson, Territory Manager, Snell Systems, Inc., San
Antonio, Texas



1. A Simple Approach To Crossbreeding For The Small Beef

Don D. Hargrove......................................

2. What's A Good Bull Worth?

David L. Prichard...................................

3. Freeze Branding Cattle

David L. Prichard and Jim Clemmons..................

4. Reduce Drying Time of Alfalfa Hay By Applying A Chemical
Drying Agent

R. P. Cromwell...................................... 18

5. Backgrounding Calves On Corn And Broiler Litter Vs.
Winter Pasture

David L. Prichard................................... 25

6. Power Fencing Versus Conventional Fencing

Eddie Wilson.........................................

7. CBDU Herd Health Calendar................................

8. CBDU Management Calendar.................................




D. D. Hargrove

Crossbreeding is widely accepted today as the mating system to be used

in commercial cow-calf operations. No straightbreeding program offers the

two advantages of and reasons for crossbreeding. They are 1) combining of

desired traits from two or more breeds, and 2) obtaining and maintaining

heterosis. Systematic mating systems must be used if the producer is to

realize these two potential advantages of crossbreeding. Too many so

called "crossbred* cattle in Florida are the result of haphazard

mongrelization. Very often, these "crossbreds" are multi-colored,

heterogeneous, low quality cattle. They, in no way, compare with highly

productive "hybrids" or crossbreds produced from well-designed, systematic

crossbreeding programs.

Systematic crossbreeding programs have been shown to result in up to a

25% improvement in the total efficiency of beef production, and up to a

50%, or more in some cases, improvement in cow production (pounds of calf

weaned per cow in the breeding herd).

A well-planned, effective crossbreeding program must be designed to

meet the specific needs of the particular cattle operation involved.

Every farm has its particular environment, management practices,

availability of breeding stock, market outlet for calves produced, and

likes and dislikes of owner. All of these must be considered when

deciding on the crossbreeding program and breeds to be used. There is one

thing that the selected crossbreeding program must provide for -- and that


is the use of crossbred females! A great percentage of the improved

efficiency realized from crossbreeding is due to the higher reproductive

efficiency and maternal ability of crossbred dams.

For the small cow-calf operation, there are basically only three

crossbreeding systems that will be practical: 1) two or three breed

terminal, using F, or other crossbred females, and 2) rotational, and 3)

periodic changes of bull breed, are advantages and disadvantages of each,

and they will be discussed below.

Terminal Programs

A. Example:

. Usina Crossbred Females

1) F1 Hereford

Progeny =

2) 2/3 Angus -

Progeny =

- Brahman Cows x Simmental Bulls

1/2 Simmental 1/4 Hereford 1/4 Brahman

All progeny marketed

Maternal Heterosis (Hm) = 100%

Individual Heterosis (Hi) = 100%

1/3 Brahman Cows x Hereford Bulls

1/2 Hereford 1/3 Angus 1/6 Brahman

All progeny marketed

Hm = 67%

Hi = 100%

3) F1 Angus Brahman Cows x Angus Bulls

Progeny = 3/4 Angus 1/4 Brahman

Hm = 100%

HI = 50%

B. Advantages:

1. Maximize heterosis, both maternal and heterosis in the cow

and individual heterosis of the calf.

2. Maximum opportunity to "genetically engineer" an animal

combining complementary traits from two or three breeds, and

3. Uniformity of market animals.

C. Disadvantages:

1. Difficult to obtain good crossbred females, and

2. Costs of crossbred females.

Rotational ProErams

A. Examples:

2 Breed Rotation Brangus (B) x Polled Hereford (PH)


B2 PH1 Females x PH Bulls

(Progeny = 5/12 A 3/12 Bra 4/2 PH)

Hm = 67%

Hi = 67%


B1 PH2 Females x B Bulls

(Progeny = 5/24 A 3/24 Bra 16/24 PH)

B. Advantages:

1. Maintain relatively high heterosis, both maternal heterosis

in the cow and individual heterosis in the calf, and

2. Produce replacement females, thus, permitting selection for

performance under your condition and management.

C. Disadvantages:

1. Must have separate breeding pasture for each breed used in

the cross, unless artificial insemination is used. More

than one breeding herd or breeding pasture would not be

practical for herds with 30 or fewer cows, and

2. More variation in types of progeny produced.

Periodic Change of Breed of Bull

This type of crossbreeding program was first suggested in 1962 by Dr.

Marvin Koger, as an alternative for small herds where the maintenance of

more than one breed of bull is not practiced.

The proper interval of time between rotation of bull breeds to

maintain maximum heterosis will depend on the number of breeds used, age

at which heifers are first bred, and rate of culling practiced on the

females. The following table estimates the best length of time between

breed of bull rotations for herds calving heifers first at 2 years of age.

# Breeds Used Heaving culling* Light cullling*'

2 Breeds 5 years 8 years

3 Breeds 3 years 4 years

4 Breeds 2 years 3 years

*15% cull and death loss per year, cull old cows at 11 years.
** 5% cull and death loss per year, cull old cows at 13 years.


1. Only one breed of bull would be on the farm at a time, thus the

management program would be simple, and

2. Produce female replacements.


1. Less heterosis would be maintained than with the terminal and

rotational programs,

2. Might have considerable variation in types of progeny produced in

the various cycles, and

3. Harder to "genetically engineer" kind of progeny desired.


D. L. Prichard
Extension Livestock Specialist
NFREC, Quincy


It has been said that the value of a good herd sire is
dependent upon three criteria: (1) the thickness of the owner's
wallet, (2) time of year relative to filing income tax and (3)
distance between owner and irate banker. No other segment of the
livestock industry has a greater variation in the price paid for
a herd sire than in the beef business. The closest thing to it
is the hamburger business, where hamburgers sell from 504 to
$10.00. Today commercial cattlemen pay anywhere from $250 to
$3500 for a breeding bull. It may well be that 504 hamburgers
satisfy the palate of a lot of people, but who eats hamburgers to
make a profit? We must assume that everyone who buys a bull is
in the profit-making game, otherwise, the whole question seems a
little foolish.

Criteria For Selecting Bulls

What does a cattleman look for in deciding which bull to buy?
Here again there appears to be a great variation. Some men start
out with a predetermined dollar limit on what they are going to
pay for their next bull. Of course, no one can fault a man for
buying the best possible bull with the amount of money that he is
economically justified in spending. But all too often, this
figure is so low that he winds up buying an undeveloped calf of
unknown performance, then turns him out with a group of cows at
too early an age and then is always dissatisfied because his bull
never did develop into a respectable size.

There is probably no other business in which many men expect
to sell a depreciable production input for more money than was
paid for it in the beginning, but that's the philosophy of a good
many calf producers. Today we have cattlemen who don't buy bulls
simply because they are the wrong color; their tails are not the
proper length; or because they have too much white or not enough
white. All of these may be justified from the standpoint of
individual preference but they hardly seem important when we
consider the matter of economical and profitable beef production.

Well, you say, just how do we decide what a bull is worth?
The simplest answer to this is how much can he be expected to
increase the income from a herd of cows. It's true that this may
depend on the quality of the brood cow herd to start with. But
here again, too many cattlemen are prone to rationalize. They
take an attitude somewhat like this: "I've just got a bunch of
scrub cows and the market is weak so I can't afford to buy a good
bull." That's almost like the farmer saying, "I've just got some

poor ole land so I can't afford to spend much on fertilizer or
weed control." While it's true that as the general level of the
performance ability of the herd advances in gain capability,
conformation and fertility, the more difficult it becomes to make
additional improvements. It's also true that too many bulls in
pastures today won't work improvement on even the poorest cows.

Cowboy Arithmetic

Using good bulls is one of the fastest ways to improve
performance or general quality in a cow-calf operation. Though a
bull contributes only half the make-up of a given calf,
genetically, he has more impact on a cow herd than this, due to
his offspring passing on his genetic material. A good bull that
stays in service several years imparts his improving capabilities
directly on that many calf crops. In addition, the genetic
merits are further passed on through heifer offspring selected
for replacements and moved into the herd.

Valuing bull potential is extremely difficult for all charac-
teristics. However, we can make a fair estimate on the basis of
weaning weight. Let us consider two bulls; Bull A and Bull B.
Bull A has been siring calves that average 425 Ibs at weaning.
Bull B has been performance tested and raised under a similar
environment to Bull A. Bull B has a weaning weight of 625 lbs or
200 lbs heavier than the average weaning weight of Bull A's off-
spring. If half of the genetic value is obtained from the cow
and half from the bull, then the cow herd's capability of in-
creasing weaning weight is 200 lbs divided by 2, or 100 lbs.
Research has shown that the heritability of weaning weight is
between 30 and 35%. If we multiply the 100 lb base by .30, Bull
B should then add 30 lbs to the average weaning weight of calves
when introduced into the herd. If Bull B is used in a 30-cow
herd, assuming a 90% weaning rate, then 27 calves are weaned each
year. Twenty-two (22) calves are sold and five (5) heifers are
kept for replacements. If we assume a bull life of five years
and calves at 604 per lb, then this increased sale weight is
worth $1,980.00 (30 lbs x 22 calves/year x 5 years x $0.60 =

Now let's look at another benefit from using Bull B; the
improvement in the genetic value of his 25 heifers saved for
replacements. If we use another bull of the same potential as
Bull B, then these heifers will contribute a 25.5 lb increase to
weaning weights of their calves (625 lbs 455 lbs = 170 lbs 1 2
= 85 lbs x .30 = 25.5 lbs). With a full 8 years' productive
life, these 25 heifers will produce 5100 Ibs of extra calf. At
601 per lb, this is worth $3,060.00. There is also a good chance
that these heifers will be 20-25 lbs heavier at salvage time
which means at 404 per lb they will contribute still another
added return of about $225.00 (25 heifers x 22.5 lbs = 562.5 lbs
x $0.40 = $225.00).

The final dollar return from using Bull B is the increased

value of uniformity and conformation that Bull B's offspring
should possess. This value, however, is extremely difficult to
measure. A conservative approach would be to assume that Bull
B's offspring would receive a 1 per lb premium over Bull A's
offspring, due to increased uniformity and more desirably
conformation. Keep in mind that Bull B's and Bull A's offspring
would remain in the same weight range (400-500 lb). Therefore,
Bull B should net his owner an additional ($500.50 (22 calves
sold/year x 5 years = 110 calves x 455 lbs wean. wt. = 50,050 lbs
of calf x $0.01 = $500.50).

Now let's add up and see what Bull B has returned in extra
income from a herd of 30 cows.

Extra calf weight $ 1,980.00
Improved heifer production $ 3,060.00
Greater salvage value $ 225.00
Increased uniformity and
conformation $ 500.50

or a total added return above that of
Bull A of $ 5,765.50


This brings up two final questions! Where do we find a bull
with the potential of Bull B and do we need to pay $5765.50 to
purchase him? The answer to the second question is definitely
NO! The closest answer to the first question is performance

There probably exist a positive correlation between the
"true" value of a good bull and the price paid for him. However,
high-priced bulls may not necessairly sire high-priced calves.
Typically a cattleman intent on purchasing a good bull will visit
a reputable breeder and insist on reviewing all available records
on that bull as well as visually inspecting the bull and possibly
his sire, dam and offspring if available. After selecting a bull
based on performance records and phenotype, and waiting an entire
year with the anticipation of that "super calf crop" many cattle-
men end up dissapointed over the bull(s) they selected. There
are many possible reasons for this dissapointment, one of which
is Chance! No one bull exist that will "nick" or compliment all
cow herds. Many cattlemen fail to realize that one good bull
represents one step in the ladder towards progress.

The next time you decide to purchase a bull visit a breeder
with a sound reputation, then insist upon reliable performance
information so that a reasonable judgement can be made as to a
bull's potential. Calculate what can be paid for the improve-
ments that can be expected. Only in this way can a great deal of
the guess work be taken out of the problem of bull selection.
But remember keep your fingers crossed!


D. L. Prichard, Extension Livestock Specialist


J. A. Clemmons, Manager CBDU


The purpose of branding is to supply a permanent means of

identifying individual animals. Individual identification brands

permit quick and easy identification of an animal from a dis-

tance. Brands generally consist of letters, numbers, designs or

combinations of these. Many states require registration of an

ownership brand and the location on the animal. Ownership brands

help to discourage cattle rustling and also serve as a farm's

trademark. Both identification and ownership brands can be

applied any time during the year, however; branding generally is

done when calves are either vaccinated, castrated or weaned.

Four basic methods of hide branding exist: hot, freeze,

caustic and lazer branding. The purpose of this paper is to

detail proper methods of freeze branding.


Freeze branding involves the application of super-cooled

irons to the hide. This destroys the pigment producing cells

(melanocytes) in the hair follicle with minimum damage to the

follicle itself. When done properly, white hair replaces the

pigmented hair and results in a legible brand. Freeze branding

on black or dark pigmented cattle results in an easily read brand

due to the contrast in color. A legible brand also can be

produced on lighter pigmented cattle. On white cattle it is

necessary to destroy the hair follicle and produce a "bald" or

"fire brand" effect.

Freeze branding was developed with the expectation of pro-

ducing brands that were more humane and more easily read than

fire brands. Furthermore, it was anticipated that freeze brand-

ing would cause less hide damage and brands would be readable in

the winter months when the hair coat was long. Absher et al.

(1980) stated that freeze branding has not fulfilled all of the

early expectations, although many producers have been quite

satisfied. Disappointments include: (1) brands still need to be

clipped in the winter for complete legibility; (2) the process is

relatively expensive on small numbers of cattle and (3) the

visibility of the brand is not as good on yellow, white or red

cattle as it is on black cattle. Additional complaints include

increased branding time, availability and costs of coolants, and

the many variables that can have an effect on the quality of

brand, such as hide thickness, color or animal, exposure time,

breed (dairy vs. beef) and amount of pressure applied to the

branding irons.

Methods of Freeze Branding

Various freeze branding methods have been reported in the

literature. They include using different types of coolants (dry

ice and alcohol vs liquid nitrogen), methods of clipping (clipped

areas vs non-clipped areas) and lengths of exposure time. Hoover

(1972) published information on three methods of freeze branding:

(1) dry ice and alcohol with area fine clipped, (2) liquid

nitrogen with area coarse clipped and (3) liquid nitrogen on an

unclipped area. See Appendix.

Dixon (1975), in an effort to develop a more reliable freeze

branding method, compared Hoover's three methods with the use of

dry ice and alcohol on a coarse clipped area. In addition, Dixon

used two other treatments on light colored cattle in an attempt

to produce bald brands. Dixon reported that dry ice and alcohol

on a coarse clipped area produced 90-95% readable brands.

Hoover's method of liquid nitrogen on an unclipped area gave

about 85-90% readable brands. Dixon also reported that if bald

brands were the objective, liquid nitrogen would be more feasible

than dry ice and alcohol. Dixon concluded that dry ice and

alcohol resulted in a higher percentage of quality brands and

exposure time was not as critical as with liquid nitrogen.

The following method is that recommended by Dixon (1975):

Materials needed for freeze branding:

1. Set of copper or copper alloy iron designed for freeze

branding. Four inch irons are recommended for older cattle,

3 inch irons for younger animals.

2. Chute for restraining the animals during branding.

3. Coolants Dry ice and alcohol (95% ethyl, methyl, or

isoprophyl) (-800C), or Liquid Nitrogen (-2090C).

4. Container for coolant An ice chest, styrofoam or plastic,

is sufficient for dry ice and alcohol. For liquid nitrogen,

wide mouth containers can be purchased. Also, small styro-

foam chests can be used for liquid nitrogen with the

advantage of cooling more than one iron at a time, however,

loss of coolant due to evaporation will be greater.


5. Clippers with blade to clip fine (83AU-EA 1 SUR) or coarse


6. Gloves and protective glasses for handling coolants.

7. Squeeze bottle of alcohol.

8. Small container of alcohol and cloth for washing brand area

(cut-off plastic bleach jug works fine).

9. Brush.

Preparation of dry ice and alcohol:

1. Pour enough alcohol (95% ethyl, methyl or isoprophyl) into

ice chest to cover the heads of the branding irons.

2. Crush ice into small chunks about marble size.

3. Add about 2 inches of crushed ice (enough to cover the bottom

of the chest).

4. A rapid bubbling will occur until the iron and solution reach

equal temperatures. The irons are ready to use when bubbling

around the irons is the same as the surrounding solution.

5. After branding irons are used and placed back in the solu-

tion, rapid bubbling reoccurs around the warm irons. It will

take a minute or two for them to recover before being used


6. It is necessary to keep adding crushed dry ice to the solu-

tion. The amount used will vary according to atmospheric

temperatures and number of times the irons are used.

7. The dry ice and alcohol solution will absorb moisture from

the atmosphere and dilute the solution. On days of high

humidity it is recommended to strain the alcohol at mid-day

and replace with fresh alcohol. The used alcohol can be

saved in a metal container and after the temperature rises,

it can be used as wash alcohol. It is best to use styrofoam

or plastic ice chests instead of metal chests because more

moisture condenses on the metal sides and dilutes the

solution to a greater degree.

Branding procedure:

1. Restrain animal to be branded.

2. Clip brand site using 83-84 AU blades (coarse clip).

3. Brush area to be branded removing dirt and debris that would

interfere with cold transfer from iron to skin.

4. Wash area with alcohol soaked cloth.

5. Saturate area with alcohol from squeeze bottle immediately

before applying iron. This creates a good conductor for cold


6. Apply irons with firm pressure to assure contact between iron

and skin and hold for 45 seconds.

7. Brands will be legible from freeze branding when white hair

replaces pigmented hair (6 to 8 weeks).


1. Absher, C., F. Thrift and N. Gay. 1980. Beef: Individual

identification of cattle. Florida Beef Production Handbook.


2. Dixon, W. P. 1975. My experience with freeze branding.

Proc. 24th Annu. Beef Cattle Short Course. Univ. of Florida,


3. Hoover, N. W., Jr. 1972. Methods of animal identification.

Front Royal Beef Cattle Field Day Report. USDA and VPISU.

Blacksburg, Virginia.




1. Clip hair from area to be branded as close to skin as

possible (fine clip).

2. Brush clipped area to remove loose hair, dirt, and

dandruff. If skin is dirty, wash with alcohol-soaked


3. Soak the area to be branded with alcohol immediately

before applying irons.

4. Apply iron to brand site. Exert enough pressure to

assure firm contact between the face of the iron and


5. The following times for each of the specified age groups

have resulted in legible brands on dairy and beef cattle.

Age Dairy Beef

seconds seconds

Birth through 1 month 10 15

2 to 3 months 15 20

4 to 8 months 20 25

9 to 18 months 25 30

over 18 months 30 35

6. For white animals, allow an additional 10 to 15 seconds

of exposure. This will destroy the hair and result in a

"bald" or "bare" brand.


1. Clip hair from area to be branded with a coarse clip

blade (83-84AU), thus preventing the removal of most of

the underfur. The remaining hair will prevent excessive

follicular and skin damage to the animal.

2. Other steps are similar to those quoted for dry ice plus

alcohol procedure.

3. The following exposure times for each of the specified

age groups are recommended for liquid nitrogen:

Age Dairy Beef

seconds seconds

Birth through 1 month 5 10

2 to 5 months 7 12

6 to 9 months 10 15

10 to 12 months 12 17

13 to 18 months 15 20

over 18 months 20 25

Time in excess of these will result in bald brands.


1. Thoroughly brush the brand site to remove as much loose

hair, dirt and dandruff as possible.

2. Thoroughly soak area to be branded with enough alcohol to

penetrate the hair and underfur immediately before the

iron is applied. Repeat for each digit.

3. Apply the iron, exerting considerably more pressure than


would be used on a clipped surface, and maintain for the

desired exposure time. The additional pressure is

necessary to assume an efficient transfer of cold through

the hair and underfur.

4. The recommended exposure times by age, based on current

knowledge, are as follows (time exposures for beef under

7 months have not been firmly established):

Age Dairy Beef

seconds seconds

Birth through 1 month *

2 to 3 months 15

4 to 6 months 20 --

7 to 12 months 25 40

13 to 18 months 30 45

*This approach is not recommended for calves through 1

month of age.


Richard P. Cromwell

I. Introduction

Potassium carbonate has historically been used to increase drying rate

when making raisins. It appears to be quite effective in reducing drying

time of alfalfa as well. Research conducted at the University of Florida

and other universities indicate that potassium carbonate applied to alfalfa

in a spray solution can reduce the required drying time in the range of 30-

50%. Alfalfa that normally would require 3-4 days to dry to the 15-18%

moisture level needed for storage might be baled after 1.5 to 2 days.

Until the advent of Florida 77 alfalfa, hay producers in Florida could

not readily grow alfalfa because the varieties developed farther north

would not persist under Florida conditions. Florida 77 has demonstrated

its ability to yield at an economical level for 3 to 4 years. Florida

farmers now have the opportunity to produce a very high quality hay. Pro-

tein levels in the low 20% range are not uncommon for alfalfa hay. How-

ever, getting the large stemmed alfalfa crop dried to a safe storage mois-

ture level (15-18%) will definitely be a problem during the humid summer

months. Applying potassium carbonate to the crop should increase chances

for getting the hay harvested. However, it should be noted that drying

time of treated alfalfa will be about what it takes to dry bermuda grass

hay, and experienced hay producers have had bermuda hay rained on regard-

less of how careful they are to avoid summer showers.

1/ Associate Professor, Agricultural Engineering Department, University
of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611

The ill effects of rain falling on a drying alfalfa crop are far

greater than for bermuda grass. Alfalfa leaves are knocked off by rain;

and, if the crop has to be scattered out of a window with a tedder after a

shower, leaf loss will be very high. Unfortunately, leaves are the high

quality part of the alfalfa plant.

II. Applying the Chemical

Potassium carbonate should be applied at the rate of 5 pounds per ton

of dry hay. Therefore, a field that yields 1.4 tons per acre should have 7

pounds per acre applied. In order to estimate hay yield weigh the amount

of fresh cut material harvested from a 3 feet x 3 feet area, and multiply

the amount in pounds by 0.73. This will give an estimate of the yield in

tons per acre. In order to improve the estimate, harvest the green

material from 3 randomly chosen locations in the field and average the

results. When harvesting the material from the plots, leave a stubble of

at least 3 inches because this is the recommended stubble height for


Example 1: A 3 feet x 3 feet area yields 1.8 pounds of green

alfalfa. What would the hay yield per acre be, and how much

potassium carbonate should be applied per acre?

Hay yield = 0.73 x Green weight from 3'x3' area

= 0.73 x 1.8 = 1.31 tons per acre

Potassium Carbonate to apply = 1.31 x 5 = 6.55 pounds per acre

If sample plots are not harvested to estimate yield, apply 6.0 to 7.0

pounds per acre to an alfalfa field with a reasonably good stand.

Potassium carbonate should be applied in 25 to 30 gallons of spray per

acre to insure good coverage. Care must be taken to apply most of the


spray onto the alfalfa stems rather than the leaves. The major reason for

high harvesting losses in alfalfa hay is that the leaves are over dried by

the time the stems have dried, and the leaves shatter when the hay is

baled. Applying a chemical drying agent to the leaves worsens an already

bad situation. A means for increasing the amount of chemical applied to

the stems is described later in this paper.

III. Equipment for Cutting and Spraying Chemical

Figure 1 shows a mower-conditioner equipped with a sprayer for ap-

plying chemical. The sprayer pump is driven by the conditioner roll

shaft. The sprayer pump begins spraying when the tractor PTO is engaged.

Details about the equipment are given below:

Mower Conditioner: Conditioning alfalfa increases the drying rate more

effectively than it does most grasses. An alfalfa hay producer should

definitely use some type of mower-conditioner.

Spray Tank: One of the- more economical tanks for this system is a 110

gallon poly tank. A tank of this capacity holds enough spray to cut

approximately 4 acres between refills.

Spray Agitator: Potassium carbonate dissolves in water quite easily. The

pressure regulator by-pass flow provides adequate agitation once the chemi-

cal was stirred into solution with a paddle. A jet agitator tapped into

the discharge side of the pump is desirable, but not a necessity.

Spray Pump: A roller pump is the most economical pump. Since the maximum

flow needed to supply the boom is about 2.5 gallons per minute (GPM) When

applying 25 to 30 gallons per acre, the pump should deliver about 6 GPM

when turned at the RPM of the shaft being used to drive it.

The sprayer pump is coupled to the stub end of the lower conditioner

roll shaft in Figure 1. This shaft turns counter-clockwise (CCW) which is


opposite to the direction of most PTO shafts. A roller pump to be mounted

on a CCW rotating shaft should be specified when ordering a pump. Some

roller pumps will operate on a CCW rotating shaft if the pump rotor is

pulled out and reversed. However, pump manufacturers might not observe

warranty commitments for pumps that have had the rotor reversed.

Spray Boom: A dry boom, where the boom serves as the support structure and

the liquid is conveyed through chemically resistant rubber hose, is the

preferred boom type. The hose connects to hose barbs at the nozzle loca-

tions and are secured with the hose clamps. The pressure used for this

application should be in the 20-40 psi range. Hose rated at 100 psi would

allow an ample safety margin and should be relatively inexpensive.

The nozzle arrangements listed below should deliver the approximate

gallons per acre (GPA) if the cutting speed is 3 mph, the pressure is 30

psi, and the nozzles are not worn. These recommendations are given as

"ball park" recommendations. Once the sprayer is nozzled the unit will

have to be calibrated in the field to determine the actual GPA in order to

know how much potassium carbonate to add to the tank.

Spray Nozzles:
pacng Distance of Approximate GPA
Nozzle Spacing boom from the at 30 psi
crop (ft) (3.0 mph)

Spraying Systems D2-13 6 1-2 23
Delavan DC3-13 6 1-2 23

Spraying Systems D3-25 12 1.5-2 27
Delavan DC2-25 12 1.5-2 27

Spraying Systems 8003 18 1.5-2 28
Delavan LF3 18 1.5-2 28

Example 2: A field calibration test showed the sprayer was

delivering 28 gallons per acre. If the tank is normally filled

with 100 gallons of water, how much potassium carbonate should

be added.

Tank Volume (-g)
Acres Sprayed per Tank = T--- Hl-E
Application Rate gal)

100 gal = 3.57 acres
28 gal tank

Assuming that a yield check of the alfalfa dictated 7 pounds of

chemical per acre.

Chemical per tank Acres xPounds
tank acre
= 3.57 x 7 = 25 pounds

Adjustable Push Bar: The push bar is shown mounted on the front of the

mower-conditioner in Figure 1. It is a very important part of the chemical

treating system. This bar lays the alfalfa over so that the spray can be

directed onto the stems. The bar can be a piece of pipe welded at the ends

to a piece of channel that has either enlongated slots or a series of holes

for bolting the push bar to the mower conditioner. The advantage of an

elongated slot is that the bar height can be adjusted more easily.

IV. General Alfalfa Hay Harvesting Tips

1. Leave a stubble height of at least 3 inches to allow for air circula-

tion and reduce the stress on the plant.

2. Windrow the alfalfa when the moisture level is about 35% in order to

reduce leaf loss. When the hay dries to this point, rake into a win-

drow when dew has set and the leaves are more pliable.

3. Harvest the alfalfa between 1/10 bloom (an average of 1 out of 10

plants have flowers) and before the new growth at the base of the stem


is taller than the usual stubble height. When the plant is cut leav-

ing a 3 inch stubble as recommended, the plant should be harvested

before the new growth is taller than 3 inches.
4. Large roll bales of alfalfa do not shed water as well as rolls of

grass hay. Alfalfa rolls should be placed in covered storage to avoid

excessive spoilage.

Figure 1. Schematic of Equipment for Applying Chemical to Hay



D. L. Prichard
Extension Livestock Specialist
NFREC, Quincy


The practice of using broiler litter as a feed for beef
cattle is not new to many Northwest Florida beef producers. Ever
since Florida has been involved in the broiler industry, broiler
litter has been used as a fertilizer source for pastures. Quite
by accident, it was found very early that when litter was stock-
piled in pastures that cattle would consume some of it. Natural-
ly it soon became apparent that cattle seemed to "do well" on
broiler litter and an adequate supply of hay or frosted grass.

This practice has expanded each year. Today beef producers
use deep stacked or ensiled broiler litter to supplement hay,
silage or grain rations for beef cows, replacement heifers and
stocker steers and heifers. In general rations fed would be for:

1. Brood cows:
a. 75% to 80% ensiled litter plus 20% to 25% ground corn
b. 5 to 6 lb of litter plus a full feed of hay or silage

2. Replacement heifers and stockers:
a. 65% ensiled litter plus 35% ground corn
b. 4 to 5 lb of litter, 4 to 5 lb of corn and full feed
of hay or silage.

Some producers use litter as a protein supplement, where others
try to make it a major portion of the ration.

In addition to broiler litter, caged layer waste is fed to
cattle. Both broiler litter and layer waste are high protein
feedstuffs. Non-protein nitrogen comprises over one-half of the
protein equivalent, thus making it a good protein source for
ruminants. Cattle usually require a 2-3 week adaptation period
to obtain maximum utilization of non-protein nitrogen. Average
nutrient composition of broiler litter and layer waste are
presented in Table 1. Analyzing the nutrient content of broiler
litter and layer waste enables cattlemen to more accurately
formulate diets and prevent low performance of cattle.


Broiler Layer
Component litter, % Waste, %

Dry matter 78 (69 to 84)2 65 (50 to 80)2
Composition of Dry Matter
TDN 53 (26 to 55) 40 (20 to 50)
Crude protein 25 (13 to 31) 28 (20 to 40)
Crude fiber 18 (12 to 40) 11 ( 7 to 15)
Ash 25 (12 to 50) 35 (30 to 70)
Calcium 2.1 (1.0 to 3.5) 8.8 (7 to 12)
Phosphorus 1.8 (1.1 to 2.5) 2.5 (1.8 to 3.2)

1Composite of analyses from several sources in Florida.
Average and expected range in composition.

Problems Associated with Feeding Poultry Waste

Numerous research and field trials with broiler litter and
layer waste have demonstrated their nutritional and economic
value. No harmful effects have been observed in cattle fed these
feedstuffs. Scientists and regulatory officials have been con-
cerned about drug residues, pesticides, molds, heavy metals and
pathogenic organisms. Although there is no guarantee these
feedstuffs are free from these and other possible hazards, the
current scientific knowledge indicates that they can be fed
safely if a few safeguards are followed.

Broiler litter should not be fed to lactating dairy cows or
fed to cattle within 14 days of slaughter. It has been demon-
strated that:

1. Pathogens and molds can be eliminated or reduced to safe
levels by mild heat or acid treatment such as deep stacking,
ensiling, or drying.

2. Pesticide residue problems have not been detected, but
care should be given to insure that litter and waste have not
been contaminated. Cattle producers should inquire about pesti-
cides used in the house and avoid sources that may be contamin-

3. Broiler litter may contain drug residues such as cocci-
diostats antibiotics if they are fed to the broilers. Several of
the drugs used in poultry feeds are also approved for cattle.
Drugs are not routinely fed to layers.

4. Toxicities from poultry waste have not been observed in
cattle, but copper toxicity has been reported in sheep. The
minerals in broiler diets are concentrated approximately three
times in caged layer waste.

Other problems associated with using poultry litter include:

1. A lack of uniformity in the litter. This seems to depend
upon the batches of broilers produced on the litter, type of
bedding, method of storing, etc.

2. Many types of foreign materials, such as glass, wire,
metal objects and rocks have been found in litter.

3. Many producers have found that 10% to 15% of the cattle
adjust slowly to a diet containing poultry waste or refuse to

4. All beef producers do not produce broilers or layers and
all broiler and layer producers do not produce cattle.

5. Most Northwest Florida cattle producers have a small herd
of cows. Therefore, they cannot spend money for mechanization.
Feeding must be done by hand.

Producers planning to feed broiler litter or layer waste to
cattle should be aware that unforeseen problems can arise.
Therefore, producers who feed litter must accept the
responsibility of feeding litter.

The potential for feeding poultry waste to cattle in North-
west Florida is great. It is estimated that more than 40,000
tons of poultry waste are produced each year in the Panhandle of
Florida. Therefore, the potential supply of poultry waste could
provide 200,000 head of brood cows and/or stocker cattle with 400
lb of poultry waste per head each year.

Feeding Trial Results

Two trials have been initiated at the Chipley Beef Demon-
stration Unit to evaluate the performance of steers and heifers
either fed a broiler litter based diet or grazed on winter
pasture. Results from the first trial are presented in this
paper. Results from the second trial will be presented during
the field day.

Trial One: Sixty five yearling Angus and Brangus-sired steers
and heifers were stratified by sex and weight to the following
treatments: (1) winter rye-ryegrass pasture; (2) a 60% corn and
40% broiler litter diet; and (3) a 60% broiler litter and 40%
corn diet. Calves were allowed to adapt gradually over a three
week period to the broiler litter diets, starting at 1% of their
body weight. Steer calves were implanted with 36 mg of Ralgro
at the beginning of the trial. Prior to the initial and final
weights, calves were withheld from feed and water for 12 hours.
Replacement heifers were removed from the trial 15 days earlier
than the steers for assignment to breeding herds. Data
accumulated from this trial are summarized in Tables 2 and 3.


Heifers fed the diet containing 40% broiler litter had
comparable average daily gains to those grazed on rye-ryegrass
pasture (1.53 vs 1.61 lb/d). Heifers fed the diet containing 60%
broiler litter gained considerably less (1.08 Ib/d) than heifers
on the other two treatments (Table 2). Steers fed the 60%
broiler litter diet gained comparably to those fed the 40%
broiler litter diet (1.49 vs 1.62 lb/d). Steers grazed on
rye-ryegrass pasture gained significantly more weight (193 vs 146
and 134 lb) and had a higher average daily gain (2.14 vs 1.62 and
1.49 lb/d) than those fed the broiler litter based diets (Table

Calves grazed on rye-ryegrass pasture gained more weight
during the trial than those fed levels of 40% or 60% broiler
litter (177 vs 139 and 118 Ib, respectively). Cost analyses are
presented in table 3. Total cost per 100 lb of gain was
significantly less for calves grazed on rye-ryegrass pasture than
those fed the 40% or 60% broiler litter diets ($49.44 vs $72.48
and $65.74, respectively). Higher costs of gains and lower
weight gains for calves fed the two broiler litter diets compared
to calves grazed on rye-ryegrass pasture were possibly due to
poor litter quality which led to low feed intake.


60% corn 40% corn Rye-ryegrass
40% B. litter 60% B. litter pasture
Item Heifers Steers Heifers Steers Heifers Steers

Number 10 11 9 12 10 13
Days 75 90 75 90 75 90
Weaning weight,
9-21-83 350 360 396 335 344 342
Initial weight,
2-2-84 492 537 533 509 449 516
Gain/hd., lb. 115 146 81 134 136 193
ADG, lb. 1.53 1.62 1.08 1.49 1.61 2.14


60% Corn 40% Corn Rye-ryegrass
Item 40% B. litter 60% B. Litter pasture

Number 21 (15) 21 (14) 23 (16)
Avg. days on feed 85 85 85
Gain/hd., lb. 139 118 177
Acreage/hd --- --- .70
Gr. corn/hd., lb. 956 635 --
B. litter/hdb, lb. 637 944 --
Hay/hd., lb. 371 369 --
Corn cost/hd. $ 77.91 $ 51.75 --
B. litter cost/hd $ 6.37 $ 9.44 --
Hay cost/hd. $ 16.47 $ 16.38 --
Pasture cost/h. --- --- $ 87.50
Total cost/hd. $100.75 $ 77.57 $ 87.50
Total cost/
100 lb. gain $ 72.48 $ 65.74 $ 49.44

aReplacement heifers were removed after 75 days on feed.
Alfalfa hay ($130/ton) was fed for the first three weeks followed by
Coastal bermudagrass hay ($62/ton) the remaining time.
dEstablishment of rye-ryegrass pasture cost $125/acre.
The price of corn was $163/ton and broiler litter $20/ton.


Eddie Wilson
Territory Manager
Snell Systems, Inc.
San Antonio, Texas

The 1970's could well be called the renaissance of the live-
stock industry in the United States. It has been a decade of
technical advancement in an industry long stunted by tradition
and obsolete practices, an industry that once was the least
progressive in all of agriculture.

The 1970's saw the introduction of more than 30 breeds of
beef cattle into a national herd in which only eight predominated
before. The 70's also saw techniques of artificial insemination
perfected and ova transfer become a common practice. In this
same decade, performance testing and performance pedigrees came
into useful maturity and were adapted for use by high speed
computers. The 1970's also saw the introduction of synchronized
estrus, television marketing of cattle and new highly sophisti-
cated management procedures. All this has done much to improve
the profit picture of the livestock industry, once considered a
none too profitable way of life.

One small part of the advanced technology of the 70's is the
Snell Power Fencing SystemTM a completely new concept in
livestock control. The Snell Fence has put efficient cross-
fencing for better livestock and pasture management within the
budget of every livestock operator in the business.

Made possible through the use of space-age electronics, the
Snell System has combined the permanence and rugged dependability
of barbed wire with the ease of handling and construction of
electrical fencing. The cost of labor and construction is less
than one-third of that of barbed wire and it controls livestock
more effectively.

Conceived and developed in the United States by Snell Power
Fencing Systems, Inc. of San Antonio, the Snell System is an
adaptation of fencing utilized for a decade in the rugged outback
country of Australia, where it was "proven in practical use by
livestock producers. Snell engineers developed several improve-
ments in overall construction techniques and adapted the System
to the needs of American ranchers and farmers.

The fence is constructed of special, high tensile, slick wire
heavily galvanized to prevent rust. Line posts and stays are of
either study fiberglass or Ironbark "InsulTimberTM" that can be
driven into rocky ground and are impervious to weather, insects
or deterioration. Snell engineers have designed more effective,
easy to install corner braces and stretch braces that give the

fence more stability and flexibility than a barbed wire fence of
the same length. Construction is easier, faster and cheaper than
comparable barbed wire fences.

The Snell Fence is armed by an electronic barb provided by a
high powered impulse of short duration which comes from a solid-
state Gallagher Energizer developed in New Zealand. A single
energizer, powered by a 110-volt current, can arm up to 30 miles
of fence. The high impulse is not deterred by weeds and grass in
the line and virtually eliminates short outs.

Cost of the fence, labor and materials included, is in most
cases less than $1,000 a mile, as opposed to $2,500 or $3,500 for
barbed wire fences. Once the fence is installed properly, main-
tenance costs are less than barbed or net wire fences.

The Snell Fence in Perspective

For more than 100 years, barbed wire has been the fence
material of choice among ranchers in the United States. In the
beginning, it was inexpensive to construct and offered effective
control of livestock because it was armed with cruel, steel barbs
that gave livestock a healthy respect for it. Despite the fact
that it often caused serious damage to livestock through cuts in
the flesh, infection, screw worm infestation and other problems,
there was little alternative to it as a material for effective
livestock control. Over the years, however, it has become more
and more expensive. Labor costs for constructing has risen
drastically because it is so difficult to handle and often causes
injury to those installing it.

The Snell fence offers the first permanent alternative to
barbed wire. Its construction of high tensile, slick wire
eliminates the need for the double strand in barbed wire and its
electronic barb won't injure the animals it controls, or the men
who install it. This, coupled with the lower cost of labor and
materials, has made it an innovation that is revolutionizing the
livestock industry.

All stockmen realize that cross-fencing is a primary manage-
ment tool that makes possible more effective sorting and grouping
of herds and much more efficient management of forage. Such new
and revolutionary techniques as the Savory Grazing Method can
vastly increase the carrying capacity of pasture lands, but the
employment of barbed or net wire would make the cost of fencing
prohibitive. The use of the Snell Fence lowers the cost to a
point at which such techniques are feasible.

Special Application

In addition to providing excellent boundary and cross-fences
to cattlemen across the U.S., the Snell Fence is particularly

adaptable for use in controlling other types of livestock. Horse
breeders, for example, live in fear of injuries caused by barbed
wire and many of them have gone to much more expensive net wire
fence and even planks. The Snell System offers a perfect alter-
native. The Snell Fence has been tested on horse ranches all
over the country and there is no record of any fence-involved
injuries where it has been used. Horses respect it thoroughly
and even stallions don't challenge it.

Sheep and goat raisers in the Western United States have used
it effectively in controlling their livestock. By building new
power fences or renovating old fences they can control coyotes
and other predators.

In many areas where game management is a big business, Snell
Fences have been used effectively to control and protect deer,
elk and antelope. Snell Game Fences are every bit as effective
as net wire at a fraction of the cost.

Hogs are perhaps the most difficult animals to control in the
livestock industry, yet both domestic and wild hogs are found to
have a healthy respect for the Snell Fence. Here again, control
is every bit as effective as with net wire at much less cost.

Big Country Fencing

The Snell Fence has been used in the United States on ranches
ranging in size from the small stock farm to the vast open range.
And, it's in the big, isolated areas where cost consideration be-
comes the most evident. Even areas too remote for electric ser-
vice can be fenced with Snell Fencing using battery operated
energizers. Snell has also developed a solar generator that will
keep the battery at full charge. The solar powered units are
efficient, provide complete livestock control and are virtually
maintenance free. The solar generator has no moving parts and
some have been in actual use for more than two years without

Snell Fencing has been tested extensively by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service,
Texas A&M University, California State Polytechnic University,
Oklahoma State University, Kansas State University, the U.S. Navy
and the University of Florida.

Although fence construction represents a major investment for
the livestock producer, information on fencing cost is not
readily available. Costs vary widely depending on the type of
fence built, and the terrain to be fenced.

The following are costs analyses of six types of fence con-
struction used by cattlemen in all parts of the U.S. These
figures were taken from a publication entitled: Guide to Fencing
Costs published in 1982 by the University of Georgia Cooperative
Extension Service.


Type 1 Fence: Wood Posts

Posts spaced 10' with woven wire and two strands of barbed wire


16 rolls 39" woven wire @ $81.50
8 rolls barbed wire @ $36.95
480 (6 1/2') posts @ $2.25
36 (8) brace posts @ $5.60
19 (6 1/2') braces @ $2.25


Driving 480 posts (43.2 hours @ $3.36)
17 braces, installing & tying (30 hours @ $3.36)
Stringing & attaching woven wire (66.6 hours @ $3.36)
Stringing & attaching barbed wire, 2 strands
(18.4 hours @ $3.36)



674 tractor, driving posts (21 hours @ $6.50)
Shaver post driver (21 hours @ $0.50)







$ 531.55

$ 136.50

$ 147.00

$ 3,602.50


Posts spaced 10' with four strands of barbed wire spaced 10"


16 rolls barbed wire @ $36.95
504 (6') metal posts @ $2.49
20 (8') posts 2 $5.60
11 (6 1/2') braces @ $2.25

$ 591.20

$ 1,977.87



Driving 504 posts (45 hours @ $3.36) $ 151.20
9 braces, driving & attaching (16 hours @ $3.36) 53.76
Stringing & attaching wire, 4 strands (44 hours @ $3.36) 147.84



674 tractor, driving brace posts (5.3 hours @ $6.50)
Shaver post driver (5.3 hours @ $0.50)



$ 352.80

$ 34.45

$ 37.10



Posts spaced 20' with one 48" wire stay, five strands of barbed
wire spaced 10"


20 rolls barbed wire @ $36.95 $ 739.00
256 (6 1/2') posts @ $2.25 576.00
248 (4') tays @ $0.30 74.40
20 (8') brace posts @ $5.60 112.00
11 (6 1/2') braces @ $2.25 24.75



Driving 256 posts (23 hours @ $3.36) $ 77.28
9 braces, driving & attaching (16 hours @ $3.36) 53.76
Stringing & attaching wire, 5 strands (23 hours @ $3.36) 77.28
Installing 248 stays (9.1 hours @ $3.36) 30.58

TOTAL LABOR $ 238.90


674 tractor, driving posts (14.4 hours @ $6.50) $ 93.60
Shaver post driver (14.4 hours @ $0.50) 7.20




Posts spaced 75' with four strands of smooth wire spaced 10"


Energizer, maximum power, 10 mile capacity* $ 29.90
8 wire strainers @ $3.10 24.80
5.3 rolls 12 1/2 ga. smooth wire @ $71.00 376.30
4 (8') brace posts @ $5.60 22.40
2 (6 1/2') braces @ $2.25 4.50
62 (6') fiberglass posts @ $3.45 213.90
248 clips @ $0.03 7.74



Driving 62 fiberglass posts (1.5 hours @ $3.36) $ 5.04
2 braces, driving & attaching (3.5 hours @ $3.36) 11.76
Stringing & attaching wire, 4 strands (18 hours @ $3.36) 60.48



674 tractor, driving brace posts (2.7 hours @ $6.50) 17.55
Shaver post driver (2.7 hours @ $0.50) 1.35



*Pro-rated over 10 mile fence


Suspension fence, posts spaced 50' with four 48" wire stays, five
strands of barbed wire spaced 10"


20 rolls barbed wire @ $36.95
90 (6 1/2') posts @ $2.25
414 (4') stays @ $0.30
20 (8') brace posts @ $5.60
11 (6 1/2') braces @ $2.25

$ 739.00


$ 1,202.45


Driving 90 posts (8.1 hours @ $3.36)
9 braces, driving & attaching (16 hours @ $3.36)
Installing 414 stays (15.2 hours @ $3.36)
Stringing & attaching wire, 5 strands (10 hours @ $3.36)

$ 27.22



674 tractor, driving brace posts (9.4 hours @ $6.50)
Shaver post driver (9.4 hours @ $0.50)



$ 165.65

$ 61.10

$ 65.80

$ 1,433.90


Suspension fence, posts spaced 60' with three treated hardwood
droppers, six strands of high tensile smooth wire spaced 8"


8 rolls HT smooth galvanized wire @ $73.00
6 wire strainers @ $3.10
264 droppers @ $1.40
88 (6 1/2') posts @ $2.25
4 (8') brace posts @ $5.60
2 (6 1/2') braces @ $2.25


$ 584.00

$ 1,197.10


Driving 88 post (8 hours @ $3.36)
Stringing & attaching wire, 6 strands (52 hours @ $3.36)
2 brace assemblies (3.5 hours @ $3.36)
Attach droppers (11 hours @ $3.36)

$ 26.88



Tractor (8 hours @ $6.50)
Post driver (8 hours @ $0.50)



$ 250.32

$ 56.00

$ 60.00

$ 1,503.42










Evaluate bulls for

Evaluate bulls for
breeding soundness

Calves born

Jan. 20 March 20

(60 days)

April 15 June 15

(60 days)

Replacement Heifers:
Vibrio Lepto
Deworm, as needed
1) Herd bulls and

post calving cows:
Vibrio Lepto
Deworm, as needed

2) Insert insecticide
ear tags first week
of April

3) Check cow herd for
repeat breeders

4 4 1

1) Remove herd bulls
June 15

2) Check for pinkeye
and foot rot and
treat as needed

Insert insecticide ear
tags first week of

1) Weigh and ear tag
new calves daily

2) Check for calving
difficulty; retained
placentas, etc.

3) Check calves daily;
treat for scours,
as needed

Implant steer calves

Continue to check for
and treat sick claves

Heifers ST 19
Deworm, as needed

Implant steer calves


Wean and 1) Preg check cull Grub and louse control
open cows and poor
SEPTEMBER producers
grade calves 2) Grub & louse control


1) Purchase needed
herd sires
NOVEMBER 2) Buy only above av-
erage performance
tested bulls
DECEMBER Select Vaccinate cows with E. 1) Deworm calves
Replacement Coli Bacterin for pre- 2) Implant all calves
Heifers vention of calf scours except repl. heifers




Weigh and ear tag new calves daily; castrate and dehorn as
soon as possible; check calves daily and treat for scours
as needed.
Check cows twice daily for calving difficulties; check for
retained placentas and prolapsed uteruses and treat as
Continue supplemental feeding of breeding herd; increase
amount of feed and protein supplement in proportion to the
number of calves born.
Keep first calf heifers separated from cow herd and pro-
vide them with the best winter feed or rotate them on and
off of small grain pastures.
Check mineral and salt feeders daily; watch for grass
tetany on winter pastures; feed high magnesium mineral.
Supplement cattle on winter pastures if cold weather
limits pasture growth.
Make up breeding herd lists.
Examine bulls for breeding soundness and semen quality
prior to breeding season.
Provide quality winter feed for herd bulls to condition
them for the breeding season.
Begin grazing winter clover pastures when clover is ap-
proximately six to eight inches high.
Vaccinate (first week in January) all pregnant females
with second injection of E. coli bacterin for prevention
of calf scours.
Follow CBDU Herd Health Calendar.


Continue with January management practices.
Apply nitrogen to winter pastures.
Plan forage program for coming year.
Check mineral and salt feeders daily; watch for grass
tetany on winter pastures; feed high magnesium mineral.
Repair facilities and machinery when time permits.
Follow CBDU Herd Health Calendar.


Continue with January and February management procedures.
Prepare land for summer crops where possible.
Check for insect damage on alfalfa; cut for hay when
Check mineral and salt feeders daily; watch for grass
tetany on winter pastures; feed high magnesium mineral.
Repair facilities and machinery when time permits.
Follow CBDU Herd Health Calendar.


Begin breeding season, put bulls in with cows about April
Plant warm season annual pastures where and when possible.
Observe cows for repeat breeders; rotate bulls if neces-
Check mineral and salt feeders daily.
Begin grazing warm season permanent pastures.
Harvest hay from winter annual crops and/or alfalfa.
Cut rye-ryegrass pasture for hay in flower stage and
follow with millet.
Cut alfalfa at 25% bloom stage and fertilize with 250 lbs
of 0-10-20 plus 1 lb of boron/acre.
Cull cows that have not calved or that have lost their
Follow CBDU Herd Health Calendar.


Graze small grain pastures as long as possible.
Fertilize warm season pastures with 400# 13-13-13 per
Check mineral and salt feeders daily.
Prepare land for summer millet and forage sorghum.
Continue close management of alfalfa.
Follow CBDU Herd Health Calendar.


Remove herd bulls about June 15.
Continue with May management procedures.
Control weeds in summer pasture.
Plant summer millet and forage sorghum.
Continue alfalfa management.
Follow CBDU Herd Health Calendar.


Graze millet when sufficient growth has taken place;
rotationally graze to avoid overgrazing.
Check pastures for armyworms and mole crickets and treat
if necessary.
Control weeds in summer pasture.
Check mineral and salt feeders daily.
Apply nitrogen to warm season pastures.
Continue alfalfa management.
Follow CBDU Herd Health Calendar.


Continue July management practices.
Cut excess perennial summer pasture for hay.
Make plans for winter annual forages.

August (Continued)

Prepare alfalfa plots for fall grazing of weaned calves.
Rotationally graze millet to avoid overgrazing.
Control and spray for weeds in summer pastures.
Apply nitrogen to warm season pastures.
Check mineral and salt feeders daily.
Follow CBDU Herd Health Calendar.


Continue to cut hay for winter feed.
Cut forage sorghum for silage.
Wean and grade calves; pregnancy test cows.
Send open and cull cows and calves to the market.
Let cow herd clean up millet and forage sorghum crop
Assign weaned calves to alfalfa plots and other feeding
Start land preparation for small grain plantings.
Check mineral and salt feeders daily.
Vaccinate heifers for brucellosis.
Deworm fall weaned calves and cow herd if necessary.
Review winter feed supplies and feeding plans so that
needed adjustments can be made before supplies tighten and
prices rise.
Follow CBDU Herd Health Calendar.


Continue to graze cow herd on crop and summer pasture
residues; start feeding silage and protein supplement when
pastures become inadequate.
Plant small grain pastures when moisture is adequate.
Mow weeds in permanent pastures.
Continue to monitor alfalfa and other feeding programs for
weaned calves.
Check mineral and salt feeders daily.
Repair handling facilities and equipment and keep them in
good working order.
Follow CBDU Herd Health Calendar.


Maintain adequate nutrition level for cow herd; monitor
condition of cows closely.
Continue to monitor alfalfa and other feeding programs for
weaned calves.
Check mineral and salt feeders daily; use a high level of
magnesium in mineral.
Have soils tested; apply fertilizer (especially N) to
small grain pastures.
Re-evaluate winter feeding plans and feed supplies.

November (Continued)

Purchase new herd bulls if needed.
Follow CBDU Herd Health Calendar.


Monitor condition of cows closely, maintain an adequate
level of nutrition for cow herd; begin supplemental feed-
ing if necessary.
Continue feeding trials for weaned calves; begin grazing
small grain pastures (if ready).
Prepare for calving season; separate first calf heifers
from main cow herd for feeding and observational purposes.
Check cattle for internal and external parasites and treat
if needed.
Vaccinate all pregnant females with first injection of E.
coli bacterin for prevention of calf scours.
Reimplant all calves except replacement heifers that are
on feeding trials.
Repair equipment for spring plantings; maintain buildings
and fences.
Check mineral and salt feeders; use a high level of mag-
nesium in mineral.
Freeze brand all replacement heifers.
Follow CBDU Herd Health Calendar.

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