<%BANNER%>

Effects of feeding citrus pulp supplements on the performance of growing beef cattle

University of Florida Institutional Repository

PAGE 1

EFFECTS OF FEEDING CITRUS PULP SUPPLEMENTS ON THE PERFORMANCE OF GROWING BEEF CATTLE By DEKE O. ALKIRE A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2003

PAGE 2

Copyright 2003 by Deke O. Alkire

PAGE 3

Dedicated to Dr. William E. Kunkle.

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Most of all I would like to thank Dr. Bill Kunkle for his guidance and support. He is greatly missed. I would like to thank all of my committee members for their continued support throughout my program. I would like to thank Dr. Tim Marshall for assistance in pursuing my teaching endeavors and with the practical insight that he adds to every conversation. I would like to thank Dr. Adegbola Adesogan for his knowledge in ruminant nutrition and assistance with my research whenever I needed it. Special thanks go to Dr. Jim Dyer for assistance in the area of agricultural education, and my continued pursuit of becoming a better instructor. To Dr. Mary Beth Hall, I owe many thanks for her support and extensive understanding of SAS, ruminant nutrition, and citrus pulp. I would like to thank Dr. Todd Thrift for his constant motivation and support as a friend and professor. His guidance, attitude, and infinite supply of knowledge have allowed me to grow substantially as a person. Sincere appreciation is extended to John Funk and Richard Fethiere for their assistance in laboratory procedures and/or analysis. Also, I would like to thank Jerry Wasdin, Paul Dixon, Joe Jones, Brian Faircloth, and Chad Gainey for assistance with animal feeding and handling. I would like to thank all of the faculty and my fellow graduate students at the University of Florida. I owe a special thanks to Nathan and Wimberley Krueger, Christy Bratcher, Brad Austin, Lawton and Beth Stewart, Elizabeth Johnson, Chad Slim Gainey, and, most of all, Davin Harms for their friendship, encouragement, and ability to take my mind off of school. I also extend appreciation to iv

PAGE 5

Eleanor Green for her love and support throughout my stay in Florida. Last, but not least, I extend love and gratitude to my family for their constant support, occasional motivation, and continual encouragement in all of my adventures. v

PAGE 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................................viii LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................ix ABSTRACT.........................................................................................................................x CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE.......................................................................................3 Supplementation of Forage Based Diets.......................................................................3 Factors Affecting the Need for Supplementation..................................................4 Supplementation Strategies...................................................................................5 Protein Supplementation.......................................................................................6 DIP supplementation......................................................................................7 UIP supplementation....................................................................................10 Energy Supplementation.....................................................................................13 Supplementation with Citrus Pulp..............................................................................17 Citrus Pulp Processing.........................................................................................17 Chemical Composition........................................................................................18 Effects of Citrus Pulp Supplements on Cattle Performance................................20 Preconditioning of Weaned Cattle..............................................................................21 3 EFFECTS OF FEEDING CITRUS PULP OR CORN SUPPLEMENTS WITH INCREASING LEVELS OF ADDED UNDEGRADED INTAKE PROTEIN ON THE PERFORMANCE OF GROWING CATTLE...................................................26 Introduction.................................................................................................................26 Materials and Methods...............................................................................................27 Animals................................................................................................................27 Diets.....................................................................................................................27 Feeding Procedure and Sampling........................................................................28 Measurements......................................................................................................28 Laboratory Analysis............................................................................................29 vi

PAGE 7

Statistical Procedures...........................................................................................29 Results and Discussion...............................................................................................29 Diets.....................................................................................................................29 Animal Response.................................................................................................30 Implications.........................................................................................................33 4 EFFECTS OF FEEDING CITRUS PULP SUPPLEMENTS ON THE PERFORMANCE OF CALVES IN A PRECONDITIONING PROGRAM.............39 Introduction.................................................................................................................39 Materials and Methods...............................................................................................40 Statistical Procedures..................................................................................................41 Results and Discussion...............................................................................................42 Diets.....................................................................................................................42 Animal Response.................................................................................................43 Economic Evaluation...........................................................................................44 Implications.........................................................................................................45 5 CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................55 APPENDIX A SUPPLEMENTAL CHAPTER 3 TABLES AND FIGURES....................................56 B SUPPLEMENTAL CHAPTER 4 TABLES AND FIGURES....................................62 LITERATURE CITED......................................................................................................66 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.............................................................................................74 vii

PAGE 8

LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1. A comparison of the chemical composition of citrus pulp from different sources......................................................................................................................19 3-1. Composition of supplements fed to growing cattle..................................................34 3-2. Feeding rate and nutrient composition of bahia grass hay and supplements fed to growing cattle.......................................................................................................35 3-3. Total average daily gain by period for growing calves fed corn or citrus pulp supplements with increasing levels of UIP..............................................................36 3-4. Total intake, crude protein intake, and digestible organic matter intake of supplement and hay (SE) for growing calves supplemented with corn or citrus pulp with increasing levels of UIP...........................................................................37 3-5. Body condition score (1-9 scale SE) by period for growing calves fed citrus pulp supplements with increasing levels of UIP......................................................38 4-1. Feeding rate, formulation, and nutrient composition of pasture and supplements fed to preconditioned calves.....................................................................................47 4-2. Pasture Quality ( SE) by week for preconditioned calves fed citrus pulp supplements..............................................................................................................48 4-3. Peconditioning costs.................................................................................................49 4-4. Preconditioning profits.............................................................................................50 viii

PAGE 9

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 4-1. Crude protein (CP) of pasture for preconditioned calves fed citrus pulp supplements by week...............................................................................................51 4-2. Total average daily gain (ADG) of preconditioned calves fed citrus pulp supplements by treatment.........................................................................................52 4-3. Average daily gain (ADG) of preconditioned calves fed citrus pulp supplements by week...............................................................................................53 4-4. Effect of Bos indicus breeding on total average daily gain of preconditioned calves........................................................................................................................54 ix

PAGE 10

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science EFFECTS OF FEEDING CITRUS PULP SUPPLEMENTS ON THE PERFORMANCE OF GROWING BEEF CATTLE By Deke O. Alkire August, 2003 Chair: Todd A. Thrift Major Department: Animal Sciences In the first trial, fifty individually fed Angus x Brahman crossbred steers and heifers (250 kg initial BW) were utilized to evaluate the effects of citrus pulp or corn supplementation with varying levels of bypass protein on performance. Calves were stratified by weight, sex, and breed type and randomly assigned to treatment. Treatments consisted of corn or citrus pulp supplements with added bypass protein (SoyPLUS). Five levels of bypass protein were evaluated including 0, 0.055, 0.11, 0.165, and 0.22 kg per head per day. These levels were utilized for both corn and citrus pulp supplements for a total of ten isonitrogenous and isoenergetic treatments. All calves were offered a basal diet of low quality bahia grass hay (ad libitum) and fed the assigned supplement once a day. Hay and supplement were individually fed for 84 days using Calan gates. Average daily gain (ADG) and body condition score (1-9 scale) were evaluated every twenty-eight days. Average daily gain increased linearly (P=0.001) as level of supplemented bypass protein increased, with the highest level producing 0.393 kg more ADG than the lowest x

PAGE 11

level. Type of supplementation had a significant effect (P < 0.001) on total hay dry matter intake. Calves supplemented with corn consumed 0.7 kg more hay per animal per day than those supplemented with citrus pulp. Increasing levels of bypass protein caused a significant decrease in hay intake (P < 0.01). Body condition score was not affected by type of supplementation or inclusion level of bypass protein. Adding bypass protein to corn and citrus pulp supplements fed to growing cattle increased gain. In trial two, one hundred fifty Angus x Brahman crossbred calves (69 steers and 83 heifers) averaging 241 kg body weights were utilized in a 42 day preconditioning program. These calves were stratified by weight, sex, and breed type then randomly assigned to one of four supplemental treatments. Treatments consisted of control (CONTROL; no supplement), citrus pulp (CITR), citrus pulp with 0.22 kg of added UIP (CITR+UIP), or citrus pulp with added urea (CITR+UREA). Te CITR+UREA treatment was formulated to be isonitrogenous to the CITR+UIP treatment. Supplemented calves had higher 42 d. ADG than unsupplemented calves (P < 0.01). There was a treatment effect (P < 0.01) on 42 d. ADG as well (Figure 4-1). The CITR+UIP treatment produced the greatest 42 d. ADG (0.43 kg), while CITR and CIRT+UREA had an intermediate 42 d. ADG (0.33 and 0.24 kg respectively). Animals on the control treatment had the lowest 42 d. ADG (0.14kg). Animal sex tended (P = 0.09) to have an effect on 42 d. ADG. Animal breed type also tended (P = 0.06) to have an effect on 42 d. ADG. An economic evaluation of the treatments showed that the most profitable treatment was CITR+UIP and the least profitable was CITR+UREA. xi

PAGE 12

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Forages contribute the majority of nutrients the diet of most beef cattle. Many times forages are inadequate at meeting the requirements of cattle, especially growing cattle. Many Florida forages commonly used for summer grazing and hay can be a poor source of energy and protein, depending on the species, age, and season. This results in the need for supplementation. Citrus pulp is a readily available, energy concentrate byproduct feedstuff that is an economical supplement for Florida cattlemen. Extensive research evaluating citrus pulp as a supplement for cattle was conducted in the 1950s and 1960s. These studies have shown that citrus pulp is readily consumed by cattle and can produce similar gains to corn products (Scott, 1926; Chapman et al., 1961; Ammerman et al., 1963). Citrus pulp is a good energy supplement, but is low in protein. Therefore, additional protein may increase animal performance or improve utilization of citrus pulp supplements, resulting in a more economical supplement for growing cattle. Depending on the physiological state of the animal, forage quality and intake, microbial protein can provide adequate CP to meet the requirements of cattle (NRC, 1996). However, some animals, such as growing and lactating cattle, have an increased protein requirement that may not be sufficiently met by microbial protein (Paterson et al., 1996; Nelson, 1997). In these instances, providing additional undegraded intake protein (UIP) may result in an increase in performance. The objective of this research was to 1

PAGE 13

2 determine the effects of feeding citrus pulp based supplements with added undegraded intake protein (UIP) on the performance of growing cattle.

PAGE 14

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Supplementation of Forage Based Diets Forages dominate the diet of ruminants throughout their life cycle with the exception of young suckling calves and feedlot animals. Thus, cattle producers rely heavily on pasture and range to keep cost of production low. In Florida, the tropical perennial grasses used for pasture often do not have adequate nutrient composition to fulfill the requirements of cattle or are of such low quality that cattle can not consume enough to meet their nutritional needs (Moore et al., 1991). As nutrient composition and availability of forages change seasonally, the nutritional needs of beef cattle change as well (Sollenberger and Chambliss, 1991). Ultimately, the nutritional requirements of cattle will exceed what is available from most forages at some point during the year. Many factors affect the nutritional needs of cattle including: physiological state, activity, desired rate of gain, body size, age, sex, and environmental conditions (NRC, 1996). In order to maintain desired production levels, supplementation of forage based diets is sometimes necessary. Supplements may be provided to cattle for several reasons. These include correcting nutrient deficiencies, controlling forage intake and utilization, improving animal performance, and increasing profit (Kunkle et al., 2000). Regardless of why supplements are provided, economic viability should determine the supplementation strategy (DelCurto et al., 2000). 3

PAGE 15

4 Factors Affecting the Need for Supplementation Seasonal differences in forage quality are a major factor affecting cattle production. Inherently, forages are highly variable in quality due to: differences in species, stage of maturity, soils, fertilization, and climate (Pond et al., 1995). The tropical and sub-tropical perennial pastures common to Florida peak in quality in spring and decrease from mid-summer through fall creating a deficiency in available nutrients from August through March (Sollenberger and Chambliss, 1991). In 1991, Moore et al. quantified Florida forages by evaluating 637 samples from throughout the state. The authors reported that most samples contained between 5 and 7 percent CP and 48 to 51 percent TDN. The authors also noted that most samples other than bermudagrass were deficient in CP for performance above maintenance. Forage quantity is another factor affecting cattle production. Forage quantity is highly variable depending on species, stage of maturity, soil, fertilization, stocking rate, and climate (Ball et al., 1996). Most perennial Florida forages are warm season grasses which are limited in quantity during the cool months of the year. This usually includes the months of November through April for north Florida and January through March for south Florida depending on species (Sollenberger and Chambliss, 1991). The amount of available forage is compounded by decreased rainfall typical during the period from April to early June (Chambliss et al., 1998; Sollenberger and Chambliss, 1991). Forage quality and quantity deficiencies both contribute to cattle receiving an inadequate supply of nutrients resulting in the need for supplementation. Nutrient requirements of cattle also affect the need for supplementation. Many factors affect the nutritional needs of cattle including: physiological state, activity, desired rate of gain, body size, age, sex, and environmental conditions (NRC, 1996).

PAGE 16

5 These factors are constantly changing and animals need to be monitored. Evaluating body condition score (BCS) is a reliable way to evaluate the nutritional status of mature cattle and should be considered when designing supplement programs (Kunkle et al., 1994). The nutritional requirements of growing cattle are affected by the same factors but are typically determined by breed, weight, and desired rate of gain (NRC, 1996). Supplementation Strategies Mineral supplementation is very important for cattle. Adequate levels of many of the essential minerals are provided by most feedstuffs (National Research Council [NRC], 1996). However, some minerals are insufficient and can vary drastically according to geographical location and feedstuffs utilized. In many cases, mineral deficiencies are borderline and animals may not show specific symptoms other than decreased performance. Phosphorous, sodium, copper, cobalt, and selenium deficiencies have affected cattle throughout Florida. Providing a free choice, complete mineral supplement is recommended to prevent deficiencies (Kunkle, 2001; Kunkle et al., 2002). Hay is probably the second most utilized supplement in the cattle industry. Many producers feed hay as a roughage source to offset low forage availability. In Florida, hay is generally harvested in late summer when quantity is high, but quality is declining (Brown and Kunkle, 1992). According to the results from the University of Florida Extension Forage Testing Program, the average CP and TDN concentration of Florida-grown hay is 7 and 43 percent respectively (Brown et al., 1990). This would suggest that some form of supplementation is needed other than hay, depending on the desired production level.

PAGE 17

6 Protein Supplementation Supplementation of forage based diets with protein is a common practice of cattle producers. Much research has been conducted to determine the protein requirements of beef cattle over the past 50 years. These studies indicate that providing an additional source of protein increases gain (Clanton and Zimmerman, 1970; Bodine and Purvis, 2003), dry matter intake and digestibility (Kartchner, 1981; Kster et al., 1996; Bodine and Purvis, 2003), as well as reproductive performance (Sasser et al., 1988; Wiley et al., 1991). Since 1985, the NRC has suggested using absorbed protein from both undegraded intake protein (UIP) and microbial protein as a means of expressing the protein requirements of ruminants. This approach, also known as the metabolizable protein (MP) system, separates the requirements of the rumen microorganisms from the requirements of the animal. This allows for more accurate prediction of animal response to supplementation by estimating protein degradation in the rumen. Because many protein supplements contain both degraded intake protein (DIP) and UIP, previous supplementation research has produced variable responses. This has led to the use of highly degradable or undegradable sources of protein in an attempt to differentiate the effects of each. Some commonly used sources of DIP include: urea, biuret, dried poultry waste/litter, corn steep liquor, and sodium caseinate. Bloodmeal, corn gluten meal, and various treated soybean meals are typically used as sources of UIP. If the levels of DIP and UIP in feedstuffs and forages are quantified, supplements can be designed to better meet the requirements of the animal. It is important to note that supplements should be tailored to each situation and formulated based on animal requirements, desired rate of gain, as well as forage quality and quantity.

PAGE 18

7 DIP supplementation Studies evaluating the effects of supplemental DIP have not been conclusive. Many authors suggest that the DIP fraction of protein supplements is responsible for increasing intake and digestion of low quality forages (Kster et al., 1996; Olson et al., 1999; Mathis et al., 2000; Bandyk et al., 2001). It has been suggested that the increase in forage intake and digestibility seen with protein supplementation is often due to increased passage rate, ruminal fill factors, or both (McCollum and Horn, 1990; Paterson et al., 1996). These effects seem more pronounced when supplementing cattle fed a basal diet of low quality forage. This is probably due to a lack of adequate ruminal nitrogen resulting in less than optimal microbial protein synthesis (Bohnert et al., 2002). Research has shown that forage crude protein has to drop to a level of 7 percent (range of 6 to 8 percent) before supplementation shows a marked effect on intake and digestibility. Therefore this has been considered the threshold for a response to protein supplementation (McCollum and Horn, 1990; Mathis et al., 2000). Research trials have been conducted to evaluate the effects of increasing levels of DIP utilizing sodium caseinate as the source of DIP. Kster et al. (1996) utilized mature, non-pregnant, ruminally fistulated cows to evaluate five levels (0, 180, 360, 540, and 720 g per day) of supplemental DIP. Cows were offered low quality, tallgrass-prairie forage (1.9 % CP, 77 % NDF) ad libitum. Sodium caseinate was infused intraruminally just prior to feeding the forage. Forage intake was maximized at the 540 g/d level, and true ruminal OM digestibility was highest at the 180 g/d level. They concluded that DIP supplementation at 11 percent of total digestible organic matter (.09 % BW) would maximize intake and increase digestibility of low quality tallgrass prairie forage. In a similar study, Olsen et al. (1999) supplemented Hereford x Angus steers with increasing

PAGE 19

8 levels of sodium caseinate (.03, .06, .09, and .12 % of initial BW). All steers had ad libitum access to low quality hay (4.9 % CP) with intraruminal infusion of DIP just prior to feeding. Forage intake and digestibility increased linearly as the level of DIP increased. It was also noted that intake was highest when DIP was supplemented at the highest level offered (.12 % BW; 11.6 % of dry matter intake). Research by Hollingsworth-Jenkins et al. (1996) utilized corn steep liquor as a source of supplemental DIP. Gestating beef cows grazing native range (4.8 % average CP) were used to evaluate the effects of four levels (50, 75, 100, and 125 % of estimated DIP requirement) of supplemental DIP. The authors observed no change in ADG, body condition, or forage intake. However, digestibility increased linearly as level of supplemental DIP increased. They concluded that the lowest level of supplemental DIP (170 g/d) was adequate at meeting the needs of the rumen microorganisms. Source of DIP can have a significant impact on its utilization. Several studies have concluded that non protein nitrogen (NPN) does not perform as well as other sources of DIP. This has been attributed to the inefficient utilization of NPN as a result of asynchronous availability of energy and nitrogen in the rumen (McCollum and Horn, 1990). In 1978, Clanton conducted six experiments to compare the effects of urea and biuret to natural protein sources (soybean meal and alfalfa hay) fed to growing calves on native range. Across all experiments, gains were either lower or indifferent as level of NPN increased. However, average daily gains were higher (0.04 kg) for the natural protein supplements compared to NPN supplements. In more recent work, Jordan et al. (2002) compared urea and dried poultry waste to a natural protein source. Cows grazing dormant native Sandhills winter range (6.8 % CP) were supplemented with urea, dried

PAGE 20

9 poultry waste, soybean meal, or a combination of either dried poultry waste or soybean meal and urea. Cows consuming natural protein supplements had higher ADG than those supplemented with urea whereas cows consuming dried poultry waste had similar gains to those consuming soybean meal. There was no difference in forage organic matter intake across all treatments. The authors concluded that natural protein and dried poultry waste may have a slower rate of nitrogen release compared to urea. This would complement the rate of digestion of low quality forage and thus increase microbial crude protein synthesis. Also, dried poultry waste may contain natural protein from wasted feed. In a study by Kster and others (1997), Angus x Hereford steers were used to compare increasing levels of urea to sodium caseinate. Steers had ad libitum access to low quality, tallgrass prairie (2.4 % CP, 76% NDF) and were supplemented with 100 percent of their DIP requirement daily. Supplements were formulated to provide 0, 25, 50, or 100 percent of DIP in the form of urea with the remainder being sodium caseinate. Forage organic matter intake was similar across all treatments but digestible organic matter intake decreased linearly as the level of urea increased. The authors concluded that low levels of urea can be used as a source of DIP in protein supplements without negative effects on intake of low quality forage. It has been shown that supplementation of DIP can increase the performance of growing calves, as well as mature cows grazing low quality forages. It has been speculated that supplemental DIP may increase the efficiency of microbial protein synthesis resulting in better performance. A review of the literature would suggest that growing animals seem to have a higher DIP requirement than mature cows. Olsen et al. (1999) found that supplementing DIP at 0.12 percent of body weight would maximize the

PAGE 21

10 intake of growing animals. This is higher than the findings of Kster et al. (1996) where 0.09 percent of body weight was sufficient at maximizing the intake of mature non-pregnant cows. In contrast, Hollingsworth-Jenkins et al. (1996) found that DIP supplementation had no effect on the intake or performance of gestating beef cows. It is unclear if the increased level of DIP required to maximize intake is due to forage properties or a higher requirement of growing animals. Furthermore, source of DIP can have a significant impact on its utilization. Several studies have concluded that NPN does not perform as well as other sources of DIP. Many authors agree that NPN may be used at low levels, but natural protein sources typically yield better performance. More research is needed to accurately define the DIP requirements of growing and mature cattle. UIP supplementation Microbial protein can provide adequate CP to meet the requirements of cattle (NRC, 1996), depending on the physiological state of the animal, as well as forage quality and intake. However, some animals, such as growing and lactating cattle, have an increased protein requirement that may not be sufficiently met by microbial protein (Paterson et al., 1996; Nelson, 1997). In this case, UIP supplementation can result in an increase in performance due to increased protein reaching the small intestine. Many authors agree that UIP supplementation is only beneficial if DIP levels are adequate relative to requirement (Klopfenstein, 1996; Paterson et al., 1996). Several trials have looked at the effects of UIP supplementation on growing cattle. Anderson et al. (1988) conducted research to evaluate the effects of supplemental UIP on the performance of crossbred yearling steers (277 kg initial BW) grazing smooth brome pasture (10.4 % CP). Bloodmeal and corn gluten meal were used to provide

PAGE 22

11 increasing levels (0, .11, .23, and .34 kg per head per day) of supplemental UIP, replacing corn starch, which was used as a negative control. Analysis of the forage indicated that DIP was sufficient to meet the microbial needs. Results showed a linear increase in performance as the level of supplemental UIP increased. ADG was maximized (1.06 kg per day) at the 0.23 kg level of supplemental UIP. Karges et al. found similar results in 1992. These authors utilized 326 kg steers grazing native range (9.4 % CP), to look at the effects of increasing levels of DIP and UIP supplementation as well as a combination of both. No response was seen with increasing DIP supplementation. However, they noted a linear increase in gain when steers were supplemented with UIP in addition to adequate DIP. The authors concluded that microbial protein synthesis was insufficient at meeting the metabolizable protein needs of the animals when DIP was supplied at adequate levels. Therefore an increase in ADG would be noted by supplying a source of UIP. Warm season grasses generally have a higher level of UIP compared to cool season grasses (Klopfenstein, 1996; Paterson et al., 1996). This would suggest a decreased response to UIP supplementation. However, Ramos et al. (1997) supplemented growing crossbred steers (211 kg initial BW) grazing Stargrass pasture (6.9 % CP) and found that UIP was still limiting. Supplements were either bloodmeal (75 % UIP), coconut meal, (38 % UIP) or soybean meal (35% UIP) and were fed at increasing levels (50 or 100 percent of total supplemental CP) replacing urea. Animals were allowed ad libitum access to Stargrass pasture and all supplements were fed at 2 kg per head per day. Results showed a linear increase in ADG as the level of UIP increased in the bloodmeal and coconut meal diets but no response was noted for the animals supplemented with

PAGE 23

12 soybean meal. The authors attributed the lack of response to soybean meal to its extensive protein degradation in the rumen. Other authors have examined the effects of UIP supplementation using gestating and lactating cattle. Triplett et al. (1995) utilized 80 first calf heifers and 51 mature Brahman cows to evaluate the effects of UIP supplementation on production characteristics and reproductive performance. Supplements provided 38, 56, or 76 percent UIP and were fed at 3.50, 3.23, and 2.95 kg per head per day respectively. Animals had free access to rye and ryegrass over seeded Coastal Bermudagrass pasture (12 24 % CP) as well as Coastal Bermudagrass hay (8 % CP). Cattle were supplemented between days 7 and 119 post calving. Results showed that providing first calf heifers and mature cows with a supplement containing 56 percent UIP (approximately 0.4 kg per head per day of UIP) increased their first service conception rates by more than 28 percent compared to the supplement containing 36 percent UIP. The authors also noted no improvement in reproductive function in the animals receiving the supplement containing 76 percent UIP when compared to the animals supplemented with 56 percent UIP. In more recent research, Sletmoen-Olsen et al. (2000) found that increasing the level of UIP in supplements had little effect on the performance of crossbred cows. Cattle were randomly assigned to one of four isoenergetic treatments: control (no supplement), 69, 290, or 536 g UIP per head per day. All supplements were formulated to provide 274 g DIP per head per day. Cows were offered mature, cool season grass prairie hay (5.8 % CP) ad libitum. Hay and supplements were provided from October to May which represented the last five months of gestation and the first three months of lactation. Authors explained that supplemented cows had greater body

PAGE 24

13 weights when compared to control, but level of UIP supplementation had no effect. Total OM intake was greater for supplemented animals, compared to control animals, during gestation but similar during lactation. It was also reported that there was no differences due to treatment on days to first estrus or rebreeding. The authors concluded that supplemental UIP is marginally beneficial and that providing more than 70 g per head per day does not improve the performance of gestating or lactating beef cattle when DIP levels are adequate. Several studies have shown that UIP supplementation can increase the performance of growing animals if DIP levels are adequate. Anderson et al. (1988) found that ADG was maximized when 0.23 kg per day of supplemental UIP was provided to growing steers. Karges et al. (1992) found similar results where ADG was maximized when 0.21 kg per day of supplemental UIP was provided to growing steers. However, evaluating the effects of supplemental UIP on the performance of mature cows has produced mixed results. Triplett et al. (1995) found that 0.4 kg per day of supplemental UIP increased the first service conception rates of mature cows. This is in contrast to the results of Sletmoen-Olsen et al. (2000) where supplemental UIP had little effect on the performance of mature cows. More research is needed to evaluate the effects of supplemental UIP on the performance of mature cattle. Energy Supplementation Energy supplementation of cattle is a common practice to maintain performance or minimize loss (Caton and Dhuyvetter, 1997). Many times available forage is inadequate at meeting the energy needs of cattle (Moore et al., 1999). Depending on the quality of the forage, protein supplementation may increase intake enough to meet the energy needs of the animal, but not in all cases. Protein is typically the limiting nutrient

PAGE 25

14 but supplementation may not result in an adequate increase in energy intake (Bodine and Purvis, 2003). This would suggest that supplemental energy may be needed to meet the desired level of performance. However, energy supplementation often results in decreased forage intake and utilization (Bodine and Purvis, 2003; Caton and Dhuyvetter, 1997; Kunkle et al., 2000). Many authors have attributed this to a substitution effect caused by feeding high starch energy sources. Caton and Dhuyvetter (1997) defined substitution as reductions in forage intake by grazing and pen-fed ruminants due to energy supplementation. Sanson et al. (1990) demonstrated that increasing levels of corn starch supplementation resulted in decreased forage intake. Ruminally cannulated crossbred steers (550 kg) were utilized to evaluate the effects of supplements with increasing levels of starch. Steers were fed low quality hay (4.3 % CP) ad libitum. All supplements provided 1.12 g CP and 0, 2, or 4 g of starch from corn, per kg of body weight. Forage consumption decreased by 5 percent for the supplement containing 2 g of starch per kg of body weight and an additional 17 percent for the supplement containing 4 g of starch per kg of body weight. DelCurto et al. (1990) used ruminally cannulated Angus x Hereford steers (401 kg) to determine the effects of high and low protein supplements (0.66 and 1.32g CP per kg BW) in combination with high and low energy supplements (9.2 and 18.4 kcal ME per kg BW) on forage intake and digestion. Dormant tallgrass-prairie hay (2.6 % CP) was offered ad libitum. The authors noted that increasing energy supplementation tended to depress forage intake with no effect on total dry matter intake. This would suggest a substitution effect caused by energy supplementation. Intake depression is likely due to a decreased ruminal pH resulting in reduced growth of

PAGE 26

15 fibrolytic bacteria (Kunkle et al., 2000). This would result in decreased digestion of forages and a decreased passage rate. Diminishing digestibility of forages has also been observed in many cattle supplemented with high starch grains (Bodine and Purvis, 2003; Hannah et al., 1989; Vanzant et al., 1990). Horn and McCollum (1987) reviewed energy supplementation of grazing cattle and concluded that concentrates can be fed at .5 percent BW before forage intake was decreased. In another review by Bowman and Sanson (1996), supplementing grain over .25 percent of BW had negative effects on forage utilization. Caton and Dhuyvetter (1997) noted that these discrepancies may be due to the level of supplemental protein. Bodine et al. (2000) studied the effects of starch supplementation on forage utilization when the total dietary DIP requirements were met. The authors supplemented ruminally cannulated steers (317 kg) with eight combinations of energy and DIP. Supplements provided dry-rolled corn at either 0 or 0.75 percent of body weight and one of four levels of soybean meal that provided between 0 and 1.3 g of DIP per kg of body weight. Prairie hay (6.1 % CP) was also provided ad libitum. Hay intake increased as level of DIP increased regardless of corn supplementation. Hay digestibility also increased as level of DIP increased when corn was added. However, inadequate levels of DIP in the grain based diets decreased forage intake, digestibility, and energy intake. The authors concluded that supplementing adequate levels of DIP appeared to alleviate the negative associative effects typically seen when supplementing low quality forages with high starch feeds. Other authors have tried to combat the substitution effect caused by high starch grain supplementation with feedstuffs low in non structural carbohydrates but high in TDN. Common sources include: soybean hulls, wheat middlings, corn gluten feed, beet pulp, citrus pulp, distillers grains, and brewers

PAGE 27

16 grains (Kunkle et al., 2000). Providing energy from one of these readily digestible fiber sources usually has a less negative effect on forage intake compared to high starch supplements (Caton and Dhuyvetter, 1997; Bowman and Sanson 1996). In 1991, Sunvold et al. evaluated the efficacy of wheat middlings as a supplement for beef cattle. Ruminally fistulated Angus x Hereford crossbred steers (374) were offered one of four treatments that included: a control of no supplement, a mixed supplement of soybean meal (22 %) and grain sorghum (78 %), or a low or high level of wheat middlings. All steers were offered low quality (2.4 % CP) bluestem hay ad libitum. Forage dry matter intake was increased for the high level of wheat middlings and the soybean meal and grain sorghum supplements. Dry matter digestibility was increased with supplementation, but there was no difference between supplements. Similar results were seen in a three-year study by Horn et al. (1995). For these experiments, 466 steers were utilized to compare the effects of high starch supplements to high fiber supplements. Treatments included a control with no supplementation, a corn based high starch supplement, or a soybean hull and wheat middling based high fiber supplement. Calves were constantly grazed on wheat pasture and daily supplement consumption was 0.65 % of body weight. The authors reported that ADG was not influenced by the type of supplementation. These studies indicate that high starch supplements, which are typically more expensive, could be replaced by highly digestible fiber supplements depending on availability and price. Energy supplements may be used to correct nutrient deficiencies, and maintain or increase performance. However, they have shown to decrease intake of low quality forages making energy supplementation a viable alternative as forage availability

PAGE 28

17 decreases. High fiber concentrate feeds show promise as an economical substitute for traditional high starch, high price supplements. However, more research is needed to identify economical energy supplementation. Supplementation with Citrus Pulp The Florida citrus industry produces over 80 percent of the United States supply of citrus, almost 90 percent of which is processed into juice (Hodges et al., 2001). The waste from processing is a mixture of peel, rag, and seeds collectively known as citrus pulp. Citrus pulp is typically dried, pelleted, and marketed as a byproduct energy concentrate feed for ruminants (Arthington et al., 2002). The 52 processing plants in Florida produced 1.3 million tons of citrus pulp valued at 88 million dollars during the 1999-2000 season (Hodges et al., 2001). Most citrus pulp has been exported to Europe, but recent declines in export opportunities have made citrus pulp an affordable byproduct feed (Arthington and Pate, 2001). Citrus Pulp Processing Citrus pulp was first utilized as a ruminant feed in the early 1900s. Walker (1917) noted that cattle would readily consume fresh citrus pulp and cull fruits, but many times this feedstuff spoiled before it could all be consumed. Arthington and Pate, (2001) estimated the waste from feeding wet citrus pulp could be as high as 30 percent. Although it is very palatable to cattle, it is typically uneconomical to feed wet pulp (15-20 percent DM) because of the increased cost of shipping (Kunkle et al., 2001). In an experiment by Scott (1926), grapefruit waste was dehydrated and fed to dairy cattle. This sparked the commercial production of dried citrus pulp as a byproduct feedstuff in the early 1930s. The basic procedure for producing dried citrus pulp involves grinding or chopping the citrus waste and dehydrating the mixture. Calcium oxide or calcium

PAGE 29

18 hydroxide is commonly added to aid in releasing bound water, resulting in a product high in calcium (Ammerman and Henry, 1991). The production of dried citrus pulp allowed for easier transport, storage, and feeding of citrus waste. However, dried citrus pulp is still a bulky feedstuff with a density of around 13-23 lbs/cubic foot (Ammerman et al., 1966). Pelleting of citrus pulp was introduced to increase density, reduce dustiness, and aid in handling. In 1967, Ammerman and others found that gains were increased when steers were fed pelleted citrus pulp at 66 percent of the total supplement compared to unpelleted citrus pulp at the same level. Average daily gains were 1.38 and 1.19 kg per head per day for the pelleted and unpelleted rations, respectively. The difference was attributed to the increased density (41.6 lbs/cubic foot) of the pelleted ration which was consumed at a higher level (+ 0.30 kg/d). The same trend was seen when Loggins et al., (1964) looked at gain differences between dried and pelleted citrus pulp when fed to fattening lambs. Lambs fed pelleted citrus pulp had numerically higher average daily gains (0.123 kg/d) compared to those fed unpelleted citrus pulp (0.109 kg/d) and daily intakes were slightly higher for the pelleted rations (0.064 kg/d). The authors noted that pelleting may have increased the quality of citrus pulp. Processing of citrus pulp decreases waste and makes handling, feeding, and storage easier. Chemical Composition The chemical composition of citrus pulp can be variable depending on the type of fruit and the procedures used to produce it (Ammerman et al., 1966; Chapman et al., 1983). Arosemena et al. (1995) analyzed citrus pulp samples from several California sources and found results similar to those reported by the NRC (1996) for crude protein, macro and micro minerals. However, acid detergent fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and ether extract values were highly variable. The variability of citrus pulp due to source was

PAGE 30

19 also investigated by Ammerman and others (1966). They analyzed 904 citrus pulp samples representing 17 different production sources over the period of three years (1963-1965). Significant differences were found between sources for all nutrients but average nutrient composition varied only slightly between years. Variation within source was not evaluated. The differences found could be attributed to the varying components of the citrus pulp such as seed, rag, and peel. Reported values are compared to data recorded by Arosemena et al. (1995) as well as NRC (1996) values in Table 2-1. Table 2-1. A comparison of the chemical composition of citrus pulp from different sources. Nutrient Source 1 a Source 2 b Source 3 c Moisture 8.62 9.47 8.90 Ash, % DM 5.12 5.14 6.60 Ether extract % DM 4.27 1.12 3.70 Crude Protein % DM 6.81 6.39 6.70 Calcium % DM -1.43 1.88 Phosphorous % DM -0.11 0.13 a Ammerman et al., 1966 b Arosemena et al., 1995 c NRC, 1996 In a similar study by Ammerman et al., (1966), the individual fractions of citrus pulp were analyzed. They concluded that seeds present in the mixture were higher in crude protein and ether extract, and contributed 12 percent of the total ether extract and 56 percent of the total crude protein on a dry matter basis. Ammerman et al., (1965) illustrated the variability in digestibility due to processing by evaluating the effect of dehydrating temperatures on the digestibility of the resulting citrus pulp. Wether lambs

PAGE 31

20 were supplemented with one of three citrus pulp supplements dried at 220, 240, or 260 degrees Fahrenheit. Results showed that protein and energy were significantly more digestible for the supplement dried at 220 degrees compared to the other two supplements. Effects of Citrus Pulp Supplements on Cattle Performance Early studies have looked at the value of supplementing citrus pulp to cattle on pasture. In 1953, Chapman and co-workers found no significant difference in gain or feed efficiency between ground snapped corn and citrus pulp when fed to steers on pasture. In a similar study by Chapman et al. (1961), steers on pasture fed citrus pulp had numerically higher average daily gains (0.78 kg per day) compared to steers fed ground snapped corn (0.72 kg per day), sugarcane molasses (0.65 kg per day), or a mixture of corn, citrus pulp and cottonseed meal (0.75 kg per day). Research has also indicated good results of feeding citrus pulp in the feedlot. Steers fed 120 days with either ground snapped corn or citrus pulp had similar gains (1.08 and 0.99 kg per day respectively), but the animals fed citrus pulp had greater feed efficiency (Kirk et al., 1949). Peacock and Kirk, (1959) conducted research comparing citrus pulp to corn in feedlot rations. In three 140 day trials, steers were fed either corn or citrus pulp at 70 percent of the total diet. The authors found no significant differences in gain, feed efficiency, improvement in gain, or dressing percentage. Ammerman et al., (1963) evaluated the effects of replacing ground corn with citrus pulp at 22, 44, and 66 percent of the total diet of steers in the feedlot. There was no suggestion of a statistically significant difference in gain across treatments. However, gains were higher for both the 22 and 44 percent inclusion rate with average daily gains being 1.35 kg and 1.48 kg respectively.

PAGE 32

21 Many studies have shown citrus pulp to be a good feedstuff for ruminants. However, it can be variable in composition and producers should use book values with caution. With a large citrus industry in Florida, it can be an economical supplement for producers in the southeast. Preconditioning of Weaned Cattle The idea of preconditioning became a topic of interest in 1965 when Dr. John Herrick coined the term (Miksch, 1984). Programs aimed at educating producers were initiated by state and national organizations the following year. In the years to follow, many state and national groups began programs that set guidelines for producers to market certified preconditioned calves. These programs usually involved on-farm weaning of calves 21 to 30 days prior to shipment, castration, dehorning, deworming, grub/lice treatment, and vaccination against IBR and BVD (Amstutz, 1977; Pritchard and Mendez, 1990). Research has been conducted since the 1960s evaluating the benefits and costs of preconditioning programs with variable results. These results have left many producers hesitant to implement costly preconditioning programs in fear of a limited return on their investment. In recent times, cattle feeders have realized the benefits of these programs and are more willing to pay producers a premium for preconditioned calves. The benefits realized from healthy calves have been extensively evaluated by the Texas A&M Ranch to Rail program. This program is an information feedback system that identifies factors that affect profitability after weaning and provides producers with the information needed to adjust management practices. The summaries from this program (McNeill, 1997, 1999, 2001) have consistently identified heath status to have a major impact on performance and profitability. In the years from 1996 to 2001, sick

PAGE 33

22 animals were worth $13.42 to $26.48 per hundredweight less upon arrival than animals that never required treatment. The authors attributed this to increased medical costs, decreased gains and efficiency, and decreased carcass quality. Preconditioning programs were created to help decrease stress and diseases associated with weaning, and accustom calves to eating dry feed from feed bunks (Herrick, 1969; Cole, 1985). Traditionally, many calves were weaned on the truck when shipped to the sale barn (Miksch, 1984). These calves would be commingled at the sale barn to create uniform lots before being sold (Woods et al., 1973). This presented a highly stressful situation by compounding the stress from weaning with commingling animals of various health backgrounds. This in turn exposes calves to increased pathogen loads resulting in an increased chance of respiratory infection (Engelken, 1997; Galyean et al, 1999). Preconditioning programs are designed to decrease stress by on-farm weaning and increase immune function by vaccinating under low stress situations. This results in decreased medical bills in the feedlot, and decreased morbidity and mortality which should result in a higher profit for the feeder. Many authors agree that unstressed animals respond better to vaccines than stressed animals (Engelken, 1997; Galyean et al., 1999). Kreikemeier et al. (1997) illustrated this by evaluating the effects of timing of vaccination of Kentucky ranch calves (252 kg). Calves were vaccinated according to one of the following treatments: vaccination 2 to 4 weeks prior to weaning with revaccination at the time of commingling at a sale barn, vaccination at the sale barn prior to shipment with revaccination after 21 days in the feedlot, or vaccination upon arrival at the feedlot with revaccination after 21 days in the feedlot. Feedlot morbidity rates were 27, 33 and 37 percent respectively, resulting in

PAGE 34

23 decreased medicine costs. Similar results were noted by Cole (1985) in a comprehensive review of several preconditioning trials. He explained that preconditioning decreased feedlot morbidity by 23 percent compared to controls that were not preconditioned. He also found that preconditioning reduced feedlot mortality by 0.7 percent. Pate and Crockett (1978) utilized Florida crossbred calves (214 kg) to evaluate the value of preconditioning calves over a three year period. Calves were either shipped directly to the feedlot at weaning or preconditioned with feed for 21-28 days on the farm prior to being shipped. The authors discovered that preconditioning decreased feedlot morbidity by 15.6 percent and mortality by 2.3 percent across the three years. Many trials have shown that preconditioning can reduce feedlot morbidity and mortality but it is still unclear if it will increase gains throughout the feeding period. Pate and Crockett (1978) conducted a three year experiment to evaluate the effects of preconditioning on feedlot gain and efficiency. They reported that preconditioned calves had a 6 % increase in gain during the first year and an 11 % increase in gain during the second year compared to non-preconditioned calves. Only a small difference was noted during the third year. The increase in gain of preconditioned animals during the first two years is not likely due to the number of sick animals because morbidity was similar across the treatments. There was no difference in feed efficiency between treatments during the feedlot period. In a similar study, Pritchard and Mendez (1990) utilized 600 Charolais-sired calves from four ranches to evaluate the effects of a 25-30 day preconditioning period. They discovered no significant difference in feedlot ADG between preconditioned and non-preconditioned calves. They also noted that preconditioned calves had significantly poorer feed conversions (feed/gain) than non

PAGE 35

24 preconditioned calves (6.44 and 6.24 respectively). The authors attributed this to compensatory growth in the non-preconditioned calves. Peterson et al. (1989) conducted research on calves of mixed breeding over three years to evaluate the effects of creep feeding, and timing of weaning, vaccination, castration, and dehorning. The authors reported that calves weaned 6 weeks prior to sale had higher ADG than animals weaned at the time of sale. They also reported that castration, dehorning, and vaccination at the time of sale resulted in decreased ADG in the feedlot. The authors explained that calves performed best if the stress from castration, dehorning, and vaccination occurred prior to the stress from weaning. Although results are indecisive about the performance of preconditioned calves, many producers are seeing a premium paid for preconditioning programs. King and Odde (1998) evaluated the sale data on over 200,000 head of calves sold through video auctions. The authors discovered that calves vaccinated 3 to 4 weeks prior to weaning brought $1.61 per hundredweight more than non-vaccinated calves that were not weaned. It was also reported that calves that received two rounds of vaccinations and were weaned 45 days prior to shipping averaged $3.89 per hundredweight more than non-vaccinated calves that were not weaned. These premiums should be considered when evaluating the potential to precondition calves, based on the cost of the preconditioning program being used (Engelken, 1997). Typically the highest cost associated with preconditioning programs is feed (Lalman et al., 2002; Thrift et al., 2003). Preconditioning feeds must be highly palatable in order to decrease fasting and stress, and increase gain during the first week of weaning. After this walk and bawl period, returning the calves to high quality pasture along with

PAGE 36

25 supplementation is usually the most economical solution (Lalman et al., 2002). Feedstuffs utilized for preconditioning calves vary greatly. Many authors suggest high quality pasture or hay in combination with concentrate and mineral supplementation. Usually these supplements are expensive and therefore, feed costs will most likely dictate if a preconditioning program is economically feasible. However, if cheaper feedstuffs can be utilized, it may be possible to increase profits for producers. Preconditioning programs have been designed to reduce stress, increase immune function, and accustom calves to the feedlot. Research has proven that these programs can significantly reduce morbidity and mortality in the feedlot, resulting in increased profits. However, more research is needed to determine if preconditioning can increase gains throughout the finishing phase. In recent years, preconditioning programs have gained popularity and producers are starting to see premiums for preconditioned calves.

PAGE 37

CHAPTER 3 EFFECTS OF FEEDING CITRUS PULP OR CORN SUPPLEMENTS WITH INCREASING LEVELS OF ADDED UNDEGRADED INTAKE PROTEIN ON THE PERFORMANCE OF GROWING CATTLE Introduction Extensive research evaluating citrus pulp as a supplement for cattle was conducted in the 1950s and 1960s. These studies have shown that citrus pulp is readily consumed by cattle and can produce similar gains to corn products (Scott, 1926; Chapman et al., 1961; Ammerman et al., 1963). Recent declines in export markets have made citrus pulp an economical byproduct supplement. Florida forages used for summer grazing and hay do not always provide adequate nutrients to meet the requirements of growing cattle (Moore et al., 1991). This results in the need for supplementation. Citrus pulp is a good energy supplement, but is low in protein. Therefore, additional protein may increase animal performance or improve utilization of citrus pulp supplements, resulting in a more economical supplement for growing cattle. Depending on the physiological state of the animal, forage quality and intake, microbial protein can provide adequate CP to meet the requirements of cattle (NRC, 1996). However, some animals, such as growing and lactating cattle, have a higher protein requirement that may not be sufficiently met by microbial protein (Paterson et al., 1996; Nelson, 1997). In these instances, providing additional undegraded intake protein (UIP) may result in an increase in performance. The objective of this research was to 26

PAGE 38

27 determine the effects of feeding corn and citrus pulp based supplements with increasing levels of UIP to growing cattle offered low quality bahia grass hay. Materials and Methods This study was conducted at the University of Florida Beef Research Unit, located in Alachua County, Florida from February 2002 through May 2002. Animals Fifty Angus x Brahman crossbred calves (36 steers and 14 heifers) averaging 250 kg body weights were utilized in an 84 day intake and performance trial. Calves were predominately Angus with less than 20 percent Brahman breeding. These cattle were stratified by weight and sex and then randomly assigned to one of ten treatments. Initial weights were similar across treatments (P > 0.20). Animals were housed in one of seven covered pens (9.1 m x 18.3 m) with concrete floors. Each pen was equipped with eight Calan gate feeders (American Calan, Inc., Northwood, NH) that allowed for the measurement of total daily hay and supplement intake for each animal. Cattle were trained to use the Calan gates during a 14 day adjustment period prior to the start of the trial. During this period, cattle were offered about 3 kg daily of a corn and molasses based dry supplement with bahia grass hay, water, and mineral offered ad libitum. Diets All hay used for this trial was harvested into small square bales from a pasture of Argentine bahia grass with minimal infestation of common bermuda grass. Hay quality was initially estimated to be 50 % TDN and 7 % CP (DM basis) from samples analyzed by DHI Forage Testing Laboratory, Ithaca, NY. Hay, a complete mineral mix, and water were offered ad libitum throughout the trial. Treatments consisted of five corn based supplements (CORN 1-5) and five citrus pulp based supplements (CITR 1-5) with an

PAGE 39

28 increasing level of added UIP (Table 3-2). The five levels of added UIP were: Level 1, 0 kg; Level 2, 0.055 kg; Level 3, 0.11 kg; Level 4, 0.165 kg; and Level 5, 0.22 kg per animal per day. All ten supplements were formulated to be isoenergetic (2.07 kg of TDN per animal per day) and isonitrogenous (0.62 kg CP per animal per day; Table 3-2). Supplements were also formulated to have a DIP to TDN ratio of 0.12: 1 or higher and a nitrogen to sulfur ratio of 10: 1. All supplements were mixed at the University of Florida feed mill, Gainesville, FL. Feeding Procedure and Sampling Each morning cattle were fed their respective supplement in their individual Calan gate. Each afternoon, hay was weighed for each animal, recorded, and fed in the Calan gate feeders. Hay was offered at 130% of previous intake to provide excess at all times. All animals consumed the supplements readily. Hay refusals were weighed and recorded weekly and discarded after sampling. Sub-samples were weighed and placed in a 60 C forced air oven for seven days to determine their dry matter. Weekly hay samples were obtained by taking 20 core samples from the bales prior to feeding. Supplement samples were taken weekly by sampling several feed bags. Measurements Cattle were weighed one day prior to the start of the trial as well as the first day to obtain two full body weights. These weights were averaged for the initial body weight. Cattle were then weighed every 28 days prior to feeding. At the end of the trial, animals were weighed on days 83 and 84 and averaged for the final body weight. Body condition score (BCS) was evaluated at the start of the trial and every 28 days throughout the trial using a 1 thru 9 condition scoring system with increments of 0.25 (Kunkle et al., 1994).

PAGE 40

29 Laboratory Analysis All hay and supplement samples were analyzed for: dry matter (DM) at 105 C for 8 hours in a forced air oven (AOAC, 2000), organic matter (OM) at 550 C for 6 hours in a muffle furnace (AOAC, 2000), crude protein (CP) by Kjeldahl N procedure (AOAC, 2000) x 6.25, neutral detergent fiber (NDF) by the Ankom method (Ankom Technology, Fairport, NY), and in vitro organic matter digestibility (IVOMD) as described by Moore and Mott, 1974. Statistical Procedures Data were analyzed using the general linear model (GLM) procedure of the Statistical Analysis System (SAS, 2001). The statistical model used was: Y = + CHO i + UIP j + CHOUIP ij + ij where Y = response variable = mean CHO i = effect due to carbohydrate source UIP j = effect due to level of added UIP CHOUIP ij = effect due to the interaction of carbohydrate source and level of UIP E ijk = residual error Results and Discussion Diets Supplement formulations and actual chemical composition of supplements and bahia grass hay are listed in Tables 3-1 and 3-2. The hay used in this experiment was similar in DM, CP, NDF, and IVOMD (P > 0.20) content throughout the trial. All

PAGE 41

30 supplements had similar DM (P = 0.73) and OM (P = 0.19) contents as expected. There were no differences in the IVOMD of supplements between CORN and CITR treatments (P = 0.41). The IVOMD of supplements differed by level of added UIP (P < 0.001) and decreased linearly (P < 0.001) as level of UIP increased. There were no differences in CP by level of added UIP (P = 0.75), suggesting supplements were isonitrogenous, as formulated. There tended to be a small difference (0.8 % of DM) in CP between CORN and CITR supplements (P = 0.09). Animal Response There was no carbohydrate source (CHO) by level of UIP interaction (P = 0.31) for ADG. When all levels of UIP were combined, the 84 d. ADG was similar (P = 0.38) between calves supplemented with CORN or CITR (Table 3-3). This agrees with results found by Chapman et al. (1953) who compared citrus pulp-based supplements to corn-based supplements fed to steers on pasture. Level of added UIP had a significant (P < 0.001) effect on 84 d. ADG, resulting in a linear increase (P < 0.001) in ADG as level of UIP increased (Figure 3-1). This would suggest that microbial crude protein was inadequate at providing the protein requirements of these growing calves. The greatest 84 d. ADG resulted from supplements containing 0.22 kg/hd/d of added UIP. This agrees with Nelson (1997) who supplemented growing steers with 0 to 0.21 kg per day of UIP from corn gluten meal. He found a linear increase in ADG as level of supplemental UIP increased. Anderson et al. (1988) reported that ADG was maximized when 0.23 kg/hd/d of supplemental UIP was provided to growing steers. Karges et al. (1992) found similar results where ADG was maximized when 0.21 kg/hd/d of supplemental UIP was provided to growing steers.

PAGE 42

31 There was no CHO by level of UIP interaction (P = 0.35) for hay DM, CP, or DOM intakes. Hay DM intake was lower (P < 0.01) for animals supplemented with CITR compared to those supplemented with CORN (Figure 3-2). This agrees with Ammerman et al. (1963), who noted a decrease in hay intake as citrus pulp replaced ground corn and cob meal in a supplement fed to steers. In contrast, Martin (2001) reported no difference in hay DM intake between growing cattle supplemented with corn, citrus pulp, or soyhulls. Level of added UIP had a significant (P < 0.01) effect on hay DM intake. As level of UIP increased, hay DM intake tended to decline in a quadratic fashion (P = 0.08), but followed a linear decline (P < 0.01; Figure 3-2). This is in contrast to Ramos et al. (1998) who supplemented growing steers on pasture and Bohnert et al. (2002) who provided hay and supplemented steers through rumen and duodenum cannulas. These authors found no effect of UIP supplementation on forage intake. Hay CP and DOM intakes (Figures 3-3 and 3-4) were higher (P < 0.01) for animals supplemented with CORN compared to those supplemented with CITR due to increased hay intake (Figures 3-3 and 3-4). As level of UIP increased, there tended (P = 0.08) to be a quadratic decline in hay CP and DOM intakes, but a more linear trend was evident (P < 0.01). Supplement DM, CP, and DOM intakes were (P = 0.01) different across all treatments (Table 3-4). This is due to the intentional variable feeding rates which kept all supplements isoenergetic. It was assumed that the magnitude of these differences would have little effect on rumen fill.

PAGE 43

32 There was no CHO by level of UIP interaction observed for total DM intake (P = 0.43). Carbohydrate source and level of added UIP did affect total DM intake (P < 0.01). This disagrees with Nelson (1997) who found that increasing levels of UIP had no effect on DM intake. When DM intake was combined for all levels of UIP, animals supplemented with CITR consumed less (347 kg) throughout the trial than those supplemented with CORN (296 kg). When both CHO sources were combined, a quadratic depression (P = 0.02; Figure 3-5) of total DM intake was observed as level of UIP increased. There was no CHO by level of UIP interaction observed for total CP intake (P = 0.57). Carbohydrate source did not affect total CP intake (P = 0.16) but level of added UIP did (P < 0.01). Increasing levels of UIP resulted in a quadratic (P = 0.02) depression of total CP intake (Figure 3-6). There was no CHO by level of UIP interaction observed for total DOM intake (P > 0.44). There was no difference in total DOM intake between CHO sources (P = 0.14). However, increasing levels of added UIP caused a quadratic (P = 0.05) depression on total DOM intake (Figure 3-7). The quadratic decline in total DM, CP, and DOM intakes as level of UIP increased would be expected as a result of the depression of hay DM intake as level of UIP increased. The average BCS for all animals throughout the trial was 5.04. Body condition score was unaffected (P =0.62) by CHO source and there was no CHO by level of UIP interaction (P = 0.14). This disagrees with Martin (2001) who reported that growing cattle supplemented with citrus pulp had a lower BCS compared to those supplemented

PAGE 44

33 with corn. Level of added UIP tended (P = 0.08) to affect BCS but only for the last period of the trial (Table 3-5). Sletmoen-Olsen et al. (2000) observed a linear increase in BCS when UIP was provided at 0.29 kg per day to gestating cows. Citrus pulp-based supplements produced average daily gains similar to corn-based supplements in this trial. As level of UIP increased, ADG increased while hay DM and total DOM intake decreased. Animals fed citrus pulp-based supplements consumed less hay compared to those fed corn-based supplements over all levels of UIP. Implications Maximum ADG was achieved at 0.22 kg of added UIP. It is unclear if 0.22kg of added UIP is the optimal level of supplementation because it was the highest level evaluated in this trial. More research is needed to determine the level of added UIP required to achieve maximum ADG of calves supplemented with corn or citrus pulp fed low quality bahia grass hay. Citrus pulp supplements produced gains similar to corn and performance was enhanced as level of UIP increased. This research would suggest that citrus pulp with added UIP could be used in place of corn with added UIP as an economical supplement for growing calves depending on availability and price.

PAGE 45

Table 3-1. Composition of supplements fed to growing cattle. Citrus Pulp Treatments Corn Treatments Ingredient (%) Citr 1 Citr 2 Citr 3 Citr 4 Citr 5 Corn 1 Corn 2 Corn 3 Corn 4 Corn 5 Cracked corn (#405) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 91.46 84.59 76.77 69.44 61.22 Citrus pulp (#605) 90.65 84.32 78.24 71.74 65.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Soy Plus (42.5 % CP, 60 % UIP) 0.00 7.48 14.49 22.18 29.99 0.00 7.95 16.82 25.12 34.43 Urea (#522) 5.25 4.41 3.63 2.77 1.90 5.08 4.19 3.22 2.30 1.27 Dynamate 1.15 1.07 1.02 0.93 0.86 1.17 1.10 1.01 0.92 0.84 Complete mineral 2.01 2.04 2.07 2.11 2.14 2.15 2.17 2.19 2.22 2.25 Dynafos 0.94 0.68 0.55 0.28 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 34 Citr 1 represents the citrus pulp treatment with 0 kg of added undegraded intake protein. Citr 2 represents the citrus pulp treatment with 0.055 kg of added undegraded intake protein. Citr 3 represents the citrus pulp treatment with 0.11 kg of added undegraded intake protein. Citr 4 represents the citrus pulp treatment with 0.165 kg of added undegraded intake protein. Citr 5 represents the citrus pulp treatment with 0.22 kg of added undegraded intake protein.

PAGE 46

Table 3-2. Feeding rate and nutrient composition of bahia grass hay and supplements fed to growing cattle. 35 Hay Citrus Pulp Treatments Corn Treatments Citr 1 Citr 2 Citr 3 Citr 4 Citr 5 Corn 1 Corn 2 Corn 3 Corn 4 Corn 5 Feeding rate kg/hd/d Ad libitum 3.41 3.36 3.27 3.23 3.18 3.18 3.14 3.09 3.09 3.05 Formulated TDN kg/hd/d -2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 Crude protein kg/hd/d -0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 DIP kg/hd/d -0.58 0.52 0.47 0.41 0.36 0.51 0.46 0.40 0.35 0.30 UIP kg/hd/d -0.04 0.10 0.15 0.21 0.26 0.11 0.16 0.22 0.27 0.33 DIP/TDN ratio -0.28 0.25 0.23 0.20 0.17 0.25 0.22 0.19 0.17 0.14 Actual Analysis Dry Matter (%) 89.39 87.13 87.40 87.46 87.86 88.23 87.91 88.05 88.44 88.55 88.66 Organic Matter (%) 96.20 93.28 93.79 93.44 93.36 93.79 95.11 95.10 94.66 94.56 94.17 Crude Protein (%) 7.52 25.47 24.68 26.35 25.78 24.78 24.07 24.00 24.44 23.96 24.81 IVOMD (%) 26.80 90.78 c 90.53 bc 90.12 b 88.78 a 88.62 a 91.22 c 89.35 a 89.57 ab 89.77 b 88.75 a NDF (%) 71.37 12.35 13.24 14.05 14.85 15.61 10.10 10.40 11.73 12.62 13.22 LS means within a row with different superscripts are different P < 0.05.

PAGE 47

Table 3-3. Total average daily gain by period for growing calves fed corn or citrus pulp supplements with increasing levels of UIP. Supplements Average Daily Gain (kg) Citr 1 Citr 2 Citr 3 Citr 4 Citr 5 Corn 1 Corn 2 Corn 3 Corn 4 Corn 5 SE Period 1 (0-28 d.) 0.52 a 0.74 ab 1.08 b 1.03 b 1.24 b 0.64 ab 1.00 b 0.95 b 1.00 b 1.13 b 0.12 Period 2 (28-56 d.) 0.34 ab 0.27 a 0.50 ab 0.50 ab 0.72 b 0.51 ab 0.42 ab 0.59 b 0.52 ab 0.63 b 0.10 Period 3 (56-84 d.) 0.15 a 0.31 ab 0.32 ab 0.48 b 0.65 b 0.40 ab 0.33 ab 0.28 ab 0.54 b 0.54 b 0.10 Total 84 d. 0.34 a 0.44 ab 0.63 b 0.67 bc 0.87 c 0.52 ab 0.59 b 0.61 b 0.67 bc 0.77 bc 0.08 LS means within a row with different superscripts are different P < 0.05. Total average daily gain (84 d.): CHO x UIP (P = 0.31), CHO effect (P = 0.38), UIP effect (P < 0.001). 36

PAGE 48

Table 3-4. Total intake, crude protein intake, and digestible organic matter intake of supplement and hay (SE) for growing calves supplemented with corn or citrus pulp with increasing levels of UIP. 37 Citrus Pulp Treatments Corn Treatments Citr 1 Citr 2 Citr 3 Citr 4 Citr 5 Corn 1 Corn 2 Corn 3 Corn 4 Corn 5 SE Supplement Intakes (kg) Dry Matter 240.9 cd 246.9 d 242.1 cd 238.5 c 235.4 bc 230.7 ab 231.5 ab 230.2 ab 229.4 ab 226.0 a 2.34 Crude Protein 61.4 c 60.9 c 63.8 d 61.5 cd 58.3 b 55.5 a 55.6 a 56.3 a 55.0 a 56.1 a 0.59 Digestible Organic Matter 204.0 c 209.6 d 203.9 c 197.7 b 195.6 b 200.2 bc 196.7 b 195.1 b 194.7 b 188.9 a 2.00 Hay Intakes (kg) Dry Matter 285.8 a 330.1 ab 303.7 ab 290.7 a 272.4 a 382.0 bc 394.2 c 358.9 bc 315.2 ab 283.1 a 22.32 Crude Protein 21.5 a 24.8 ab 22.9 ab 21.9 a 20.5 a 28.7 bc 29.7 c 27.0 bc 23.7 ab 21.3 a 1.69 Digestible Organic Matter 73.7 a 85.1 ab 78.3 ab 74.9 a 70.2 a 98.5 bc 101.6 c 92.5 bc 81.3 ab 73.0 a 5.79 Total Intakes (kg) Dry Matter 526.7 ab 576.7 b 545.8 ab 529.2 ab 507.8 a 612.7 b 625.7 b 589.0 b 544.6 ab 509.1 a 23.57 Crude Protein 82.9 ab 85.8 b 86.6 b 83.4 b 78.8 ab 84.3 b 85.2 b 83.3 b 78.7 ab 77.4 a 2.01 Digestible Organic Matter 277.7 a 294.7 b 282.2 b 272.6 a 265.8 a 298.6 b 298.3 b 287.6 b 275.7 a 261.9 a 6.86 LS means within a row with different superscripts are different (P < 0.05). Supplement DM intake: CHO x UIP (P = 0.64), CHO effect (P < 0.01), UIP effect (P = 0.01). Supplement CP intake: CHO x UIP (P < 0.01), CHO effect (P < 0.01), UIP effect (P < 0.01). Supplement DOM intake: CHO x UIP (P = 0.09), CHO effect (P < 0.01), UIP effect (P < 0.01). Hay DM intake: CHO x UIP (P = 0.35), CHO effect (P < 0.01), UIP effect (P < 0.01). Hay CP intake: CHO x UIP (P = 0.35), CHO effect (P < 0.01), UIP effect (P < 0.01). Hay DOM intake: CHO x UIP (P = 0.35), CHO effect (P < 0.01), UIP effect (P < 0.01). Total DM intake: CHO x UIP (P = 0.43), CHO effect (P < 0.01), UIP effect (P < 0.01). Total CP intake: CHO x UIP (P = 0.57), CHO effect (P = 0.16), UIP effect (P < 0.01). Total DOM intake: CHO x UIP (P = 0.44), CHO effect (P = 0.14), UIP effect (P < 0.01).

PAGE 49

Table 3-5. Body condition score (1-9 scale SE) by period for growing calves fed citrus pulp supplements with increasing levels of UIP. 38 Level of Added UIP (Citrus Pulp and Corn Combined) BCS Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Linear Quadratic Initial (d. 0) 4.92 0.16 4.89 0.16 4.89 0.16 4.78 0.17 4.98 0.17 P = 0.96 P = 0.58 Period 1 (d. 28) 4.91 0.13 4.88 0.13 4.96 0.13 5.00 0.13 5.30 0.14 P = 0.03 P = 0.24 Period 2 (d. 56) 4.99 0.14 4.95 0.14 5.21 0.14 5.07 0.15 5.41 0.15 P = 0.04 P = 0.52 Period 3 (d. 84) 4.95 0.11 4.95 0.11 5.16 0.11 5.28 0.11 5.28 0.12 P = 0.01 P = 0.83 BCS change (d. 0-84) 0.03 0.16 a 0.06 0.16 a 0.27 0.16 b 0.50 0.17 c 0.30 0.17 b P = 0.91 P = 0.87 LS means within a row with different superscripts are different P < 0.05. Carbohydrate source x level of UIP interaction P = 0.14. Level of UIP effect P = 0.08. Carbohydrate source effect P = 0.62.

PAGE 50

CHAPTER 4 EFFECTS OF FEEDING CITRUS PULP SUPPLEMENTS ON THE PERFORMANCE OF CALVES IN A PRECONDITIONING PROGRAM Introduction Typically the highest cost associated with preconditioning programs is feed (Lalman et al., 2002; Thrift et al., 2003). Preconditioning feeds must be highly palatable in order to decrease fasting and stress, and increase gain during the first week of weaning. After this walk and bawl period, returning the calves to high quality pasture along with supplementation is usually the most economical solution (Lalman et al., 2002). Feedstuffs utilized for preconditioning calves vary greatly. Many authors suggest high quality pasture or hay in combination with concentrate and mineral supplementation. Usually these supplements are expensive and therefore, feed costs will most likely dictate if a preconditioning program is economically feasible. However, if cheaper feedstuffs can be utilized, it may be possible to increase profits for producers. Citrus pulp is a byproduct energy concentrate feed that is readily available to Florida cattle producers (Arthington et al., 2002). Recent declines in export opportunities have made citrus pulp an affordable byproduct feed for Florida cattle producers (Arthington and Pate, 2001). Based on NRC values (1996), citrus pulp is a good source of energy (82 % TDN) but a poor source of protein (6.7 % CP). Therefore, in order to evaluate the potential of citrus pulp as an affordable feedstuff for preconditioning cattle, additional protein is needed. Previous research with growing calves indicated that citrus 39

PAGE 51

40 pulp with added UIP produced similar gains to corn with the same level of added UIP. This research showed that 0.22 kg of added UIP per head per day resulted in the greatest gains. This trial was conducted to evaluate the effects of citrus pulp with added UIP as a feedstuff in a preconditioning program. Materials and Methods This study was conducted at the University of Florida Beef Research Unit, located in Alachua County, Florida from September 2002 thru October 2002. One hundred fifty Angus x Brahman crossbred calves (69 steers and 83 heifers) averaging 241 kg body weights were utilized in a 42 day preconditioning program. Calves ranged in breed type from nearly all Angus to nearly all Brahman and had received two shots of a 4-way respiratory vaccination and two clostridial vaccines while still on the cow. These calves were stratified by weight, sex, and breed type then randomly assigned to one of four supplemental treatments. Initial weights were similar across treatments (P = 0.99). Treatments consisted of control (CONTROL; no supplement), citrus pulp (CITR), citrus pulp with 0.22 kg of added UIP (CITR+UIP), or citrus pulp with added urea (CITR+UREA). The CITR+UREA treatment was formulated to be isonitrogenous to the CITR+UIP treatment. All supplements were mixed at the University of Florida feed mill, Gainesville, FL. A complete summary of treatments is available in Table 4-1. Calves were weaned on September 11, 2002 when they were separated according to treatment group, weighed, ear tagged, and placed in drylot pens with adequate shade. During this period, calves were offered access to their respective supplement starting at 1.36 kg per head per day and gradually increased to 2.27 kg per head per day. Bahia grass

PAGE 52

41 hay, water, and mineral were offered ad libitum. All hay used for this trial was harvested into small square bales from a pasture of Argentine bahia grass with minimal infestation of common bermuda grass. Hay quality was analyzed to contain 7.5 % CP (DM basis) and had an IVOMD of 27 percent. After 7 days, animals were treated with one 227 kg dose of Eprinex (Merial Limited, Iselin, New Jersey) pour-on at weighing. Calves were then moved to one of four 3 hectare pastures with adequate shade where they remained until the end of the trial. Pastures were a mixture of bahia grass and common bermuda grass and were created by cross-fencing one large pasture. While on pasture, calves were fed 2.27 kg per head per day of their respective treatment each morning in portable feed troughs and weighed every 7 days prior to feeding. Pastures were sampled prior to stocking and every 7 days throughout the trial. Pastures were sampled using the hand pluck method as described by Sollenberger and Cherney (1995). Samples were weighed and placed in a 60 C forced air oven for seven days to determine their dry matter. Supplement samples were taken weekly by sampling several feed bags. Pasture and supplement samples were analyzed for: dry matter (DM) at 105 C for 8 hours in a forced air oven (AOAC, 2000), organic matter (OM) at 550 C for 6 hours in a muffle furnace (AOAC, 2000), crude protein (CP) by Kjeldahl N procedure (AOAC, 2000) x 6.25, neutral detergent fiber (NDF) by the Ankom method (Ankom Technology, Fairport, NY), and in vitro organic matter digestibility (IVOMD) as described by Moore and Mott, 1974. Statistical Procedures Data were analyzed using the general linear model (GLM) procedure of the Statistical Analysis System (SAS, 2001). The statistical model used was:

PAGE 53

42 Y = + SEX i + CBG j + TRT k + ijk where Y = response variable = mean SEX i = effect due to sex of animal CBG j = effect due to breed of animal TRT k = effect due to treatment E ijk = residual error Results and Discussion Diets Supplement formulations and actual chemical composition of supplements and pasture are listed in Table 4-1. The pastures utilized in this experiment were similar in OM, CP, NDF, and IVOMD across all treatments (P > 0.05). No interaction was observed between treatment and week for OM, CP, or IVOMD. An interaction between treatment and week (P = 0.04) was noted for NDF. However, the difference in NDF content was small and it was assumed that it did not affect the results. There was a quadratic (P 0.01) decline in CP (Figure 4-1) and IVOMD across all treatments from day 0 to day 42 with the greatest depression seen between weeks one and two (Table 4-2). This agrees with Bodine et al. (2000b) who observed a decrease in forage CP and IVOMD over time with steers on pasture. This is probably due to calves selectively grazing of the best quality forage during the early weeks of the trial.

PAGE 54

43 The DM, OM, and NDF were similar across all supplements (P > 0.30). The CP content was different (P = 0.05) between supplements by design, because not all supplements were formulated to be isonitrogenous. The IVOMD varied (P = 0.05) across supplements because of the supplement formulation including the addition of urea and UIP. The CP content of CITR+UREA was similar (P = 0.45) to CITR+UIP suggesting they were isonitrogenous, as formulated. Animal Response During the second week, two animals died from complications related to heat stress and possibly a combination of urea toxicity. These animals were removed from data set prior to analysis. There was no treatment by week interaction (P = 0.13) for ADG. However, treatment did have an effect (P < 0.05) on ADG for all weeks except week three where a tendency was observed (P = 0.07). Supplemented calves had higher 42 d. ADG than unsupplemented calves (P < 0.01). There was a treatment effect (P < 0.01) on 42 d. ADG as well (Figure 4-2). The CITR+UIP treatment produced the greatest 42 d. ADG (0.43 kg), while CITR and CIRT+UREA had an intermediate 42 d. ADG (0.33 and 0.24 kg respectively). Animals on the control treatment had the lowest 42 d. ADG (0.14kg). The ADG observed in this trial is much lower than those reported by Pritchard and Mendez (1990). They found that preconditioning Charolais-sired calves for 25-30 days on ranches in South Dakota resulted in an ADG of 0.9 kg per head. The difference in ADG could be due to the difference in breed, forage type, supplement, and weather effects. Across all weeks, there tended (P = 0.07) to be a quartic effect of week on ADG (Figure 4-3). All calves lost weight in the first week, and then gained steadily throughout the remainder on the trial except for week five where very little gain was observed for any treatment. Across all treatments, calves lost approximately 5 kg during

PAGE 55

44 the first week. This corresponds to the stress from weaning compounded by the drylot environment and poor quality hay offered. This agrees with Pate and Crockett (1973) who reported a weight loss of 4.5-9.0 kg during the first week after weaning. The lack of gain during week five is believed to be due to weather conditions, which were hot and dry. Animal sex tended (P = 0.09) to have an effect on 42 d. ADG. Across all treatments, 42 d. ADG was 0.67 kg for steers compared to 0.59 kg for heifers. Animal breed type also tended (P = 0.06) to have an effect on 42 d. ADG (Figure 4-4). Crossbred cattle with more than 20 percent Bos indicus breeding had higher ADG than those with less than 20 percent Bos indicus. Brangus (3/8 B, 5/8 A) calves had intermediate ADG. Economic Evaluation A summary of the costs associated with preconditioning calves in this trial is given in Table 4-3. Costs of vaccines, anthelmintic, hay, mineral, supplement, pasture fertilizer and pesticide, and labor were included in the total cost of preconditioning calves. Also included were the opportunity costs of pasture (based on lease rate) and interest (based on selling calves at weaning). Total cost of preconditioning was similar for all supplemented calves at about $27 per head, with supplement being the largest percent of cost. Profitability of the different preconditioning treatments was calculated by comparing them to non-preconditioned calves sold at weaning (Table 4-4). In this evaluation, it was assumed that non-preconditioned calves would weigh 241 kg and would sell for $1.76/kg. Based on this, a breakeven price was calculated for each preconditioning treatment by adding the cost of preconditioning to the income received if the calves had been sold at weaning ($424.16) and dividing by the market weight or

PAGE 56

45 weight at weaning (241 kg) plus the gain realized over the preconditioning period. The breakeven price for the control, CITR, CITR+UREA, and CITR+UIP treatments is $1.79/kg, $1.77/kg, $1.79/kg, and $1.75/kg respectively. Assuming that preconditioned calves would sell for the same price as non-preconditioned calves ($1.76/kg), the profit from each preconditioning treatment was calculated. At this price, the only supplement that would return a profit over cost was CITR+UIP. This supplement produced a $3.17 profit per head. If the preconditioned calves brought a premium at the time of sale (1.87/kg), then all treatments would produce a profit over calves sold at weaning for a market price of $1.76/kg. At these market prices, the profit per head from CITR+UIP is $31.68, the profit from CITR is $26.48, the profit from control was $19.71, and the profit from CITR+UREA was $19.52. Although the ADG of the calves supplemented in this experiment was low to moderate, it was better than unsupplemented animals. Of the supplemented calves, those fed the CITR+UIP supplement had the highest 42 d. ADG (0.43 kg), and those supplemented with CITR+UREA had the lowest (0.24 kg). Based on the assumptions mentioned above, the most profitable treatment was CITR+UIP and the least profitable was the control. Implications Animals supplemented with feed in this preconditioning program produced higher gains than those that were unsupplemented. Gains were low to moderate and profit was minimal. It is well documented that preconditioned calves are healthier than non-preconditioned calves resulting in improved performance in the feedlot. This is particularly important when trying to establish a reputation for quality calves or when

PAGE 57

46 considering retained ownership and was not accounted for in this economic evaluation. Increased performance of preconditioned calves in the feedlot has led to premiums offered for preconditioned calves. These premiums, as well as weight gain, the cost of preconditioning, market price, and marketing method will affect the profitability of preconditioning programs.

PAGE 58

47 Table 4-1. Feeding rate, formulation, and nutrient composition of pasture and supplements fed to preconditioned calves. Pasture Supplements Pasture CONTROL a CITR CITR+UREA CITR+UIP Feeding rate kg/hd/d Ad libitum -2.27 2.31 2.49 Ingredient (%) Citrus pulp (#605) -100.00 98.00 91.00 Soy Plus (42.5 % CP, 60 % UIP) -0.00 0.00 9.00 Urea (#522) -0.00 2.00 0.00 Formulated TDN kg/hd/d --1.70 1.70 1.86 Crude protein kg/hd/d --0.16 0.27 0.27 DIP kg/hd/d --0.11 0.21 0.15 UIP kg/hd/d --0.06 0.06 0.12 Actual Analysis Dry Matter (%) 38.92 -91.04 90.74 90.88 Organic Matter (%) 95.99 -94.18 94.39 94.28 Crude Protein (%) 14.06 -7.24 a 11.93 b 10.38 ab IVOMD (%) 30.11 -87.05 a 86.73 b 86.80 b NDF(%) 68.86 -20.11 19.74 20.32 LS means within a row with different superscripts are different P < 0.05. a Pasture only

PAGE 59

Table 4-2. Pasture Quality ( SE) by week for preconditioned calves fed citrus pulp supplements. Analysis OM CP IVOMD NDF Week 1 95.94 0.06 ab 17.69 0.33 c 32.40 0.21 d 67.03 0.26 c Week 2 96.24 0.06 b 13.72 0.33 b 30.86 0.21 c 68.34 0.26 b Week 3 95.94 0.06 ab 13.89 0.33 b 29.85 0.21 b 68.50 0.26 b Week 4 95.93 0.06 ab 13.85 0.33 b 29.49 0.21 ab 69.66 0.26 a Week 5 96.10 0.06 b 12.79 0.33 a 29.05 0.21 a 69.85 0.26 a Week 6 95.80 0.06 a 12.43 0.33 a 29.04 0.21 a 69.81 0.26 a LS means within a column with different superscripts are different P < 0.05. 48

PAGE 60

Table 4-3. Peconditioning costs. 49 Cost per head ($) Non-preconditioned CONTROL CITR CITR+UREA CITR+UIP Vaccines (all were given preweaning) -$4.16 $4.16 $4.16 $4.16 2 clostridial vaccine @ $0.529/dose 2 chemically altered MLV @ $1.10/dose Anthelmintic (227 kg dose given at day 7) -$1.94 $1.94 $1.94 $1.94 Eprinex pour-on (eprinomectin) Hay (19 kg/bale) -$2.24 $2.24 $2.24 $2.24 28 bales/treatment @ $3.00/bale Pasture (opportunity cost) -$0.46 $0.46 $0.46 $0.46 12 hectares @ $49/hectare lease rate x 42 days Fertilizer @ 67 kg/hectare (19 % N) -$3.38 $3.38 $3.38 $3.38 Pasture pesticide (army worm) -$1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 Mineral (68 kg/treatment @ $0.29/kg) -$0.53 $0.53 $0.53 $0.53 Supplement (total trial) --$8.19 $8.61 $10.75 Labor (15 min./d. @ $6/hr.) -$2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25 Interest (opportunity cost) -$2.06 $2.06 $2.06 $2.06 5 % interest if calves sold at $1.76/kg Total costs -$18.02 $26.21 $26.63 $28.77

PAGE 61

Table 4-4. Preconditioning profits. Cost per head ($) Non-preconditioned CONTROL CITR CITR+UREA CITR+UIP Supplement (total trial) --$8.19 $8.61 $10.75 Total costs -$18.02 $26.21 $26.63 $28.77 Total gain (kg) -5.99 14.02 10.56 18.15 Calf weight at marketing (kg) 241 247 255 252 259 Cost of gain ($/kg) b -$3.01 $2.05 $2.52 $1.44 Breakeven @ $1.76/kg ($/kg) c -$1.79 $1.77 $1.79 $1.75 Income/head @ $1.76/kg d $424.16 a $434.72 $448.84 $442.75 $456.10 Profit over non-preconditioned calves e --$7.46 -$1.53 -$8.04 $3.17 Income/head @ $1.87/kg f -$461.89 $476.85 $470.31 $484.61 Profit over non-preconditioned calves g -$19.71 $26.48 $19.52 $31.68 a Assuming non-preconditioned calves weighed the same as preconditioned calves at weaning (241 kg). 50 b The cost of preconditioning divided by the gain realized from preconditioning. c The cost of preconditioning plus the income received if calves were marketed at weaning ($424.16) divided by the total of the market weight plus the gain realized from preconditioning. d The income received if calves were marketed at $1.76/kg multiplied by the market weight. e The income received if calves were marketed at $1.76/kg multiplied by the market weight minus the total of income received if calves were marketed at weaning ($424.16) and the cost of preconditioning. f The income received if calves were marketed at $1.87/kg multiplied by the market weight. g The income received if calves were marketed at $1.87/kg multiplied by the market weight minus the total of income received if calves were marketed at weaning ($424.16) and the cost of preconditioning.

PAGE 62

Pasture CP by Week02468101214161820123456WeekPercent CP (DM basis) aabbbc 51 Figure 4-1. Crude protein (CP) of pasture for preconditioned calves fed citrus pulp supplements by week. Week effect P < 0.01.

PAGE 63

Total ADG by TreatmentControl, 0.14CITR, 0.33CITR +UREA, 0.24CITR + UIP,0.4300.050.10.150.20.250.30.350.40.450.5ADG (kg) bdca 52 Figure 4-2. Total average daily gain (ADG) of preconditioned calves fed citrus pulp supplements by treatment. Treatment effect P < 0.01.

PAGE 64

ADG by Week-1.5-1-0.500.511.5123456WeekADG (kg) Control CITR CITR+UREA CITR+UIP 53 Figure 4-3. Average daily gain (ADG) of preconditioned calves fed citrus pulp supplements by week. Treatment x week interaction P = 0.13. Treatment effect P < 0.01. Week effect P < 0.01.

PAGE 65

Total ADG by Breed00.050.10.150.20.250.30.350.40-2020-4040-6060-8080-100BrangusPercent Bos indicus BreedingADG (kg) aabbbbb 54 Figure 4-4. Effect of Bos indicus breeding on total average daily gain of preconditioned calves. Breed effect P = 0.06.

PAGE 66

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS Citrus pulp supplements with added undegraded intake protein (UIP) show promise as an economical supplement for growing cattle in Florida. These supplements have shown to increase gain and decrease hay intake in growing cattle fed hay. Citrus pulp with added UIP has also shown to increase gains of calves in a preconditioning program. 55

PAGE 67

APPENDIX A SUPPLEMENTAL CHAPTER 3 TABLES AND FIGURES

PAGE 68

57 Appendix Table A-1. Total average daily gain ( SE) by period for growing calves fed citrus pulp supplements with increasing levels of UIP. Citrus Pulp Treatments Average Daily Gain (kg SE) Citr 1 Citr 2 Citr 3 Citr 4 Citr 5 Linear Quadratic Period 1 (0-28 d.) 0.52 0.12 a 0.74 0.12 ab 1.08 0.12 bc 1.03 0.12 c 1.24 0.12 c P = 0.55 P = 0.33 Period 2 (28-56 d.) 0.34 0.10 a 0.27 0.10 a 0.50 0.10 ab 0.50 0.10 ab 0.72 0.10 b P = 0.29 P = 0.22 Period 3 (56-84 d.) 0.15 0.10 a 0.31 0.10 ab 0.32 0.10 ab 0.48 0.10 bc 0.65 0.10 c P = 0.07 P = 0.04 Total 84 d. 0.34 0.07 a 0.44 0.07 ab 0.63 0.07 bc 0.67 0.07 cd 0.87 0.08 d P = 0.13 P = 0.05 CornTreatments Average Daily Gain (kg SE) Corn 1 Corn 2 Corn 3 Corn 4 Corn 5 Linear Quadratic Period 1 (0-28 d.) 0.64 0.12 a 1.01 0.12 ab 0.95 0.12 b 1.00 0.12 b 1.13 0.12 b P = 0.55 P = 0.33 Period 2 (28-56 d.) 0.51 0.10 a 0.42 0.10 a 0.59 0.10 a 0.52 0.10 a 0.63 0.10 a P = 0.29 P = 0.22 Period 3 (56-84 d.) 0.40 0.10 a 0.33 0.10 a 0.28 0.10 a 0.54 0.10 a 0.54 0.10 a P = 0.07 P = 0.04 Total 84 d. 0.52 0.07 a 0.59 0.07 a 0.61 0.07 a 0.67 0.07 a 0.77 0.08 b P = 0.13 P = 0.05 Level of Added UIP (Citrus Pulp and Corn Combined) Average Daily Gain (kg SE) Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Linear Quadratic Period 1 (0-28 d.) 0.58 0.09 a 0.87 0.09 b 1.02 0.09 bc 1.02 0.09 bc 1.20 0.09 c P < 0.01 P = 0.27 Period 2 (28-56 d.) 0.40 0.07 ab 0.34 0.07 a 0.55 0.07 b 0.52 0.07 ab 0.64 0.07 b P = 0.89 P = 0.65 Period 3 (56-84 d.) 0.31 0.07 a 0.34 0.07 a 0.32 0.07 a 0.48 0.07 ab 0.64 0.07 b P = 0.38 P = 0.12 Total 84 d. 0.43 0.05 a 0.52 0.05 ab 0.63 0.05 b 0.67 0.05 b 0.82 0.05 c P = 0.40 P = 0.75 LS means within row with different superscripts are different P < 0.05. Carbohydrate x UIP interaction P = 0.31. Level of added UIP effect P < 0.01. Carbohydrate source effect P = 0.38.

PAGE 69

58 Appendix Table A-2. Total intake, crude protein intake, and digestible organic matter intake of supplement and hay (SE) for growing calves supplemented with citrus pulp with increasing levels of UIP. Citrus Pulp Treatments Citr 1 Citr 2 Citr 3 Citr 4 Citr 5 Linear Quadratic Supplement Intake (kg SE) Dry Matter Intake 241.2 cd 247.2 d 242.3 cd 239.2 c 235.3 bc P < 0.01 P = 0.05 Crude Protein Intake 61.4.6 c 60.90.6 c 63.8.6 d 61.5.6 cd 58.3.6 b P = 0.06 P < 0.01 Digestible Organic Matter Intake 204.9 c 210.9 d 204.9 c 198.9 b 196.0 b P < 0.01 P = 0.07 Hay Intake (kg SE) Dry Matter Intake 286.5 a 330.5 ab 30421.6 ab 29121.6 a 27222.4 a P < 0.01 P = 0.09 Crude Protein Intake 21.5.6 a 24.8.6 ab 22.91.6 ab 21.9.6 a 20.5.7 a P < 0.01 P = 0.09 Digestible Organic Matter Intake 73.7.6 a 85.1.5 ab 78.35.6 ab 74.9.6 a 70.2.8 a P < 0.01 P = 0.09 Total (kg SE) Dry Matter Intake 527.6 ab 57722.6 b 546.7 ab 529.6 ab 50823.5 a P < 0.01 P = 0.07 Crude Protein Intake 82.9.9 ab 85.8.9 b 86.61.9 b 83.4.9 b 78.8.0 ab P < 0.01 P = 0.02 Digestible Organic Matter Intake 278.6 a 295.6 b 282.6 b 273.6 a 266.9 a P < 0.01 P = 0.05 LS means within a row with different superscripts are different P < 0.05. Supplement DM intake: CHO x UIP (P = 0.64), CHO effect (P < 0.01), UIP effect (P = 0.01). Supplement CP intake: CHO x UIP (P < 0.01), CHO effect (P < 0.01), UIP effect (P < 0.01). Supplement DOM intake: CHO x UIP (P = 0.09), CHO effect (P < 0.01), UIP effect (P < 0.01). Hay DM intake: CHO x UIP (P = 0.35), CHO effect (P < 0.01), UIP effect (P < 0.01). Hay CP intake: CHO x UIP (P = 0.35), CHO effect (P < 0.01), UIP effect (P < 0.01). Hay DOM intake: CHO x UIP (P = 0.35), CHO effect (P < 0.01), UIP effect (P < 0.01). Total DM intake: CHO x UIP (P = 0.43), CHO effect (P < 0.01), UIP effect (P < 0.01). Total CP intake: CHO x UIP (P = 0.57), CHO effect (P = 0.16), UIP effect (P < 0.01). Total DOM intake: CHO x UIP (P = 0.44), CHO effect (P = 0.14), UIP effect (P < 0.01).

PAGE 70

59 Appendix Table A-3. Total intake, crude protein intake, and digestible organic matter intake of supplement and hay (SE) for growing calves supplemented with corn with increasing levels of UIP. Corn Treatments Corn 1 Corn 2 Corn 3 Corn 4 Corn 5 Linear Quadratic Supplement Intake (kg SE) Dry Matter Intake 231.2 ab 232.2 ab 230.3 ab 229.2 ab 226.3 a P < 0.01 P = 0.05 Crude Protein Intake 55.5.6 a 55.60.6 a 56.3.6 a 55.0.6 a 56.1.6 a P = 0.06 P < 0.01 Digestible Organic Matter Intake 200.9 bc 197.9 b 195.9 b 195.9 b 189.0 a P < 0.01 P = 0.07 Hay Intake (kg SE) Dry Matter Intake 382.5 bc 394.5 c 359.6 bc 31521.6 ab 28322.4 a P < 0.01 P = 0.09 Crude Protein Intake 28.7.6 bc 29.7.6 c 27.0.6 bc 23.7.6 ab 21.3.7 a P < 0.01 P = 0.09 Digestible Organic Matter Intake 98.5.6 bc 101.6.5 c 92.5.6 bc 81.3.6 ab 73.0.8 a P < 0.01 P = 0.09 Total (kg SE) Dry Matter Intake 613.6 b 62622.6 b 589.7 b 545.6 ab 50923.5 a P < 0.01 P = 0.07 Crude Protein Intake 84.3.9 b 85.2.9 b 83.31.9 b 78.7.9 ab 77.4.0 a P < 0.01 P = 0.02 Digestible Organic Matter Intake 299.6 b 298.6 b 288.6 b 276.6 a 262.9 a P < 0.01 P = 0.05 LS means within a row with different superscripts are different P < 0.05. Supplement DM intake: CHO x UIP (P = 0.64), CHO effect (P < 0.01), UIP effect (P = 0.01). Supplement CP intake: CHO x UIP (P < 0.01), CHO effect (P < 0.01), UIP effect (P < 0.01). Supplement DOM intake: CHO x UIP (P = 0.09), CHO effect (P < 0.01), UIP effect (P < 0.01). Hay DM intake: CHO x UIP (P = 0.35), CHO effect (P < 0.01), UIP effect (P < 0.01). Hay CP intake: CHO x UIP (P = 0.35), CHO effect (P < 0.01), UIP effect (P < 0.01). Hay DOM intake: CHO x UIP (P = 0.35), CHO effect (P < 0.01), UIP effect (P < 0.01). Total DM intake: CHO x UIP (P = 0.43), CHO effect (P < 0.01), UIP effect (P < 0.01). Total CP intake: CHO x UIP (P = 0.57), CHO effect (P = 0.16), UIP effect (P < 0.01). Total DOM intake: CHO x UIP (P = 0.44), CHO effect (P = 0.14), UIP effect (P < 0.01).

PAGE 71

Total ADG by Level of Added UIP00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9112345Level of added UIPADG (kg) 60 Appendix Figure A-1. Total average daily gain (ADG) of calves supplemented with corn or citrus pulp with increasing levels of UIP by level of added UIP. CHO X UIP interaction P = 0.31, CHO effect P = 0.38, UIP effect P < 0.01.

PAGE 72

Hay DM Intake by Level of Added UIP05010015020025030035040012345Level of added UIPIntake (kg) 61 Appendix Figure A-2. Total hay dry matter (DM) intake of calves supplemented with corn or citrus pulp with increasing levels of UIP by level of added UIP. CHO x UIP interaction P = 0.43, CHO effect P < 0.01, UIP effect P < 0.01.

PAGE 73

APPENDIX B SUPPLEMENTAL CHAPTER 4 TABLES AND FIGURES

PAGE 74

Appendix Table B-1. Average daily gain ( SE) by week and total gain for preconditioned calves fed citrus pulp supplements. Supplements Control CITR CITR+UREA CITR+UIP Average Daily Gain (kg SE) Week 1 -1.12 0.13 a -0.38 0.13 c -0.77 0.13 b -0.78 0.13 b Week 2 1.09 0.10 b 0.49 0.10 a 0.53 0.10 a 1.20 0.10 b Week 3 0.50 0.08 a 0.80 0.09 b 0.63 0.09 ab 0.58 0.08 ab Week 4 0.28 0.09 ab 0.50 0.09 b 0.19 0.09 a 0.47 0.09 b Week 5 -0.14 0.07 a -0.02 0.07 ab 0.09 0.07 b 0.11 0.07 b Week 6 0.24 0.08 a 0.60 0.09 b 0.80 0.09 bc 0.99 0.08 c Total 0-42 d. ADG 0.14 0.02 a 0.33 0.02 c 0.24 0.02 b 0.43 0.02 d Total gain 0-42 d. 5.99 0.82 a 14.02 0.82 c 10.56 0.84 b 18.15 0.82 d LS means within row with different superscripts are different P < 0.05. Treatment effect P < 0.01. 63

PAGE 75

Pasture OM by Week020406080100120123456WeekPercent OM (DM basis) ababababb 64 Appendix Figure B-1. Organic matter (OM) of pasture for preconditioned calves fed citrus pulp supplements by week. SE = 0.064.Treatment effect P = 0.01. Week effect P < 0.01.

PAGE 76

Pasture IVOMD by Week05101520253035123456WeekPercent IVOMD (DM basis) aaabbcd 65 Appendix Figure B-2. In vitro organic matter digestibility (IVOMD) of pasture for preconditioned calves fed citrus pulp supplements by week. Treatment effect P = 0.07. Week effect P < 0.01.

PAGE 77

LITERATURE CITED Ammerman, C. B., P. A. vanWalleghem, A. Z. Palmer, J. W. Carpenter, J. F. Hentges, and L. R. Arrington. 1963. Comparative feeding value of dried citrus pulp and ground corn and cob meal for fattening steers. Animal Sci. Mimeo Rpt. AN 64-8, Florida Agric. Exp. Sta. Univ. of Florida, Gainesville. Ammerman, C. B., R. Hendrickson, G. M. Hall, J. F. Easley, and P. E. Loggins. 1965. The nutritive value of various fractions of citrus pulp and the effect of drying temperature on the nutritive value of citrus pulp. Proc. Florida State Hort. Soc. 78:307-311. Ammerman, C. B., J. F. Easley, L. R. Arrington, and F. G. Martin. 1966. Factors affecting the physical and nutrient composition of dried citrus pulp. Proc. Florida State Hort. Soc. 79:223-227. Ammerman, C. B., F. C. Neal, A. Z. Palmer, J. E. Moore, and L. R. Arrington. 1967. Comparative nutritional value of pelleted and regular citrus pulp when fed at different levels to finishing steers. Animal Sci. Mimeo Rpt. AN 67-7, Florida Agric. Exp. Sta. Univ. of Florida, Gainesville. Ammerman, C. B., and P. R. Henry. 1991. Citrus and vegetable products for ruminant animals. Pages 103-110 in Proc. Alternative Feeds for Dairy and Beef Cattle, Natl. Inv. Symp., St. Louis, MO. Amstutz, H. E. Preconditioning feeder calves. 1979. Mod. Vet. Pract. 60: 395-396. Anderson, S. J., T. J. Klopfenstein, and V. A. Wilkerson. 1988. Escape protein supplementation of yearling steers grazing smooth brome pastures. J. Anim. Sci. 66: 237-242. Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC). 1984. Official Methods of Analysis (14 th Ed.). Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC. Arthington, J. D., and F. M. Pate. 2001. Estimating the value of wet citrus pulp for Florida cattlemen. EDIS doc. AN 108, Florida Coop. Ext. Service. Univ. of Florida, Gainesville. Arthington, J. D., W. E. Kunkle, and A. M. Martin. 2002. Citrus pulp for cattle. Vet Clin. Food Anim. 18: 317-326. 66

PAGE 78

67 Arosemena, A., E. J. DePeters, and J. G. Fadel. 1995. Extent and variability in nutrient composition within selected by-product feedstuffs. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 54:103-120. Ball, D. M., C. S. Hoveland, and G. D. Lacefield. 1996. Southern Forages. 2 nd ed. Williams Printing Co., Alanta, GA. Bandyk, C. A., R. C. Cochran, T. A. Wickersham, E. C. Titgemeyer, C. G. Farmer, and J. J. Higgins. 2001. Effect of ruminal vs postruminal administration of degradable protein on utilization of low-quality forage by beef steers. J. Anim. Sci. 79: 225-231. Bodine, T. N., and H. T. Purvis, II. 2003. Effects of supplemental energy and/or degradable intake protein on performance, grazing behavior, intake, digestibility, and fecal and blood indices by beef steers grazed on dormant native tallgrass prairie. J. Anim. Sci. 81: 304-317. Bodine, T. N., H. T. Purvis, II, C. J. Ackerman, and C. L. Goad. 2000a. Effects of supplementing prairie hay with corn and soybean meal on intake, digestion, and ruminal measurements by beef steers. J. Anim. Sci. 78: 3144-3154. Bodine, T. N., H. T. Purvis, II, and D. A. Cox. 2000b. Effects of supplemental energy and degradable intake protein on grazing behavior, forage intake, digestion and performance of steers grazing winter range. Pages 33-39 in 2000 Animal Science Research Report, Univ. Oklahoma State, Stillwater. Bohnert, D. W., C. S. Schauer, M. L. Bauer, and T. DelCurto. 2002. Influence of rumen protein degradability and supplementation frequency on steers consuming low-quality forage: I. Site of digestion and microbial efficiency. J. Anim. Sci. 80: 2967-2977. Bowman, J. G. P., and D. W. Sanson. 1996. Starchor fiber-based energy supplements for grazing ruminants. Pages 118-135 in Proc. Grazing Livest. Nutr. Conf., Rapid City, SD. Brown, W. F., and W. E. Kunkle. 1992. Improving the feeding value of hay by anhydrous ammonia treatment. EDIS doc. BUL 888, Florida Coop. Ext. Service. Univ. of Florida, Gainesville. Brown, W. F., J. E. Moore, W. E. Kunkle, C. G. Chambliss, and K. M. Portier. 1990. Forage testing using near infrared reflectance spectroscopy. J. Anim. Sci. 68: 1416-1427. Caton, J. S., and D. V. Dhuyvetter. 1997. Influence of energy supplementation on grazing ruminants: Requirements and responses. J. Anim. Sci. 75: 533-542. Chambliss, C. G., W. E. Kunkle, and R. P. Cromwell. 1998. Hay production in Florida. EDIS doc. SS-AGR-70, Florida Coop. Ext. Service. Univ. of Florida, Gainesville.

PAGE 79

68 Chapman, H. L., Jr., R. W. Kidder, and S. W. Plank. 1953. Comparative feeding value of citrus molasses, cane molasses, ground snapped corn, and dried citrus pulp for fattening steers on pasture. Florida Agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. 531. Univ. of Florida, Gainesville. Chapman, H. L., Jr., C. E. Haines, and R. W. Kidder. 1961. Feeding value of limited fed mixed feed, citrus pulp, ground snapped corn and blackstrap molasses for fattening steers on pasture. Everglades Sta. Mimeo Rpt. 61-19. Everglades Exp. Sta., Belle Glade, Florida. Chapman, H. L., Jr., C. B. Ammerman, F. S. Baker Jr., J. F. Hentges, B. W. Hayes, and T. J. Cunha. 1983. Citrus feeds for beef cattle. Florida Agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. 751. Univ. of Florida, Gainesville. Clanton, D. C. 1978. Non-protein nitrogen in range supplements. J. Anim. Sci. 47: 765-779. Clanton, D. C., and D. R. Zimmerman. 1970. Symposium on pasture methods for maximum production in beef cattle: Protein and energy requirements for female beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 30: 122-132. Cole, N. A. 1985. Preconditioning calves for the feedlot. Vet. Clin. North Am. Food Anim. Pract. 1: 401-411. DelCurto, T., R. C. Cochran, D. L. Harmon, A. A. Beharka, K. A. Jacques, G. Towne, and E. S. Vanzant. 1990. Supplementation of dormant tallgrass-prairie forage: I. Influence of varying supplemental protein and(or) energy levels on forage utilization characteristics of beef steers in confinement. J. Anim. Sci. 68: 515-531. DelCurto, T., B. W. Hess, J. E. Huston, and K. C. Olsen. 2000. Optimum supplementation strategies for beef cattle consuming low-quality roughages in the western United States. Proc. Am. Soc. Anim. Sci., 1999. Available at: http://www.asas.org/jas/symposia/proceedings/filename. Accessed {June 9, 2002}. Engelken, T. J. 1997. Preventative programs for respiratory disease in cow/calf operations. Vet. Clin. North Am. Food Anim. Pract. 13: 647-60. Galyean, M. L., L. J. Perino, and G. C. Duff. 1999. Interaction of cattle health/immunity and nutrition. J. Anim. Sci. 77: 1120-1134. Hannah, S. M., M. T. Rhodes, J. A. Paterson, M. S. Kerley, J. E. Williams, and K. E. Turner. 1989. Influence of energy supplementation on forage intake, digestibility, and grazing time by cattle grazing tall fescue. Nutr. Rep. Int. 40: 1153-1158. Herrick, J. B. 1969. Preconditioning, its national status. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 154: 1163-1165.

PAGE 80

69 Hodges, A., E. Philippakos, D. Mulkey, T. Spreen, and R. Muraro. 2001. Economic impact of Floridas citrus industry, 1999-2000. EDIS doc. FE 307, Florida Coop. Ext. Service. Univ. of Florida, Gainesville. Hollingsworth-Jenkins, K., T. Klopfenstein, D. Adams, and J. Lamb. 1996. Rumen degradable protein requirements of gestating beef cows grazing dormant native sandhills range. Pages 14-16 in 1996 Nebraska Beef Report, Univ. of Nebraska, Lincoln. Horn, G. W., and F. T. McCollum III. 1987. Energy supplementation of grazing ruminants. In: M. Judkins (Ed.) Proc. Grazing Livestock Nutrition Conf., Jackson, WY. Pages 125-136. Horn, G. W., M. D. Cravey, F. T. McCollum III, C. A. Strasia, E. G. Krenzer, Jr., and P. L. Claypool. 1995. Influence of high-starch vs high-fiber energy supplements on performance of stocker cattle grazing wheat pasture and subsequent feedlot performance. J. Anim. Sci. 73: 45-54. Jordan, D. J., T. J. Klopfenstein, and D. C. Adams. 2002. Dried poultry waste for cows grazing low-quality winter forage. J. Anim. Sci. 80: 818-824. Karges, K. K., T. J. Klopfenstein, V. A. Wilkerson, and D. C. Clanton. 1992. Effects of ruminally degradable and escape protein supplements on steers grazing summer native range. J. Anim. Sci. 70: 1957-1964. Kartchner, R. J. 1981. Effects of protein and energy supplementation of cows grazing native winter range forage on intake and digestibility. J. Anim. Sci. 51: 432-438. King, M. E., and K. G. Odde. 1998. The effects of value added health programs on the price and no-sale rate of beef calves sold through 10 Superior Livestock video auctions in 1997. Available: http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/AnimSci. Acessed June 9 2002. Kirk, W. G., E. R. Felton, H. J. Fulford, and E. M. Hodges. 1949. Citrus products for fattening cattle. Florida Agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. 454. Univ. of Florida, Gainesville. Klopfenstein, T. 1996. Need for escape protein by grazing cattle. Anim. Feed Sci. Tech. 60: 191-199. Kster, H. H., R. C. Cochran, E. C. Titgemeyer, E. S. Vanzant, I. Abdelgadir, and G. St-Jean. 1996. Effect of increasing degradable intake protein on intake and digestion of low-quality, tallgrass-prairie forage by beef cows. J. Anim. Sci. 74: 2473-2481. Kster, H. H., R. C. Cochran, E. C. Titgemeyer, E. S. Vanzant, T. G. Nagaraja, K. K. Kreikemeyer, and G. St-Jean. 1997. Effect of increasing proportion of supplemental nitrogen from urea on intake and utilization of low-quality tallgrass-prairie forage by beef steers. J. Anim. Sci. 75: 1393-1399.

PAGE 81

70 Kreikmeier, K. K., J. T. Johns, G. L. Stokka, K. D. Bullock, T. T. Marston, and D. L. Harmon. 1997. The effect of the timing of vaccination on health and growth performance of commingled calves. J. Anim. Sci. 75(Suppl. 1): 37 (Abstr.). Kunkle, W. E. 2001. Strategies for cost effective supplementation of beef cattle. EDIS doc. SS-ANS-14, Florida Coop. Ext. Service. Univ. of Florida, Gainesville. Kunkle, W. E., R. S. Sand, and D. O. Rae. 1994. Effects of body condition on productivity in beef cattle. EDIS doc. SP 144, Florida Coop. Ext. Service. Univ. of Florida, Gainesville. Kunkle, W. E., J.T. Johns, M. H. Poore, and D. B. Herd. 2000. Designing supplementation programs for beef cattle fed forage-based diets. Proc. Am. Soc. Anim. Sci., 1999. Available at: http://www.asas.org/jas/symposia/proceedings/filename. Accessed {June 9, 2002}. Kunkle, W. E., R. L. Stewart, and W. F. Brown. 2001. Using byproduct feeds in beef supplementation programs. EDIS doc. AN 101, Florida Coop. Ext. Service. Univ. of Florida, Gainesville. Kunkle, W. E., J. Fletcher, and D. Mayo. 2002. Florida cow-calf management, 2 nd edition-Feeding the cow herd. EDIS doc. AN117, Florida Coop. Ext. Service. Univ. of Florida, Gainesville. Lalman, D., D. Gill, G. Highfill, J. Wallace, K. Barnes, C. Strasia, and B. LeValley. 2002. Nutrition and management considerations for preconditioning home raised beef calves. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service Fact Sheet. F-3031. Loggins, P. E., C. B. Ammerman, L. R. Arrington, J. E. Moore, and C. F. Simpson. 1964. Feeding value of pelleted rations high in citrus by-products and corn for fattening lambs. Animal Sci. Mimeo Rpt. AN 65-6, Florida Agric. Exp. Sta., Univ. of Florida, Gainesville. Martin, A. M. 2001. Citrus pulp, soybean hulls, and corn as supplements for growing beef cattle fed forage based diets. M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville. Mathis, C. P., R. C. Cochran, J. S. Heldt, B. C. Woods, I. E. O. Abdelgadir, K. C. Olsen, E. C. Titgemeyer, and E. S. Vanzant. 2000. Effects of supplemental degradable intake protein on utilization of mediumto low-quality forages. J. Anim. Sci. 78: 224-232. McCollum, F. T., III, and G. W. Horn. 1990. Protein supplementation of grazing livestock: A review. Prof. Anim. Sci. 6: 1-16. McNeill, J. 1997. 1996-97 Texas A&M Ranch to Rail North/South Summary Report. Texas Agricultural Extension Service, Texas A&M University, College Station.

PAGE 82

71 McNeill, J. 1999. 1998-99 Texas A&M Ranch to Rail North/South Summary Report. Texas Agricultural Extension Service, Texas A&M University, College Station. McNeill, J. 2001. 2000-01 Texas A&M Ranch to Rail North/South Summary Report. Texas Agricultural Extension Service, Texas A&M University, College Station. Miksch, D. 1984. Preconditioning programs for feeder cattle. Mod. Vet. Pract. 65: 341-344. Moore, J. E., and G. O. Mott. 1974. Recovery of residual organic matter from in vitro digestion of forages. J. Dairy Sci. 57: 1258-1259. Moore, J. E., W. E. Kunkle, and W. F. Brown. 1991. Forage quality and the need for protein and energy supplements. Pages 113-123 in 40 th Annual Florida Beef Cattle Short Course Proceedings, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville. Moore, J. E., M. H. Brant, W. E. Kunkle, and D. I. Hopkins. 1999. Effects of supplementation on voluntary forage intake, diet digestibility, and animal performance. J. Anim. Sci. 77(Suppl. 2): 122-135. Nelson, M. L. 1997. Escape protein supplementation of steers fed grass silage-based diets. J. Anim. Sci. 75: 2796-2802. National Research Council (NRC). 1996. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle (7 th Revised Ed.). National Academy Press, Washington, DC. Olson, K. C., R. C. Cochran, T. J. Jones, E. S. Vanzant, E. C. Titgemeyer, and D. E. Johnson. 1999. Effects of ruminal administration of supplemental degradable intake protein and starch on utilization of low-quality warm-season grass hay by beef steers. J. Anim. Sci. 77: 1016-1025. Pate, F. M., and J. R. Crockett. 1973. Effect of limited creep feeding beef calveson postweaning performance. AREC Belle Glade Res. Rpt. EV-1973-3. Univ. of Florida, Gainesville. Pate, F. M., and J. R. Crockett. 1978. Value of preconditioning beef calves. EDIS doc. BUL 799, Florida Coop. Ext. Service. Univ. of Florida, Gainesville. Paterson, J., R. C. Cochran, and T. Klopfenstein. 1996. Degradable and undegradable protein responses of cattle consuming forage-based diets. Pages 94-103 in Proc. Grazing Livest. Nutr. Conf., Univ. of Wyoming, Laramie. Peacock, F. M., and W. G. Kirk. 1959. Comparative feeding value of dried citrus pulp, corn feed meal, and ground snapped corn for fattening steers in drylot. Florida Agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. 616. Univ. of Florida, Gainesville.

PAGE 83

72 Peterson, E. B., D. R. Strohbehn, G. W. Ladd, and R. L. Willham. 1989. Effects of preconditioning on performance of beef calves before and after entering the feedlot. J. Anim. Sci. 67: 1678-1686. Pond, W. G., D. C. Church, and K. R. Pond. 1995. Basic Animal Nutrition and Feeding. 4 th ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. Pritchard, R. H., and J. K. Mendez. 1990. Effects of preconditioning on preand post-shipment performance of feeder calves. J. Anim. Sci. 68: 28-34. Ramos, J. A., G. D. Mendoza, E. Aranda, I. C. Garcia-Bojalil, R. Barcena, and J. Alanis. 1998. Escape protein supplementation of growing steers grazing stargrass. Anim. Feed Sci. Tech. 70: 249-256. SAS. 1990. SAS Users Guide: Statistics. SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC. Sanson, D. W., D. C. Clanton, I. G. Rush. 1990. Intake and digestion of low-quality meadow hay by steers and performance of cows on native range when fed protein supplements containing various levels of corn. 68: 595-603. Sasser, R. G., R. J. Williams, R. C. Bull, C. A. Ruder, and D. G. Falk. 1988. Postpartum reproductive performance in crude protein-restricted beef cows: return to estrus and conception. J. Anim. Sci. 66: 3033-3039. Scott, J. R. 1926. Grapefruit refuse as a dairy feed. Florida Agric. Exp. Sta. Ann. Rpt. 25R-26R. Univ. of Florida, Gainesville. Sletmoen-Olsen, K. E., J. S. Caton, K. C. Olsen, and L. P. Reynolds. 2000. Undegraded intake protein supplementation: I. Effects on forage utilization and performance of periparturient beef cows fed low-quality hay. J. Anim. Sci. 78: 449-455. Sollenberger, L. E., and C. G. Chambliss. 1991. Regional and seasonal forage production limits. Pages 25-34 in 40 th Annual Florida Beef Cattle Short Course Proceedings, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville. Sollenberger, L. E., and D. J. R. Cherney. 1995. Evaluating forage production and quality. Pages 97-110 in Forages: The Science of Grassland Agriculture. Vol. 2. R. F. Barnes, D. A. Miller, and C. J. Nelson, eds. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames, IA. Sunvold, G. D., R. C. Cochran, and E. S. Vanzant. 1991. Evaluation of wheat middlings as a supplement for beef cattle consuming dormant bluestem-range forage. J. Anim. Sci. 69: 3044-3054. Thrift, T., T. Marshall, K. Burkett, B. Austin, D. Alkire, and P. Davis. 2003. Economic evaluation of preconditioning calves with a commercial ration. Pages 19-22 in 2003 Beef Report, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville.

PAGE 84

73 Triplett, B. L., D. A. Neuendorff, and R. D. Randel. 1995. Influence of undegraded intake protein supplementation on milk preduction, weight gain, and reproductive performance in postpartum Brahman cows. J. Anim. Sci. 73: 3223-3229. Vanzant, E. S., R. C. Cochran, K. A. Jacques, A. A. Beharka, T. DelCurto, and T. B. Avery. 1990. Influence of level of supplementation and type of grain in supplements on intake and utilization of harvested, early-growing season, bluestem-range forage by beef steers. J. Anim. Sci. 68: 1457-1468. Walker, S. S. 1917. The utilization of cull citrus fruits in Florida. Florida Agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. 135. Univ. of Florida, Gainesville. Wiley, J. S., M. K. Petersen, R. P. Ansotegui, and R. A. Bellows. 1991. Production from first-calf beef heifers fed a maintenance or low level of prepartum nutrition and ruminally undegradable or degradable protein postpartum. J. Anim. Sci. 69: 4279-4293. Woods, G. T., J. R. Pickard, and C. Cowsert. 1973. A three year field study of preconditioning native Illinois beef calves sold through a cooperative marketing association to 1971. Can. J. Comp. Med. 37: 224-227.

PAGE 85

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Deke Omar Alkire was born in Warrensburg, Missouri, on April 22, 1978. He was raised in Centerview, Missouri, and graduated from Warrensburg High School. Growing up, he helped on his grandparents farms and with a family landscaping business. After graduating from high school, he attended the University of Missouri-Columbia with aspirations of becoming an equine veterinarian. During college, Deke was an active member in Block and Bridle, Agricultural Student Council, and the Independent Aggies. Also during this time, he had the opportunity to assist with an undergraduate course, work with veterinarians in equine practices, as well as for the family business. These experiences guided Deke to pursue a Master of Science degree in animal sciences. In 2001, he received his Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Missouri-Columbia. In 2001, Deke was accepted into a graduate research program at the University of Florida Department of Animal Sciences under the guidance of Dr. Bill Kunkle. Upon his death, Deke came under the guidance of Dr. Todd Thrift, who aided in the completion of his research program in the area of beef cattle nutrition. While at Florida, Deke was involved with the Animal Sciences Graduate Student Association and Graduate Student Council, as well as assisting with undergraduate courses. 74


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20110109_AAAAYM INGEST_TIME 2011-01-09T22:54:44Z PACKAGE UFE0001188_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 39190 DFID F20110109_AACQCC ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH alkire_d_Page_10.pro GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
249d0bb69d55fdff8be98f2a206e3673
SHA-1
303edd2f9de6adf50d1e6b4a7053750007451f02
1053954 F20110109_AACPQH alkire_d_Page_84.tif
e3c5b4e2cecf098090c7ed5f32de8d29
7c77d5d5a8630ccb21655b43a8c3c21debfb5810
115338 F20110109_AACPLK alkire_d_Page_26.jp2
8180bc65573b28f0c13579abec3d1810
6d2acaabbaa16e8d1db5c4f26cf457ed94ec8907
29946 F20110109_AACPVE alkire_d_Page_63thm.jpg
e12a9b0c17afdb705cef47ea9380db84
2862f1a0d0d403d428a9b18b0ef341afc250a595
70636 F20110109_AACPQI alkire_d_Page_07.QC.jpg
902921309e9fb74e96a2b2470a2e967a
5188748b6ddfadfba3934114c73c8186df1c13ff
27618 F20110109_AACPLL alkire_d_Page_60.pro
c4ed3ff2f522b57bb20f8ff14c260b1e
88d041f4a4c64aae4f7eb847fb4c2e1b6c7a7c80
73615 F20110109_AACPVF alkire_d_Page_46.jp2
640502a05aad474fb6f8327b1207b334
c2f7b9d44cbe48aa0930faedf2526a9bd85ccdb3
45338 F20110109_AACQCD alkire_d_Page_11.pro
276c2b02fd68d3c63ffd248c3ee6aa98
2bd8834096a7b43f701c15b3973bc309cd080fd2
50080 F20110109_AACPQJ alkire_d_Page_24.pro
748c9fa79b0805be5099da10eeddd944
19827968b4be85e226028c713d7fb0291c5de7ce
82959 F20110109_AACPLM alkire_d_Page_64.jpg
e8502d699698d033104658669aa02693
d27248de5ecfffa809fd7f2e7ac2ce02d6930e57
1662 F20110109_AACPVG alkire_d_Page_14.txt
eb06a3fe44ae6cea26b502fb77a479f2
d8cf7b32d16ef6756100bdb83ab9f7d517725dea
41879 F20110109_AACQCE alkire_d_Page_12.pro
f6b8428a46dc5c68c961f1c5665c8039
9b8553b7bed04e03689ca1f3e8cb6b002e5f52f4
F20110109_AACPQK alkire_d_Page_10.tif
b66322b7ea11208a4283f7609dbf792d
522bc6fb523c89ab93f8357038020bf16d8d2356
241563 F20110109_AACPVH alkire_d_Page_22.jpg
0e10a157313e5e89ad594c09e7bcf40a
6489896908e18fe166067037e7042da96dd1e9c7
4083 F20110109_AACQCF alkire_d_Page_13.pro
3896907a6af0e3c9b2f975dde0b935ac
64695e9aa62174c2468a85606d25c94601bc9766
14006 F20110109_AACPQL alkire_d_Page_05.QC.jpg
c95340951ea95d428d2982abf90493db
ca98934b8488b649d2cb116f2555868c5c338b84
25430 F20110109_AACPLN alkire_d_Page_29thm.jpg
220d07e3d62a08f3b475c60fc79d5a06
99f0775aa976c9d04e8de9f392fd9875852f9400
75008 F20110109_AACPVI alkire_d_Page_56.QC.jpg
7667185e7ae630cb1934be2e39286224
a5e42b7b1f133ad850f0c1806492f38680d87bdd
39515 F20110109_AACQCG alkire_d_Page_14.pro
c5a511812da2b7790bab9f75efa28f01
c1ae1930da06d3d24c1f81c3577dc27c93fe90fe
208789 F20110109_AACPQM alkire_d_Page_08.jpg
bb07a37905457625715ed1aaace99682
66a0463ae0a1daf6d584ee2270a3727ba36dba3b
25271604 F20110109_AACPLO alkire_d_Page_08.tif
e57e246a3a703623e0af984782171ee8
6116f9adcb5e103eb664e08f548c64dab3f0eb52
F20110109_AACPVJ alkire_d_Page_13.tif
c5d7635cb7190c6aa3b8527798a42ead
587b75703cf41e6b3a8a9469f9e91c0f3e21675c
45838 F20110109_AACQCH alkire_d_Page_16.pro
38e376f96f4f39b0d7037310b265764d
8d6fa53d94fd20f6f0986abb3107734345793aa9
99682 F20110109_AACPQN alkire_d_Page_51.QC.jpg
4102220c2f3cd22d0359838adee55b12
09e9911686de1da5f4159d97885f1f2f9e606892
132020 F20110109_AACPLP alkire_d_Page_53.jpg
00b0839c454e8498a2bd75b41c9c30e3
21bf6cf30abf65cf0fc23595b9edecbb25faca95
2033 F20110109_AACPVK alkire_d_Page_34.txt
dcbae16db415f370b75e7b45a63df9f6
9c2624e453b37c4d306251df38d6b8301529e1dd
51067 F20110109_AACQCI alkire_d_Page_20.pro
ba50095833697e69d023ed818a2a1de5
f53d2390e5b9dc2148e053d278fa3930188df4a4
F20110109_AACPQO alkire_d_Page_52.tif
42dbf371c406e6f7886735783f0b3580
8fe601ca5a598807666e61b7ba110bf8ce23440b
2281 F20110109_AACPLQ alkire_d_Page_07.txt
d99422d8ad31020b19010d9c6bbce070
f4c28c0c148ace105297a3b7b5a9ec4a688f24ad
35844 F20110109_AACPVL alkire_d_Page_85.pro
3dbdd254e3dabab6ff69720d26a3bbf1
129d43fbf38dd7062f97c2cfb87edda055830d7d
49920 F20110109_AACQCJ alkire_d_Page_22.pro
19b7f058c0c6b6c8a932dd63acd1d85f
4d652562c669f071c1643a6a4de16000b6e90b51
64546 F20110109_AACPQP alkire_d_Page_37.QC.jpg
5463a6f3fdcce7b333ea716e66590cc8
3766f2c2a0db38e2a9aa58fd57993831b5d794bf
79891 F20110109_AACPLR alkire_d_Page_24.QC.jpg
1211fb5ffed45658f5ba4b8d93cf4db8
ad40101e9adabc014dc46838234bbdf6c3ff61d8
217307 F20110109_AACPVM alkire_d_Page_19.jpg
f5b313ac527af806071514578009f133
d21f163f768ea7741688edaed39bf426c377997e
52712 F20110109_AACQCK alkire_d_Page_26.pro
673f5b51c7443910d68e23a169c4145c
bab34027c45b82eb7d03940a96bd9deab1bd6eed
25265604 F20110109_AACPLS alkire_d_Page_76.tif
bfe82a92821b866177222bd17fcf2460
65da909e4d47ec1e5c2ce3524092097b18b1f615
F20110109_AACPVN alkire_d_Page_80.tif
9f1fdc7aac7100bd8f8d0bb8826017e7
7d7d21d5d83d0c71dceb69f17aa8fc29537810b6
17019 F20110109_AACPQQ alkire_d_Page_53thm.jpg
df897b3627cbccba25e87992049d59d9
d9c47b88b7579bb1e1ade6d9343de74876f05d74
49695 F20110109_AACQCL alkire_d_Page_28.pro
c02122f06857dbf133e26c1327747b50
656a9abe7cc6cabae7ebb8086e30aea2b7f8a00a
12752 F20110109_AACPLT alkire_d_Page_61thm.jpg
ad9cbdd6823193cea270b821db4ba8a1
780e16ae86f509ebf4ac13ebae7b3fc287353535
2061 F20110109_AACPVO alkire_d_Page_26.txt
b992eb66167f1444dc9dc691642cc420
c23f768809e780f33f4c5443150b28bd8522869d
35397 F20110109_AACPQR alkire_d_Page_09thm.jpg
a0e5ee7df74a3547f0b5ec4f4346d342
69369e8cae52f236c683024999d586070b64bf9d
43575 F20110109_AACQCM alkire_d_Page_30.pro
b23a01408cdf6bde86d1cbfe456b2efc
848badd75aef363e19f9e0a7aa46657489824af9
64101 F20110109_AACPLU alkire_d_Page_62.jpg
5648a6921fc2fabc554ec80a4806b814
c26349d38ddde0212daa38e4f7c4ca893843bd67
1955 F20110109_AACPVP alkire_d_Page_23.txt
b16cf0b8631428f06b1083c407c3c5d3
8d6fced3dad70b15e6084805316dd23a37c484ba
49184 F20110109_AACQCN alkire_d_Page_32.pro
8831b9125435f6c91368c7140fed3b47
9e7c0229b53ae12297fedc2cab4988dc71017657
50239 F20110109_AACPLV alkire_d_Page_74.jp2
89b634aef784449474e9e1341260d501
58edb36169c12c64078de31fc117b3c30cca4d7e
6426 F20110109_AACPVQ alkire_d_Page_05.pro
d5bed588e9b3a3962465102269c335a6
413f9f6da7ee9a362ec8b58c8c4ead92866373fc
233928 F20110109_AACPQS alkire_d_Page_35.jpg
fe256e73b9e7b589418a4bc44bfb67c3
91c22ca89175c4417044a019cdf3a3f7ee3de181
51197 F20110109_AACQCO alkire_d_Page_33.pro
67eb39368bb313918abca7252fb63d7e
0789a101b22c2de17d559652a508f02c5f620862
F20110109_AACPLW alkire_d_Page_15.tif
4ed60b45010179490d54e74410d51c40
782f26da019115bb6ef8bb313d8cf1c67483b238
2054 F20110109_AACPVR alkire_d_Page_15.txt
17f9331d6140a5b82b6c8bdfc835e410
64f3901f4557b51ed42bf9ca662043b7de441270
1051951 F20110109_AACPQT alkire_d_Page_52.jp2
c0c4d9068791a111711c8848f438fe0b
4006e9cd7f813b3b9abacb9833cfc2016b44a1d6
49685 F20110109_AACQCP alkire_d_Page_35.pro
7150c9b2837c6285197f485b6ed53b8c
010229cae791e52497641e1bd4197b0ca49aae26
1889 F20110109_AACPLX alkire_d_Page_51.txt
026f72282b993cd423789081d6133a4c
640ced6fe53bdf1899d4dfe4743a31384c8929b3
F20110109_AACPVS alkire_d_Page_62.tif
74be3a62ec93e64b2a225175e0c961e3
5b2e4908b8b44374f7898eb7b0088cb8c727692c
F20110109_AACPQU alkire_d_Page_79.tif
79dc78a2ffa31ccb9441aa87bf4a14b3
f489e8c93bb1e197782274dea7f6aef0989fe92b
26686 F20110109_AACQCQ alkire_d_Page_36.pro
91d6a885664f2a395a2b74b85fcb796d
377b68e914d21368815880c4946f9850b25bf1a3
701127 F20110109_AACPLY alkire_d_Page_63.jp2
ae70267c643f22f3e594c2ca732ef40f
f1a8bc6f958f3fb94dd9c0e8a710067e47047c05
176858 F20110109_AACPVT alkire_d_Page_30.jpg
5942c4d9c10900b912d676ea54fe2f85
12c188d6a1fb3c66097e85fa97ebd91946ecd3ae
178507 F20110109_AACPQV alkire_d_Page_37.jpg
2b4a791f06f33c9ceb27ab33331f8b04
dea45bdc1b8b2465045a4ddd7ce7a771cbad273e
47345 F20110109_AACQCR alkire_d_Page_39.pro
d4cd2b87299e05d1423ee9b0b7458f0c
39c17b5b9ce25136c2155e64fb0782901c024bef
7495 F20110109_AACPLZ alkire_d_Page_66thm.jpg
8b574505445d8b9bbed6a790fb34c2d7
d5cbde912641722217082f448731ff3b92011031
1801 F20110109_AACPVU alkire_d_Page_04.txt
590c43c113c0ed8666c2a76bd562a47d
b6e28d34c7c52bf443967a83b15158b6641b6956
1335 F20110109_AACPQW alkire_d_Page_40.txt
836ef87a25a699637c70254a32a16dfd
250cb5b3ebcd53b7a3855018da91a060c9761ef0
46749 F20110109_AACQCS alkire_d_Page_41.pro
c5d598be984dfa1a633335a61c5a231a
3f9adc3e625963b3e355f4fd7aa27b4a14fea56c
10865 F20110109_AACPVV alkire_d_Page_13.QC.jpg
dbb2448d7dfe76278550cf53f8cb1606
24e27c6149fda08b6fd2e5f596118f424cade57f
1051964 F20110109_AACPQX alkire_d_Page_18.jp2
ea3ce94f4f77d7565767da21601697fe
ca1713e25b910c360dceb31e55f128b28f5ed458
43199 F20110109_AACQCT alkire_d_Page_42.pro
ce58bc7ea8f0b2aacec70986e163cac4
6a442203300b3d2f6d0ed1fbe72ed6b7505b0f93
25057 F20110109_AACPVW alkire_d_Page_57.jp2
5ad0c632656981f1a22bb6b0ed99c875
e1942bd99f269815f0eccb3d8f1d01f079f37c19
7585 F20110109_AACPOA alkire_d_Page_73.QC.jpg
267184afd49455321c51c8e03fcf7f4e
5bf16bf291ba764f9e308effda26b25c31b99d0a
1054428 F20110109_AACPQY alkire_d_Page_74.tif
f4c5f7d50ae0251c9d863a69f9d0db05
0bf6ee668181346ccbf242259e391bcbaa7751ed
44174 F20110109_AACQCU alkire_d_Page_43.pro
f222ccfcd2238473cddba35f44a98b3a
0237d78193be26daae981f394905275ed345a536
687691 F20110109_AACPOB alkire_d_Page_09.jp2
f14c7b4abbc279695eb291e61c43e353
381adcf3d0b51d387e919f816a8d30f7d8a80254
F20110109_AACPQZ alkire_d_Page_07.tif
f175d87765f2f58173931ef09939b279
2dec5ad7ba236f7d34a5cb80020197f6c0401369
34582 F20110109_AACQCV alkire_d_Page_45.pro
dce220552f9fca7938e17778d60af674
d7a4ee06acf41ee6ce0b14b22688348eb0dcc5b5
74606 F20110109_AACPVX alkire_d_Page_30.QC.jpg
ec20542fbbaacc1928bbe23dfc901b43
4dae3eb1273c1f17670e2e90b85431295d517277
33065 F20110109_AACPOC alkire_d_Page_05.jpg
8f2be7a90a56c610cace13840813ddf5
14a07fddd62a6f53da3e465cd81bdc746ebcc7ce
35427 F20110109_AACQCW alkire_d_Page_46.pro
a9f0b3acc3d08329add864bca1cbcd3a
6fdeec82af90c8197339869b205ae5a704aa7e52
1246 F20110109_AACPTA alkire_d_Page_84.txt
d63dcdf1daad2746705d1ce4863a1260
862963f8ef24eb8fe11977333e1253b4215c6ba6
F20110109_AACPVY alkire_d_Page_63.tif
651fcaf9aa1b2a3101f1b19b3d36edb8
ad3def0b9b3c499374f8b1d9c2c1cff7bf0e3552
206575 F20110109_AACPOD alkire_d_Page_31.jpg
1d08a4e8d932644222e667686b0016e0
ad2f3e26f362dade08feefd4507d7f6060573e17
27660 F20110109_AACPJG alkire_d_Page_75thm.jpg
19ec22d69fe425d8a85864320f18ae6d
37a3adfd5411d42b429bb5c4a7fe463fe9b88cef
22303 F20110109_AACQCX alkire_d_Page_47.pro
1fae9f755c5648fa9d2765cd30c436c4
4a0da32bb42a2f09e01b236d1fdfb121ca21176e
F20110109_AACPTB alkire_d_Page_70.tif
8bd431cccaac2f1b3c37bff05442d5ed
4e0c995eb345de3e030262e6dbb57c94b9c9f4ca
60716 F20110109_AACPVZ alkire_d_Page_82.pro
b6e02fa261b9f74c303a98d7b8752938
d1de14fcc29c8e651874e1d2424b4d8d02fd6cf9
50099 F20110109_AACPOE alkire_d_Page_21.pro
ac19d82c585d8ffb3e26e6bd76508723
ba866203619709464acfadf37f049bf495d0b1c9
103767 F20110109_AACPJH alkire_d_Page_52.QC.jpg
9b85b6689482ba5d79d2f3997d2fba39
aeadecb711bd3b89a76a526ac4228be11d63bb67
42324 F20110109_AACQCY alkire_d_Page_50.pro
a1d05eb8429bef8173efb44c20ed0c7c
25b71c2e6dfb237e48f2c4d4ac5fe7c6f6424825
252513 F20110109_AACQAA alkire_d_Page_79.jpg
0e3e0e251a145f9639cbeb58a6a4b1c5
3c1ec26321aa8c03a93b9f9fe49a498accaf0509
F20110109_AACPTC alkire_d_Page_04.tif
01b9aa5a8b2609e5d1830074ab5b1122
70328a830775e695f1cb6a009ed9bacb3345d674
12776 F20110109_AACPOF alkire_d_Page_84thm.jpg
c7de269d272b9210fbe82559fa180d94
18779ae1b2eca21d689531a769124db47617f552
F20110109_AACPJI alkire_d_Page_49.tif
e96c009eead35260c646f1e44ca48ac2
cc1403158e8b2944c5064702c74fac67a8f56c05
47482 F20110109_AACQCZ alkire_d_Page_52.pro
0309e3a678477b76e63f7b6cd331c81e
d3ed6bfcb5c5d10cea012eb5c0d15c7203f4e4fb
19553 F20110109_AACPTD alkire_d_Page_59.pro
d78165fdcd459764b6c0110839486d64
04ee19a6ff355c745f59da949dbe6443f875566d
1957 F20110109_AACPOG alkire_d_Page_35.txt
b59eaa3ab492fbd47c1f1f256dd712b5
3d4415467b19b651941cefd61f512437574d759e
66884 F20110109_AACPYA alkire_d_Page_47.jpg
dad5437b18f2453b066e421660468529
068ed7633249e9c2fd52afb161510044ba4f0250
F20110109_AACPJJ alkire_d_Page_09.tif
24e7c1b1a9609a3d18192db8b2769604
d15d5fc26705a421a583951096a165b12c3e28e6
284073 F20110109_AACQAB alkire_d_Page_80.jpg
9fafb073fa2ff64ef8ca0357f5580a4b
919ffbc65e7512c6c795f65238f515b18a177b90
2525 F20110109_AACPTE alkire_d_Page_61.txt
f1a1a7f83e109fe1ebd26bc1a60bcd11
192541342329001c00f57458b893a136ee8c14da
55852 F20110109_AACPOH alkire_d_Page_44.QC.jpg
3723649de9b6af8f138540efdee1aeee
34f7b70bcb33d17a37a6959fe933f9de5972eb0f
213689 F20110109_AACPYB alkire_d_Page_20.jpg
d4ad8d42e23c5e768bb364e0ba29a6d8
40b9929e2064541543948934780d4c04a4f4bded
28590 F20110109_AACPJK alkire_d_Page_71thm.jpg
da2addf2c926dc3f412be32e77532203
5c039bc662490f9d5c402a8c11d4d86b41950143
3307 F20110109_AACQFA alkire_d_Page_73thm.jpg
84d4b3a4788ef67f60764d4403b8f413
d6ac3172ba9e81cef652387e233d21ac5c5afe96
269436 F20110109_AACQAC alkire_d_Page_81.jpg
0b62190563bd97b18c530848407c9986
ef06d3c20cd64d6341f87bf08cacda0cc67f6c58
25673 F20110109_AACPTF alkire_d_Page_47.QC.jpg
fb0c9c4c996308112ff94045c55041fd
adce6e8973b3ab6dd2bba1f2ff6ebb8d4fb655c9
175427 F20110109_AACPOI alkire_d_Page_12.jpg
05de98d41bb6cfe12e86028a46110a19
730917b6530f1960bf4b6631a6b87cc5b651b72c
72315 F20110109_AACPYC alkire_d_Page_16.QC.jpg
8cedbb484f8fbe654abcb6db02870f36
4dc4aa3217a0a1e377eb4a49ca823ce4c824999f
7569 F20110109_AACQFB alkire_d_Page_67.QC.jpg
fbf5be2084a5cde2ccef7e4f19e4672e
77647f93d9e171fff849a30b70f4b7c6aa798a2b
253165 F20110109_AACQAD alkire_d_Page_82.jpg
fb6a3cf96095de2ed540cf5408a3be83
d2422806465be6edb9eeb8bc841bb1299048982e
78383 F20110109_AACPTG alkire_d_Page_28.QC.jpg
c7983029284827db8297f83354058125
7a89e3425568ccdbabf989c5ef2bbfba6d73d3cd
104089 F20110109_AACPOJ alkire_d_Page_41.jp2
af74c7a97b23c6c1c1fb4a2393518cb1
a5f01ea582e9741ec66bd67bd46af318b5feb857
72458 F20110109_AACPYD alkire_d_Page_43.QC.jpg
9eddc87116ba587dc0aef54ff3a0104f
4f48f8b90eabdbf55ffa2f95e349dfec97469c47
F20110109_AACPJL alkire_d_Page_16.tif
93c71cd2cf52bb83c93c087243dbbde4
03197c76c99f1a5ac89b15b1e0c92b31cf62e68f
21823 F20110109_AACQFC alkire_d_Page_50thm.jpg
6b98ea15566df4adb5b4053a9e434e93
f3f23f396a3eecdae01a90a702a8304863a9310a
1051981 F20110109_AACQAE alkire_d_Page_07.jp2
fd19955855dfbb3a8448b9fe04862f72
0726ad5b869903e13dc11341fc1c15bef1b95add
1903 F20110109_AACPTH alkire_d_Page_38.txt
d68c6846c259106dfd129f15cb99e705
731ae1803ff440b60a94acb96743bdbb014f367e
13883 F20110109_AACPOK alkire_d_Page_36thm.jpg
e892d75721d44d1e560a2e9505379516
4eae7e8e1b20f8d64af0e73721993711a68da5ac
F20110109_AACPYE alkire_d_Page_50.tif
0d82bf066e633f7ac00efbebc52864c3
768fca7200642df8ff4dcf3a40213288362464a6
54697 F20110109_AACPJM alkire_d_Page_40.QC.jpg
c87a35f2e31c04f054a71978141677d1
dcf724e2274e2711d062f3a18a2fa2265be2d6c6
62644 F20110109_AACQFD alkire_d_Page_14.QC.jpg
814c5b3d798c782e0d53a4963b212c58
bdaf2b6952080b0c2bb83ed3542d710a8401b496
100691 F20110109_AACQAF alkire_d_Page_11.jp2
e0bc8055e35223da2e056271871b6fc9
e167a736b942785cb165081eff2d0df52cfa6e51
268448 F20110109_AACPTI alkire_d_Page_83.jpg
1ab793badceba708af11a8cd903eb72b
1b35830954ae895b977f8c5e14763bcbc671a39e
218423 F20110109_AACPOL alkire_d_Page_15.jpg
79d3c797e297077725627a1459cdfb7f
9b8b01c2b02c1d6b66880a7c4095475985a1e82c
47384 F20110109_AACPYF alkire_d_Page_38.pro
ed5def661b2a0d00c17d76b88bed94d2
cdf5fae550ce02d6c60128d57f7c0bcf83c27364
52182 F20110109_AACPJN alkire_d_Page_77.pro
154c6e3a9efcad5ca4f1a37e9b74d42b
9c5ff41b4498d9e8aefa2aa0b850a88addb4870c
50033 F20110109_AACQFE alkire_d_Page_18thm.jpg
767096d5ebf37c0d3c8978c5d23766f5
a2a334ac83aa648f4e72551a91aaee4a389ec1b0
91374 F20110109_AACQAG alkire_d_Page_12.jp2
237136908855eafa37f6875673f6a2b3
2e32198ab977c1a9a4ff1cf97a7d5f66331f51bb
353253 F20110109_AACPTJ alkire_d_Page_72.jp2
031176425c5d974794a670faf57b4bf6
0471a8fe04f597832a08dd482df315f22091bdba
314 F20110109_AACPOM alkire_d_Page_65.txt
c8c11aae4eb88ceb79749e72f0f83985
6f1dbe86652034c459e5bd8065ddd95eb139a543
134474 F20110109_AACPYG alkire_d_Page_80.jp2
9007aa79e1d3457a40178684bea12659
a708c66d0da5e3a8ac7579b88bc9cdb59884f777
43103 F20110109_AACPJO alkire_d_Page_65.QC.jpg
4caf42875da733e00411181c640e936b
6b232315bf86d13319f96fb74ff2f74e9b7c33bd
24545 F20110109_AACQFF alkire_d_Page_31thm.jpg
d7120eb7aa79e81d923720d361621391
64b270d2f0e49be594ecf78dd38aadcd1c45a833
112097 F20110109_AACQAH alkire_d_Page_15.jp2
dcd9e4a4ae35ac6e996f03bfed566e9b
ec963a7aa9d2e556993216c898969d4f990c9bd2
9334 F20110109_AACPTK alkire_d_Page_71.pro
980a5b05b620cadc9825f6c35f369b93
2683af9c3f81a1c7e7d08805551f77b82a9f6ade
104173 F20110109_AACPON alkire_d_Page_77.jp2
60d9c0ed2bfaffb316cd271e20f86c20
77e913dfeb4285e21bc2f432041a37f9b1fc4c88
125021 F20110109_AACPYH alkire_d_Page_82.jp2
cd4d4b74088fe83c4e44d947c27dae40
5628a26b3ce71411baa0de508808eada1a719098
50438 F20110109_AACPJP alkire_d_Page_25thm.jpg
690475caf5e17d76b23f7f158ee4f3c6
ec53b81fae466d237317d8f1c030409ee8174831
101965 F20110109_AACQAI alkire_d_Page_16.jp2
58796ef67428366a4c07c8cf8df9eb2f
1496b31ccb02f1534071f9bdad91558c9922b237
84121 F20110109_AACPTL alkire_d_Page_26.QC.jpg
820e697df2eec76fdce1640587d8e7b2
5ec2e7a5e7df44778329869d7b6f623c1b85ec61
143655 F20110109_AACPOO alkire_d_Page_40.jpg
d2f0770251fea3430e885aa37f8c9885
698859869c7e49f97eb9460679df17ff8aac94ba
F20110109_AACPYI alkire_d_Page_23.tif
9957fce7f2cdefcb2099977cb28fbec2
8f16bac1a03583903a733f221f5d7cd8cf7341fd
80204 F20110109_AACPJQ alkire_d_Page_20.QC.jpg
27a2e938904812eb10fe0cf4722c1065
9d4e96665c396a8daa2eefc8a959de93330fa485
21428 F20110109_AACQFG alkire_d_Page_77thm.jpg
d7a969a2d8d71244ccacd3fa4bdf850e
588e3ea2371e310149beb81aefc2392beeb159a6
107816 F20110109_AACQAJ alkire_d_Page_21.jp2
1a6111145657c39030757c8797a901ff
d707a9ffa6eeaaff4f8610cf2bd38e24abd36381
107574 F20110109_AACPOP alkire_d_Page_28.jp2
96e5ddfb445265b8926c254e8ddcff70
065b93c3e3e2a7caf28ac60e2d14a159869a4567
175153 F20110109_AACPYJ alkire_d_Page_10.jpg
b729fb1163c1a6a3146ad9bdb92d34ea
07e6033d4f735b829d376541fc5c25f92adbf0ef
F20110109_AACPJR alkire_d_Page_73.tif
02c0e5e3239ae0975c813c064fc52b0f
b0494c4881e5e1a1792e7c73ca7842c5ecd4e6f1
1764 F20110109_AACPTM alkire_d_Page_50.txt
025b6da57bf73a98af817c5f447627af
9fb425c8000f55d7e4ec15bfc4452b347a411af8
51602 F20110109_AACQFH alkire_d_Page_69.QC.jpg
4fdd1f8ba6e9caa7307aeef59c749d27
1bcf6b48a746d71491904b8bf9378480b0f5fabd
108506 F20110109_AACQAK alkire_d_Page_24.jp2
d71a9223604f2b2aeea9190c89019639
e91c1240be478c028b795e12e292a9f609b0ed30
5478 F20110109_AACPYK alkire_d_Page_05thm.jpg
a831a7158ee2e8a924849f3c60388cfc
221e1d120af595511e5b2bfc845248a4f3d59419
F20110109_AACPJS alkire_d_Page_27.tif
3207a119b2d8001c2097691f41147eac
932a0b664fbe1e3064a3ac13da2d8ca24ae4f9b1
12157 F20110109_AACPTN alkire_d_Page_13.jp2
87c46c0eea9629bb25547f319322d912
cf8ddd56a7fce08b052b39d910a1a3fcd255d161
71341 F20110109_AACQFI alkire_d_Page_42.QC.jpg
9e99d7f32376ad3a605cbef616a8fa96
0650ddbf9c256b6f899889813f96104ae42552f3
108362 F20110109_AACQAL alkire_d_Page_31.jp2
93e3b57da861d76a9dcb87e7016bbbe8
fadb1be510917d7b612ebd2783d96c4b8ca28085
51757 F20110109_AACPOQ alkire_d_Page_34.pro
8a1a0b0dba920659c9628bf9f3be8fc3
b21ba81e1d6483e622e2ec3156ccec741b1afcc7
29806 F20110109_AACPYL alkire_d_Page_64thm.jpg
bce32b06cd336f111b367e94b7aeae9d
0f4eadf3966f36d93dae994487a79588c671505a
27444 F20110109_AACPJT alkire_d_Page_76thm.jpg
41c9c488e474fe6bbe26be0b59fba6e0
508de1e7bafde1c6bddf09d5156491a2273aacca
5572 F20110109_AACPTO alkire_d_Page_03.jp2
975961d75dad0a3c65bae784d505665d
6263dbfb205ba3cd6808b5375d0a21f2e8203dd5
128426 F20110109_AACQFJ UFE0001188_00001.xml FULL
61d26de7ae2a4680a84108e220d05986
c66fc13c9f79972e9c3dce48ec9dac63ce6133a9
107576 F20110109_AACQAM alkire_d_Page_32.jp2
42707ecf1975d188ed4518d31f5d0cff
ecb62443e2043ef3f3c53fff8797617a3a167fa7
F20110109_AACPOR alkire_d_Page_22.tif
e03314cdb16ba5fa9fd6529f6ecb43fc
dfe44816875c3d5f394bc380c3dddae12117c602
47975 F20110109_AACPYM alkire_d_Page_47.jp2
284dd519d2d298ec6f9a525259aeba73
d35ba7ae4a5355f5ca9dec2aa10398b1c4a6d746
5779 F20110109_AACPJU alkire_d_Page_02.QC.jpg
6bb45c1fa2df1054386c0b8a2521bd4f
ee69bed5fe06eb44f579a0c5cdff3ebbe47ec7aa
42196 F20110109_AACPTP alkire_d_Page_07thm.jpg
da442ba0082075cecd25c60691861c46
85751cb2ce904e72ea8d4b0c33982f7b0c26b21e
19684 F20110109_AACQFK alkire_d_Page_01.QC.jpg
077cb4f117d00171d392b3d8731d1e85
b29e80a16a3d39db30b1e7e874440f0f5b069d2a
89699 F20110109_AACQAN alkire_d_Page_37.jp2
161d9e0398091069556ab0164032ef7b
f5ea46d140e671c4360aadfe2f3254f522971651
311013 F20110109_AACPOS alkire_d_Page_75.jp2
92503938676b28baa7194c9d8cc57a3b
af808ec137ced306f2f89aea0d2ee7b2ed91a772
25073 F20110109_AACPYN alkire_d_Page_15thm.jpg
62f8cdc9ea8bcb3d59f65e46dac23022
317c0c954230af9854750b0e1aeb23b38e0d1d80
112896 F20110109_AACPJV alkire_d_Page_69.jp2
e72a8bb94cdbb2e7a8991eb7c44106ec
7050c913bacb7e7773159decaf49ec7ad9c1b456
17410 F20110109_AACPTQ alkire_d_Page_40thm.jpg
0f0f2cbebd6b461f1e219eeac8b83858
88e68734108fb7a4b67314d9510a77ed896f9230
3107 F20110109_AACQFL alkire_d_Page_02thm.jpg
59505bf2923630bcb90d0209d66ada7b
4e63b6e8f578e96afd1f2b9d76cd3d002f8acbe8
95127 F20110109_AACQAO alkire_d_Page_42.jp2
ab258871a636a9ba6abcd37a6b8984b7
483edf8500afb6935aadc329798b999e708c4f3d
223829 F20110109_AACPOT alkire_d_Page_26.jpg
d5900f4a671c05a84a647a3d3aaa4c90
0779300bb497c9379d7d30f081b489cdfa91f8c0
109516 F20110109_AACPYO alkire_d_Page_23.jp2
840469582c422c38aa9dfe3ea1820234
997f63d0cb72a7507f2eb0ecda6c94d795809f3b
46736 F20110109_AACPJW alkire_d_Page_06thm.jpg
8ded1be382e347830aac071a5eb6f843
f7b8e36c63af9fafe66af753259de48a6c7756aa
24253 F20110109_AACPTR alkire_d_Page_28thm.jpg
457bf1c171a2e22d1c6fede55735ceca
0aec8006de19b8bd766219ad721a63b2e563254a
2946 F20110109_AACQFM alkire_d_Page_03thm.jpg
c24f87d0cfc2d1f322f8d0da48c27c74
b3255e42c9d2d66dced91da7de8472b125aa3799
97643 F20110109_AACQAP alkire_d_Page_43.jp2
b5753fad6b68755bb9543c70cb240c59
e2bcca534631091df8142223a441f6ca486570ef
18409 F20110109_AACPOU alkire_d_Page_67.jpg
9eb4cccfd756787b6f9b34fd97848a51
31732797e775758fdf8c65814cea35ece3ee7bf8
230960 F20110109_AACPYP alkire_d_Page_52.jpg
777ac87f0c11694fb7553326b4c13a50
472f77418aef4d44d48a8624cdac0b8c2a6c5ed2
51440 F20110109_AACPJX alkire_d_Page_70.QC.jpg
2a9d4e55ecf10178286448d67abd392b
be625023932c650a871753e969d7f9d395905a0c
25919 F20110109_AACPTS alkire_d_Page_34thm.jpg
e909680a7b0afd1097022402f2a9d81a
cd50cd3d3da37e9d17024ecad34d451c568b8ce3
83498 F20110109_AACQFN alkire_d_Page_08.QC.jpg
841faf46c6c149ac7e9cdd0ea1afd381
995d7d4bb778d22775472f6af2ede91af720f963
68444 F20110109_AACQAQ alkire_d_Page_45.jp2
e0c0d8509baf7c01cc2e60678b8490da
8082d1aa3cd1e7c226d53b22e836cdd0d19e410b
258 F20110109_AACPOV alkire_d_Page_05.txt
dc9441fd4b9e2069d4210d837af36a31
ce87a7b4b7794c3300e7cc23df9b1673586f30db
217204 F20110109_AACPYQ alkire_d_Page_34.jpg
2fa2fe6fed091040e84d4fba352300ab
15d46cf49a3a284e1b2d37406d7b894542018ef3
68764 F20110109_AACPJY alkire_d_Page_77.QC.jpg
06375ab1629bc01d6ab868bf95a3002d
2135907c60d87c661ca472ff045d7508a7b77661
50787 F20110109_AACPTT alkire_d_Page_33thm.jpg
fa23c439c7e42bab69139ce78f6ae50a
76b3424a128898c59be8095b8a27ef8ebabaa58a
49508 F20110109_AACQFO alkire_d_Page_17thm.jpg
0c79a328c5189f2f6a207ddf87797cf7
f18a795cee8229f3b0c4d918ab25fcdbfd81db68
111795 F20110109_AACQAR alkire_d_Page_48.jp2
b5b8ad53a8cbab117e536e695fe694ad
93cad7b11e1f05148e21d371ad35046b2d5a4693
1051918 F20110109_AACPOW alkire_d_Page_39.jp2
fb21727a83f1f4d07128430b17a6284b
4740879e6772a3675f6d3e01d34275693b285c49
46780 F20110109_AACPYR alkire_d_Page_51.pro
62f190695cbdd483c2298a49c1438bc8
938ddd20a9df9ce167462c0bf00100232a7a8e93
44799 F20110109_AACPJZ alkire_d_Page_04.pro
4e6f489dd98c74b4629e4d8123e9746d
fe7bf95864e19d67c2dc2711d9f785501cc1bfd5
2079 F20110109_AACPTU alkire_d_Page_18.txt
4b81c53baa38a9b8d5c29edfc891349f
0c2b428f63cbbde6c3b32f7dfb2a25f594bc564b
77856 F20110109_AACQFP alkire_d_Page_23.QC.jpg
a385445dc6d27622540288680e5e4a60
68f9c9931a72aa81dc9f43b54cc51cf51233f17d
53927 F20110109_AACQAS alkire_d_Page_49.jp2
d3eab4123a83dc6333b7b0ca520c6067
cbdc0ac036c9af7321268e20ba5bdc43752cf384
2578 F20110109_AACPYS alkire_d_Page_83.txt
f06d8d9a3de214415301b49fd8e2ce01
ee16d6b3fafb63ae747c3c871d77b286a1eef9e5
48862 F20110109_AACPOX alkire_d_Page_39thm.jpg
76562456571dfce8b575d7d109c4b188
fadc8308dec88fe18ca44444fd33dc2291a23ce5
84518 F20110109_AACQFQ alkire_d_Page_29.QC.jpg
eb5d1cc14ab5dc8f77a2139972bc6486
582efa4d5c6bd90aa5d2816ff93cf930da1e38b9
92892 F20110109_AACQAT alkire_d_Page_50.jp2
06d32f540633a9aa8554b4140a115c95
dd1c3f57eb015c36ae7170e14b4bfe147f0dc2cd
105082 F20110109_AACPYT alkire_d_Page_18.QC.jpg
4549afb3081c05593783d3fafe424035
fb3a94e21a42342edbe0807a23de36823b9b26f6
50775 F20110109_AACPOY alkire_d_Page_54.pro
331455c1ac9f233c0787c6e1c713f52b
b06719cbed8ea00a12a3e3c0fd09621e20433eab
893253 F20110109_AACPTV alkire_d_Page_30.jp2
581a86e56e21f9f34f4c7cf069d9cc12
c580d3e9819b5de6032d85532aae3cf55cd6eb10
77375 F20110109_AACPMA alkire_d_Page_06.pro
4fb061447bba772f18664e76af2c4238
fa3aae8ed9ac2a80b26e29f784a0b8007fa0a4a7
79366 F20110109_AACQFR alkire_d_Page_31.QC.jpg
d0d67ba7d2a525f2421a479f6a3be973
dc1f4ef3c367bcaece2759e2f547b6f6f3a7e166
38031 F20110109_AACQAU alkire_d_Page_59.jp2
7d7ec638ad46a701272e8972210cbebe
312a929f29fb4170a0e7cf3612d8b218bd8d9111
85278 F20110109_AACPYU alkire_d_Page_83.QC.jpg
9defc884d5b4a9fd06ca91f75e749241
30e970c0860d351601c1c883997f480a7c5760dc
1400 F20110109_AACPOZ alkire_d_Page_74.txt
488658d17da2b93444d0f282a0574d49
a9f3ffeddf86912ac4b4c5dc0f9567892f937575
209731 F20110109_AACPTW alkire_d_Page_23.jpg
297a9a1c01d18464d87950e1a459b0ad
49b16bbee7c652d982c140f5c97d6b6a8648dd7f
4355 F20110109_AACPMB alkire_d_Page_13thm.jpg
617ffcbaa91b620b8d6fa6cb65f15dfe
3c5fc2cbaf59ce4cc4e5c6244c2f5f8142ed1cb4
24388 F20110109_AACQFS alkire_d_Page_32thm.jpg
bfb87242b52c82bbe444beb49a87b4b9
e7276001341a0af16fad0b03afceb4e10c8e6cee
62826 F20110109_AACQAV alkire_d_Page_60.jp2
25ae01077fe6145a9284dc14276aabab
8d67d9ac4e166a3ba86d7d8e46274458e2e89fb3
95069 F20110109_AACPYV alkire_d_Page_61.jp2
d847acfd74af4b1e6a1aa6d751d3b33f
3f19152c05e4847cea0d474b22ba5fd96bc1266b
105830 F20110109_AACPTX alkire_d_Page_25.QC.jpg
e202ddebdb7c19555c54879bffe1afd3
da2cabf6202501e7736478bb177913a873b04795
75149 F20110109_AACPMC alkire_d_Page_38.QC.jpg
5d68def8faa967dd7fc0441ff79f5f13
638c3468cb003d463b0041ce1dbc83df90d2847e
78795 F20110109_AACQFT alkire_d_Page_41.QC.jpg
c4773ec513a5304fcb96b966872fad14
53266930bfb43179d3b36cd483043504532ec90b
419706 F20110109_AACQAW alkire_d_Page_65.jp2
20df3e730e3062c8d19ab1fea08f9b17
4fe05087c4a28152aff6c6a7fd4a1318a5a4fcf8
F20110109_AACPYW alkire_d_Page_37.tif
683e69e8e7a8aec51b8fe76f73ed68b9
4cd2845730b02bc1a8b851166e60d01281d5029e
F20110109_AACPRA alkire_d_Page_48.tif
85343313a058902cc28c2db35391869e
f5d99fda4c97c2898bb5584e67bb8b392fbb7f3c
26212 F20110109_AACPTY alkire_d_Page_74.pro
34908eb3ef6dbd3d24868d5eab29c0eb
134d3a8c96734c4f0acba235c62cd66becf79742
F20110109_AACPMD alkire_d_Page_82.tif
4840c347c612e06d41616e0c1070a940
bbfa4e83d0add4de892042d6cf5ac5154d0f8d65
21936 F20110109_AACQFU alkire_d_Page_42thm.jpg
98d402e13720527dbcaccbe3b941af8d
1d01b347a7520f68d2af34bd316534e824464114
25599 F20110109_AACQAX alkire_d_Page_66.jp2
cb711596cd43737f9d83db0eb92e662b
07703586aa32b1eed8d8c437d482c2a8eff6983e
74580 F20110109_AACPYX alkire_d_Page_44.jp2
cb718ec56c35ac05090ccd01c528c4a7
ed1eabec733d6df5ee51409429792359835d21ef
4462 F20110109_AACPRB alkire_d_Page_62.pro
a8e9593c2d0109bb72be10a0288a2848
ab948b8d000c57f4ba53572ef3241b1ec0200fd8
1847 F20110109_AACPTZ alkire_d_Page_41.txt
996b2629e70f61f1ce46eff903bacc04
c65272537b860b0ef0f3dc2b50dbe820bd8c6116
96 F20110109_AACPME alkire_d_Page_73.txt
edb1475bf5cad16f4d0af984f0a74db4
f80a8bc38a8c2beb05e3cbbb0f59541746323470
17291 F20110109_AACQFV alkire_d_Page_44thm.jpg
2991d5d94841617967d7c48f25622868
b36cff77478b1f3a84216cfe217fb4c9130fb697
7244 F20110109_AACQAY alkire_d_Page_67.jp2
722935160df54c9ad7ad580bd2f771f5
78146478191e2dcfb590e065c0c026a627679b62
99175 F20110109_AACPYY UFE0001188_00001.mets
fb616e0c68067f8bcafab9afc75b5222
3670cf228adb856bde0f1368f19eeb307274c5f8
210101 F20110109_AACPRC alkire_d_Page_21.jpg
038d11b0a8cee8d636acc4b6a8b1e38f
3a4d3beecb4b5c0bbca0b41dcc94ac46415c7439
104241 F20110109_AACPMF alkire_d_Page_38.jp2
0d79fa16a3aa88fb6bfd0ad956a25a0b
70b0d4fd8a5344ed55b4933d2cbd56885454e258
36856 F20110109_AACQFW alkire_d_Page_46.QC.jpg
b70fb85eef43e6f025e00d22ad70f0bf
7623725bec06fb43ab2818ff29b2595c35dd0228
124760 F20110109_AACQAZ alkire_d_Page_79.jp2
54562b6c46c78c533b5ab57df6a5b859
3a6d01a5b056ee81ca13a02d0f509c6043524004
2487 F20110109_AACPWA alkire_d_Page_70.txt
a85831b2557f4852d159f3cef2a8665a
280ee12e1eb3fc41c8ea962ec250632c847280a2
106710 F20110109_AACPRD alkire_d_Page_55.jp2
4d7084aa9ac4a05f06aa65b858eaeda1
fa76d7a134a572432c3dea42bb0b72fa44ebf991
204959 F20110109_AACPMG alkire_d_Page_77.jpg
55fbf355f9e5aa163b959d9d2102a7b0
71a9abd204233996f694b38ed86a00a9d40474b5
8888 F20110109_AACQFX alkire_d_Page_47thm.jpg
ad22e402feeb06e2a5448fc5594f3759
82941ad04179918e6995755a3cb6cdf8672804e6
47914 F20110109_AACPWB alkire_d_Page_53.QC.jpg
451c5e6304a17b5c56a362c0cb7f8edb
a40206d2ab23d6decf5cbabf48ad09f1091c7a51
195362 F20110109_AACPRE alkire_d_Page_16.jpg
22d77521f5e92e3bfafa9616b749d94b
e08712aef80c3632260f382fc0dac7d0bf6ae9bd
129412 F20110109_AACPMH alkire_d_Page_84.jpg
e9e57915f6f05fc817d13fc7a0923c57
44724257b72d8e5f36b1ea56dc79401bb0022a46
49602 F20110109_AACQFY alkire_d_Page_51thm.jpg
75e1f5ac3c9efbf7be54bdac320cb187
2644f17f1c1f71b0c44f532c65e663f89c18b932
30191 F20110109_AACQDA alkire_d_Page_53.pro
11dbd495eebd7365641d99cf6b792462
5c313220e0dabbd0a48ce0e72bd70de4e59b3814
62213 F20110109_AACPWC alkire_d_Page_10.QC.jpg
4805fd1d9b7a8317b6dfc366f35a0199
1f519babe8549eaf3d311b80227a12742d89eb05
54723 F20110109_AACPRF alkire_d_Page_58.jp2
3d48e297948e96d3f57fae88313b88b8
724b490ded7afdb5f7e53edad983569de10035d6
217376 F20110109_AACPMI alkire_d_Page_54.jpg
9dc31e1a8e07cf6ef32fe1e3ae15eb37
30297593bd8959ee5a8283823712f247c3543310
28913 F20110109_AACQFZ alkire_d_Page_58.QC.jpg
77e025031781a9751f5b14bfed79c606
e6931054e64b48181a099b772ff5924e5d7774de
48465 F20110109_AACQDB alkire_d_Page_55.pro
53fa408439078537ce945be97403ec82
f1f0b3a295b51eed831cd5dc8d95987e2cb9f253
557223 F20110109_AACPWD alkire_d_Page_64.jp2
d1ff8b75ba73c72d2b587ced1fe225ba
2614d634194ae3749c13c52ab88bc16343326d15
18489 F20110109_AACPRG alkire_d_Page_57.QC.jpg
63748717ed4b9c9c0cd729e60b82badf
c4968bcd6ecb8c5f22f11e2643952fc03f26ab1a
334484 F20110109_AACPMJ alkire_d_Page_76.jp2
abeca378ce8eb4251734cf97fd2b36e6
c07d65cc8c4ccce2eaa6a18ecde62fe70edd846b
46438 F20110109_AACQDC alkire_d_Page_56.pro
f8f3ba657544bc1d18846fb9578cd890
5e26df14a92e75cb9da089a8debcaef25b60fe68
F20110109_AACPWE alkire_d_Page_43.tif
39b1dc31c1142d042ddee720e91c2f2b
347fa581621e44cd89dc6d727d52ff13488b8ee1
F20110109_AACPRH alkire_d_Page_72.tif
afb9806c9cbc16ecce769ba59b4efb4e
43062d29272ac5e0837c4e556a560ef419a5b208
52088 F20110109_AACPMK alkire_d_Page_15.pro
4b622efa106c6065bcdcf88edf793044
395ca88c34b90e1315aa8e093c4b1413f57574c2
7715 F20110109_AACQDD alkire_d_Page_64.pro
40a45eb563df5771b7ec887be1c58d34
759c774b975cc493b433d9e14810b14a80bf5dd4
34411 F20110109_AACPWF alkire_d_Page_45.QC.jpg
9439ca941ec6b1bd7fa3514d4ebe93eb
4142addd49449121c3d0fc55ac1f2e722be9945d
15390 F20110109_AACPRI alkire_d_Page_48thm.jpg
28dcc38d947fd4eb58dd65f953631009
6f689e0aa6e658e5473f2a09c1d51931d1b480c2
24568 F20110109_AACPML alkire_d_Page_54thm.jpg
c5fb2ca939757bace8e6a71e8c509112
6d9b84f76f6aa0e68435c2cfbab3e9a5e38db1f6
18392 F20110109_AACPWG alkire_d_Page_73.jpg
76dd89385ca987a491de95a7955f9ad5
05df242842d701e0a452b0be6a65641f0960b02c
366 F20110109_AACPRJ alkire_d_Page_63.txt
d71c8cf4267644cfcac28931f27cce74
ccf9b165cb9b852ba315431f3f9530fee1b10bed
30152 F20110109_AACPMM alkire_d_Page_84.pro
93fcfe628c3ac0dc580271c62e8487b0
be5458c920d14221c2b280a2c4d8e3621d78c152
7254 F20110109_AACQDE alkire_d_Page_65.pro
f0b7bdf29696b2c21745a442532ef9b7
61a29061478e6398a87eb2e257623fd7f80224ac
324 F20110109_AACPWH alkire_d_Page_76.txt
e7dc2709f4d9236b37dfd1374159b780
6871f302efe472f589f7a0189fd30b75c3b94db1
23370 F20110109_AACPRK alkire_d_Page_38thm.jpg
af2e5c7d980b8dc44824c4465d633875
d70d4b587885cb0ea1e3c4ad7b67592b93250408
35129 F20110109_AACPMN alkire_d_Page_58.pro
0b19d7556d98bf71bbd10fe229207f1f
30cc430b6a322712d67161fe6452934e7faee074
9643 F20110109_AACQDF alkire_d_Page_66.pro
e335841512f8bad743a4ffbf443398ca
935baac28d88926b18b1e7299facf1021b89d8c0
F20110109_AACPRL alkire_d_Page_54.tif
536c2bf1334536b501b95f3f37fb6fff
0c6dfbcf74887f02b520c12007d2c2783b977b81
86634 F20110109_AACPWI alkire_d_Page_14.jp2
982a3e630041eafe7d0594d71ac3b964
f46fcdf96712c741a06b1ef45bc45bc7d801e77c
1653 F20110109_AACQDG alkire_d_Page_67.pro
1238f7c8f2023371eb3431315d12b22a
4386da274460d41b0524797b421a95f78a8d6190
1196 F20110109_AACPRM alkire_d_Page_03.pro
b19bda2e8e637f9732fba098e35946c8
27aba6744c0322ae5e4463e3ea4a52cb1312147e
200116 F20110109_AACPMO alkire_d_Page_56.jpg
9a5a1bf0053b2dda9e521d5eca5f1861
a2ea8e2b043b702f2c40ed1018fcd3438e589dc7
8423998 F20110109_AACPWJ alkire_d_Page_30.tif
986814746f7a32fd92a2351962b2ade5
ba364db83fc29dd4065718bda93fdfa9a9268543
56085 F20110109_AACQDH alkire_d_Page_68.pro
5446902e86566502fda47ace0cb048fc
52aab4201d926d450ab0050db5e6d936f0f25465
24140 F20110109_AACPRN alkire_d_Page_24thm.jpg
65582df5933c64f9e4778795ffaecee8
6e04784a58e3ed8ab198397071f2b9b7429659ed
24539 F20110109_AACPMP alkire_d_Page_83thm.jpg
43aec14b8a9f01521564d18a5afef43f
a241cf3a37ab1210c6b4ae588fef02adadf048ce
F20110109_AACPWK alkire_d_Page_29.tif
7c9eb4d1bdf7f9a58c06fe6ad47e1164
17d67e44548ac81d78e1ecbd8e8106899bc99985
56476 F20110109_AACQDI alkire_d_Page_69.pro
6eecbd86c45bfa7c84d0e0e1573d8819
46f710a0c7f27f3ded9e83206641592e6375f103
1951 F20110109_AACPRO alkire_d_Page_17.txt
24447d4c591224056d9584140d84b7ca
8bbfdf5dc838609b16d9a500a39a108202e7f033
24859 F20110109_AACPMQ alkire_d_Page_21thm.jpg
c3e11add2ede21a7a1aa74c2c3352dbc
fae01f08a526314194968e49132e4f289d091f10
79998 F20110109_AACPWL alkire_d_Page_15.QC.jpg
1cef0252e339d2dbfbe8a1ca9a400df3
dff516e7118e18951689a81e6d59998494b33cf8
56152 F20110109_AACQDJ alkire_d_Page_70.pro
f91e5f6233daf2472666106cb7760735
f7179b2e10fa3d7b444745b9814793d08525a41b
1158205 F20110109_AACPRP alkire_d.pdf
da3fc366237c2774e3ca22e81e263f0a
e3376bf473050e32a2eed459dbd07fc6f1bbec10
1803 F20110109_AACPMR alkire_d_Page_11.txt
cf25560ddaff3bfc1ed7a70ddce77224
65894c3df31b4aa808f3993a8aed0d4d8faf24bc
F20110109_AACPWM alkire_d_Page_42.tif
4726064c7237051e6db90e58086e43c6
0a8324c242481a102ed810181465c986028d1a48
8981 F20110109_AACQDK alkire_d_Page_72.pro
4fa5ec387b7c394b87439f37816474ff
a9391df2594b2349ad8228f477ed0a3557a3e5f0
22782 F20110109_AACPRQ alkire_d_Page_56thm.jpg
67e138c37e4ca534c1c40fcfaa9c14d0
3805b7837ca2e9c355f3167a848b65a65d677ba9
110979 F20110109_AACPMS alkire_d_Page_20.jp2
d3b7b07827bd495266b7897037cfc718
2d44108b6723d1f155953e5121f6f7b4ae62ca42
1961 F20110109_AACPWN alkire_d_Page_31.txt
7865bba392229c4a36a601f7d811b24a
0fa40da43354131bea77b2cb4620115de6b94cdf
F20110109_AACQDL alkire_d_Page_73.pro
9dac7f2237be982f6aa0663ec896f02a
d08f6453d3764baa4ffeddacf6482ba9e4632a42
F20110109_AACPRR alkire_d_Page_11.tif
0651d0b9ae06327a3006ce483203abfc
b40793f4f8ca940934f13f40480eb49b2252a2da
F20110109_AACPMT alkire_d_Page_83.tif
0af32eb00790948b8a0a99ab16f9f97b
9080a760db16c4f407cee4b2f7970773e1f18428
F20110109_AACPWO alkire_d_Page_55.tif
65a3f47414edd738d9b1e09c705b40c7
7731939757ea68940660abc52356f499d536aef8
5760 F20110109_AACQDM alkire_d_Page_75.pro
dfc0ab263482f598aba963b80c51d12b
ae1c689acb4f3cbee7163c5f274d8f478673b6bc
45893 F20110109_AACPRS alkire_d_Page_63.QC.jpg
8630687684fd4f8a9d0c3f668be63619
2fbe5a53310299045f0f8e6c3f83733cb5d04759
203264 F20110109_AACPMU alkire_d_Page_38.jpg
b26224b26ce3ae696aff829198f3c244
43b99a06608c1ac9643a0337f6574594bea28753
F20110109_AACPWP alkire_d_Page_41.tif
103c90376632d072bed7e5b5b4520333
25c67d30986ac3cddcf82da3da3c51b4f4e5bdbf
63240 F20110109_AACQDN alkire_d_Page_79.pro
ea05367465916f5b3cf0a02c181c2788
4fe290fea596a2308ed6785d2d71332952939fe2
90769 F20110109_AACPMV alkire_d_Page_63.jpg
a2f6cda93ccb26cb7e6a7dc5b401b5db
37d53d1fdc4d5145456bc3d9d9c3aa73cf0193d3
44624 F20110109_AACPWQ alkire_d_Page_36.QC.jpg
8f271008d6b1740037f222bd1f1839ce
eb10cb109418049cac1b944bff70b30d7468110f
67231 F20110109_AACQDO alkire_d_Page_80.pro
393271e46eec69b51390c5ad1187900f
caa394927e2723f38c9864ae784539dbab0550fa
19450 F20110109_AACPRT alkire_d_Page_10thm.jpg
6903e29a47bfbb62e1f00163501f7692
836473fcd1dfc0c5f6ce02131a998d64553366b1
F20110109_AACPMW alkire_d_Page_06.jp2
7b4ecea38debad7a3a3f510b5325ea96
73758bd006ccc927fd77249ec73655bc50d81cf8
F20110109_AACPWR alkire_d_Page_39.tif
6b13ae8b6428e8ffaba98751524eed09
f8a78cf31819035aee3380482356e37be9e4a22e
470 F20110109_AACQDP alkire_d_Page_01.txt
3b9ab8664c1510736d4271955e762f6f
36e8ac04dfd3ec3dcecb9fe6afb676e4c89dacab
65540 F20110109_AACPRU alkire_d_Page_12.QC.jpg
43c114ce7212826fcdfa43dbb7460a81
e6b7bd6a7c7dc0735eb7694c2070db189b562121
205 F20110109_AACPMX alkire_d_Page_13.txt
7aff1d4cfbaf5ddf5e0d891f5df0f45d
3788cdc7cfd5979338cfb87c11c1e7b35049ec88
9922 F20110109_AACPWS alkire_d_Page_57.pro
1f00dd12db59f0d2cc065523217540bd
609a0455e77436391cd3ffc51a11f95bed9829dc
100 F20110109_AACQDQ alkire_d_Page_03.txt
808dde7be44181b360343eec9b94b371
8df867f6047b686074ccb1e587776f0fa00fe9a8
58198 F20110109_AACPRV alkire_d_Page_48.pro
946d85919462d63fc82d22991eb25975
7589d5537bd202e30ce3e1a84d2197de3b4e3bc9
151488 F20110109_AACPKA alkire_d_Page_48.jpg
ed60c725c7788453631f29b41a5c0609
3524ca61fabefbe3274a97c1cf72388a1562a9fd
152692 F20110109_AACPMY alkire_d_Page_68.jpg
01e6b99b0352b40e297b27fab9e4279b
f5d482cef66b1267ecb2741a12a3d87842ca352e
F20110109_AACPWT alkire_d_Page_53.tif
e36e9d1ea8895d32f18a773d16d9a039
d74396e216480156a12130ce2abbe38026098ebd
905 F20110109_AACQDR alkire_d_Page_09.txt
8125363275cc1f99fae13a20d2a1387b
8a7be5c3a20661023fee088687676f9313c9baf7
258973 F20110109_AACPRW alkire_d_Page_06.jpg
9b6766e568ad0775c3adfa1a0ecffb2f
76a8b32adfcbc9e2aec49dda9e31a6e7aa57a233
52370 F20110109_AACPKB alkire_d_Page_48.QC.jpg
82a4848106ece3cc46b613802f7c3a0a
e713bd25641d6d84c40b2daf6a0239c538c207ff
24030 F20110109_AACPMZ alkire_d_Page_74.QC.jpg
0b8c85180ac3e7cd2539de290fc9fecc
c8e7fb0c89f322d64b15922fe98348f3e8ba9f8c
81109 F20110109_AACPWU alkire_d_Page_54.QC.jpg
7c8bc26e776e4bd609a6acbcf3380d96
391ed0c6913d676b6c4d203646b028aedc4268dd
1813 F20110109_AACQDS alkire_d_Page_16.txt
5e0fb44ce46225461058736f86863ef7
a56a0fa11f956b849cc64b4262c1269c9ec918ce
51265 F20110109_AACPRX alkire_d_Page_19.pro
1b727923aa00054f93c339cd9b47d0d5
10b3a003f7c4e4f0d85fe342f9f47d14219c6571
F20110109_AACPKC alkire_d_Page_18.tif
ac73dfd7b331ab2efbcf715b2e72b81e
f9e348e7ff7fb2d9a450c87880feb8a958ce243c
65698 F20110109_AACPWV alkire_d_Page_78.pro
de20d7ab81dc7433d07dc4a971384f22
a1ba355ab7fa09f026dfe61d5cc3dfcc4c96c6bd
1972 F20110109_AACQDT alkire_d_Page_21.txt
adaf437e7610767a034c5416aab9144d
d9b5c222b4ddee58340085429bf5e98d7f9fc6de
43738 F20110109_AACPRY alkire_d_Page_08thm.jpg
42c33a901d23dadb8c00aa34b83c4a5d
1596d0b82fb5bdff6476c47d920b62a440fff1e5
109574 F20110109_AACPKD alkire_d_Page_09.jpg
11c3ce1a7b3210c4393e0e60ec5ac238
5868c18f945ffb444f189aba92851727c603ba13
27725 F20110109_AACPWW alkire_d_Page_49.QC.jpg
8af7e4f7a44bf402574d7a99cd7273ac
d21c1f074503957b458c369d58d9cdc767c31f3f
129114 F20110109_AACPPA alkire_d_Page_83.jp2
1a7cc9bce1b5a906e7fe08ac66330828
1196ac195db79f20bffdc13d32cb6b61c6c61dfd
1963 F20110109_AACQDU alkire_d_Page_22.txt
700925edd0a171ad0d5d6ca3a7131820
bb7821b9ada5cda96d2ab110c77513be40554937
49794 F20110109_AACPRZ alkire_d_Page_27.pro
d45bfdf8d236c4138471c28c9f1034a7
a1a0ad8974b278e83848408c091b18e5269d4b24
101153 F20110109_AACPKE alkire_d_Page_56.jp2
32ed83e36bcd7e2962f14172af9defeb
35d1d4751d140321d08f27436fc67c4670965ce3
F20110109_AACPWX alkire_d_Page_05.tif
30bcaaae9b82bbcd7e07bc3bfe333753
cfc79207fc34b4ad02032ca3a2d3090a9682e906
64422 F20110109_AACPPB alkire_d_Page_81.pro
e3431db0d18ca2786a1842beb9a4d234
4a1806aa5ace71665626d80a367ed7a34b52e601
1964 F20110109_AACQDV alkire_d_Page_27.txt
f8d19ecabb791854864df383718c1799
cec8e14292890e0e154b23c4a2a7b17833e33f78
40070 F20110109_AACPKF alkire_d_Page_37.pro
e0676b6f2ef3dffc52dda22898889d8f
9ff0a7e9c6878d1fd4171d1e7d5cd67c8573f4b2
1876 F20110109_AACPPC alkire_d_Page_39.txt
0dc69b99f7b60e0a407d71c367625074
a707a632a2799a40f83d00280e7d07f5761e6d5b
2087 F20110109_AACQDW alkire_d_Page_29.txt
d82e057059040ee129eb9a0aec271dce
76198c8f529115af5f570f357cc72e32951542c5
468 F20110109_AACPKG alkire_d_Page_66.txt
f4a14659debc0c02c0236e86ad153688
2f4863499c2cfd99d299a19b9c2e2a753ea500c1
85901 F20110109_AACPUA alkire_d_Page_78.QC.jpg
d9db228d3db0ab5a51bfc8113dc30d52
3d30e354beb850d479676a94cc4cbc9096ab1cb2
87797 F20110109_AACPWY alkire_d_Page_10.jp2
0a72f904f7a841fda1898f3c1002758c
02510124f59e8bbd92b969afd3a7791b48c8c83e
271673 F20110109_AACPPD alkire_d_Page_78.jpg
0a00ef388408788891f3068e5863153c
e0f717b1efd07dc5e962715c8a7d3b6bf8445f41
1894 F20110109_AACQDX alkire_d_Page_30.txt
36d627b43e3a16cc0d72f0d466543e8d
af154e0a1121df07f74a3cbee3e65183cfdef6c9
1148 F20110109_AACPKH alkire_d_Page_02.pro
82bd751af25287f277a4585a08fd732f
e10319375db19786748d0a8a3129f82fad8de235
222830 F20110109_AACPUB alkire_d_Page_51.jpg
ccdaa8e6f066c08719b0e1cdd40a6231
842ab23c230efd762c261a72380fa03c7e567450
49884 F20110109_AACPWZ alkire_d_Page_31.pro
d79c77f27296e5b618be5448e23e59a4
573d9bb77e7bc7fbd53b2f8a80fc2a7fd869b144
F20110109_AACPPE alkire_d_Page_17.tif
924647954bf988a76bd48268b2c2a11d
264fe8e11eeae3c406762de2d7d741b7fce93302
1965 F20110109_AACQDY alkire_d_Page_32.txt
93b29e0bee3cbc2ff8f7d67f74e5a4b9
9cb941538cba85fedb7afd4c9e233c771d253933
62491 F20110109_AACQBA alkire_d_Page_84.jp2
50a62dbdcaabc43c16703be010656bf5
d35a9f3d8d1cb0deeb70a97c6701523346ec5e50
67104 F20110109_AACPKI alkire_d_Page_53.jp2
6dc8914ab2c3661d46500f1c0593b692
cb9d3c3ae8e1a715fdb31888f1aa2f4fa3c254e6
238375 F20110109_AACPUC alkire_d_Page_25.jpg
b3ce5b644dfd4816301234220f70122f
7589a126f07850b9959a98ccd80713be6332c364
97740 F20110109_AACPPF alkire_d_Page_45.jpg
cc9acee998603b479631daf4b487e50a
ece58f5b9d4ac914053bded2c7f6a11bd1d99e12
2021 F20110109_AACQDZ alkire_d_Page_33.txt
5467c918d41d7276a323c984d68aba6b
3e61aeb96a5e445019b4332a05a0f623a76cd529
81040 F20110109_AACQBB alkire_d_Page_85.jp2
7b1a5f1995d33a0aa7712db2b525d201
84adcfc1ae466965ba5025c8254871970dc72ea9
111212 F20110109_AACPKJ alkire_d_Page_19.jp2
93d0f6cc30e358ba357c164456ee672c
411ef9a393365b7f4e3749d51ccb98ffe8ed1d49
1733 F20110109_AACPUD alkire_d_Page_46.txt
8306ac4c0a847742785cb5c21669aec1
454eb08af533d043ad3edc17cb170934773abeb0
1051970 F20110109_AACPPG alkire_d_Page_08.jp2
9af6208e7fbef98198cf6fa0511f0a01
1cd3219e628fe2a946fd7417c3500ec1f51a4b58
14489 F20110109_AACPZB alkire_d_Page_03.jpg
35b4a2496bec22c8a2edd289250fddd8
11e043556447facb3832dab13a0d0870e0c16cab
63819 F20110109_AACPKK alkire_d_Page_83.pro
a932cf1fde08dff587409a5892f09ff6
3d7fea6dc4f9d31c75fdf54aaf21f1b9d026a274
95410 F20110109_AACPUE alkire_d_Page_04.jp2
59ab2ce6c22a76cd1470f77cb1935bcf
e6dd0f94c2df5f07f101ad0092ca74cb48ef30b1
80397 F20110109_AACPPH alkire_d_Page_27.QC.jpg
f92f0ad00b601756c9278ef86e9f2ab3
23ab1b3d64dc017203a032d63fe2322061ae8743
27257 F20110109_AACQGA alkire_d_Page_62thm.jpg
b9ad0cc1ef949d8a881a1765ee0bf053
e80065043a60cfc29c3927b23095da260fbe875f
F20110109_AACQBC alkire_d_Page_03.tif
6bad68f3df2f7401406a23edd2bc5ab7
be5c1f8b9c1b4c3af0154849bbc931857f246db3
189161 F20110109_AACPZC alkire_d_Page_04.jpg
fb80a876846ef678e08fe131f94febc6
815731db941cb397cccb0d4fba1cbd78fd8f2451
25633 F20110109_AACPKL alkire_d_Page_20thm.jpg
96ab88f4e72409c969970835b5ac4dc4
6126da93b4d0f7f8958f048e2bf002d7cdcbedfa
112793 F20110109_AACPUF alkire_d_Page_70.jp2
785a670ed349cbab8d1cd4ee43d67c6d
7d3e367bf0bd851266e659fc419e6fe787fceebf
2484 F20110109_AACPPI alkire_d_Page_48.txt
53c261daa1e110baa6a0a261e9b8f4fd
4a577512a03624cf405d74e8c7d73e39a21bbd94
52604 F20110109_AACQGB alkire_d_Page_68.QC.jpg
55c13f4067f5ce70333ebc364c0d6744
0351d7a31a7b8be6418478b20197f1a2fd6f2546
F20110109_AACQBD alkire_d_Page_14.tif
aa202007434ed8837d31c866965a6f4d
ad088fad0ee292068e206b08c7e2172695176fe7
199462 F20110109_AACPZD alkire_d_Page_11.jpg
4999ed55442afd9fcca69f73efed38ad
e1c252ce6f477cb93a0e498df00c51a89e46a215
14692 F20110109_AACPUG alkire_d_Page_70thm.jpg
85ecd09e2d64f9b90a5dfe1ca02dd061
aa4756b2c821e2fd343a8865d78ae02c36097924
3300 F20110109_AACPPJ alkire_d_Page_67thm.jpg
587c902036af6a5f9be973fa288b360f
bcf20ce27c99106e438b287e5e32634dd6e65f7a
14759 F20110109_AACQGC alkire_d_Page_69thm.jpg
7ba7194dce2c4c0f2a3ba30aaa4ce4f3
628865cebb85b2d2b37c1adabbb7ec76c8c4e5f0
F20110109_AACQBE alkire_d_Page_19.tif
d03efbfdecf163d1dd4ca1087b540baf
1a3577644aba5dcb3aaf3daeb7b6b5f2750e771e
25431 F20110109_AACPZE alkire_d_Page_13.jpg
05da088cf7a18b428b94a25e6a449dec
fe1a70245daf0a72482d75f6a95e11d74ed35cfd
70483 F20110109_AACPKM alkire_d_Page_04.QC.jpg
588939d60b9e93720f93449ebf15e7e2
1f06916cbd45a560d73c858cd6546e95bae1c08e
81453 F20110109_AACPUH alkire_d_Page_19.QC.jpg
b6e9db44b09489bd613bae79af21c641
77aa44bf18e6e18892b66216b3156222a68b26e9
9405 F20110109_AACPPK alkire_d_Page_60thm.jpg
e3b9891bb0952a9f60574f9c23cca629
50f43d34c769b79f4cdd6180f88f2ff0fee23da5
41965 F20110109_AACQGD alkire_d_Page_71.QC.jpg
f77f034b10cef058e7477edca7bbdd21
0729d21a8598bc03a40a411a1a4d387e7367a797
F20110109_AACQBF alkire_d_Page_21.tif
1f099f889c3853bbeb6a2cedf1448d23
3f1a7be36e25c48f0d590e50a1ed52df9d11df90
247933 F20110109_AACPZF alkire_d_Page_18.jpg
080043b6c86d6f6f9a97808af16773a5
df988b3b8174c98c911b7eb06ea5be01851f78a8
1065 F20110109_AACPKN alkire_d_Page_36.txt
5217dff0abd682983ef84da4787546fb
503dd3f039a4382a8fd131184e0c876da672a9e1
1285 F20110109_AACPUI alkire_d_Page_53.txt
51c326f1ec449135fcfdeac86ce74b37
4637fd33d78af70ca6a15c7013fb45b2a63e52c8
26159 F20110109_AACPPL alkire_d_Page_26thm.jpg
1b6a10925ab315a3d16406c65522246b
7845bbd4147c82c4c8a2c101a05d203a155a5f66
43514 F20110109_AACQGE alkire_d_Page_72.QC.jpg
5a0b55d5f9565640d447dca1bcce19ce
6d271df53f55e2c76276b4f17f11453b07a6253c
F20110109_AACQBG alkire_d_Page_25.tif
5987b2c6e4a240354306d1e3853a1158
5f0011b5dfcfed67be97b6f576773870b187845c
212065 F20110109_AACPZG alkire_d_Page_27.jpg
0f10aff136a5630c8744a29e7f8830cb
63543c988e1653f374a9181c282091edd15c256a
19790 F20110109_AACPKO alkire_d_Page_14thm.jpg
26de870291536f69d4579996079dd76e
f976e2ebd95e35c52c1a312e5132edfe68765452
F20110109_AACPUJ alkire_d_Page_65.tif
32ee2ba0e0fe62015ad8538b4f51f722
f75ff5d0ccfdd9d172ad584958f06e785d0815b0
77029 F20110109_AACPPM alkire_d_Page_32.QC.jpg
7c34552ac1621c62fc3e96fc82889ca7
b900fbc242f3b982e1f1e9b5963181292270f434
9052 F20110109_AACQGF alkire_d_Page_74thm.jpg
7cee1294277ecf82c59a1a227ff00898
766bab2a640248eac03a83346362a8e874d3159d
F20110109_AACQBH alkire_d_Page_32.tif
03c06525cc9a29558c1264b0528a2acb
a767ec712c3eca94a2ccd5138eee58f6e747fbcc
206808 F20110109_AACPZH alkire_d_Page_28.jpg
f8c3a6ab94ec9b2dc2c7cb63618ff90d
27e0faa94a6ee7f84b91fc44d3afee1458449a0a
61224 F20110109_AACPKP alkire_d_Page_36.jp2
ea444e3ba6a21789e4297fe62b789836
562b257503be5f8110d3e59456317a133e147741
183102 F20110109_AACPUK alkire_d_Page_50.jpg
6ba9b6567d42367398e0df89a353f5b2
481598abdd09745699494cf9b38e68265fae9566
31036 F20110109_AACPPN alkire_d_Page_40.pro
e8318be238edb852078ce40fbec14f0d
9de1326e0fa041d5acecb75c7c83a3012920c63d
23254 F20110109_AACQGG alkire_d_Page_82thm.jpg
2472974f71156c7518ef21eae2b933da
41fdfcebd30cfd6dbf94df9570b3ff5970ae50b9
F20110109_AACQBI alkire_d_Page_35.tif
d79af86cc8cd99e1472d122318d0664a
036053c177202c34704eeedc9ac2e1698258876d
223361 F20110109_AACPZI alkire_d_Page_29.jpg
53750e8b1e69abf785b4d3e347dd12b1
c46b22241c3113bd17a5e9c6d87a7d3b0e6b5294
76405 F20110109_AACPKQ alkire_d_Page_76.jpg
e1008d45e1e51d57ef44683a7afa267a
7a0bfeb136536da702f03dcbd54745f6f078ae2d
18292 F20110109_AACPUL alkire_d_Page_59.QC.jpg
a00379871724d3e7b7ace474da7cd5e5
e948f763db26785e6be570a2f4222034ff89b086
436 F20110109_AACPPO alkire_d_Page_57.txt
dc407076173ac93e99aa96bdba836829
ed47f87a777d7231f9a57d3ec41963f4500f3724
F20110109_AACQBJ alkire_d_Page_36.tif
25db97b4a1afccdbb56841547cd6b5e6
cc7724b198717cbfe01a8bb9b62fd6f34dc08f89
207343 F20110109_AACPZJ alkire_d_Page_32.jpg
6f9a662683849a5fa4ce0117ff97ccbf
e436b26303ae86cd574245f04825bf96b660e6ed
11371 F20110109_AACPKR alkire_d_Page_45thm.jpg
d7a75049849b3a8af17a4460c04dea63
904ccc7ed8c35707a7dc4e0eaf059c3de947ecb9
32596 F20110109_AACPUM alkire_d_Page_44.pro
e42ef87da69ec67229fec70f7e210164
4797a58a8834e195e9313393e3986385a88df274
F20110109_AACPPP alkire_d_Page_06.tif
54b1c121ac9361a6eb07abaa9d0b9d6b
fa807ee5578727497d4b0a6e7aa8970da0c45420
41831 F20110109_AACQGH alkire_d_Page_84.QC.jpg
baaaa51e69e7eb835d4a213c820f854a
de4721d57f398740f72e4b3e6fc23679f856d9eb
F20110109_AACQBK alkire_d_Page_45.tif
b326d1ab9eff22076985a0fd4718ecbc
94eabe5159fda79b0a6ff0272912381224491267
116400 F20110109_AACPZK alkire_d_Page_36.jpg
c11e524350e8d57b8a89dbaf7e8967bf
57bf2c22f96a789a022056d17960e7f2d158a7fb
170448 F20110109_AACPKS alkire_d_Page_14.jpg
b95f18ff5272ed82b3d09525afbfa2c4
fd8ce9a885f8a610da23faebe81db1aa6115cb8e
F20110109_AACPUN alkire_d_Page_85.tif
2f1e041ecf8c462d5802bf6e45771468
22f65d79f792f560795b29a1e4b4fbb00e101b17
F20110109_AACPPQ alkire_d_Page_12.tif
91d116b4e3ba330397d261ee0b98d8ef
0392900d70f68d1f79d1259f215c54c8bfde2d80
F20110109_AACQBL alkire_d_Page_46.tif
94041d11ff67ef95009ea651223063be
f5f7eae9ffdf55d9687cf1cbc1ebf495d5022821
206289 F20110109_AACPZL alkire_d_Page_41.jpg
483ebb7124da5d1fbadc79792553621e
2113b914f6139c959eabbab1b8cccebbf663b8e0
70891 F20110109_AACPKT alkire_d_Page_40.jp2
c118a74a8a6cb5f7639213850eccc863
3373111b3b1aefa650a3bdc4c0f080ec321cf533
24889 F20110109_AACPUO alkire_d_Page_79thm.jpg
c15d10a796e9f919ef40d5ac410acaf8
cd7b7f5eb59f4d3b6748bd67f8bbe4843130db61
F20110109_AACQBM alkire_d_Page_47.tif
3f56f65db4a40cb80ff66c5a30ee7bb8
50716129f9de41696a1d2745aec149bcc6d2acc8
190608 F20110109_AACPZM alkire_d_Page_42.jpg
81cb62d74845ef38daba7a8b8eaca9d1
5b0a5d0f3481757dc26b9be2530c6cd02683b02a
100477 F20110109_AACPKU alkire_d_Page_17.QC.jpg
723492a2bf070aeb33cb13e8a47a5c4f
a7ed9ae7496642b1665994255965b3c555f5cdde
6969 F20110109_AACPUP alkire_d_Page_59thm.jpg
4c4f565638e395902f2a805dd9d1d33a
8521198345a8e943bc29b0ebbbb134c76364821a
24501 F20110109_AACPPR alkire_d_Page_55thm.jpg
63e1b28ec471ca21424984787b0138b0
d7660ccca4d7a39123f1d4c994eb4e717e8cc22c
F20110109_AACQBN alkire_d_Page_56.tif
94b8723cf23864eae87ed7852c3dc148
e8cac89a645856764ffbf293c8826c87343771c0
191562 F20110109_AACPZN alkire_d_Page_43.jpg
d172d2c4d1611e240354e70df9ab9848
13028388a9d87f5dc4b2156ebf64c01342082895
F20110109_AACPKV alkire_d_Page_31.tif
7b09ccd8345ee4ef5d586d6c630b11eb
739f61466d5a236bd101c97d956257ce30af5ba2
1437 F20110109_AACPUQ alkire_d_Page_60.txt
594793ffe42aada4cfe1975ea292ce8b
2e2ef15caf8103d39b368c0a59c260c7fa9f3424
60534 F20110109_AACPPS alkire_d_Page_85.QC.jpg
039ddd95233f5bdadcd9344dce6027df
cf34a72fd865bf5213d1ce0c3601fdd25a0b5cf3
F20110109_AACQBO alkire_d_Page_59.tif
7f429d3958bcb97d1a0f171f12a46be2
1cccfbb07e54e91719d9fcaa5a591934614a6d68
144383 F20110109_AACPZO alkire_d_Page_44.jpg
39d584a7b93dab8519fabcdc44d9b89c
53db83b648e8775e104f390f6b7a39090f647eee
5524 F20110109_AACPKW alkire_d_Page_02.jp2
348f2621e4afc6c44817144a9c07f0f3
a2706863bf1f4049e5b64ee25639f49b371cd855
1085 F20110109_AACPUR alkire_d_Page_59.txt
d3b87052382245db671923e47e1fa0a2
a7c8a2b4c2b099ef390758f4849f39c55add8b45
102878 F20110109_AACPPT alkire_d_Page_35.QC.jpg
1b087dd56863e6b374ba048cd1853b0e
602bf226228396ba9d9cd1e156ee59660421afe0
F20110109_AACQBP alkire_d_Page_60.tif
958ef3392b20fc80fcc60e15a9152263
729b749ff661155a7505833cbda93aaa50640ed6
97967 F20110109_AACPZP alkire_d_Page_46.jpg
bc9c1301d21a62b363373b776555b1e5
d638e74a0a1c221d821fb623f1fb16622ea9fbaf
F20110109_AACPUS alkire_d_Page_57.tif
df3bb191c28a71330571c32005048857
333ed11425039f1ba85590c87ab2573586bea368
81353 F20110109_AACPPU alkire_d_Page_34.QC.jpg
1afbc5848db79eea3dc31dbe87b559f6
b7f1181c05afc84e2d37fd94201a25a6a2992663
237 F20110109_AACPKX alkire_d_Page_75.txt
205ec81c2ca7dd04d70e4999b311be1f
b387957289bef14d13fbf2eda99c61250bef664b
F20110109_AACQBQ alkire_d_Page_61.tif
9015822e8783824ad1e463254df20ca6
e25d7a11551a016b7ffa2e33aafc111aa58fb730
207512 F20110109_AACPZQ alkire_d_Page_55.jpg
c2033ca61c76888f0c6acd23c631d52d
408c66b0709115a0a2d278fb9fe53308d0d6ffff
404 F20110109_AACPUT alkire_d_Page_71.txt
78efd03f92bf5ee96668325cd6c07d95
46b3494bcb8fa0a24099b2be29fb1f73f108afdb
19908 F20110109_AACPPV alkire_d_Page_85thm.jpg
ad432d0388a7a0522fc74454b29b8714
6b0f2775b59dbbee36933b9f5a92debd07fb6fd9
110159 F20110109_AACPKY alkire_d_Page_27.jp2
7c7db78a7c239a0291534ac63fc80aff
d4eb51f122c2f490dd95a4b801992487eba527ec
F20110109_AACQBR alkire_d_Page_64.tif
b83e3be881f5f2712d33f940be76a1be
bd082ef208603486f11cb70aa66323aed8e7ab51
47795 F20110109_AACPZR alkire_d_Page_57.jpg
6d0951bc62f50931d76d793144d7dac3
dcb9ea8eb0d22f292817e84db1dc2a4924c4d885
75270 F20110109_AACPUU alkire_d_Page_55.QC.jpg
b94fa8609584a1541816812314608ad8
975f65d9b67eb15685e350630cdb6c3518a5177e
130217 F20110109_AACPPW alkire_d_Page_81.jp2
dc54400ae7a0386662f9cb3eab09665f
f7cfcf4c1a92a1fccc64d4282ebada2580a8d386
F20110109_AACPKZ alkire_d_Page_78.tif
0d711a523f56545f77e08302534a52d6
efce0942d2f9455fa43e0640c42afc4bfa67ae9e
F20110109_AACQBS alkire_d_Page_66.tif
7fa9701d5b3d60e3fffbbc61b426a2e6
49d055bcc47b9197facf8c1db7d14b450f43ff26
80020 F20110109_AACPZS alkire_d_Page_58.jpg
eddf6a8b9667a3406bcedd4f44004180
5ccf9ff3b2e90ac1d664fc55e7774072740773cc
2492 F20110109_AACPUV alkire_d_Page_69.txt
5921c0a11dc2b01c91e3451b02d40386
60b6b02c0b41a4dc04a7075b62b2f01dfc0fc03b
78623 F20110109_AACPPX alkire_d_Page_21.QC.jpg
12631b45c29cd635028bb6675c8ab9e5
9e78d06c15b6c7182d3fc3d69f79403b713437ed
F20110109_AACQBT alkire_d_Page_67.tif
50c13f200f77661c38e6625f01ee40e2
7e59cf5ab544cec018d7dad23d496e6cdaf54475
77069 F20110109_AACPZT alkire_d_Page_60.jpg
6b9ee151cf422afa5dfc7459ac41ab36
de83a77f840caf6cafb96efa60906562f7930321
9744 F20110109_AACPNA alkire_d_Page_49thm.jpg
761e75e1f17772b4499b7c6649f91c9c
d943361992dcf57cca77a120b0f293cc83a84c34
1308 F20110109_AACPPY alkire_d_Page_44.txt
dde4ce5fc3ee3a0889f31bf4fec8cd83
e28e76cbf8b9516011161ed48fc91f6cee60bf33
F20110109_AACQBU alkire_d_Page_68.tif
ae36617f9596699d10a9135fb9ab81db
7fc19278f71261e42d6a485510854057620e94f2
121988 F20110109_AACPZU alkire_d_Page_61.jpg
27e0d381d59339d8fb38cad62524dc16
68ec0a1a12e71756a50aac561cef5551ffd961f3
157928 F20110109_AACPUW alkire_d_Page_85.jpg
8deca8835708183a5563752819f01713
7ed672fa3716cbc37e5c12f030ee607169777424
F20110109_AACPNB alkire_d_Page_28.tif
4a446169671b0ad8affe15985ff30b57
6b6eaa8689004d6eb6a4590a6d7e55965da948b4
7105 F20110109_AACPPZ alkire_d_Page_57thm.jpg
3442f82b8e1749fd4d1bfa3e40c2b6c6
6c3fe66d6d75b8fa251f749e790e33f1001c19fd
F20110109_AACQBV alkire_d_Page_69.tif
c99b162de5e0f1855e0c15d73fdaf0bf
e8d75de83600b0ab87d145db474f795cd9b7095d
48539 F20110109_AACPZV alkire_d_Page_66.jpg
610bc0c713519fa325ed00b37203b25a
3930434e7bf499193f7a71baab8bc24e36ed8f7d
22746 F20110109_AACPUX alkire_d_Page_11thm.jpg
40bc19631241c8af0170d7aeb8235d28
4ef563e4772e9ff48d680777aef6e64a68d87abb
1759 F20110109_AACPNC alkire_d_Page_43.txt
4d4ce2a0ab511b55a48fd51b2a99f75f
8526846ce791340de994b152949655716adb28b7
F20110109_AACQBW alkire_d_Page_71.tif
925f45f5117555573c5df7b13cc11edd
e1436bd53f5726eda504a85fc8f1673838716082
163049 F20110109_AACPZW alkire_d_Page_69.jpg
3d29ffce9d5d9c9d8a07e44b9718cb38
88ddddad20eb822f329ed36e29bbc6fc1f40f714
1995 F20110109_AACPUY alkire_d_Page_54.txt
1ccc5a8a975050888f58328cdf0e9e0c
22f73fd5821c21319e152cfbccfe7af3f369c9ec
F20110109_AACPND alkire_d_Page_01.tif
2ee0ce980c67ebf7e8020434957a5b39
776645b903da2c1b207735ea69848a52ffc27bb5
1051922 F20110109_AACPSA alkire_d_Page_35.jp2
b47d17ffd9c7f82f2201ff22327295a1
8562602c7a15ac3902825e34e3a991d5f1a1a905
F20110109_AACQBX alkire_d_Page_75.tif
e0f28e9eee99fe5d81d66864f76cd2b7
9b364546ccc2f9445990753fcc33d7fe9ed42bc0
77341 F20110109_AACPZX alkire_d_Page_72.jpg
50b180b9a17147c246b234ed1936e994
691affca3128a10222e14c9065feb88972fbf268
F20110109_AACPUZ alkire_d_Page_38.tif
e1bdf30229b22c7e0a99eae1ddfe2bf6
f3874d1d99cb8f09b993e7acc0209bd19ceaf68f
12678 F20110109_AACPNE alkire_d_Page_46thm.jpg
1f3f1b244fb020e09805374caf95fbd3
52826c284123491df0a86d3350c9a7db9392dc39
106239 F20110109_AACPSB alkire_d_Page_33.QC.jpg
8e4c9fd8bb8f1a1f607b48c637596d1c
8b9105fa90e34a737095bf25ff67680a02d885a1
F20110109_AACQBY alkire_d_Page_77.tif
a1e99e2027582d73aa315a3c4d069cda
61287d49f8bf122ef007af96ce6fce6614e689e4
70169 F20110109_AACPZY alkire_d_Page_74.jpg
51414a2247578c113de8a279f865c5d2
03986e55a2958adb4d6494756c8548493c86ef37
23556 F20110109_AACPNF alkire_d_Page_01.jp2
7197007d55024a77e404228b77234e2c
de78b9bc1c5f6d10769f865f835d18043e4c3122
50020 F20110109_AACPSC alkire_d_Page_59.jpg
5efc8778aa25fe179f207d081e4b2b3f
6b3d2cd46708a9fe66179f133af31c1d4e4b6bfc
F20110109_AACQBZ alkire_d_Page_81.tif
0d5a9f0f59c69e5badd56b412558bcb8
34612ff0d2121813b57e54a004925f3b97383db7
73281 F20110109_AACPZZ alkire_d_Page_75.jpg
fda2df9cd39b7b180295feff4cfe0c69
a8c0a909dcdd5c3fe1bb7180ba2c663228165ac5
F20110109_AACPNG alkire_d_Page_33.tif
f4d607eb93df8805b22a99d708f1ed17
670ea33033b58bc90b82f797451eed9658222183
F20110109_AACPXA alkire_d_Page_34.tif
7981b0d0247c41d81a396b24e8ff3415
93940270f621409cc463ea8f9be5f4634a39669a
55530 F20110109_AACPSD alkire_d_Page_01.jpg
13d80f9a8b9a6fae097292d5540e3c71
8e3d2eda83069205824a95e347292dfdf084991d
10324 F20110109_AACPNH alkire_d_Page_58thm.jpg
f191230327d7fea048057d286a64d9ce
3ac05ece7343b9797e2ab858cf3d226233ee9d35
1981 F20110109_AACPXB alkire_d_Page_28.txt
3a8222041e0e562c7bb22939b73927c9
f6e84eb11af6ac450b9a4891cd18d5f685efad34
2004 F20110109_AACPSE alkire_d_Page_20.txt
6ee7cbb62982cad97c3b6d735c58e3f2
789150fc01bf1c1ea3d19cbb892d5a7fc7bcb892
1687 F20110109_AACQEA alkire_d_Page_37.txt
5478bff567ae0eaf2c3a4d362aec9b9a
bf15527d333f586a94c7aee7647889eb7b3ccb8b
23666 F20110109_AACPNI alkire_d_Page_41thm.jpg
a51aeb8ed22a5c7495b35a436439aa83
bf52d84fb063fb73e5bf2f2b547aec8788bd7eea
105022 F20110109_AACPXC alkire_d_Page_22.QC.jpg
db075a55f1a9b6ebf62a509197f3a039
192ce08b4ddd8887c06aa0b717c5cf735853e6a3
50164 F20110109_AACPSF alkire_d_Page_22thm.jpg
650891417294fa92cbd9c48126e48994
61c2192789fd645402d0a363f8a0c308f6f61c1c
1726 F20110109_AACQEB alkire_d_Page_42.txt
6982b88b863ce94d114db2a1854fef1f
f11c1423824c20f4c9a6cfe132de63d364d8c743
16957 F20110109_AACPNJ alkire_d_Page_05.jp2
f1bd6892f9a619a40bd6f22ab862d9ef
d8fd91fcaceade0952146cff4bbe41247dd83d74
1839 F20110109_AACPXD alkire_d_Page_56.txt
bda208a8cb46a043853cd8e76c37560e
6f2848a02a240c788b4efd63569e304d5d9b0feb
72300 F20110109_AACPSG alkire_d_Page_49.jpg
ee7d77e974ca254827af0a50ec39100b
909faf39e48151bf6ab2b1da6bfe6b16c2a91a67
F20110109_AACQEC alkire_d_Page_49.txt
959015b629daf177a29fc7e2204ea712
6e3095e15432ed6a978bac4b25d77a2c2a92c91a
103266 F20110109_AACPNK alkire_d_Page_68.jp2
c477ed845df3d6900e9d1510848e95c0
93b41f6a4679f83736732163de18de0a36fdbf96
1735 F20110109_AACPXE alkire_d_Page_12.txt
dcc255c8644e43c0d707967cba4eb5f5
9bb78514582f7a108fb976c4651976e724c55278
14514 F20110109_AACPSH alkire_d_Page_02.jpg
c6c61f31e73c4ac9aff1263012f1c18b
369ef50f8d0859674a6d62d826ff6c29cb660dd9
1920 F20110109_AACQED alkire_d_Page_52.txt
d9ba35341702af8497e5240553ce7817
d17d7bdc7996618ae876ac61c7489038c9afef23
F20110109_AACPNL alkire_d_Page_44.tif
3811581f39de795f453c27e195109ba8
776346b4f13b134d55f8d5c5dfa68716c63a3218
6168 F20110109_AACPXF alkire_d_Page_76.pro
b78b60ae6f946fa74fc8f73693a80b14
5bc997b3b274ea46ec5c2797269662df9de01dac
20037 F20110109_AACPSI alkire_d_Page_37thm.jpg
28df587326a5919e8ca2382acd8028ca
7ec9f43a062081c696951d4f3f57f7ae0659cacf
1913 F20110109_AACQEE alkire_d_Page_55.txt
14e09d01d8ecebf25beeded858f3f67b
c921ad7a22cad5467c86211689d1ee3ebb702845
2715 F20110109_AACPNM alkire_d_Page_80.txt
bc174cb9d3cd31a557d7f48d1699312e
90e72a8e59572d55e05b5517e468d6694fcd360f
1051982 F20110109_AACPXG alkire_d_Page_25.jp2
a15f424cfa18ef579648800b26a750a4
19d0c95e9e29d2043ac6f8b1aee837acbb08a591
18712 F20110109_AACPSJ alkire_d_Page_66.QC.jpg
965fed40407b37c22f316abcf02d7361
4852064dd44079f793f67613d907c3198f6f787e
1051956 F20110109_AACPNN alkire_d_Page_33.jp2
c83d3276e86ad5f7111414c41838c33a
91a7af7d6d312afa175be888eb122bd9e5c8a62f
1896 F20110109_AACPXH alkire_d_Page_08.txt
32f927dfd7af82c5a2159e83ce19ec00
109933d2154969e079c371e0bac8ee08fdf4ffc4
56814 F20110109_AACPSK alkire_d_Page_09.QC.jpg
442bcb99b32c3f3196c5ebe61965ff8b
5575617e20115f32341a949197f1b6af3d243fdd
1941 F20110109_AACQEF alkire_d_Page_58.txt
800dbddc65724206d2475593d552f8f2
d3ca767725d8c5922781e6453d4b19acb672edf7
3199 F20110109_AACPNO alkire_d_Page_06.txt
270e3e4bd720b36d0b2bcacebf73088e
ee5a73df9dca7d6142dd93567ccfde8cb9256fd8
29460 F20110109_AACPXI alkire_d_Page_60.QC.jpg
a67020c100c2a6b1c39892a9f8e0db9f
22420ce7f784a3e8b8f1c6382548bf0522e07a86
114555 F20110109_AACPSL alkire_d_Page_29.jp2
1a1ec9a3539b36ccd54f4e3d19c475b5
04e29e60b0435b676b06f940502f400047c836f1
235 F20110109_AACQEG alkire_d_Page_62.txt
7b6ada0567bf69a6e95cda4cf1d1ad5f
ca3798bb81f00ebd559235fee03987a23c1301e2
1051950 F20110109_AACPXJ alkire_d_Page_17.jp2
93e4a598d0467318534e693cbd735143
797d4b5ea5495882cadbe44b7cec8a023a39e8e3
103248 F20110109_AACPSM alkire_d_Page_39.QC.jpg
8399a76fbee397e8fdfd634ccb3d2217
417431984deb0c6073b168d2a37627fb854cf3cf
367 F20110109_AACQEH alkire_d_Page_64.txt
ccc371e9cd8c2e63ae723963f3fcd708
71ae1c2a2ad324244c4f2a133633aaf8b11e9016
22823 F20110109_AACPNP alkire_d_Page_43thm.jpg
43eb976ea752b21c1e6ec5ae7cb10c24
e214b440ae37e1cb3e11b70c3a03506f08b84943
F20110109_AACPXK alkire_d_Page_20.tif
c23869d86718fde359bd9e2d446b4ea8
592f65cb6102fc4c54357bb847bad9afd57dee33
1971 F20110109_AACPSN alkire_d_Page_25.txt
646ddd2ef481e65fe5841d8645f7a293
7ee7b64009bf16c93b0c2af57459762f2184622c
2640 F20110109_AACQEI alkire_d_Page_68.txt
421bd8700005dc9248a1e274df9514bf
fe43ea111d2d128d23682e92f208208c24a5fbd8
238764 F20110109_AACPNQ alkire_d_Page_33.jpg
fbe3a8f4e17a3adba1b057e3de1996ab
615d2b5778df39f4cf54001e61a0d3be720c7353
131835 F20110109_AACPXL alkire_d_Page_78.jp2
7a967b001539a8a351ba520555a2232b
2900c55c5310d1e52afa53b733798a074a25458d
53343 F20110109_AACPSO alkire_d_Page_29.pro
f7d80309c1664c97601298549c3d4ebd
c991aca99520f0b2805698417d86a19bc6f6000d
F20110109_AACQEJ alkire_d_Page_72.txt
4d8d159698b845884430ed47f9ecdcac
0ef7355855a3d92757a21a5f4ec46adc0766810f
110689 F20110109_AACPNR alkire_d_Page_54.jp2
13ab95724d961ac6db676a2cf6b640e6
7cd5342c1e7e3b711389d0736d4314af998885e6
49593 F20110109_AACPXM alkire_d_Page_17.pro
5fe6a31b0bae766809a4f29d48990ea0
8c7233cde94f48724169d054295fc8a881324f85
85202 F20110109_AACPSP alkire_d_Page_81.QC.jpg
e2cb82bc410cd98435120fa01e97796d
b2fd2147c317aeaf50dd57c16e02e79d3117f03a
2131 F20110109_AACQEK alkire_d_Page_77.txt
258570e34be78842827032699c4d4e36
84af04a42b4afa77b05d6a2590488d5b551a7bf3
25052 F20110109_AACPNS alkire_d_Page_81thm.jpg
056feeb4e4d9f08b3246ae7b96c48e40
e5e44ee0282a0abe79af2619577f630b4982ff7d
109 F20110109_AACPXN alkire_d_Page_02.txt
bf34a551481402f2f0b95e7c262bb7db
dc76638c159be905b52e3c10a0188fb29dbd6907
40668 F20110109_AACPSQ alkire_d_Page_61.QC.jpg
57c85fb999c01d1064460dbd8e40dc40
e977e27cff3234e88b6de31aec8a79ca34aa92ad
2613 F20110109_AACQEL alkire_d_Page_81.txt
bf5873315486307dc382c66fa2d0d669
1962e9a1abfac6030c402fb3141fc04b5493de6a
1051968 F20110109_AACPXO alkire_d_Page_22.jp2
453f93912628992ba9fcff20c63ac364
8ce58bc3dfe2661c50dc66e080a4237e5e470298
5169 F20110109_AACPSR alkire_d_Page_03.QC.jpg
0d30e211576577d223b91432d04e3a01
8993466ea1fa2a5c57b08127733233ed34793ffa
73463 F20110109_AACPNT alkire_d_Page_11.QC.jpg
5eaa05dfa41f519e55baeacddc09ae5a
73179abf450831958a34cdaafd9cab249aaf33f6
1467 F20110109_AACQEM alkire_d_Page_85.txt
9e0c80533f0bb6101e211f56f966cd10
5c534c4325edd113a2b3e6484bbb53fac5d8935e
82026 F20110109_AACPXP alkire_d_Page_82.QC.jpg
12b2a8507d102dff35cc6b1e8598f308
54b9ec9b4a0c42b5349d6b43475a6f85469874ea
2456 F20110109_AACPSS alkire_d_Page_82.txt
b0f7b1b312686aeaeacf974174f1c59d
c6c4eda5a101787ef9728a11ce9d3027893baf97
56605 F20110109_AACPNU alkire_d_Page_07.pro
e380ee591dedf73cdee91e2492dabf82
f73d6fe9410fd38e8ef1e95d20ec998264ecb0c5
49149 F20110109_AACQEN alkire_d_Page_52thm.jpg
6a1d8c5326ea9626c524bbdf5b6432cd
3f3434a3e74765b177be34326c70dc41eae7c01d
211254 F20110109_AACPXQ alkire_d_Page_24.jpg
6ef752d644d48cb0efe1ea3d4400c408
0012b268e99ff7f05455784d3981667219c484f8
227832 F20110109_AACPST alkire_d_Page_39.jpg
a1b5e712a83a837c091bacb7f6ac2833
b8fc5aee83a7cc2f89dc52eae15aad78888b7d5f
289782 F20110109_AACPNV alkire_d_Page_62.jp2
4d92c475f00c26a9347ba37baf8ac08a
6394d3f0c9314e7a57ab7f4b8a65fef9d0c5e7ab
20625 F20110109_AACQEO alkire_d_Page_12thm.jpg
dd817aae64fa0a6286587df2cae55401
91f18f5fb83a84ede022511b5e4af215b574d941
1000 F20110109_AACPXR alkire_d_Page_47.txt
92aac15b08d1f0241665bec44401836f
ff33cf7451579593cec8848ecc9e0e5ef3f6e950
2018 F20110109_AACPNW alkire_d_Page_19.txt
47d3bf7cbf5f6929bce1f67c117e87fd
6fbd4d33ae2177a05a07bda71e9cb0f355e1a956
25088 F20110109_AACQEP alkire_d_Page_23thm.jpg
37890df5514043cc76c9c82f4b290d6e
64f85578f8602c5219a65e8f063c372ffb29c10d
49778 F20110109_AACPXS alkire_d_Page_23.pro
4e1f3e9179ef697c663a7a089b25a6a9
c010bfbc0de399f497aab435261f26855b968812
2579 F20110109_AACPSU alkire_d_Page_79.txt
1148c3ae1612cbc490b081978d62e320
4bc7ba9da1179714e1ed20a57d8ecd0d4abcdde7
7249 F20110109_AACPNX alkire_d_Page_73.jp2
7f4af61241bfd95008961980e42115b7
0eb1b6701822286990375faa165b8bd87d1276ed
23009 F20110109_AACQEQ alkire_d_Page_04thm.jpg
b1cbf5d5f97970f45f10fa7d443f2f5b
8b763ba36eeda56d7ee6662f9cc8d66e155486c4
26243 F20110109_AACPXT alkire_d_Page_49.pro
0880682cdfd53b93b9eaffed3f718345
d59a42a9e45eb8870073cd9e264ca9589feccfbc
50185 F20110109_AACPSV alkire_d_Page_25.pro
712750bf8b168e681c388b6bb0e66f50
16c60b009f00ebf7c521c41f343b33f123a1bfb6
2663 F20110109_AACPLA alkire_d_Page_78.txt
061fbef4fa5c77a402bee4f41d69fd0e
4182b6f33579aa60939fe9238ae4d4e57c36468a
1731 F20110109_AACPNY alkire_d_Page_10.txt
d2eedbb21e6f1cef4863d555d82b6437
edb0b9e45dc06bdaff4265540bcc03fd21e6c568
50443 F20110109_AACQER alkire_d_Page_35thm.jpg
2ea0e87b4fc009235e527188268b7f6e
07516409479e8953fae9798b527fd8384e6ba34c
162197 F20110109_AACPXU alkire_d_Page_70.jpg
0723bd8f9bd0ce84b2beb0672c940210
953258702b5513546f5c53e8191079cb24d78230
25019 F20110109_AACPSW alkire_d_Page_80thm.jpg
d2cc3b43a48a090d920407e7f4b76b50
f1eca81fef4a53bf29a42a62df2c0251851d0887
28432 F20110109_AACPLB alkire_d_Page_30thm.jpg
9230fbce2d67f7ed10ef31b88cf55f4f
ae33531c65b51f511278343bc7683036072c49f4
1675 F20110109_AACPNZ alkire_d_Page_45.txt
3fd51cf8ece3302756f1066f2de223b3
7c9b36dd1c1b9cbfa2c443259d3c80a3b359fc49
40562 F20110109_AACQES alkire_d_Page_75.QC.jpg
52a7be4834047c65bbb4bd5d4fb9897d
94252fd908f021de105171e4ffbf8c66d9eb42ac
1051986 F20110109_AACPXV alkire_d_Page_51.jp2
bd86e1518d88f3867c28a462c9c4c569
2cd901f62ad733e954d267b7ffb8b89eb248e68f
F20110109_AACPSX alkire_d_Page_58.tif
57c5c9266df4defb67abf956df2ef1c9
cc6ecbf48f4feb61ba6e29bcbb4400d813308593
1970 F20110109_AACPLC alkire_d_Page_24.txt
d12500f5d730870449fb0f2560692c91
d934928d3a0d6939378c0195f9d25e94dba510b9
42624 F20110109_AACQET alkire_d_Page_76.QC.jpg
aae158d914d4aed281aa45e9f195ad82
0700d422f9ab756ccb7aa44aaa0523eca600e09d
232885 F20110109_AACPXW alkire_d_Page_17.jpg
0bdbe25b952d529d3aa5e33cba10a369
9d1a1629e1e2fa51550a9202d75c00a505a1d484
30131 F20110109_AACPQA alkire_d_Page_72thm.jpg
4518af281064c588ee494f8f4d84a719
b093f96133726545f8bffeed3f79b1cbcbe7462a
15372 F20110109_AACPSY alkire_d_Page_68thm.jpg
e8e7f01d51c51597672460dc3ea8db3d
143784dbe96b7b916dd3a9e2eb1d358c7a82dbae
25063 F20110109_AACPLD alkire_d_Page_27thm.jpg
400ad80dfd265fafc3d2c0b4040cd25e
98581bec0f9bfc63d3b91bca0b1300fccce37874
25671 F20110109_AACQEU alkire_d_Page_19thm.jpg
9340307669d5054b3c01ba433adb283d
ee15525d76fdb365ec2f2e72848ff141f2aa9c46
112884 F20110109_AACPXX alkire_d_Page_34.jp2
4ae80dd2402de64cd35722dc7e94c89b
41c6a9e0a1920f824108220a87c2264c588d36fa
F20110109_AACPQB alkire_d_Page_40.tif
d477259cd7d6f4f8e012e61b9eb0e62e
ba2eb37a1f422ce30e95890280675468912a27bb
81504 F20110109_AACPSZ alkire_d_Page_65.jpg
71811189f9fe82711b7638c455c0be84
7f783527a1f3804140d7b2989164a808b563c6d3
196183 F20110109_AACPLE alkire_d_Page_07.jpg
8fee2fb4efaf7b7f9bdc5786e781bd22
e19d03585cd230843b70ddd92490f23d882f9611
67853 F20110109_AACQEV alkire_d_Page_50.QC.jpg
7b3f6035f3d2ba5a7f2448e7e871b5f1
015a4c7b5c07f109d3eee14c5e6af6ec541a571c
F20110109_AACPXY alkire_d_Page_67.txt
5504906fda2f4659b053004667d1d428
5917a16f072a26aaa83660b341cdb3d86e1f93ea
86736 F20110109_AACPQC alkire_d_Page_80.QC.jpg
1aa1d97dd112a2246adbf248693675c9
b6753c66996f9fdc611aa7fdd756959b37bbcdf7
23744 F20110109_AACPLF alkire_d_Page_78thm.jpg
f84a463d28aa4b19d0426467c196d216
db575db47ee3b840a08ab804b97c9c884f1cd989
39905 F20110109_AACQEW alkire_d_Page_62.QC.jpg
41b9fc444f440bfd7e6104335e705ba9
09c27d6536f3adbc6e28badb3e330081cc2d57ca
F20110109_AACPQD alkire_d_Page_26.tif
1be70402a36968800a633d898398654c
6d3e79f7a49416f165fb0f2a735f2c51a3076bc3
21264 F20110109_AACPLG alkire_d_Page_09.pro
8a911bafe5b408af30886387cc376218
87f2ac60b961ab13bd54acd4da443dda185d1cc7
F20110109_AACPVA alkire_d_Page_24.tif
326990e9b7e0c9ffabd9d79f134a75b6
0332acf20ad712b7efb50ddc7b8caa8d39fe61a7
97481 F20110109_AACQEX alkire_d_Page_06.QC.jpg
c0bae2e77161ca07679ae585db77e98b
9ca3c2bfd496ad7a3371c19babd5a3254b80d4d4
78012 F20110109_AACPXZ alkire_d_Page_71.jpg
3df8a079d4eeacde18a9cc4f5ba6cccd
e1ba5310f976c39cce735dbe61f260cf1d2ebad3
348604 F20110109_AACPQE alkire_d_Page_71.jp2
652d36a565d8d1ad28cc2e1948b0967f
34935c64f6f44e70283954ea59892d9d6f809226
7809 F20110109_AACPLH alkire_d_Page_63.pro
0c45d4675148a1bf22869a0e01ba9a4f
7c3697c5b08a93d137ace6875be142861a59bdb2
F20110109_AACPVB alkire_d_Page_51.tif
8ede2e1eda54eb4d9bc4de968c3450f3
15a4a502dada2c696f2fe02bccc7b3a72e152618
81575 F20110109_AACQEY alkire_d_Page_79.QC.jpg
5e132209aee54ef77a2efd70741ea391
ff9df3b8cd26bb7f19eca53703f24b0a2e6a29cb
8117 F20110109_AACQCA alkire_d_Page_01.pro
922837f854c734c1e26a4bf2017b95d6
f5961bc069c7094ac436e856238931498638ea37
52932 F20110109_AACPQF alkire_d_Page_18.pro
d694fab77f94966a82bdb7107467e369
c79a12a0c8c28cc59c99fe4e6ebc3e02bf53ae8e
6799 F20110109_AACPLI alkire_d_Page_01thm.jpg
619d8154948c89ac8068ceb6d5581db3
7f8d670c7433a00252bd1e88e87e92f11fa1719b
22940 F20110109_AACPVC alkire_d_Page_16thm.jpg
cd84a2d1d1c33dec0e24a88292199850
4b9844bf9dc4ebc7b18fd597af7dad9971ab9b47
30458 F20110109_AACQEZ alkire_d_Page_65thm.jpg
5e3805c5f07ff4f810f55cd0bb6f8f90
0d51417442a78eb134707929fa28a54d43ae4496
45756 F20110109_AACQCB alkire_d_Page_08.pro
455b79a46872c848cee9d568718e454a
279aead22f9109eb815d046ff2e35c4d049f1d8e
50547 F20110109_AACPQG alkire_d_Page_61.pro
d3762029b5bab7c8113d19d7d23464a1
c775e210f299bc2256b2f97ad5bf23699dfad1d1
F20110109_AACPLJ alkire_d_Page_02.tif
5cf3a475bc7688f9d3ed701eab60aa09
6f8ed234db1fdd1164d6eaa032a62b58cc6943c6
45074 F20110109_AACPVD alkire_d_Page_64.QC.jpg
3eff85a67d505a8408b8b3d7a92bdc1f
d3d26587dc42430d93c2392bedc53e1b6bf339a7


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0001188/00001

Material Information

Title: Effects of feeding citrus pulp supplements on the performance of growing beef cattle
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Creator: Alkire, Deke O. ( Author, Primary )
Publication Date: 2003
Copyright Date: 2003

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0001188:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0001188/00001

Material Information

Title: Effects of feeding citrus pulp supplements on the performance of growing beef cattle
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Creator: Alkire, Deke O. ( Author, Primary )
Publication Date: 2003
Copyright Date: 2003

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0001188:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












EFFECTS OF FEEDING CITRUS PULP SUPPLEMENTS ON THE PERFORMANCE
OF GROWING BEEF CATTLE

















By

DEKE O. ALKIRE


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2003

































Copyright 2003

by

Deke O. Alkire

































Dedicated to Dr. William E. Kunkle.















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Most of all I would like to thank Dr. Bill Kunkle for his guidance and support. He

is greatly missed. I would like to thank all of my committee members for their continued

support throughout my program. I would like to thank Dr. Tim Marshall for assistance in

pursuing my teaching endeavors and with the practical insight that he adds to every

conversation. I would like to thank Dr. Adegbola Adesogan for his knowledge in

ruminant nutrition and assistance with my research whenever I needed it. Special thanks

go to Dr. Jim Dyer for assistance in the area of agricultural education, and my continued

pursuit of becoming a better instructor. To Dr. Mary Beth Hall, I owe many thanks for

her support and extensive understanding of SAS, ruminant nutrition, and citrus pulp. I

would like to thank Dr. Todd Thrift for his constant motivation and support as a friend

and professor. His guidance, attitude, and infinite supply of knowledge have allowed me

to grow substantially as a person.

Sincere appreciation is extended to John Funk and Richard Fethiere for their

assistance in laboratory procedures and/or analysis. Also, I would like to thank Jerry

Wasdin, Paul Dixon, Joe Jones, Brian Faircloth, and Chad Gainey for assistance with

animal feeding and handling. I would like to thank all of the faculty and my fellow

graduate students at the University of Florida. I owe a special thanks to Nathan and

Wimberley Krueger, Christy Bratcher, Brad Austin, Lawton and Beth Stewart, Elizabeth

Johnson, Chad "Slim" Gainey, and, most of all, Davin Harms for their friendship,

encouragement, and ability to take my mind off of school. I also extend appreciation to









Eleanor Green for her love and support throughout my stay in Florida. Last, but not least,

I extend love and gratitude to my family for their constant support, occasional

motivation, and continual encouragement in all of my adventures.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................................................. iv

L IST O F T A B L E S ............................................................... .. ................. ....... .... viii

LIST OF FIGURES ......... ......................... ...... ........ ............ ix

A B STR A C T ................................................. ..................................... .. x

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ............... ................. ........... ................. ... .... 1

2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ......................................................... .............. 3

Supplem entation of Forage Based Diets................................... ...................... 3
Factors Affecting the Need for Supplementation...............................................4
Supplem entation Strategies ...........................................................................5
Protein Supplem entation ............................................... ............................ 6
DIP supplem entation ......................................................... .... .. .......... ..
U IP supplem entation ............................................................................ 10
Energy Supplem entation .................................. .....................................13
Supplem entation with Citrus Pulp ....................... ................. ............................17
C itrus Pulp P processing ......... ........ ........................................ ...... .............. 17
Chemical Com position ................................................. ....... ............... 18
Effects of Citrus Pulp Supplements on Cattle Performance.............................20
Preconditioning of Weaned Cattle.. .. ............................................21

3 EFFECTS OF FEEDING CITRUS PULP OR CORN SUPPLEMENTS WITH
INCREASING LEVELS OF ADDED UNDEGRADED INTAKE PROTEIN ON
THE PERFORMANCE OF GROWING CATTLE ...............................................26

In tro du ctio n ...................................... ................................................ 2 6
M materials and M methods ....................................................................... ..................27
A n im als................................. ..................................................... ............... 2 7
D iets .................. ............................................................................. ............... 2 7
Feeding Procedure and Sampling............................................... .................. 28
M easurem ents .................................................... ................. 28
L laboratory A analysis ................................................ ............... 29









Statistical P ro cedu res........................................... ...........................................2 9
R results and D discussion ............................. .................... .. ........ .. .............29
D ie ts ................................................................................................................ 2 9
A nim al R esp on se ............................................................... .. ........... ......30
Im p lic atio n s ..................................................................... 3 3

4 EFFECTS OF FEEDING CITRUS PULP SUPPLEMENTS ON THE
PERFORMANCE OF CALVES IN A PRECONDITIONING PROGRAM .............39

Intro du action ...................................... ................................................ 3 9
M materials and M methods ........................................................................ ..................40
Statistical P ro cedu res.......... .... .............................. .............................. .... .... ... ..4 1
R results and D discussion ............................. .................... .. ........ .. .............42
D ie ts ................................................................................................................ 4 2
A nim al R esp on se ............................................................... .. ........... ......4 3
E conom ic E valuation.................................................. ............................... 44
Im p lic atio n s .................................................................................................... 4 5

5 CON CLU SION S ........................................................ ..............55

APPENDIX

A SUPPLEMENTAL CHAPTER 3 TABLES AND FIGURES................................56

B SUPPLEMENTAL CHAPTER 4 TABLES AND FIGURES.................................62

L IT E R A T U R E C IT E D ............................................................................. ....................66

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E TCH ...................................................................... ..................74
















LIST OF TABLES


Table pge

2-1. A comparison of the chemical composition of citrus pulp from different
so u rc e s. .......................................................................................... 19

3-1. Composition of supplements fed to growing cattle.............................................34

3-2. Feeding rate and nutrient composition of bahia grass hay and supplements fed
to growing cattle ................ ....... .. .... ................. .... ........ 35

3-3. Total average daily gain by period for growing calves fed corn or citrus pulp
supplements with increasing levels of UIP. .... ...... ..............................36

3-4. Total intake, crude protein intake, and digestible organic matter intake of
supplement and hay (+SE) for growing calves supplemented with corn or citrus
pulp with increasing levels of UIP. ................................................ 37

3-5. Body condition score (1-9 scale SE) by period for growing calves fed citrus
pulp supplements with increasing levels of UIP. .............................. ... ................ 38

4-1. Feeding rate, formulation, and nutrient composition of pasture and supplements
fed to preconditioned calves.......................................................... ............... 47

4-2. Pasture Quality ( SE) by week for preconditioned calves fed citrus pulp
su p p le m en ts..............................................................................................................4 8

4-3. Peconditioning costs ..................... ...... ......... .... ........ .... 49

4-4. Preconditioning profits ................................................... .............................. 50
















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

4-1. Crude protein (CP) of pasture for preconditioned calves fed citrus pulp
supplem ents by w eek. ...................... .. .... ................ ........................ .....51

4-2. Total average daily gain (ADG) of preconditioned calves fed citrus pulp
supplem ents by treatm ent .......................................................................... ... ...... 52

4-3. Average daily gain (ADG) of preconditioned calves fed citrus pulp
supplem ents by w eek. ...................... .. .... ................ ........................ .....53

4-4. Effect of Bos indicus breeding on total average daily gain of preconditioned
c a lv e s ............................................................................ 5 4















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

EFFECTS OF FEEDING CITRUS PULP SUPPLEMENTS ON THE PERFORMANCE
OF GROWING BEEF CATTLE

By

Deke O. Alkire

August, 2003

Chair: Todd A. Thrift
Major Department: Animal Sciences

In the first trial, fifty individually fed Angus x Brahman crossbred steers and

heifers (250 kg initial BW) were utilized to evaluate the effects of citrus pulp or corn

supplementation with varying levels of bypass protein on performance. Calves were

stratified by weight, sex, and breed type and randomly assigned to treatment. Treatments

consisted of corn or citrus pulp supplements with added bypass protein (SoyPLUS). Five

levels of bypass protein were evaluated including 0, 0.055, 0.11, 0.165, and 0.22 kg per

head per day. These levels were utilized for both corn and citrus pulp supplements for a

total often isonitrogenous and isoenergetic treatments. All calves were offered a basal

diet of low quality bahia grass hay (ad libitum) and fed the assigned supplement once a

day. Hay and supplement were individually fed for 84 days using Calan gates. Average

daily gain (ADG) and body condition score (1-9 scale) were evaluated every twenty-eight

days. Average daily gain increased linearly (P=0.001) as level of supplemented bypass

protein increased, with the highest level producing 0.393 kg more ADG than the lowest









level. Type of supplementation had a significant effect (P < 0.001) on total hay dry

matter intake. Calves supplemented with corn consumed 0.7 kg more hay per animal per

day than those supplemented with citrus pulp. Increasing levels of bypass protein caused

a significant decrease in hay intake (P < 0.01). Body condition score was not affected by

type of supplementation or inclusion level of bypass protein. Adding bypass protein to

corn and citrus pulp supplements fed to growing cattle increased gain.

In trial two, one hundred fifty Angus x Brahman crossbred calves (69 steers and 83

heifers) averaging 241 kg body weights were utilized in a 42 day preconditioning

program. These calves were stratified by weight, sex, and breed type then randomly

assigned to one of four supplemental treatments. Treatments consisted of control

(CONTROL; no supplement), citrus pulp (CITR), citrus pulp with 0.22 kg of added UIP

(CITR+UIP), or citrus pulp with added urea (CITR+UREA). Te CITR+UREA treatment

was formulated to be isonitrogenous to the CITR+UIP treatment.

Supplemented calves had higher 42 d. ADG than unsupplemented calves (P <

0.01). There was a treatment effect (P < 0.01) on 42 d. ADG as well (Figure 4-1). The

CITR+UIP treatment produced the greatest 42 d. ADG (0.43 kg), while CITR and

CIRT+UREA had an intermediate 42 d. ADG (0.33 and 0.24 kg respectively). Animals

on the control treatment had the lowest 42 d. ADG (0.14kg).

Animal sex tended (P = 0.09) to have an effect on 42 d. ADG. Animal breed type

also tended (P = 0.06) to have an effect on 42 d. ADG. An economic evaluation of the

treatments showed that the most profitable treatment was CITR+UIP and the least

profitable was CITR+UREA.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Forages contribute the majority of nutrients the diet of most beef cattle. Many

times forages are inadequate at meeting the requirements of cattle, especially growing

cattle. Many Florida forages commonly used for summer grazing and hay can be a poor

source of energy and protein, depending on the species, age, and season. This results in

the need for supplementation. Citrus pulp is a readily available, energy concentrate

byproduct feedstuff that is an economical supplement for Florida cattlemen.

Extensive research evaluating citrus pulp as a supplement for cattle was conducted

in the 1950's and 1960's. These studies have shown that citrus pulp is readily consumed

by cattle and can produce similar gains to corn products (Scott, 1926; Chapman et al.,

1961; Ammerman et al., 1963). Citrus pulp is a good energy supplement, but is low in

protein. Therefore, additional protein may increase animal performance or improve

utilization of citrus pulp supplements, resulting in a more economical supplement for

growing cattle.

Depending on the physiological state of the animal, forage quality and intake,

microbial protein can provide adequate CP to meet the requirements of cattle (NRC,

1996). However, some animals, such as growing and lactating cattle, have an increased

protein requirement that may not be sufficiently met by microbial protein (Paterson et al.,

1996; Nelson, 1997). In these instances, providing additional undegraded intake protein

(UIP) may result in an increase in performance. The objective of this research was to






2


determine the effects of feeding citrus pulp based supplements with added undegraded

intake protein (UIP) on the performance of growing cattle.














CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Supplementation of Forage Based Diets

Forages dominate the diet of ruminants throughout their life cycle with the

exception of young suckling calves and feedlot animals. Thus, cattle producers rely

heavily on pasture and range to keep cost of production low. In Florida, the tropical

perennial grasses used for pasture often do not have adequate nutrient composition to

fulfill the requirements of cattle or are of such low quality that cattle can not consume

enough to meet their nutritional needs (Moore et al., 1991). As nutrient composition and

availability of forages change seasonally, the nutritional needs of beef cattle change as

well (Sollenberger and Chambliss, 1991). Ultimately, the nutritional requirements of

cattle will exceed what is available from most forages at some point during the year.

Many factors affect the nutritional needs of cattle including: physiological state, activity,

desired rate of gain, body size, age, sex, and environmental conditions (NRC, 1996). In

order to maintain desired production levels, supplementation of forage based diets is

sometimes necessary. Supplements may be provided to cattle for several reasons. These

include correcting nutrient deficiencies, controlling forage intake and utilization,

improving animal performance, and increasing profit (Kunkle et al., 2000). Regardless of

why supplements are provided, economic viability should determine the supplementation

strategy (DelCurto et al., 2000).









Factors Affecting the Need for Supplementation

Seasonal differences in forage quality are a major factor affecting cattle production.

Inherently, forages are highly variable in quality due to: differences in species, stage of

maturity, soils, fertilization, and climate (Pond et al., 1995). The tropical and sub-

tropical perennial pastures common to Florida peak in quality in spring and decrease

from mid-summer through fall creating a deficiency in available nutrients from August

through March (Sollenberger and Chambliss, 1991). In 1991, Moore et al. quantified

Florida forages by evaluating 637 samples from throughout the state. The authors

reported that most samples contained between 5 and 7 percent CP and 48 to 51 percent

TDN. The authors also noted that most samples other than bermudagrass were deficient

in CP for performance above maintenance.

Forage quantity is another factor affecting cattle production. Forage quantity is

highly variable depending on species, stage of maturity, soil, fertilization, stocking rate,

and climate (Ball et al., 1996). Most perennial Florida forages are warm season grasses

which are limited in quantity during the cool months of the year. This usually includes

the months of November through April for north Florida and January through March for

south Florida depending on species (Sollenberger and Chambliss, 1991). The amount of

available forage is compounded by decreased rainfall typical during the period from April

to early June (Chambliss et al., 1998; Sollenberger and Chambliss, 1991). Forage quality

and quantity deficiencies both contribute to cattle receiving an inadequate supply of

nutrients resulting in the need for supplementation.

Nutrient requirements of cattle also affect the need for supplementation. Many

factors affect the nutritional needs of cattle including: physiological state, activity,

desired rate of gain, body size, age, sex, and environmental conditions (NRC, 1996).









These factors are constantly changing and animals need to be monitored. Evaluating

body condition score (BCS) is a reliable way to evaluate the nutritional status of mature

cattle and should be considered when designing supplement programs (Kunkle et al.,

1994). The nutritional requirements of growing cattle are affected by the same factors

but are typically determined by breed, weight, and desired rate of gain (NRC, 1996).

Supplementation Strategies

Mineral supplementation is very important for cattle. Adequate levels of many of

the essential minerals are provided by most feedstuffs (National Research Council

[NRC], 1996). However, some minerals are insufficient and can vary drastically

according to geographical location and feedstuffs utilized. In many cases, mineral

deficiencies are borderline and animals may not show specific symptoms other than

decreased performance. Phosphorous, sodium, copper, cobalt, and selenium deficiencies

have affected cattle throughout Florida. Providing a free choice, complete mineral

supplement is recommended to prevent deficiencies (Kunkle, 2001; Kunkle et al., 2002).

Hay is probably the second most utilized supplement in the cattle industry. Many

producers feed hay as a roughage source to offset low forage availability. In Florida, hay

is generally harvested in late summer when quantity is high, but quality is declining

(Brown and Kunkle, 1992). According to the results from the University of Florida

Extension Forage Testing Program, the average CP and TDN concentration of Florida-

grown hay is 7 and 43 percent respectively (Brown et al., 1990). This would suggest that

some form of supplementation is needed other than hay, depending on the desired

production level.









Protein Supplementation

Supplementation of forage based diets with protein is a common practice of cattle

producers. Much research has been conducted to determine the protein requirements of

beef cattle over the past 50 years. These studies indicate that providing an additional

source of protein increases gain (Clanton and Zimmerman, 1970; Bodine and Purvis,

2003), dry matter intake and digestibility (Kartchner, 1981; Koster et al., 1996; Bodine

and Purvis, 2003), as well as reproductive performance (Sasser et al., 1988; Wiley et al.,

1991). Since 1985, the NRC has suggested using absorbed protein from both undegraded

intake protein (UIP) and microbial protein as a means of expressing the protein

requirements of ruminants. This approach, also known as the metabolizable protein (MP)

system, separates the requirements of the rumen microorganisms from the requirements

of the animal. This allows for more accurate prediction of animal response to

supplementation by estimating protein degradation in the rumen. Because many protein

supplements contain both degraded intake protein (DIP) and UIP, previous

supplementation research has produced variable responses. This has led to the use of

highly degradable or undegradable sources of protein in an attempt to differentiate the

effects of each. Some commonly used sources of DIP include: urea, biuret, dried poultry

waste/litter, corn steep liquor, and sodium caseinate. Bloodmeal, corn gluten meal, and

various treated soybean meals are typically used as sources of UIP. If the levels of DIP

and UIP in feedstuffs and forages are quantified, supplements can be designed to better

meet the requirements of the animal. It is important to note that supplements should be

tailored to each situation and formulated based on animal requirements, desired rate of

gain, as well as forage quality and quantity.









DIP supplementation

Studies evaluating the effects of supplemental DIP have not been conclusive.

Many authors suggest that the DIP fraction of protein supplements is responsible for

increasing intake and digestion of low quality forages (Koster et al., 1996; Olson et al.,

1999; Mathis et al., 2000; Bandyk et al., 2001). It has been suggested that the increase in

forage intake and digestibility seen with protein supplementation is often due to increased

passage rate, ruminal fill factors, or both (McCollum and Horn, 1990; Paterson et al.,

1996). These effects seem more pronounced when supplementing cattle fed a basal diet

of low quality forage. This is probably due to a lack of adequate ruminal nitrogen

resulting in less than optimal microbial protein synthesis (Bohnert et al., 2002). Research

has shown that forage crude protein has to drop to a level of 7 percent (range of 6 to 8

percent) before supplementation shows a marked effect on intake and digestibility.

Therefore this has been considered the threshold for a response to protein

supplementation (McCollum and Horn, 1990; Mathis et al., 2000).

Research trials have been conducted to evaluate the effects of increasing levels of

DIP utilizing sodium caseinate as the source of DIP. Koster et al. (1996) utilized mature,

non-pregnant, ruminally fistulated cows to evaluate five levels (0, 180, 360, 540, and 720

g per day) of supplemental DIP. Cows were offered low quality, tallgrass-prairie forage

(1.9 % CP, 77 % NDF) ad libitum. Sodium caseinate was infused intraruminally just

prior to feeding the forage. Forage intake was maximized at the 540 g/d level, and true

ruminal OM digestibility was highest at the 180 g/d level. They concluded that DIP

supplementation at 11 percent of total digestible organic matter (.09 % BW) would

maximize intake and increase digestibility of low quality tallgrass prairie forage. In a

similar study, Olsen et al. (1999) supplemented Hereford x Angus steers with increasing









levels of sodium caseinate (.03, .06, .09, and .12 % of initial BW). All steers had ad

libitum access to low quality hay (4.9 % CP) with intraruminal infusion of DIP just prior

to feeding. Forage intake and digestibility increased linearly as the level of DIP

increased. It was also noted that intake was highest when DIP was supplemented at the

highest level offered (.12 % BW; 11.6 % of dry matter intake).

Research by Hollingsworth-Jenkins et al. (1996) utilized corn steep liquor as a

source of supplemental DIP. Gestating beef cows grazing native range (4.8 % average

CP) were used to evaluate the effects of four levels (50, 75, 100, and 125 % of estimated

DIP requirement) of supplemental DIP. The authors observed no change in ADG, body

condition, or forage intake. However, digestibility increased linearly as level of

supplemental DIP increased. They concluded that the lowest level of supplemental DIP

(170 g/d) was adequate at meeting the needs of the rumen microorganisms.

Source of DIP can have a significant impact on its utilization. Several studies have

concluded that non protein nitrogen (NPN) does not perform as well as other sources of

DIP. This has been attributed to the inefficient utilization of NPN as a result of

asynchronous availability of energy and nitrogen in the rumen (McCollum and Horn,

1990). In 1978, Clanton conducted six experiments to compare the effects of urea and

biuret to natural protein sources (soybean meal and alfalfa hay) fed to growing calves on

native range. Across all experiments, gains were either lower or indifferent as level of

NPN increased. However, average daily gains were higher (0.04 kg) for the natural

protein supplements compared to NPN supplements. In more recent work, Jordan et al.

(2002) compared urea and dried poultry waste to a natural protein source. Cows grazing

dormant native Sandhills winter range (6.8 % CP) were supplemented with urea, dried









poultry waste, soybean meal, or a combination of either dried poultry waste or soybean

meal and urea. Cows consuming natural protein supplements had higher ADG than those

supplemented with urea whereas cows consuming dried poultry waste had similar gains

to those consuming soybean meal. There was no difference in forage organic matter

intake across all treatments. The authors concluded that natural protein and dried poultry

waste may have a slower rate of nitrogen release compared to urea. This would

complement the rate of digestion of low quality forage and thus increase microbial crude

protein synthesis. Also, dried poultry waste may contain natural protein from wasted

feed. In a study by Koster and others (1997), Angus x Hereford steers were used to

compare increasing levels of urea to sodium caseinate. Steers had ad libitum access to

low quality, tallgrass prairie (2.4 % CP, 76% NDF) and were supplemented with 100

percent of their DIP requirement daily. Supplements were formulated to provide 0, 25,

50, or 100 percent of DIP in the form of urea with the remainder being sodium caseinate.

Forage organic matter intake was similar across all treatments but digestible organic

matter intake decreased linearly as the level of urea increased. The authors concluded

that low levels of urea can be used as a source of DIP in protein supplements without

negative effects on intake of low quality forage.

It has been shown that supplementation of DIP can increase the performance of

growing calves, as well as mature cows grazing low quality forages. It has been

speculated that supplemental DIP may increase the efficiency of microbial protein

synthesis resulting in better performance. A review of the literature would suggest that

growing animals seem to have a higher DIP requirement than mature cows. Olsen et al.

(1999) found that supplementing DIP at 0.12 percent of body weight would maximize the









intake of growing animals. This is higher than the findings of Koster et al. (1996) where

0.09 percent of body weight was sufficient at maximizing the intake of mature non-

pregnant cows. In contrast, Hollingsworth-Jenkins et al. (1996) found that DIP

supplementation had no effect on the intake or performance of gestating beef cows. It is

unclear if the increased level of DIP required to maximize intake is due to forage

properties or a higher requirement of growing animals. Furthermore, source of DIP can

have a significant impact on its utilization. Several studies have concluded that NPN

does not perform as well as other sources of DIP. Many authors agree that NPN may be

used at low levels, but natural protein sources typically yield better performance. More

research is needed to accurately define the DIP requirements of growing and mature

cattle.

UIP supplementation

Microbial protein can provide adequate CP to meet the requirements of cattle

(NRC, 1996), depending on the physiological state of the animal, as well as forage

quality and intake. However, some animals, such as growing and lactating cattle, have an

increased protein requirement that may not be sufficiently met by microbial protein

(Paterson et al., 1996; Nelson, 1997). In this case, UIP supplementation can result in an

increase in performance due to increased protein reaching the small intestine. Many

authors agree that UIP supplementation is only beneficial if DIP levels are adequate

relative to requirement (Klopfenstein, 1996; Paterson et al., 1996).

Several trials have looked at the effects of UIP supplementation on growing

cattle. Anderson et al. (1988) conducted research to evaluate the effects of supplemental

UIP on the performance of crossbred yearling steers (277 kg initial BW) grazing smooth

brome pasture (10.4 % CP). Bloodmeal and corn gluten meal were used to provide









increasing levels (0, .11, .23, and .34 kg per head per day) of supplemental UIP, replacing

corn starch, which was used as a negative control. Analysis of the forage indicated that

DIP was sufficient to meet the microbial needs. Results showed a linear increase in

performance as the level of supplemental UIP increased. ADG was maximized (1.06 kg

per day) at the 0.23 kg level of supplemental UIP. Karges et al. found similar results in

1992. These authors utilized 326 kg steers grazing native range (9.4 % CP), to look at the

effects of increasing levels of DIP and UIP supplementation as well as a combination of

both. No response was seen with increasing DIP supplementation. However, they noted

a linear increase in gain when steers were supplemented with UIP in addition to adequate

DIP. The authors concluded that microbial protein synthesis was insufficient at meeting

the metabolizable protein needs of the animals when DIP was supplied at adequate levels.

Therefore an increase in ADG would be noted by supplying a source of UIP.

Warm season grasses generally have a higher level of UIP compared to cool season

grasses (Klopfenstein, 1996; Paterson et al., 1996). This would suggest a decreased

response to UIP supplementation. However, Ramos et al. (1997) supplemented growing

crossbred steers (211 kg initial BW) grazing Stargrass pasture (6.9 % CP) and found that

UIP was still limiting. Supplements were either bloodmeal (75 % UIP), coconut meal,

(38 % UIP) or soybean meal (35% UIP) and were fed at increasing levels (50 or 100

percent of total supplemental CP) replacing urea. Animals were allowed ad libitum

access to Stargrass pasture and all supplements were fed at 2 kg per head per day.

Results showed a linear increase in ADG as the level of UIP increased in the bloodmeal

and coconut meal diets but no response was noted for the animals supplemented with









soybean meal. The authors attributed the lack of response to soybean meal to its

extensive protein degradation in the rumen.

Other authors have examined the effects of UIP supplementation using gestating

and lactating cattle. Triplett et al. (1995) utilized 80 first calf heifers and 51 mature

Brahman cows to evaluate the effects of UIP supplementation on production

characteristics and reproductive performance. Supplements provided 38, 56, or 76

percent UIP and were fed at 3.50, 3.23, and 2.95 kg per head per day respectively.

Animals had free access to rye and ryegrass over seeded Coastal Bermudagrass pasture

(12 24 % CP) as well as Coastal Bermudagrass hay (8 % CP). Cattle were

supplemented between days 7 and 119 post calving. Results showed that providing first

calf heifers and mature cows with a supplement containing 56 percent UIP

(approximately 0.4 kg per head per day of UIP) increased their first service conception

rates by more than 28 percent compared to the supplement containing 36 percent UIP.

The authors also noted no improvement in reproductive function in the animals receiving

the supplement containing 76 percent UIP when compared to the animals supplemented

with 56 percent UIP. In more recent research, Sletmoen-Olsen et al. (2000) found that

increasing the level of UIP in supplements had little effect on the performance of

crossbred cows. Cattle were randomly assigned to one of four isoenergetic treatments:

control (no supplement), 69, 290, or 536 g UIP per head per day. All supplements were

formulated to provide 274 g DIP per head per day. Cows were offered mature, cool

season grass prairie hay (5.8 % CP) ad libitum. Hay and supplements were provided

from October to May which represented the last five months of gestation and the first

three months of lactation. Authors explained that supplemented cows had greater body









weights when compared to control, but level of UIP supplementation had no effect. Total

OM intake was greater for supplemented animals, compared to control animals, during

gestation but similar during lactation. It was also reported that there was no differences

due to treatment on days to first estrus or rebreeding. The authors concluded that

supplemental UIP is marginally beneficial and that providing more than 70 g per head per

day does not improve the performance of gestating or lactating beef cattle when DIP

levels are adequate.

Several studies have shown that UIP supplementation can increase the

performance of growing animals if DIP levels are adequate. Anderson et al. (1988) found

that ADG was maximized when 0.23 kg per day of supplemental UIP was provided to

growing steers. Karges et al. (1992) found similar results where ADG was maximized

when 0.21 kg per day of supplemental UIP was provided to growing steers. However,

evaluating the effects of supplemental UIP on the performance of mature cows has

produced mixed results. Triplett et al. (1995) found that 0.4 kg per day of supplemental

UIP increased the first service conception rates of mature cows. This is in contrast to the

results of Sletmoen-Olsen et al. (2000) where supplemental UIP had little effect on the

performance of mature cows. More research is needed to evaluate the effects of

supplemental UIP on the performance of mature cattle.

Energy Supplementation

Energy supplementation of cattle is a common practice to maintain performance

or minimize loss (Caton and Dhuyvetter, 1997). Many times available forage is

inadequate at meeting the energy needs of cattle (Moore et al., 1999). Depending on the

quality of the forage, protein supplementation may increase intake enough to meet the

energy needs of the animal, but not in all cases. Protein is typically the limiting nutrient









but supplementation may not result in an adequate increase in energy intake (Bodine and

Purvis, 2003). This would suggest that supplemental energy may be needed to meet the

desired level of performance. However, energy supplementation often results in

decreased forage intake and utilization (Bodine and Purvis, 2003; Caton and Dhuyvetter,

1997; Kunkle et al., 2000). Many authors have attributed this to a substitution effect

caused by feeding high starch energy sources. Caton and Dhuyvetter (1997) defined

substitution as "reductions in forage intake by grazing and pen-fed ruminants due to

energy supplementation."

Sanson et al. (1990) demonstrated that increasing levels of corn starch

supplementation resulted in decreased forage intake. Ruminally cannulated crossbred

steers (550 kg) were utilized to evaluate the effects of supplements with increasing levels

of starch. Steers were fed low quality hay (4.3 % CP) ad libitum. All supplements

provided 1.12 g CP and 0, 2, or 4 g of starch from corn, per kg of body weight. Forage

consumption decreased by 5 percent for the supplement containing 2 g of starch per kg of

body weight and an additional 17 percent for the supplement containing 4 g of starch per

kg of body weight DelCurto et al. (1990) used ruminally cannulated Angus x Hereford

steers (401 kg) to determine the effects of high and low protein supplements (0.66 and

1.32g CP per kg BW) in combination with high and low energy supplements (9.2 and

18.4 kcal ME per kg BW) on forage intake and digestion. Dormant tallgrass-prairie hay

(2.6 % CP) was offered ad libitum. The authors noted that increasing energy

supplementation tended to depress forage intake with no effect on total dry matter intake.

This would suggest a substitution effect caused by energy supplementation. Intake

depression is likely due to a decreased ruminal pH resulting in reduced growth of









fibrolytic bacteria (Kunkle et al., 2000). This would result in decreased digestion of

forages and a decreased passage rate. Diminishing digestibility of forages has also been

observed in many cattle supplemented with high starch grains (Bodine and Purvis, 2003;

Hannah et al., 1989; Vanzant et al., 1990). Horn and McCollum (1987) reviewed energy

supplementation of grazing cattle and concluded that concentrates can be fed at .5 percent

BW before forage intake was decreased. In another review by Bowman and Sanson

(1996), supplementing grain over .25 percent of BW had negative effects on forage

utilization. Caton and Dhuyvetter (1997) noted that these discrepancies may be due to

the level of supplemental protein. Bodine et al. (2000) studied the effects of starch

supplementation on forage utilization when the total dietary DIP requirements were met.

The authors supplemented ruminally cannulated steers (317 kg) with eight combinations

of energy and DIP. Supplements provided dry-rolled corn at either 0 or 0.75 percent of

body weight and one of four levels of soybean meal that provided between 0 and 1.3 g of

DIP per kg of body weight. Prairie hay (6.1 % CP) was also provided ad libitum. Hay

intake increased as level of DIP increased regardless of corn supplementation. Hay

digestibility also increased as level of DIP increased when corn was added. However,

inadequate levels of DIP in the grain based diets decreased forage intake, digestibility,

and energy intake. The authors concluded that supplementing adequate levels of DIP

appeared to alleviate the negative associative effects typically seen when supplementing

low quality forages with high starch feeds. Other authors have tried to combat the

substitution effect caused by high starch grain supplementation with feedstuffs low in non

structural carbohydrates but high in TDN. Common sources include: soybean hulls,

wheat middlings, corn gluten feed, beet pulp, citrus pulp, distillers grains, and brewers









grains (Kunkle et al., 2000). Providing energy from one of these readily digestible fiber

sources usually has a less negative effect on forage intake compared to high starch

supplements (Caton and Dhuyvetter, 1997; Bowman and Sanson 1996).

In 1991, Sunvold et al. evaluated the efficacy of wheat middlings as a supplement

for beef cattle. Ruminally fistulated Angus x Hereford crossbred steers (374) were

offered one of four treatments that included: a control of no supplement, a mixed

supplement of soybean meal (22 %) and grain sorghum (78 %), or a low or high level of

wheat middlings. All steers were offered low quality (2.4 % CP) bluestem hay ad

libitum. Forage dry matter intake was increased for the high level of wheat middlings

and the soybean meal and grain sorghum supplements. Dry matter digestibility was

increased with supplementation, but there was no difference between supplements.

Similar results were seen in a three-year study by Horn et al. (1995). For these

experiments, 466 steers were utilized to compare the effects of high starch supplements to

high fiber supplements. Treatments included a control with no supplementation, a corn

based high starch supplement, or a soybean hull and wheat middling based high fiber

supplement. Calves were constantly grazed on wheat pasture and daily supplement

consumption was 0.65 % of body weight. The authors reported that ADG was not

influenced by the type of supplementation. These studies indicate that high starch

supplements, which are typically more expensive, could be replaced by highly digestible

fiber supplements depending on availability and price.

Energy supplements may be used to correct nutrient deficiencies, and maintain or

increase performance. However, they have shown to decrease intake of low quality

forages making energy supplementation a viable alternative as forage availability









decreases. High fiber concentrate feeds show promise as an economical substitute for

traditional high starch, high price supplements. However, more research is needed to

identify economical energy supplementation.

Supplementation with Citrus Pulp

The Florida citrus industry produces over 80 percent of the United States supply

of citrus, almost 90 percent of which is processed into juice (Hodges et al., 2001). The

waste from processing is a mixture of peel, rag, and seeds collectively known as citrus

pulp. Citrus pulp is typically dried, pelleted, and marketed as a byproduct energy

concentrate feed for ruminants (Arthington et al., 2002). The 52 processing plants in

Florida produced 1.3 million tons of citrus pulp valued at 88 million dollars during the

1999-2000 season (Hodges et al., 2001). Most citrus pulp has been exported to Europe,

but recent declines in export opportunities have made citrus pulp an affordable byproduct

feed (Arthington and Pate, 2001).

Citrus Pulp Processing

Citrus pulp was first utilized as a ruminant feed in the early 1900's. Walker (1917)

noted that cattle would readily consume fresh citrus pulp and cull fruits, but many times

this feedstuff spoiled before it could all be consumed. Arthington and Pate, (2001)

estimated the waste from feeding wet citrus pulp could be as high as 30 percent.

Although it is very palatable to cattle, it is typically uneconomical to feed wet pulp (15-

20 percent DM) because of the increased cost of shipping (Kunkle et al., 2001). In an

experiment by Scott (1926), grapefruit waste was dehydrated and fed to dairy cattle. This

sparked the commercial production of dried citrus pulp as a byproduct feedstuff in the

early 1930's. The basic procedure for producing dried citrus pulp involves grinding or

chopping the citrus waste and dehydrating the mixture. Calcium oxide or calcium









hydroxide is commonly added to aid in releasing bound water, resulting in a product high

in calcium (Ammerman and Henry, 1991). The production of dried citrus pulp allowed

for easier transport, storage, and feeding of citrus waste. However, dried citrus pulp is

still a bulky feedstuff with a density of around 13-23 lbs/cubic foot (Ammerman et al.,

1966). Pelleting of citrus pulp was introduced to increase density, reduce dustiness, and

aid in handling. In 1967, Ammerman and others found that gains were increased when

steers were fed pelleted citrus pulp at 66 percent of the total supplement compared to

unpelleted citrus pulp at the same level. Average daily gains were 1.38 and 1.19 kg per

head per day for the pelleted and unpelleted rations, respectively. The difference was

attributed to the increased density (41.6 lbs/cubic foot) of the pelleted ration which was

consumed at a higher level (+ 0.30 kg/d). The same trend was seen when Loggins et al.,

(1964) looked at gain differences between dried and pelleted citrus pulp when fed to

fattening lambs. Lambs fed pelleted citrus pulp had numerically higher average daily

gains (0.123 kg/d) compared to those fed unpelleted citrus pulp (0.109 kg/d) and daily

intakes were slightly higher for the pelleted rations (0.064 kg/d). The authors noted that

pelleting may have increased the quality of citrus pulp. Processing of citrus pulp

decreases waste and makes handling, feeding, and storage easier.

Chemical Composition

The chemical composition of citrus pulp can be variable depending on the type of

fruit and the procedures used to produce it (Ammerman et al., 1966; Chapman et al.,

1983). Arosemena et al. (1995) analyzed citrus pulp samples from several California

sources and found results similar to those reported by the NRC (1996) for crude protein,

macro and micro minerals. However, acid detergent fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and

ether extract values were highly variable. The variability of citrus pulp due to source was









also investigated by Ammerman and others (1966). They analyzed 904 citrus pulp

samples representing 17 different production sources over the period of three years

(1963-1965). Significant differences were found between sources for all nutrients but

average nutrient composition varied only slightly between years. Variation within source

was not evaluated. The differences found could be attributed to the varying components

of the citrus pulp such as seed, rag, and peel. Reported values are compared to data

recorded by Arosemena et al. (1995) as well as NRC (1996) values in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1. A comparison of the chemical composition of citrus pulp from different
sources.

Nutrient Source 1a Source 2b Source 3c

Moisture 8.62 9.47 8.90

Ash, % DM 5.12 5.14 6.60

Ether extract % DM 4.27 1.12 3.70

Crude Protein % DM 6.81 6.39 6.70

Calcium % DM -- 1.43 1.88

Phosphorous % DM -- 0.11 0.13

aAmmerman et al., 1966
bArosemena et al., 1995
CNRC, 1996

In a similar study by Ammerman et al., (1966), the individual fractions of citrus

pulp were analyzed. They concluded that seeds present in the mixture were higher in

crude protein and ether extract, and contributed 12 percent of the total ether extract and

56 percent of the total crude protein on a dry matter basis. Ammerman et al., (1965)

illustrated the variability in digestibility due to processing by evaluating the effect of

dehydrating temperatures on the digestibility of the resulting citrus pulp. Wether lambs









were supplemented with one of three citrus pulp supplements dried at 220, 240, or 260

degrees Fahrenheit. Results showed that protein and energy were significantly more

digestible for the supplement dried at 220 degrees compared to the other two

supplements.

Effects of Citrus Pulp Supplements on Cattle Performance

Early studies have looked at the value of supplementing citrus pulp to cattle on

pasture. In 1953, Chapman and co-workers found no significant difference in gain or

feed efficiency between ground snapped corn and citrus pulp when fed to steers on

pasture. In a similar study by Chapman et al. (1961), steers on pasture fed citrus pulp had

numerically higher average daily gains (0.78 kg per day) compared to steers fed ground

snapped corn (0.72 kg per day), sugarcane molasses (0.65 kg per day), or a mixture of

corn, citrus pulp and cottonseed meal (0.75 kg per day). Research has also indicated

good results of feeding citrus pulp in the feedlot. Steers fed 120 days with either ground

snapped corn or citrus pulp had similar gains (1.08 and 0.99 kg per day respectively), but

the animals fed citrus pulp had greater feed efficiency (Kirk et al., 1949). Peacock and

Kirk, (1959) conducted research comparing citrus pulp to corn in feedlot rations. In three

140 day trials, steers were fed either corn or citrus pulp at 70 percent of the total diet.

The authors found no significant differences in gain, feed efficiency, improvement in

gain, or dressing percentage. Ammerman et al., (1963) evaluated the effects of replacing

ground corn with citrus pulp at 22, 44, and 66 percent of the total diet of steers in the

feedlot. There was no suggestion of a statistically significant difference in gain across

treatments. However, gains were higher for both the 22 and 44 percent inclusion rate

with average daily gains being 1.35 kg and 1.48 kg respectively.









Many studies have shown citrus pulp to be a good feedstuff for ruminants.

However, it can be variable in composition and producers should use book values with

caution. With a large citrus industry in Florida, it can be an economical supplement for

producers in the southeast.

Preconditioning of Weaned Cattle

The idea of preconditioning became a topic of interest in 1965 when Dr. John

Herrick coined the term (Miksch, 1984). Programs aimed at educating producers were

initiated by state and national organizations the following year. In the years to follow,

many state and national groups began programs that set guidelines for producers to

market certified preconditioned calves. These programs usually involved on-farm

weaning of calves 21 to 30 days prior to shipment, castration, dehorning, deworming,

grub/lice treatment, and vaccination against IBR and BVD (Amstutz, 1977; Pritchard and

Mendez, 1990). Research has been conducted since the 1960's evaluating the benefits

and costs of preconditioning programs with variable results. These results have left many

producers hesitant to implement costly preconditioning programs in fear of a limited

return on their investment. In recent times, cattle feeders have realized the benefits of

these programs and are more willing to pay producers a premium for preconditioned

calves.

The benefits realized from healthy calves have been extensively evaluated by the

Texas A&M Ranch to Rail program. This program is an information feedback system

that identifies factors that affect profitability after weaning and provides producers with

the information needed to adjust management practices. The summaries from this

program (McNeill, 1997, 1999, 2001) have consistently identified heath status to have a

major impact on performance and profitability. In the years from 1996 to 2001, sick









animals were worth $13.42 to $26.48 per hundredweight less upon arrival than animals

that never required treatment. The authors attributed this to increased medical costs,

decreased gains and efficiency, and decreased carcass quality.

Preconditioning programs were created to help decrease stress and diseases

associated with weaning, and accustom calves to eating dry feed from feed bunks

(Herrick, 1969; Cole, 1985). Traditionally, many calves were weaned on the truck when

shipped to the sale barn (Miksch, 1984). These calves would be commingled at the sale

barn to create uniform lots before being sold (Woods et al., 1973). This presented a

highly stressful situation by compounding the stress from weaning with commingling

animals of various health backgrounds. This in turn exposes calves to increased pathogen

loads resulting in an increased chance of respiratory infection (Engelken, 1997; Galyean

et al, 1999). Preconditioning programs are designed to decrease stress by on-farm

weaning and increase immune function by vaccinating under low stress situations.

This results in decreased medical bills in the feedlot, and decreased morbidity and

mortality which should result in a higher profit for the feeder.

Many authors agree that unstressed animals respond better to vaccines than stressed

animals (Engelken, 1997; Galyean et al., 1999). Kreikemeier et al. (1997) illustrated this

by evaluating the effects of timing of vaccination of Kentucky ranch calves (252 kg).

Calves were vaccinated according to one of the following treatments: vaccination 2 to 4

weeks prior to weaning with revaccination at the time of commingling at a sale barn,

vaccination at the sale barn prior to shipment with revaccination after 21 days in the

feedlot, or vaccination upon arrival at the feedlot with revaccination after 21 days in the

feedlot. Feedlot morbidity rates were 27, 33 and 37 percent respectively, resulting in









decreased medicine costs. Similar results were noted by Cole (1985) in a comprehensive

review of several preconditioning trials. He explained that preconditioning decreased

feedlot morbidity by 23 percent compared to controls that were not preconditioned. He

also found that preconditioning reduced feedlot mortality by 0.7 percent. Pate and

Crockett (1978) utilized Florida crossbred calves (214 kg) to evaluate the value of

preconditioning calves over a three year period. Calves were either shipped directly to

the feedlot at weaning or preconditioned with feed for 21-28 days on the farm prior to

being shipped. The authors discovered that preconditioning decreased feedlot morbidity

by 15.6 percent and mortality by 2.3 percent across the three years.

Many trials have shown that preconditioning can reduce feedlot morbidity and

mortality but it is still unclear if it will increase gains throughout the feeding period. Pate

and Crockett (1978) conducted a three year experiment to evaluate the effects of

preconditioning on feedlot gain and efficiency. They reported that preconditioned calves

had a 6 % increase in gain during the first year and an 11 % increase in gain during the

second year compared to non-preconditioned calves. Only a small difference was noted

during the third year. The increase in gain of preconditioned animals during the first two

years is not likely due to the number of sick animals because morbidity was similar

across the treatments. There was no difference in feed efficiency between treatments

during the feedlot period. In a similar study, Pritchard and Mendez (1990) utilized 600

Charolais-sired calves from four ranches to evaluate the effects of a 25-30 day

preconditioning period. They discovered no significant difference in feedlot ADG

between preconditioned and non-preconditioned calves. They also noted that

preconditioned calves had significantly poorer feed conversions (feed/gain) than non-









preconditioned calves (6.44 and 6.24 respectively). The authors attributed this to

compensatory growth in the non-preconditioned calves. Peterson et al. (1989) conducted

research on calves of mixed breeding over three years to evaluate the effects of creep

feeding, and timing of weaning, vaccination, castration, and dehorning. The authors

reported that calves weaned 6 weeks prior to sale had higher ADG than animals weaned

at the time of sale. They also reported that castration, dehorning, and vaccination at the

time of sale resulted in decreased ADG in the feedlot. The authors explained that calves

performed best if the stress from castration, dehorning, and vaccination occurred prior to

the stress from weaning.

Although results are indecisive about the performance of preconditioned calves,

many producers are seeing a premium paid for preconditioning programs. King and

Odde (1998) evaluated the sale data on over 200,000 head of calves sold through video

auctions. The authors discovered that calves vaccinated 3 to 4 weeks prior to weaning

brought $1.61 per hundredweight more than non-vaccinated calves that were not weaned.

It was also reported that calves that received two rounds of vaccinations and were weaned

45 days prior to shipping averaged $3.89 per hundredweight more than non-vaccinated

calves that were not weaned. These premiums should be considered when evaluating the

potential to precondition calves, based on the cost of the preconditioning program being

used (Engelken, 1997).

Typically the highest cost associated with preconditioning programs is feed

(Lalman et al., 2002; Thrift et al., 2003). Preconditioning feeds must be highly palatable

in order to decrease fasting and stress, and increase gain during the first week of weaning.

After this "walk and bawl" period, returning the calves to high quality pasture along with









supplementation is usually the most economical solution (Lalman et al., 2002).

Feedstuffs utilized for preconditioning calves vary greatly. Many authors suggest high

quality pasture or hay in combination with concentrate and mineral supplementation.

Usually these supplements are expensive and therefore, feed costs will most likely dictate

if a preconditioning program is economically feasible. However, if cheaper feedstuffs

can be utilized, it may be possible to increase profits for producers.

Preconditioning programs have been designed to reduce stress, increase immune

function, and accustom calves to the feedlot. Research has proven that these programs

can significantly reduce morbidity and mortality in the feedlot, resulting in increased

profits. However, more research is needed to determine if preconditioning can increase

gains throughout the finishing phase. In recent years, preconditioning programs have

gained popularity and producers are starting to see premiums for preconditioned calves.














CHAPTER 3
EFFECTS OF FEEDING CITRUS PULP OR CORN SUPPLEMENTS WITH
INCREASING LEVELS OF ADDED UNDEGRADED INTAKE PROTEIN ON THE
PERFORMANCE OF GROWING CATTLE

Introduction

Extensive research evaluating citrus pulp as a supplement for cattle was conducted

in the 1950's and 1960's. These studies have shown that citrus pulp is readily consumed

by cattle and can produce similar gains to corn products (Scott, 1926; Chapman et al.,

1961; Ammerman et al., 1963). Recent declines in export markets have made citrus pulp

an economical byproduct supplement.

Florida forages used for summer grazing and hay do not always provide adequate

nutrients to meet the requirements of growing cattle (Moore et al., 1991). This results in

the need for supplementation. Citrus pulp is a good energy supplement, but is low in

protein. Therefore, additional protein may increase animal performance or improve

utilization of citrus pulp supplements, resulting in a more economical supplement for

growing cattle.

Depending on the physiological state of the animal, forage quality and intake,

microbial protein can provide adequate CP to meet the requirements of cattle (NRC,

1996). However, some animals, such as growing and lactating cattle, have a higher

protein requirement that may not be sufficiently met by microbial protein (Paterson et al.,

1996; Nelson, 1997). In these instances, providing additional undegraded intake protein

(UIP) may result in an increase in performance. The objective of this research was to









determine the effects of feeding corn and citrus pulp based supplements with increasing

levels of UIP to growing cattle offered low quality bahia grass hay.

Materials and Methods

This study was conducted at the University of Florida Beef Research Unit, located

in Alachua County, Florida from February 2002 through May 2002.

Animals

Fifty Angus x Brahman crossbred calves (36 steers and 14 heifers) averaging 250

kg body weights were utilized in an 84 day intake and performance trial. Calves were

predominately Angus with less than 20 percent Brahman breeding. These cattle were

stratified by weight and sex and then randomly assigned to one often treatments. Initial

weights were similar across treatments (P > 0.20). Animals were housed in one of seven

covered pens (9.1 m x 18.3 m) with concrete floors. Each pen was equipped with eight

Calan gate feeders (American Calan, Inc., Northwood, NH) that allowed for the

measurement of total daily hay and supplement intake for each animal. Cattle were

trained to use the Calan gates during a 14 day adjustment period prior to the start of the

trial. During this period, cattle were offered about 3 kg daily of a corn and molasses

based dry supplement with bahia grass hay, water, and mineral offered ad libitum.

Diets

All hay used for this trial was harvested into small square bales from a pasture of

Argentine bahia grass with minimal infestation of common bermuda grass. Hay quality

was initially estimated to be 50 % TDN and 7 % CP (DM basis) from samples analyzed

by DHI Forage Testing Laboratory, Ithaca, NY. Hay, a complete mineral mix, and water

were offered ad libitum throughout the trial. Treatments consisted of five corn based

supplements (CORN 1-5) and five citrus pulp based supplements (CITR 1-5) with an









increasing level of added UIP (Table 3-2). The five levels of added UIP were: Level 1, 0

kg; Level 2, 0.055 kg; Level 3, 0.11 kg; Level 4, 0.165 kg; and Level 5, 0.22 kg per

animal per day. All ten supplements were formulated to be isoenergetic (2.07 kg of TDN

per animal per day) and isonitrogenous (0.62 kg CP per animal per day; Table 3-2).

Supplements were also formulated to have a DIP to TDN ratio of 0.12: 1 or higher and a

nitrogen to sulfur ratio of 10: 1. All supplements were mixed at the University of Florida

feed mill, Gainesville, FL.

Feeding Procedure and Sampling

Each morning cattle were fed their respective supplement in their individual Calan

gate. Each afternoon, hay was weighed for each animal, recorded, and fed in the Calan

gate feeders. Hay was offered at 130% of previous intake to provide excess at all times.

All animals consumed the supplements readily. Hay refusals were weighed and

recorded weekly and discarded after sampling. Sub-samples were weighed and placed in

a 60 C forced air oven for seven days to determine their dry matter. Weekly hay

samples were obtained by taking 20 core samples from the bales prior to feeding.

Supplement samples were taken weekly by sampling several feed bags.

Measurements

Cattle were weighed one day prior to the start of the trial as well as the first day to

obtain two full body weights. These weights were averaged for the initial body weight.

Cattle were then weighed every 28 days prior to feeding. At the end of the trial, animals

were weighed on days 83 and 84 and averaged for the final body weight. Body condition

score (BCS) was evaluated at the start of the trial and every 28 days throughout the trial

using a 1 thru 9 condition scoring system with increments of 0.25 (Kunkle et al., 1994).









Laboratory Analysis

All hay and supplement samples were analyzed for: dry matter (DM) at 105 C for

8 hours in a forced air oven (AOAC, 2000), organic matter (OM) at 550 C for 6 hours in

a muffle furnace (AOAC, 2000), crude protein (CP) by Kjeldahl N procedure (AOAC,

2000) x 6.25, neutral detergent fiber (NDF) by the Ankom method (Ankom Technology,

Fairport, NY), and in vitro organic matter digestibility (IVOMD) as described by Moore

and Mott, 1974.

Statistical Procedures

Data were analyzed using the general linear model (GLM) procedure of the

Statistical Analysis System (SAS, 2001). The statistical model used was:


Y = t + CHOi + UIPj + CHOUIPij + 8ij


where

Y = response variable

[t = mean

CHOi = effect due to carbohydrate source

UIPj = effect due to level of added UIP

CHOUIPi = effect due to the interaction of carbohydrate source and level of UIP

Eijk = residual error

Results and Discussion

Diets

Supplement formulations and actual chemical composition of supplements and

bahia grass hay are listed in Tables 3-1 and 3-2. The hay used in this experiment was

similar in DM, CP, NDF, and IVOMD (P > 0.20) content throughout the trial. All









supplements had similar DM (P = 0.73) and OM (P = 0.19) contents as expected. There

were no differences in the IVOMD of supplements between CORN and CITR treatments

(P = 0.41). The IVOMD of supplements differed by level of added UIP (P < 0.001) and

decreased linearly (P < 0.001) as level of UIP increased. There were no differences in CP

by level of added UIP (P = 0.75), suggesting supplements were isonitrogenous, as

formulated. There tended to be a small difference (0.8 % of DM) in CP between CORN

and CITR supplements (P = 0.09).

Animal Response

There was no carbohydrate source (CHO) by level of UIP interaction (P = 0.31)

for ADG. When all levels of UIP were combined, the 84 d. ADG was similar (P = 0.38)

between calves supplemented with CORN or CITR (Table 3-3). This agrees with results

found by Chapman et al. (1953) who compared citrus pulp-based supplements to corn-

based supplements fed to steers on pasture.

Level of added UIP had a significant (P < 0.001) effect on 84 d. ADG, resulting in

a linear increase (P < 0.001) in ADG as level of UIP increased (Figure 3-1). This would

suggest that microbial crude protein was inadequate at providing the protein requirements

of these growing calves. The greatest 84 d. ADG resulted from supplements containing

0.22 kg/hd/d of added UIP. This agrees with Nelson (1997) who supplemented growing

steers with 0 to 0.21 kg per day of UIP from corn gluten meal. He found a linear increase

in ADG as level of supplemental UIP increased. Anderson et al. (1988) reported that

ADG was maximized when 0.23 kg/hd/d of supplemental UIP was provided to growing

steers. Karges et al. (1992) found similar results where ADG was maximized when 0.21

kg/hd/d of supplemental UIP was provided to growing steers.









There was no CHO by level of UIP interaction (P = 0.35) for hay DM, CP, or

DOM intakes. Hay DM intake was lower (P < 0.01) for animals supplemented with

CITR compared to those supplemented with CORN (Figure 3-2). This agrees with

Ammerman et al. (1963), who noted a decrease in hay intake as citrus pulp replaced

ground corn and cob meal in a supplement fed to steers. In contrast, Martin (2001)

reported no difference in hay DM intake between growing cattle supplemented with corn,

citrus pulp, or soyhulls.

Level of added UIP had a significant (P < 0.01) effect on hay DM intake. As level

of UIP increased, hay DM intake tended to decline in a quadratic fashion (P = 0.08), but

followed a linear decline (P < 0.01; Figure 3-2). This is in contrast to Ramos et al. (1998)

who supplemented growing steers on pasture and Bohnert et al. (2002) who provided hay

and supplemented steers through rumen and duodenum cannulas. These authors found

no effect of UIP supplementation on forage intake.

Hay CP and DOM intakes (Figures 3-3 and 3-4) were higher (P < 0.01) for animals

supplemented with CORN compared to those supplemented with CITR due to increased

hay intake (Figures 3-3 and 3-4). As level of UIP increased, there tended (P = 0.08) to be

a quadratic decline in hay CP and DOM intakes, but a more linear trend was evident (P <

0.01).

Supplement DM, CP, and DOM intakes were (P = 0.01) different across all

treatments (Table 3-4). This is due to the intentional variable feeding rates which kept all

supplements isoenergetic. It was assumed that the magnitude of these differences would

have little effect on rumen fill.









There was no CHO by level of UIP interaction observed for total DM intake (P =

0.43). Carbohydrate source and level of added UIP did affect total DM intake (P < 0.01).

This disagrees with Nelson (1997) who found that increasing levels of UIP had no effect

on DM intake. When DM intake was combined for all levels of UIP, animals

supplemented with CITR consumed less (347 kg) throughout the trial than those

supplemented with CORN (296 kg). When both CHO sources were combined, a

quadratic depression (P = 0.02; Figure 3-5) of total DM intake was observed as level of

UIP increased.

There was no CHO by level of UIP interaction observed for total CP intake (P =

0.57). Carbohydrate source did not affect total CP intake (P = 0.16) but level of added

UIP did (P < 0.01). Increasing levels of UIP resulted in a quadratic (P = 0.02) depression

of total CP intake (Figure 3-6).

There was no CHO by level of UIP interaction observed for total DOM intake (P >

0.44). There was no difference in total DOM intake between CHO sources (P = 0.14).

However, increasing levels of added UIP caused a quadratic (P = 0.05) depression on

total DOM intake (Figure 3-7).

The quadratic decline in total DM, CP, and DOM intakes as level of UIP increased

would be expected as a result of the depression of hay DM intake as level of UIP

increased.

The average BCS for all animals throughout the trial was 5.04. Body condition

score was unaffected (P =0.62) by CHO source and there was no CHO by level of UIP

interaction (P = 0.14). This disagrees with Martin (2001) who reported that growing

cattle supplemented with citrus pulp had a lower BCS compared to those supplemented









with corn. Level of added UIP tended (P = 0.08) to affect BCS but only for the last

period of the trial (Table 3-5). Sletmoen-Olsen et al. (2000) observed a linear increase in

BCS when UIP was provided at 0.29 kg per day to gestating cows.

Citrus pulp-based supplements produced average daily gains similar to corn-based

supplements in this trial. As level of UIP increased, ADG increased while hay DM and

total DOM intake decreased. Animals fed citrus pulp-based supplements consumed less

hay compared to those fed corn-based supplements over all levels of UIP.

Implications

Maximum ADG was achieved at 0.22 kg of added UIP. It is unclear if 0.22kg of

added UIP is the optimal level of supplementation because it was the highest level

evaluated in this trial. More research is needed to determine the level of added UIP

required to achieve maximum ADG of calves supplemented with corn or citrus pulp fed

low quality bahia grass hay. Citrus pulp supplements produced gains similar to corn and

performance was enhanced as level of UIP increased. This research would suggest that

citrus pulp with added UIP could be used in place of corn with added UIP as an

economical supplement for growing calves depending on availability and price.













I


Table 3-1. Composition of supplements fed to growing cattle.

Citrus Pulp Treatments

Ingredient (%) Citr 1 Citr 2 Citr 3 Citr 4 Citr 5 Corn 1

Cracked corn (#405) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 91.46

Citrus pulp (#605) 90.65 84.32 78.24 71.74 65.11 0.00

Soy Plus (42.5 % CP, 60 % UIP) 0.00 7.48 14.49 22.18 29.99 0.00

Urea (#522) 5.25 4.41 3.63 2.77 1.90 5.08

Dynamate 1.15 1.07 1.02 0.93 0.86 1.17

Complete mineral 2.01 2.04 2.07 2.11 2.14 2.15

Dynafos 0.94 0.68 0.55 0.28 0.00 0.14

Citr 1 represents the citrus pulp treatment with 0 kg of added undegraded intake protein.
Citr 2 represents the citrus pulp treatment with 0.055 kg of added undegraded intake protein.
Citr 3 represents the citrus pulp treatment with 0.11 kg of added undegraded intake protein.
Citr 4 represents the citrus pulp treatment with 0.165 kg of added undegraded intake protein.
Citr 5 represents the citrus pulp treatment with 0.22 kg of added undegraded intake protein.


Corn 5

61.22

0.00

34.43

1.27

0.84

2.25

0.00


Corn Treatments

Corn 2 Corn 3 Corn 4

84.59 76.77 69.44

0.00 0.00 0.00

7.95 16.82 25.12

4.19 3.22 2.30

1.10 1.01 0.92

2.17 2.19 2.22

0.00 0.00 0.00


I












Table 3-2. Feeding rate and nutrient composition of bahia grass hay and supplements fed to growing cattle.
Hay Citrus Pulp Treatments Corn Treatments
Citr 1 Citr 2 Citr 3 Citr 4 Citr 5 Corn 1 Corn 2 Corn 3 Corn 4 Corn 5

Feeding rate kg/hd/d Ad libitum 3.41 3.36 3.27 3.23 3.18 3.18 3.14 3.09 3.09 3.05

Formulated
TDN kg/hd/d -- 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07
Crude protein kg/hd/d -- 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62
DIP kg/hd/d -- 0.58 0.52 0.47 0.41 0.36 0.51 0.46 0.40 0.35 0.30
UIP kg/hd/d -- 0.04 0.10 0.15 0.21 0.26 0.11 0.16 0.22 0.27 0.33
DIP/TDN ratio -- 0.28 0.25 0.23 0.20 0.17 0.25 0.22 0.19 0.17 0.14

Actual Analysis
Dry Matter (%) 89.39 87.13 87.40 87.46 87.86 88.23 87.91 88.05 88.44 88.55 88.66
Organic Matter (%) 96.20 93.28 93.79 93.44 93.36 93.79 95.11 95.10 94.66 94.56 94.17
Crude Protein (%) 7.52 25.47 24.68 26.35 25.78 24.78 24.07 24.00 24.44 23.96 24.81
IVOMD (%) 26.80 90.78c 90.53bc 90.12b 88.78a 88.62a 91.22c 89.35a 89.57ab 89.77b 88.75a
NDF (%) 71.37 12.35 13.24 14.05 14.85 15.61 10.10 10.40 11.73 12.62 13.22
LS means within a row with different superscripts are different P < 0.05.












Table 3-3. Total average daily gain by period for growing calves fed corn or citrus pulp supplements with increasing levels of UIP.
Supplements

Average Daily Gain (kg) Citr 1 Citr 2 Citr 3 Citr 4 Citr 5 Corn 1 Corn 2 Corn 3 Corn 4 Corn 5 SE
Period 1 (0-28 d.) 0.52a 0.74ab 1.08b 1.03b 1.24b 0.64ab 1.00b 0.95b 1.00b 1.13b 0.12
Period 2 (28-56 d.) 0.34ab 0.27a 0.50ab 0.50ab 0.72b 0.51ab 0.42ab 0.59b 0.52ab 0.63b 0.10
Period 3 (56-84 d.) 0.15a 0.31ab 0.32ab 0.48b 0.65b 0.40ab 0.33ab 0.28ab 0.54b 0.54b 0.10
Total 84 d. 0.34a 0.44ab 0.63b 0.67bc 0.87c 0.52ab 0.59b 0.61b 0.67bc 0.77bc 0.08
LS means within a row with different superscripts are different P < 0.05.
Total average daily gain (84 d.): CHO x UIP (P = 0.31), CHO effect (P = 0.38), UIP effect (P < 0.001).












Table 3-4. Total intake, crude protein intake, and digestible organic matter intake of supplement and hay (SE) for growing calves
supplemented with corn or citrus pulp with increasing levels of UIP.
Citrus Pulp Treatments Corn Treatments

Citr 1 Citr 2 Citr 3 Citr 4 Citr 5 Corn 1 Corn 2 Corn 3 Corn 4 Corn 5 SE
Supplement Intakes (kg)
Dry Matter 240.9cd 246.9d 242.1cd 238.5c 235.4bc 230.7ab 231.5ab 230.2ab 229.4ab 226.0a 2.34
Crude Protein 61.4c 60.9c 63.8d 61.5cd 58.3b 55.5a 55.6a 56.3a 55.0a 56.1a 0.59
Digestible Organic Matter 204.0c 209.6d 203.9c 197.7b 195.6b 200.2bc 196.7b 195.1b 194.7b 188.9a 2.00

Hay Intakes (kg)
Dry Matter 285.8a 330.1ab 303.7ab 290.7a 272.4a 382.0b 394.2c 358.9b 315.2ab 283.1a 22.32
Crude Protein 21.5a 24.8ab 22.9ab 21.9a 20.5a 28.7bc 29.7c 27.0bc 23.7ab 21.3a 1.69
Digestible Organic Matter 73.7a 85.1ab 78.3ab 74.9a 70.2a 98.5bc 101.6c 92.5bc 81.3ab 73.0a 5.79

Total Intakes (kg)
Dry Matter 526.7a 576.7b 545.8ab 529.2ab 507.8a 612.7b 625.7b 589.0b 544.6ab 509.1a 23.57
Crude Protein 82.9ab 85.8b 86.6b 83.4b 78.8ab 84.3b 85.2b 83.3b 78.7ab 77.4a 2.01
Digestible Organic Matter 277.7a 294.7b 282.2b 272.6a 265.8a 298.6b 298.3b 287.6b 275.7a 261.9a 6.86
LS means within a row with different superscripts are different (P < 0.05).
Supplement DM intake: CHO x UIP (P = 0.64), CHO effect (P < 0.01), UIP effect (P = 0.01).
Supplement CP intake: CHO x UIP (P < 0.01), CHO effect (P < 0.01), UIP effect (P < 0.01).
Supplement DOM intake: CHO x UIP (P = 0.09), CHO effect (P < 0.01), UIP effect (P < 0.01).

Hay DM intake: CHO x UIP (P = 0.35), CHO effect (P < 0.01), UIP effect (P < 0.01).
Hay CP intake: CHO x UIP (P = 0.35), CHO effect (P < 0.01), UIP effect (P < 0.01).
Hay DOM intake: CHO x UIP (P = 0.35), CHO effect (P < 0.01), UIP effect (P < 0.01).

Total DM intake: CHO x UIP (P = 0.43), CHO effect (P < 0.01), UIP effect (P < 0.01).
Total CP intake: CHO x UIP (P = 0.57), CHO effect (P = 0.16), UIP effect (P < 0.01).
Total DOM intake: CHO x UIP (P = 0.44), CHO effect (P = 0.14), UIP effect (P < 0.01).












Table 3-5. Body condition score (1-9 scale SE) by period for growing calves fed citrus pulp supplements with increasing levels of
UIP.
Level of Added UIP (Citrus Pulp and Corn Combined)

BCS Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Linear Quadratic
Initial (d. 0) 4.92 0.16 4.89 0.16 4.89 0.16 4.78 0.17 4.98 0.17 P = 0.96 P = 0.58
Period 1 (d. 28) 4.91 0.13 4.88 0.13 4.96 0.13 5.00 + 0.13 5.30 + 0.14 P = 0.03 P = 0.24
Period 2 (d. 56) 4.99 0.14 4.95 0.14 5.21 0.14 5.07 0.15 5.41 0.15 P = 0.04 P = 0.52
Period 3 (d. 84) 4.95 0.11 4.95 0.11 5.16 0.11 5.28 0.11 5.28 0.12 P = 0.01 P = 0.83

BCS change (d. 0-84) 0.03 0.16a 0.06 0.16a 0.27 + 0.16b 0.50 0.17c 0.30 + 0.17b P= 0.91 P = 0.87
LS means within a row with different superscripts are different P < 0.05. Carbohydrate source x level of UIP interaction P = 0.14.
Level of UIP effect P = 0.08. Carbohydrate source effect P = 0.62.

00














CHAPTER 4
EFFECTS OF FEEDING CITRUS PULP SUPPLEMENTS ON THE PERFORMANCE
OF CALVES IN A PRECONDITIONING PROGRAM


Introduction


Typically the highest cost associated with preconditioning programs is feed

(Lalman et al., 2002; Thrift et al., 2003). Preconditioning feeds must be highly palatable

in order to decrease fasting and stress, and increase gain during the first week of weaning.

After this "walk and bawl" period, returning the calves to high quality pasture along with

supplementation is usually the most economical solution (Lalman et al., 2002).

Feedstuffs utilized for preconditioning calves vary greatly. Many authors suggest high

quality pasture or hay in combination with concentrate and mineral supplementation.

Usually these supplements are expensive and therefore, feed costs will most likely dictate

if a preconditioning program is economically feasible. However, if cheaper feedstuffs

can be utilized, it may be possible to increase profits for producers.

Citrus pulp is a byproduct energy concentrate feed that is readily available to

Florida cattle producers (Arthington et al., 2002). Recent declines in export opportunities

have made citrus pulp an affordable byproduct feed for Florida cattle producers

(Arthington and Pate, 2001). Based on NRC values (1996), citrus pulp is a good source

of energy (82 % TDN) but a poor source of protein (6.7 % CP). Therefore, in order to

evaluate the potential of citrus pulp as an affordable feedstuff for preconditioning cattle,

additional protein is needed. Previous research with growing calves indicated that citrus









pulp with added UIP produced similar gains to corn with the same level of added UIP.

This research showed that 0.22 kg of added UIP per head per day resulted in the greatest

gains. This trial was conducted to evaluate the effects of citrus pulp with added UIP as a

feedstuff in a preconditioning program.

Materials and Methods


This study was conducted at the University of Florida Beef Research Unit, located

in Alachua County, Florida from September 2002 thru October 2002.

One hundred fifty Angus x Brahman crossbred calves (69 steers and 83 heifers)

averaging 241 kg body weights were utilized in a 42 day preconditioning program.

Calves ranged in breed type from nearly all Angus to nearly all Brahman and had

received two shots of a 4-way respiratory vaccination and two clostridial vaccines while

still on the cow. These calves were stratified by weight, sex, and breed type then

randomly assigned to one of four supplemental treatments. Initial weights were similar

across treatments (P = 0.99).

Treatments consisted of control (CONTROL; no supplement), citrus pulp (CITR),

citrus pulp with 0.22 kg of added UIP (CITR+UIP), or citrus pulp with added urea

(CITR+UREA). The CITR+UREA treatment was formulated to be isonitrogenous to the

CITR+UIP treatment. All supplements were mixed at the University of Florida feed mill,

Gainesville, FL. A complete summary of treatments is available in Table 4-1.

Calves were weaned on September 11, 2002 when they were separated according to

treatment group, weighed, ear tagged, and placed in drylot pens with adequate shade.

During this period, calves were offered access to their respective supplement starting at

1.36 kg per head per day and gradually increased to 2.27 kg per head per day. Bahia grass









hay, water, and mineral were offered ad libitum. All hay used for this trial was harvested

into small square bales from a pasture of Argentine bahia grass with minimal infestation

of common bermuda grass. Hay quality was analyzed to contain 7.5 % CP (DM basis)

and had an IVOMD of 27 percent. After 7 days, animals were treated with one 227 kg

dose of Eprinex (Merial Limited, Iselin, New Jersey) pour-on at weighing. Calves were

then moved to one of four 3 hectare pastures with adequate shade where they remained

until the end of the trial. Pastures were a mixture of bahia grass and common bermuda

grass and were created by cross-fencing one large pasture. While on pasture, calves were

fed 2.27 kg per head per day of their respective treatment each morning in portable feed

troughs and weighed every 7 days prior to feeding.

Pastures were sampled prior to stocking and every 7 days throughout the trial.

Pastures were sampled using the "hand pluck method" as described by Sollenberger and

Cherney (1995). Samples were weighed and placed in a 60 C forced air oven for seven

days to determine their dry matter. Supplement samples were taken weekly by sampling

several feed bags. Pasture and supplement samples were analyzed for: dry matter (DM)

at 105 C for 8 hours in a forced air oven (AOAC, 2000), organic matter (OM) at 550 C

for 6 hours in a muffle furnace (AOAC, 2000), crude protein (CP) by Kjeldahl N

procedure (AOAC, 2000) x 6.25, neutral detergent fiber (NDF) by the Ankom method

(Ankom Technology, Fairport, NY), and in vitro organic matter digestibility (IVOMD) as

described by Moore and Mott, 1974.

Statistical Procedures

Data were analyzed using the general linear model (GLM) procedure of the

Statistical Analysis System (SAS, 2001). The statistical model used was:










Y = t + SEXi + CBGj + TRTk + 8jk


where

Y = response variable

[t = mean

SEXi = effect due to sex of animal

CBGj = effect due to breed of animal

TRTk = effect due to treatment

Eijk = residual error

Results and Discussion


Diets

Supplement formulations and actual chemical composition of supplements and

pasture are listed in Table 4-1. The pastures utilized in this experiment were similar in

OM, CP, NDF, and IVOMD across all treatments (P > 0.05). No interaction was

observed between treatment and week for OM, CP, or IVOMD. An interaction between

treatment and week (P = 0.04) was noted for NDF. However, the difference in NDF

content was small and it was assumed that it did not affect the results. There was a

quadratic (P < 0.01) decline in CP (Figure 4-1) and IVOMD across all treatments from

day 0 to day 42 with the greatest depression seen between weeks one and two (Table 4-

2). This agrees with Bodine et al. (2000b) who observed a decrease in forage CP and

IVOMD over time with steers on pasture. This is probably due to calves selectively

grazing of the best quality forage during the early weeks of the trial.









The DM, OM, and NDF were similar across all supplements (P > 0.30). The CP

content was different (P = 0.05) between supplements by design, because not all

supplements were formulated to be isonitrogenous. The IVOMD varied (P = 0.05) across

supplements because of the supplement formulation including the addition of urea and

UIP. The CP content of CITR+UREA was similar (P = 0.45) to CITR+UIP suggesting

they were isonitrogenous, as formulated.

Animal Response

During the second week, two animals died from complications related to heat

stress and possibly a combination of urea toxicity. These animals were removed from

data set prior to analysis. There was no treatment by week interaction (P = 0.13) for

ADG. However, treatment did have an effect (P < 0.05) on ADG for all weeks except

week three where a tendency was observed (P = 0.07). Supplemented calves had higher

42 d. ADG than unsupplemented calves (P < 0.01). There was a treatment effect (P <

0.01) on 42 d. ADG as well (Figure 4-2). The CITR+UIP treatment produced the greatest

42 d. ADG (0.43 kg), while CITR and CIRT+UREA had an intermediate 42 d. ADG

(0.33 and 0.24 kg respectively). Animals on the control treatment had the lowest 42 d.

ADG (0.14kg). The ADG observed in this trial is much lower than those reported by

Pritchard and Mendez (1990). They found that preconditioning Charolais-sired calves for

25-30 days on ranches in South Dakota resulted in an ADG of 0.9 kg per head. The

difference in ADG could be due to the difference in breed, forage type, supplement, and

weather effects. Across all weeks, there tended (P = 0.07) to be a quartic effect of week

on ADG (Figure 4-3). All calves lost weight in the first week, and then gained steadily

throughout the remainder on the trial except for week five where very little gain was

observed for any treatment. Across all treatments, calves lost approximately 5 kg during









the first week. This corresponds to the stress from weaning compounded by the drylot

environment and poor quality hay offered. This agrees with Pate and Crockett (1973)

who reported a weight loss of 4.5-9.0 kg during the first week after weaning. The lack of

gain during week five is believed to be due to weather conditions, which were hot and

dry.

Animal sex tended (P = 0.09) to have an effect on 42 d. ADG. Across all

treatments, 42 d. ADG was 0.67 kg for steers compared to 0.59 kg for heifers. Animal

breed type also tended (P = 0.06) to have an effect on 42 d. ADG (Figure 4-4). Crossbred

cattle with more than 20 percent Bos indicus breeding had higher ADG than those with

less than 20 percent Bos indicus. Brangus (3/8 B, 5/8 A) calves had intermediate ADG.

Economic Evaluation

A summary of the costs associated with preconditioning calves in this trial is given

in Table 4-3. Costs of vaccines, anthelmintic, hay, mineral, supplement, pasture fertilizer

and pesticide, and labor were included in the total cost of preconditioning calves. Also

included were the opportunity costs of pasture (based on lease rate) and interest (based on

selling calves at weaning). Total cost of preconditioning was similar for all

supplemented calves at about $27 per head, with supplement being the largest percent of

cost.

Profitability of the different preconditioning treatments was calculated by

comparing them to non-preconditioned calves sold at weaning (Table 4-4). In this

evaluation, it was assumed that non-preconditioned calves would weigh 241 kg and

would sell for $1.76/kg. Based on this, a breakeven price was calculated for each

preconditioning treatment by adding the cost of preconditioning to the income received if

the calves had been sold at weaning ($424.16) and dividing by the market weight or









weight at weaning (241 kg) plus the gain realized over the preconditioning period. The

breakeven price for the control, CITR, CITR+UREA, and CITR+UIP treatments is

$1.79/kg, $1.77/kg, $1.79/kg, and $1.75/kg respectively.

Assuming that preconditioned calves would sell for the same price as non-

preconditioned calves ($1.76/kg), the profit from each preconditioning treatment was

calculated. At this price, the only supplement that would return a profit over cost was

CITR+UIP. This supplement produced a $3.17 profit per head.

If the preconditioned calves brought a premium at the time of sale (1.87/kg), then

all treatments would produce a profit over calves sold at weaning for a market price of

$1.76/kg. At these market prices, the profit per head from CITR+UIP is $31.68, the

profit from CITR is $26.48, the profit from control was $19.71, and the profit from

CITR+UREA was $19.52.

Although the ADG of the calves supplemented in this experiment was low to

moderate, it was better than unsupplemented animals. Of the supplemented calves, those

fed the CITR+UIP supplement had the highest 42 d. ADG (0.43 kg), and those

supplemented with CITR+UREA had the lowest (0.24 kg). Based on the assumptions

mentioned above, the most profitable treatment was CITR+UIP and the least profitable

was the control.

Implications

Animals supplemented with feed in this preconditioning program produced higher

gains than those that were unsupplemented. Gains were low to moderate and profit was

minimal. It is well documented that preconditioned calves are healthier than non-

preconditioned calves resulting in improved performance in the feedlot. This is

particularly important when trying to establish a reputation for quality calves or when






46


considering retained ownership and was not accounted for in this economic evaluation.

Increased performance of preconditioned calves in the feedlot has led to premiums

offered for preconditioned calves. These premiums, as well as weight gain, the cost of

preconditioning, market price, and marketing method will affect the profitability of

preconditioning programs.












Table 4-1. Feeding rate, formulation, and nutrient composition of pasture and supplements fed to preconditioned calves.

Pasture Supplements
Pasture CONTROLa CITR CITR+UREA CITR+UIP
Feeding rate kg/hd/d Ad libitum -- 2.27 2.31 2.49

Ingredient (%)
Citrus pulp (#605) -- 100.00 98.00 91.00
Soy Plus (42.5 % CP, 60 % UIP) -- 0.00 0.00 9.00
Urea (#522) -- 0.00 2.00 0.00

Formulated
TDN kg/hd/d -- 1.70 1.70 1.86
Crude protein kg/hd/d -- 0.16 0.27 0.27
DIP kg/hd/d -- 0.11 0.21 0.15
UIP kg/hd/d -- 0.06 0.06 0.12

Actual Analysis
Dry Matter (%) 38.92 -- 91.04 90.74 90.88
Organic Matter (%) 95.99 -- 94.18 94.39 94.28
Crude Protein (%) 14.06 -- 7.24a 11.93b 10.38ab
IVOMD (%) 30.11 -- 87.05a 86.73b 86.80b
NDF (%) 68.86 -- 20.11 19.74 20.32
LS means within a row with different superscripts are different P < 0.05.
a Pasture only












Table 4-2. Pasture Quality ( SE) by week for preconditioned calves fed citrus pulp supplements.

Analysis
OM CP IVOMD NDF
Week 1 95.94 0.06ab 17.69 0.33c 32.40 + 0.21d 67.03 0.26c
Week 2 96.24 0.06b 13.72 0.33b 30.86 0.21c 68.34 0.26b
Week 3 95.94 0.06ab 13.89 + 0.33b 29.85 0.21b 68.50 + 0.26b
Week 4 95.93 0.06ab 13.85 + 0.33b 29.49 0.21ab 69.66 0.26a
Week 5 96.10 + 0.06b 12.79 0.33a 29.05 0.21a 69.85 0.26a
Week 6 95.80 + 0.06a 12.43 0.33a 29.04 0.21a 69.81 + 0.26a
LS means within a column with different superscripts are different P < 0.05.












Table 4-3. Peconditioning costs.
Cost per head ($)
Non-
CONTROL CITR CITR+UREA CITR+UIP
preconditioned


Vaccines (all were given preweaning)
2 clostridial vaccine @ $0.529/dose
2 chemically altered MLV @ $1.10/dose
Anthelmintic (227 kg dose given at day 7)
Eprinex pour-on (eprinomectin)
Hay (19 kg/bale)
28 bales/treatment @ $3.00/bale
Pasture (opportunity cost)
12 hectares @ $49/hectare lease rate x 42 days
Fertilizer @ 67 kg/hectare (19 % N)
Pasture pesticide (army worm)
Mineral (68 kg/treatment @ $0.29/kg)
Supplement (total trial)
Labor (15 min./d. @ $6/hr.)
Interest (opportunity cost)
5 % interest if calves sold at $1.76/kg
Total costs


-- $4.16 $4.16 $4.16 $4.16


$1.94

$2.24

$0.46

$3.38
$1.00
$0.53

$2.25
$2.06


$1.94

$2.24

$0.46

$3.38
$1.00
$0.53
$8.19
$2.25
$2.06


$1.94

$2.24

$0.46

$3.38
$1.00
$0.53
$8.61
$2.25
$2.06


$1.94

$2.24

$0.46

$3.38
$1.00
$0.53
$10.75
$2.25
$2.06


$18.02 $26.21 $26.63 $28.77


$26.63 $28.77


$18.02 $26.21












Table 4-4. Preconditioning profits.
Cost per head ($)
Non-
CONTROL CITR CITR+UREA CITR+UIP
preconditioned
Supplement (total trial) -- $8.19 $8.61 $10.75
Total costs -- $18.02 $26.21 $26.63 $28.77
Total gain (kg) -- 5.99 14.02 10.56 18.15
Calf weight at marketing (kg) 241 247 255 252 259
Cost of gain ($/kg) b -- $3.01 $2.05 $2.52 $1.44
Breakeven @ $1.76/kg ($/kg) -- $1.79 $1.77 $1.79 $1.75
Income/head @ $1.76/kg d $424.16 a $434.72 $448.84 $442.75 $456.10
Profit over non-preconditioned calves -- -$7.46 -$1.53 -$8.04 $3.17
Income/head @ $1.87/kg f -- $461.89 $476.85 $470.31 $484.61
Profit over non-preconditioned calves g -- $19.71 $26.48 $19.52 $31.68
SAssuming non-preconditioned calves weighed the same as preconditioned calves at weaning (241 kg).
b The cost of preconditioning divided by the gain realized from preconditioning.
c The cost of preconditioning plus the income received if calves were marketed at weaning ($424.16) divided by the total of the market
weight plus the gain realized from preconditioning.
d The income received if calves were marketed at $1.76/kg multiplied by the market weight.
"The income received if calves were marketed at $1.76/kg multiplied by the market weight minus the total of income received if
calves were marketed at weaning ($424.16) and the cost of preconditioning.
f The income received if calves were marketed at $1.87/kg multiplied by the market weight.
g The income received if calves were marketed at $1.87/kg multiplied by the market weight minus the total of income received if
calves were marketed at weaning ($424.16) and the cost of preconditioning.












Pasture CP by Week


Week


Figure 4-1.Crude protein (CP) of pasture for preconditioned calves fed citrus pulp supplements by week. Week effect P < 0.01.












Total ADG by Treatment


0.5

0.45

0.4

0.35


a
Control,
0.14


C

CITR +
UREA,
0.24


Figure 4-2. Total average daily gain (ADG) of preconditioned calves fed citrus pulp supplements by treatment. Treatment effect P <
0.01.


0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0


' *


I I












ADG by Week
1.5


2 3


SCITR+UREA


M CITR+UIP


Figure 4-3. Average daily gain (ADG) of preconditioned calves fed citrus pulp supplements by week. Treatment x week interaction P
= 0.13. Treatment effect P < 0.01. Week effect P < 0.01.


5


E Control


m CITR


Week









Total ADG by Breed


9,0
R'


0
9,


Percent Bos indicus Breeding


Figure 4-4.Effect of Bos indicus breeding on total average daily gain of preconditioned calves. Breed effect P = 0.06.


0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0


0'


0'


01
t^














CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS

Citrus pulp supplements with added undegraded intake protein (UIP) show promise

as an economical supplement for growing cattle in Florida. These supplements have

shown to increase gain and decrease hay intake in growing cattle fed hay. Citrus pulp

with added UIP has also shown to increase gains of calves in a preconditioning program.















APPENDIX A
SUPPLEMENTAL CHAPTER 3 TABLES AND FIGURES












Appendix Table A-1.


Total average daily gain ( SE) by period for growing calves fed citrus pulp supplements with increasing levels
of UIP.


Citrus Pulp Treatments
Average Daily Gain .
Average Daily Gain Citr 1 Citr 2 Citr 3 Citr 4 Citr 5 Linear Quadratic
(kg SE)
Period 1 (0-28 d.) 0.52 0.12a 0.74 0.12ab 1.08 0.12c 1.03 + 0.12c 1.24 + 0.12c P = 0.55 P = 0.33
Period 2 (28-56 d.) 0.34 0.10a 0.27 0.10a 0.50 0.10ab 0.50 +0.10ab 0.72 0.10b P = 0.29 P = 0.22
Period 3 (56-84 d.) 0.15 0.10a 0.31 0.10ab 0.32 0.10ab 0.48 0.10bc 0.65 + 0.10C P = 0.07 P = 0.04
Total 84 d. 0.34 0.07a 0.44 + 0.07b 0.63 0.07bc 0.67 0.07cd 0.87 0.08d P = 0.13 P = 0.05

Corn Treatments
Average Daily Gain .
Avere Dy Gn Corn 1 Corn 2 Corn 3 Corn 4 Corn 5 Linear Quadratic
(kg SE)
Period 1 (0-28 d.) 0.64 0.12a 1.01 + 0.12a 0.95 + 0.12b 1.00 + 0.12b 1.13 0.12b P = 0.55 P = 0.33
Period 2 (28-56 d.) 0.51 + 0.10a 0.42 + 0.10a 0.59 + 0.10a 0.52 + 0.10a 0.63 + 0.10a P = 0.29 P = 0.22
Period 3 (56-84 d.) 0.40 + 0.10a 0.33 + 0.10a 0.28 + 0.10a 0.54 + 0.10a 0.54 + 0.10a P = 0.07 P = 0.04
Total 84 d. 0.52 0.07a 0.59 0.07a 0.61 0.07a 0.67 0.07a 0.77 0.08b P = 0.13 P = 0.05

Level of Added UIP (Citrus Pulp and Corn Combined)
Average Daily Gain
e D G Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Linear Quadratic
(kg SE)
Period 1 (0-28 d.) 0.58 0.09a 0.87 0.09b 1.02 0.09bc 1.02 0.09bc 1.20 + 0.09c P < 0.01 P = 0.27
Period 2 (28-56 d.) 0.40 0.07ab 0.34 0.07a 0.55 0.07b 0.52 + 0.07ab 0.64 + 0.07b P = 0.89 P = 0.65
Period 3 (56-84 d.) 0.31 0.07a 0.34 0.07a 0.32 0.07a 0.48 0.07ab 0.64 0.07b P = 0.38 P = 0.12
Total 84 d. 0.43 + 0.05a 0.52 + 0.05ab 0.63 0.05b 0.67 0.05b 0.82 + 0.05c P = 0.40 P = 0.75
LS means within row with different superscripts are different P < 0.05. Carbohydrate x UIP interaction P = 0.31. Level of added UIP
effect P < 0.01. Carbohydrate source effect P = 0.38.












Appendix Table A-2. Total intake, crude protein intake, and digestible organic matter intake of supplement and hay (SE) for
growing calves supplemented with citrus pulp with increasing levels of UIP.
Citrus Pulp Treatments
Citr 1 Citr 2 Citr 3 Citr 4 Citr 5 Linear Quadratic
Supplement Intake (kg SE)
Dry Matter Intake 241+2.2cd 2472.2d 2422.3cd 239+2.2c 235+2.3bc P < 0.01 P = 0.05
Crude Protein Intake 61.40.6c 60.90.6c 63.80.6d 61.50.6cd 58.30.6b P = 0.06 P < 0.01
Digestible Organic Matter Intake 2041.9c 210+1.9d 2041.9c 1981.9b 196+2.0b P < 0.01 P = 0.07
Hay Intake (kg SE)
Dry Matter Intake 286+21.5a 330+21.5ab 304+21.6ab 291+21.6a 27222.4a P < 0.01 P = 0.09
Crude Protein Intake 21.51.6a 24.81.6ab 22.9+1.6ab 21.91.6a 20.51.7a P < 0.01 P = 0.09
Digestible Organic Matter Intake 73.75.6a 85.15.5b 78.3+5.6ab 74.95.6a 70.2+5.8 P < 0.01 P = 0.09
Total (kg SE)
Dry Matter Intake 527+22.6ab 57722.6b 546+22.7ab 529+22.6ab 50823.5a P < 0.01 P = 0.07
Crude Protein Intake 82.9+1.9ab 85.81.9b 86.6+1.9b 83.4+1.9b 78.8+2.0ab P < 0.01 P = 0.02
Digestible Organic Matter Intake 2786.6a 2956.6b 2826.6b 2736.6a 266+6.9a P < 0.01 P = 0.05
LS means within a row with different superscripts are different P < 0.05.
Supplement DM intake: CHO x UIP (P = 0.64), CHO effect (P < 0.01), UIP effect (P = 0.01).
Supplement CP intake: CHO x UIP (P < 0.01), CHO effect (P < 0.01), UIP effect (P < 0.01).
Supplement DOM intake: CHO x UIP (P = 0.09), CHO effect (P < 0.01), UIP effect (P < 0.01).


Hay DM intake: CHO x UIP (P = 0.35), CHO effect (P < 0.01), UIP effect (P < 0.01).
Hay CP intake: CHO x UIP (P = 0.35), CHO effect (P < 0.01), UIP effect (P < 0.01).
Hay DOM intake: CHO x UIP (P = 0.35), CHO effect (P < 0.01), UIP effect (P < 0.01).

Total DM intake: CHO x UIP (P = 0.43), CHO effect (P < 0.01), UIP effect (P < 0.01).
Total CP intake: CHO x UIP (P = 0.57), CHO effect (P = 0.16), UIP effect (P < 0.01).
Total DOM intake: CHO x UIP (P = 0.44), CHO effect (P = 0.14), UIP effect (P < 0.01).












Appendix Table A-3. Total intake, crude protein intake, and digestible organic matter intake of supplement and hay (SE) for
growing calves supplemented with corn with increasing levels of UIP.
Corn Treatments
Corn 1 Corn 2 Corn 3 Corn 4 Corn 5 Linear Quadratic
Supplement Intake (kg SE)
Dry Matter Intake 231+2.2ab 2322.2ab 2302.3ab 2292.2ab 2262.3a P < 0.01 P = 0.05
Crude Protein Intake 55.50.6a 55.60.6a 56.30.6a 55.00.6a 56.10.6a P = 0.06 P < 0.01
Digestible Organic Matter Intake 2001.9bc 1971.9b 1951.9b 1951.9b 1892.0a P < 0.01 P = 0.07
Hay Intake (kg SE)
Dry Matter Intake 382+21.5bc 394+21.5c 359+21.6bc 31521.6ab 28322.4a P < 0.01 P = 0.09
Crude Protein Intake 28.7+1.6bc 29.7+1.6c 27.01.6bc 23.7+1.6ab 21.31.7a P < 0.01 P = 0.09
Digestible Organic Matter Intake 98.5.5.6bc 101.65.5C 92.5.5.6bc 81.35.6ab 73.0+5.8a P < 0.01 P = 0.09
Total (kg SE)
Dry Matter Intake 61322.6b 62622.6b 58922.7b 545+22.6ab 50923.5a P < 0.01 P = 0.07
Crude Protein Intake 84.3+1.9b 85.2+1.9b 83.3+1.9b 78.7+1.9ab 77.4+2.0a P < 0.01 P = 0.02
Digestible Organic Matter Intake 2996.6b 2986.6b 2886.6b 2766.6a 262+6.9a P < 0.01 P = 0.05
LS means within a row with different superscripts are different P < 0.05.
Supplement DM intake: CHO x UIP (P = 0.64), CHO effect (P < 0.01), UIP effect (P = 0.01).
Supplement CP intake: CHO x UIP (P < 0.01), CHO effect (P < 0.01), UIP effect (P < 0.01).
Supplement DOM intake: CHO x UIP (P = 0.09), CHO effect (P < 0.01), UIP effect (P < 0.01).


Hay DM intake: CHO x UIP (P = 0.35), CHO effect (P < 0.01), UIP effect (P < 0.01).
Hay CP intake: CHO x UIP (P = 0.35), CHO effect (P < 0.01), UIP effect (P < 0.01).
Hay DOM intake: CHO x UIP (P = 0.35), CHO effect (P < 0.01), UIP effect (P < 0.01).

Total DM intake: CHO x UIP (P = 0.43), CHO effect (P < 0.01), UIP effect (P < 0.01).
Total CP intake: CHO x UIP (P = 0.57), CHO effect (P = 0.16), UIP effect (P < 0.01).
Total DOM intake: CHO x UIP (P = 0.44), CHO effect (P = 0.14), UIP effect (P < 0.01).














Total ADG by Level of Added UIP


1

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1


0 ---


Level of added UIP


Appendix Figure A-1.


Total average daily gain (ADG) of calves supplemented with corn or citrus pulp with increasing levels of UIP
by level of added UIP.
CHO X UIP interaction P = 0.31, CHO effect P = 0.38, UIP effect P < 0.01.














Hay DM Intake by Level of Added UIP


400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0


Level of added UIP

Appendix Figure A-2. Total hay dry matter (DM) intake of calves supplemented with corn or citrus pulp with increasing levels of UIP
by level of added UIP.
CHO x UIP interaction P = 0.43, CHO effect P < 0.01, UIP effect P < 0.01.















APPENDIX B
SUPPLEMENTAL CHAPTER 4 TABLES AND FIGURES












Appendix Table B-1. Average daily gain ( SE) by week and total gain for preconditioned calves fed citrus pulp supplements.

Supplements
Control CITR CITR+UREA CITR+UIP
Average Daily Gain
(kg SE)
Week 1 -1.12 0.13a -0.38 + 0.13c -0.77 0.13b -0.78 0.13b
Week 2 1.09 0.10b 0.49 0.10a 0.53 0.10a 1.20+ 0.10b
Week 3 0.50 + 0.08a 0.80 0.09b 0.63 0.09ab 0.58 0.08ab
Week 4 0.28 0.09ab 0.50 0.09b 0.19 0.09a 0.47 0.09b
Week 5 -0.14 + 0.07a -0.02 0.07ab 0.09 0.07b 0.11 + 0.07b
Week 6 0.24 0.08a 0.60 + 0.09b 0.80 0.09bc 0.99 0.08C
Total 0-42 d. ADG 0.14 + 0.02a 0.33 + 0.02C 0.24 0.02b 0.43 0.02d
Total gain 0-42 d. 5.99 0.82a 14.02 + 0.82c 10.56 0.84b 18.15 0.82'
LS means within row with different superscripts are different P < 0.05. Treatment effect P < 0.01.













Pasture OM by Week


Week


Appendix Figure B-1.


Organic matter (OM) of pasture for preconditioned calves fed citrus pulp supplements by week. SE
0.064.Treatment effect P = 0.01. Week effect P < 0.01.













Pasture IVOMD by Week


Week

Appendix Figure B-2. In vitro organic matter digestibility (IVOMD) of pasture for preconditioned calves fed citrus pulp supplements
by week. Treatment effect P = 0.07. Week effect P < 0.01.
















LITERATURE CITED


Ammerman, C. B., P. A. vanWalleghem, A. Z. Palmer, J. W. Carpenter, J. F. Hentges,
and L. R. Arrington. 1963. Comparative feeding value of dried citrus pulp and
ground corn and cob meal for fattening steers. Animal Sci. Mimeo Rpt. AN 64-8,
Florida Agric. Exp. Sta. Univ. of Florida, Gainesville.

Ammerman, C. B., R. Hendrickson, G. M. Hall, J. F. Easley, and P. E. Loggins. 1965.
The nutritive value of various fractions of citrus pulp and the effect of drying
temperature on the nutritive value of citrus pulp. Proc. Florida State Hort. Soc.
78:307-311.

Ammerman, C. B., J. F. Easley, L. R. Arrington, and F. G. Martin. 1966. Factors
affecting the physical and nutrient composition of dried citrus pulp. Proc. Florida
State Hort. Soc. 79:223-227.

Ammerman, C. B., F. C. Neal, A. Z. Palmer, J. E. Moore, and L. R. Arrington. 1967.
Comparative nutritional value of pelleted and regular citrus pulp when fed at
different levels to finishing steers. Animal Sci. Mimeo Rpt. AN 67-7, Florida
Agric. Exp. Sta. Univ. of Florida, Gainesville.

Ammerman, C. B., and P. R. Henry. 1991. Citrus and vegetable products for ruminant
animals. Pages 103-110 in Proc. Alternative Feeds for Dairy and Beef Cattle, Natl.
Inv. Symp., St. Louis, MO.

Amstutz, H. E. Preconditioning feeder calves. 1979. Mod. Vet. Pract. 60: 395-396.

Anderson, S. J., T. J. Klopfenstein, and V. A. Wilkerson. 1988. Escape protein
supplementation of yearling steers grazing smooth brome pastures. J. Anim. Sci.
66: 237-242.

Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC). 1984. Official Methods of Analysis
(14th Ed.). Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC.

Arthington, J. D., and F. M. Pate. 2001. Estimating the value of wet citrus pulp for
Florida cattlemen. EDIS doc. AN 108, Florida Coop. Ext. Service. Univ. of Florida,
Gainesville.

Arthington, J. D., W. E. Kunkle, and A. M. Martin. 2002. Citrus pulp for cattle. Vet Clin.
Food Anim. 18: 317-326.









Arosemena, A., E. J. DePeters, and J. G. Fadel. 1995. Extent and variability in nutrient
composition within selected by-product feedstuffs. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol.
54:103-120.

Ball, D. M., C. S. Hoveland, and G. D. Lacefield. 1996. Southern Forages. 2nd ed.
Williams Printing Co., Alanta, GA.

Bandyk, C. A., R. C. Cochran, T. A. Wickersham, E. C. Titgemeyer, C. G. Farmer, and J.
J. Higgins. 2001. Effect of ruminal vs postruminal administration of degradable
protein on utilization of low-quality forage by beef steers. J. Anim. Sci. 79: 225-
231.

Bodine, T. N., and H. T. Purvis, II. 2003. Effects of supplemental energy and/or
degradable intake protein on performance, grazing behavior, intake, digestibility,
and fecal and blood indices by beef steers grazed on dormant native tallgrass
prairie. J. Anim. Sci. 81: 304-317.

Bodine, T. N., H. T. Purvis, II, C. J. Ackerman, and C. L. Goad. 2000a. Effects of
supplementing prairie hay with corn and soybean meal on intake, digestion, and
ruminal measurements by beef steers. J. Anim. Sci. 78: 3144-3154.

Bodine, T. N., H. T. Purvis, II, and D. A. Cox. 2000b. Effects of supplemental energy and
degradable intake protein on grazing behavior, forage intake, digestion and
performance of steers grazing winter range. Pages 33-39 in 2000 Animal Science
Research Report, Univ. Oklahoma State, Stillwater.

Bohnert, D. W., C. S. Schauer, M. L. Bauer, and T. DelCurto. 2002. Influence of rumen
protein degradability and supplementation frequency on steers consuming low-
quality forage: I. Site of digestion and microbial efficiency. J. Anim. Sci. 80: 2967-
2977.

Bowman, J. G. P., and D. W. Sanson. 1996. Starch- or fiber-based energy supplements
for grazing ruminants. Pages 118-135 in Proc. Grazing Livest. Nutr. Conf., Rapid
City, SD.

Brown, W. F., and W. E. Kunkle. 1992. Improving the feeding value of hay by anhydrous
ammonia treatment. EDIS doc. BUL 888, Florida Coop. Ext. Service. Univ. of
Florida, Gainesville.

Brown, W. F., J. E. Moore, W. E. Kunkle, C. G. Chambliss, and K. M. Portier. 1990.
Forage testing using near infrared reflectance spectroscopy. J. Anim. Sci. 68: 1416-
1427.

Caton, J. S., and D. V. Dhuyvetter. 1997. Influence of energy supplementation on grazing
ruminants: Requirements and responses. J. Anim. Sci. 75: 533-542.

Chambliss, C. G., W. E. Kunkle, and R. P. Cromwell. 1998. Hay production in Florida.
EDIS doc. SS-AGR-70, Florida Coop. Ext. Service. Univ. of Florida, Gainesville.









Chapman, H. L., Jr., R. W. Kidder, and S. W. Plank. 1953. Comparative feeding value of
citrus molasses, cane molasses, ground snapped corn, and dried citrus pulp for
fattening steers on pasture. Florida Agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. 531. Univ. of Florida,
Gainesville.

Chapman, H. L., Jr., C. E. Haines, and R. W. Kidder. 1961. Feeding value of limited fed
mixed feed, citrus pulp, ground snapped corn and blackstrap molasses for fattening
steers on pasture. Everglades Sta. Mimeo Rpt. 61-19. Everglades Exp. Sta., Belle
Glade, Florida.

Chapman, H. L., Jr., C. B. Ammerman, F. S. Baker Jr., J. F. Hentges, B. W. Hayes, and
T. J. Cunha. 1983. Citrus feeds for beef cattle. Florida Agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. 751.
Univ. of Florida, Gainesville.

Clanton, D. C. 1978. Non-protein nitrogen in range supplements. J. Anim. Sci. 47: 765-
779.

Clanton, D. C., and D. R. Zimmerman. 1970. Symposium on pasture methods for
maximum production in beef cattle: Protein and energy requirements for female
beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 30: 122-132.

Cole, N. A. 1985. Preconditioning calves for the feedlot. Vet. Clin. North Am. Food
Anim. Pract. 1: 401-411.

DelCurto, T., R. C. Cochran, D. L. Harmon, A. A. Beharka, K. A. Jacques, G. Towne,
and E. S. Vanzant. 1990. Supplementation of dormant tallgrass-prairie forage: I.
Influence of varying supplemental protein and(or) energy levels on forage
utilization characteristics of beef steers in confinement. J. Anim. Sci. 68: 515-531.

DelCurto, T., B. W. Hess, J. E. Huston, and K. C. Olsen. 2000. Optimum
supplementation strategies for beef cattle consuming low-quality roughages in the
western United States. Proc. Am. Soc. Anim. Sci., 1999. Available at:
http://www.asas.org/jas/symposia/proceedings/filename. Accessed {June 9, 2002}.

Engelken, T. J. 1997. Preventative programs for respiratory disease in cow/calf
operations. Vet. Clin. North Am. Food Anim. Pract. 13: 647-60.

Galyean, M. L., L. J. Perino, and G. C. Duff 1999. Interaction of cattle health/immunity
and nutrition. J. Anim. Sci. 77: 1120-1134.

Hannah, S. M., M. T. Rhodes, J. A. Paterson, M. S. Kerley, J. E. Williams, and K. E.
Turner. 1989. Influence of energy supplementation on forage intake, digestibility,
and grazing time by cattle grazing tall fescue. Nutr. Rep. Int. 40: 1153-1158.

Herrick, J. B. 1969. Preconditioning, its national status. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 154:
1163-1165.









Hodges, A., E. Philippakos, D. Mulkey, T. Spreen, and R. Muraro. 2001. Economic
impact of Florida's citrus industry, 1999-2000. EDIS doc. FE 307, Florida Coop.
Ext. Service. Univ. of Florida, Gainesville.

Hollingsworth-Jenkins, K., T. Klopfenstein, D. Adams, and J. Lamb. 1996. Rumen
degradable protein requirements of gestating beef cows grazing dormant native
sandhills range. Pages 14-16 in 1996 Nebraska Beef Report, Univ. of Nebraska,
Lincoln.

Horn, G. W., and F. T. McCollum III. 1987. Energy supplementation of grazing
ruminants. In: M. Judkins (Ed.) Proc. Grazing Livestock Nutrition Conf, Jackson,
WY. Pages 125-136.

Horn, G. W., M. D. Cravey, F. T. McCollum III, C. A. Strasia, E. G. Krenzer, Jr., and P.
L. Claypool. 1995. Influence of high-starch vs high-fiber energy supplements on
performance of stocker cattle grazing wheat pasture and subsequent feedlot
performance. J. Anim. Sci. 73: 45-54.

Jordan, D. J., T. J. Klopfenstein, and D. C. Adams. 2002. Dried poultry waste for cows
grazing low-quality winter forage. J. Anim. Sci. 80: 818-824.

Karges, K. K., T. J. Klopfenstein, V. A. Wilkerson, and D. C. Clanton. 1992. Effects of
ruminally degradable and escape protein supplements on steers grazing summer
native range. J. Anim. Sci. 70: 1957-1964.

Kartchner, R. J. 1981. Effects of protein and energy supplementation of cows grazing
native winter range forage on intake and digestibility. J. Anim. Sci. 51: 432-438.

King, M. E., and K. G. Odde. 1998. The effects of value added health programs on the
price and no-sale rate of beef calves sold through 10 Superior Livestock video
auctions in 1997. Available: http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/AnimSci. Acessed
June 9, 2002.

Kirk, W. G., E. R. Felton, H. J. Fulford, and E. M. Hodges. 1949. Citrus products for
fattening cattle. Florida Agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. 454. Univ. of Florida, Gainesville.

Klopfenstein, T. 1996. Need for escape protein by grazing cattle. Anim. Feed Sci. Tech.
60: 191-199.

Koster, H. H., R. C. Cochran, E. C. Titgemeyer, E. S. Vanzant, I. Abdelgadir, and G. St-
Jean. 1996. Effect of increasing degradable intake protein on intake and digestion
of low-quality, tallgrass-prairie forage by beef cows. J. Anim. Sci. 74: 2473-2481.

Koster, H. H., R. C. Cochran, E. C. Titgemeyer, E. S. Vanzant, T. G. Nagaraja, K. K.
Kreikemeyer, and G. St-Jean. 1997. Effect of increasing proportion of
supplemental nitrogen from urea on intake and utilization of low-quality tallgrass-
prairie forage by beef steers. J. Anim. Sci. 75: 1393-1399.









Kreikmeier, K. K., J. T. Johns, G. L. Stokka, K. D. Bullock, T. T. Marston, and D. L.
Harmon. 1997. The effect of the timing of vaccination on health and growth
performance of commingled calves. J. Anim. Sci. 75(Suppl. 1): 37 (Abstr.).

Kunkle, W. E. 2001. Strategies for cost effective supplementation of beef cattle. EDIS
doc. SS-ANS-14, Florida Coop. Ext. Service. Univ. of Florida, Gainesville.

Kunkle, W. E., R. S. Sand, and D. O. Rae. 1994. Effects of body condition on
productivity in beef cattle. EDIS doc. SP 144, Florida Coop. Ext. Service. Univ. of
Florida, Gainesville.

Kunkle, W. E., J.T. Johns, M. H. Poore, and D. B. Herd. 2000. Designing
supplementation programs for beef cattle fed forage-based diets. Proc. Am. Soc.
Anim. Sci., 1999. Available at:
http://www.asas.org/jas/symposia/proceedings/filename. Accessed {June 9, 2002}.

Kunkle, W. E., R. L. Stewart, and W. F. Brown. 2001. Using byproduct feeds in beef
supplementation programs. EDIS doc. AN 101, Florida Coop. Ext. Service. Univ.
of Florida, Gainesville.

Kunkle, W. E., J. Fletcher, and D. Mayo. 2002. Florida cow-calf management, 2nd
edition-Feeding the cow herd. EDIS doc. AN117, Florida Coop. Ext. Service. Univ.
of Florida, Gainesville.

Lalman, D., D. Gill, G. Highfill, J. Wallace, K. Barnes, C. Strasia, and B. LeValley.
2002. Nutrition and management considerations for preconditioning home raised
beef calves. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service Fact Sheet. F-3031.

Loggins, P. E., C. B. Ammerman, L. R. Arrington, J. E. Moore, and C. F. Simpson. 1964.
Feeding value of pelleted rations high in citrus by-products and corn for fattening
lambs. Animal Sci. Mimeo Rpt. AN 65-6, Florida Agric. Exp. Sta., Univ. of
Florida, Gainesville.

Martin, A. M. 2001. Citrus pulp, soybean hulls, and corn as supplements for growing
beef cattle fed forage based diets. M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville.

Mathis, C. P., R. C. Cochran, J. S. Heldt, B. C. Woods, I. E. O. Abdelgadir, K. C. Olsen,
E. C. Titgemeyer, and E. S. Vanzant. 2000. Effects of supplemental degradable
intake protein on utilization of medium- to low-quality forages. J. Anim. Sci. 78:
224-232.

McCollum, F. T., III, and G. W. Horn. 1990. Protein supplementation of grazing
livestock: A review. Prof. Anim. Sci. 6: 1-16.

McNeill, J. 1997. 1996-97 Texas A&M Ranch to Rail -North/South Summary Report.
Texas Agricultural Extension Service, Texas A&M University, College Station.









McNeill, J. 1999. 1998-99 Texas A&M Ranch to Rail -North/South Summary Report.
Texas Agricultural Extension Service, Texas A&M University, College Station.

McNeill, J. 2001. 2000-01 Texas A&M Ranch to Rail -North/South Summary Report.
Texas Agricultural Extension Service, Texas A&M University, College Station.

Miksch, D. 1984. Preconditioning programs for feeder cattle. Mod. Vet. Pract. 65: 341-
344.

Moore, J. E., and G. O. Mott. 1974. Recovery of residual organic matter from in vitro
digestion of forages. J. Dairy Sci. 57: 1258-1259.

Moore, J. E., W. E. Kunkle, and W. F. Brown. 1991. Forage quality and the need for
protein and energy supplements. Pages 113-123 in 40th Annual Florida Beef Cattle
Short Course Proceedings, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville.

Moore, J. E., M. H. Brant, W. E. Kunkle, and D. I. Hopkins. 1999. Effects of
supplementation on voluntary forage intake, diet digestibility, and animal
performance. J. Anim. Sci. 77(Suppl. 2): 122-135.

Nelson, M. L. 1997. Escape protein supplementation of steers fed grass silage-based
diets. J. Anim. Sci. 75: 2796-2802.

National Research Council (NRC). 1996. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle (7th
Revised Ed.). National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

Olson, K. C., R. C. Cochran, T. J. Jones, E. S. Vanzant, E. C. Titgemeyer, and D. E.
Johnson. 1999. Effects of ruminal administration of supplemental degradable intake
protein and starch on utilization of low-quality warm-season grass hay by beef
steers. J. Anim. Sci. 77: 1016-1025.

Pate, F. M., and J. R. Crockett. 1973. Effect of limited creep feeding beef calveson
postweaning performance. AREC Belle Glade Res. Rpt. EV-1973-3. Univ. of
Florida, Gainesville.

Pate, F. M., and J. R. Crockett. 1978. Value of preconditioning beef calves. EDIS doc.
BUL 799, Florida Coop. Ext. Service. Univ. of Florida, Gainesville.

Paterson, J., R. C. Cochran, and T. Klopfenstein. 1996. Degradable and undegradable
protein responses of cattle consuming forage-based diets. Pages 94-103 in Proc.
Grazing Livest. Nutr. Conf., Univ. of Wyoming, Laramie.

Peacock, F. M., and W. G. Kirk. 1959. Comparative feeding value of dried citrus pulp,
corn feed meal, and ground snapped corn for fattening steers in drylot. Florida
Agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. 616. Univ. of Florida, Gainesville.









Peterson, E. B., D. R. Strohbehn, G. W. Ladd, and R. L. Willham. 1989. Effects of
preconditioning on performance of beef calves before and after entering the feedlot.
J. Anim. Sci. 67: 1678-1686.

Pond, W. G., D. C. Church, and K. R. Pond. 1995. Basic Animal Nutrition and Feeding.
4th ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.

Pritchard, R. H., and J. K. Mendez. 1990. Effects of preconditioning on pre- and post-
shipment performance of feeder calves. J. Anim. Sci. 68: 28-34.

Ramos, J. A., G. D. Mendoza, E. Aranda, I. C. Garcia-Bojalil, R. Barcena, and J. Alanis.
1998. Escape protein supplementation of growing steers grazing stargrass. Anim.
Feed Sci. Tech. 70: 249-256.

SAS. 1990. SAS User's Guide: Statistics. SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC.

Sanson, D. W., D. C. Clanton, I. G. Rush. 1990. Intake and digestion of low-quality
meadow hay by steers and performance of cows on native range when fed protein
supplements containing various levels of corn. 68: 595-603.

Sasser, R. G., R. J. Williams, R. C. Bull, C. A. Ruder, and D. G. Falk. 1988. Postpartum
reproductive performance in crude protein-restricted beef cows: return to estrus and
conception. J. Anim. Sci. 66: 3033-3039.

Scott, J. R. 1926. Grapefruit refuse as a dairy feed. Florida Agric. Exp. Sta. Ann. Rpt.
25R-26R. Univ. of Florida, Gainesville.

Sletmoen-Olsen, K. E., J. S. Caton, K. C. Olsen, and L. P. Reynolds. 2000. Undegraded
intake protein supplementation: I. Effects on forage utilization and performance of
periparturient beef cows fed low-quality hay. J. Anim. Sci. 78: 449-455.

Sollenberger, L. E., and C. G. Chambliss. 1991. Regional and seasonal forage production
limits. Pages 25-34 in 40th Annual Florida Beef Cattle Short Course Proceedings,
Univ. of Florida, Gainesville.

Sollenberger, L. E., and D. J. R. Cherney. 1995. Evaluating forage production and
quality. Pages 97-110 in Forages: The Science of Grassland Agriculture. Vol. 2. R.
F. Barnes, D. A. Miller, and C. J. Nelson, eds. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames, IA.

Sunvold, G. D., R. C. Cochran, and E. S. Vanzant. 1991. Evaluation of wheat middlings
as a supplement for beef cattle consuming dormant bluestem-range forage. J. Anim.
Sci. 69: 3044-3054.

Thrift, T., T. Marshall, K. Burkett, B. Austin, D. Alkire, and P. Davis. 2003. Economic
evaluation of preconditioning calves with a commercial ration. Pages 19-22 in 2003
Beef Report, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville.









Triplett, B. L., D. A. Neuendorff, and R. D. Randel. 1995. Influence ofundegraded intake
protein supplementation on milk production, weight gain, and reproductive
performance in postpartum Brahman cows. J. Anim. Sci. 73: 3223-3229.

Vanzant, E. S., R. C. Cochran, K. A. Jacques, A. A. Beharka, T. DelCurto, and T. B.
Avery. 1990. Influence of level of supplementation and type of grain in
supplements on intake and utilization of harvested, early-growing season,
bluestem-range forage by beef steers. J. Anim. Sci. 68: 1457-1468.

Walker, S. S. 1917. The utilization of cull citrus fruits in Florida. Florida Agric. Exp. Sta.
Bull. 135. Univ. of Florida, Gainesville.

Wiley, J. S., M. K. Petersen, R. P. Ansotegui, and R. A. Bellows. 1991. Production from
first-calf beef heifers fed a maintenance or low level of prepartum nutrition and
ruminally undegradable or degradable protein postpartum. J. Anim. Sci. 69: 4279-
4293.

Woods, G. T., J. R. Pickard, and C. Cowsert. 1973. A three year field study of
preconditioning native Illinois beef calves sold through a cooperative marketing
association-1969 to 1971. Can. J. Comp. Med. 37: 224-227.















BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Deke Omar Alkire was born in Warrensburg, Missouri, on April 22, 1978. He was

raised in Centerview, Missouri, and graduated from Warrensburg High School. Growing

up, he helped on his grandparents' farms and with a family landscaping business. After

graduating from high school, he attended the University of Missouri-Columbia with

aspirations of becoming an equine veterinarian. During college, Deke was an active

member in Block and Bridle, Agricultural Student Council, and the Independent Aggies.

Also during this time, he had the opportunity to assist with an undergraduate course,

work with veterinarians in equine practices, as well as for the family business. These

experiences guided Deke to pursue a Master of Science degree in animal sciences. In

2001, he received his Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Missouri-

Columbia.

In 2001, Deke was accepted into a graduate research program at the University of

Florida Department of Animal Sciences under the guidance of Dr. Bill Kunkle. Upon his

death, Deke came under the guidance of Dr. Todd Thrift, who aided in the completion of

his research program in the area of beef cattle nutrition. While at Florida, Deke was

involved with the Animal Sciences Graduate Student Association and Graduate Student

Council, as well as assisting with undergraduate courses.