Front Cover
 Table of Contents

Group Title: Bulletin University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station
Title: Effects of feeding limited amounts of concentrate to stocker steers on pasture
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00026850/00001
 Material Information
Title: Effects of feeding limited amounts of concentrate to stocker steers on pasture
Series Title: Bulletin University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station
Physical Description: 17 p. : chart ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Haines, C. E
Publisher: University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1965
Copyright Date: 1965
Subject: Beef cattle -- Feeding and feeds -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Beef cattle -- Weight -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references (p. 17).
Statement of Responsibility: C.E. Haines ... et al..
General Note: Cover title.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00026850
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: ltuf - AEP0056
oclc - 18361354
alephbibnum - 000929279

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Page 1
    Table of Contents
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
Full Text
JULY, 1965




C. E. Haines
S/ H. L. Chapman, Jr.
R. W. Kidder
R. E. L. Greene

Introduction--------------------- ----------- 3
Experimental Procedure ---------. -----_____.-...-----.---------- 4
Pasture Period---------------------------- 4
Feedlot Period .---..... -----_--.__-------------------- 7
Results and Discussion --_ ------------------------------- 7
Pasture Period---------------_------------- 7
Feedlot Period .------------------..-------------- 12
Summary ..---.. .---------------------.-_.. .._..------------------. 14
Appendix ..----------------.--------------------_-------------._____ 15
Literature Cited ...-------.... -------- --.-.__..-.._ ---------_.__ 17

0 0



C. E. Haines, H. L. Chapman, Jr., R. W. Kidder,
and R. E. L. Greene'

The steer fattening industry in Florida has expanded in recent
years, and Cunha. (2)2 estimated that approximately 150,000 head
were fattened in the state in 1963. Many cattlemen finish or
fatten steers when they are about 20 to 24 months old. This
necessitates the maintenance of the stocker steers on inventory
for a period of approximately a year between weaning and the
fattening period. The usual practice in south Florida is to keep
the stocker steers on pasture and provide no additional feed during
this prefeedlot year. Allen (1), Haines and Chapman (4), and
Kidder (6) have reported that yearlings, or feeder steers, often lose
weight during the winter season on pasture in south Florida.
Since a yearling is forming a skeletal framework for later tissue
increases, as well as depositing some protein tissue, it should not
be allowed to lose any weight or condition at any time during its
growth. A loss in weight must be regained in later periods at the
expense of both time and feed.
Hogan (5) and Winchester et al. (10) reported that it took
longer for nutritionally retarded steers to reach definite slaughter
grades than steers on high levels of nutrition. McCall (8) stated
that "feeder cattle coming off pasture, that have been receiving a
moderate amount of concentrate, show more bloom and often sell
at a higher rate per hundredweight than those getting no concen-
trate on grass." McCall also gave evidence that marbling in the
carcass was improved when some gain occurred in the growing-
finishing period compared to gains occurring in the finishing period
only. Morrison (9) recommends that yearlings should gain con-
tinuously at least 0.75 pounds per day. Since this rate of daily
gain is not usually attained during the winter periods by yearlings
1 Haines, Assistant Animal Husbandman; Chapman, Animal Nutritionist;
and Kidder, Animal Husbandman; Everglades Station, Belle Glade, Florida.
Greene, Agricultural Economist, Main Station, Gainesville, Florida.
2 Numbers in parentheses refer to Literature Cited.

4 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

on pasture, it is evident that supplemental feeding is necessary
during this period. The time, kind, and rate of supplementation
will be dependent upon climatic factors, management facilities, and
the prices of both feed and the cattle.
This study was conducted to determine the effects of supple-
menting grazing stocker steers with limited amounts of a concen-
trate mixture during the winter and during the spring or fall
seasons. The effects of treatments were determined by differences
in weight gains, changes in market grades, and the final net market
value of the feeder steers.


Pasture Period
In each of three consecutive years, 80 yearling steers were.
divided into four equal groups on the basis of weight and breed,
and each group was placed on Roselawn St.. Augustinegrass
pastures in November. They remained on these pastures for
approximately one year, and then were placed in the feedlot.
Each pasture was 10 acres in size, resulting in a stocking rate of
two yearlings per acre in all groups throughout the experimental
periods. In the 1959-60 year, one-half of the steers were Here-
fords and the rest were Angus, Brahman, and Brahman X Angus
crossbred steers. All steers in 1960-61 were Angus. The 1961-62
groups were mostly Brahman X Hereford steers with three Here-
fords, one Hereford X Angus, and one Brahman X Angus steer
in each group of 20 animals.
Experimental years were divided into quarters of approxi-
mately three months each, beginning with November. Supplements
to pasture were as follows:
Group 1. No supplemental feed.
Group 2. An average of 5 pounds of concentrate mixture per
head daily during the first quarter (November,
December, and January.)
Group 3. An average of 5 pounds of concentrate mixture per
head daily during the first quarter (November,
December, and January) and 3 pounds per head
daily during the second quarter (February, March,
and April.)

Feeding Limited Concentrate to Steers 5

Group 4. An average of 5 pounds of concentrate mixture per
head daily during the first quarter (November,
December, and January) and 3 pounds per head
daily in the fourth quarter (August, September,
and October.)
None of the groups received any supplemental feed in the third
quarter of May, June, and July. The concentrate mixture con-
sisted of two parts by weight of ground snapped corn, two parts of
citrus pulp, and one part of cottonseed meal. The cost of this
supplement is shown in Table 1. A salt-trace mineral mixture3
was supplied to each group free-choice.

Table 1.- Cost of Concentrate Ingredients and Mixture.

Experimental Year

Ingredient 1959-60 1960-61 1961-62 Average


$ $ $ $
Ground snapped corn 50.00 48.00 46.50 48.17
Citrus pulp 45.00 38.50 38.34 40.61
Cottonseed meal (41%) 69.00 82.00 75.50 75.50

Mixture Cost/Amount in Mixture

Ground snapped corn (800 lbs.) 20.00 19.20 18.60 19.26
Citrus pulp (800 lbs.) 18.00 15.40 15.34 16.24
Cottonseed meal (41%) (400 lbs.) 13.80 16.40 15.10 15.10
Mixing charge 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00
Total (2,000 lbs.) 59.80 59.00 57.00 58.60
Cost per cwt 2.99 2.95 2.85 2.93

The steers were individually weighed at the beginning of the
trial and at quarterly intervals thereafter. At the beginning and
end of the trial, a committee of three assigned each steer both a
feeder and slaughter grade to the nearest third of a grade. Market
values, as feeder steers, were estimated for the average of each
group by using an average price of all auction markets in Florida

SMixture contained 40.0% defluorinated phosphate, 22.5% steamed
bonemeal, 20.0 iodized salt with trace minerals, 1.0% red oxide of iron, 3.2%
copper sulphate, 0.015% cobalt sulfate, 7.5% molasses, and 5.785% citrus

6 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

for the weeks during which the steers completed the trial. Values
used for each market grade are shown in Table 2. To eliminate the
possibility of normal yearly price differences influencing the over-
all results, comparison among treatments each year were based on
differences in final market value. Thus, variation in value of the
animals was a relative difference due to the actual differences in
grade and weight at the end of the study.
For two years of the study, certain body measurements were
obtained to determine whether the nutritional treatments affected
the skeletal growth of the steers to any extent. Ten steers in each
of the treatment groups were selected to obtain data on the height
at withers, height at hooks, height of chest floor, width at hooks,
and length of body. Each measurement was made in duplicate
using calipers or a tape measure. The skeletal growth of steers on
the different treatments was compared by using their initial and
final measurements.

Table 2.- Average Florida Market Value of Steers per Hundredweight.t

Feeder Range
Grade Low Medium High

$ $ $
Week Ending October 14, 1960

Good 18.21 19.62 21.04
Medium 15.58 16.75 17.92
Common 13.50 14.50 15.50

Week Ending October 13, 1961

Good 19.08 20.25 21.42
Medium 16.84 17.50 18.16
Common 15.00 16.00 17.00

Week Ending October 5, 1962

Good 22.50 23.50 24.50
Medium 19.66 21.00 22.34
Common 17.66 19.00 20.34

t Low, medium, and high price is an average of the low third, medium third, and
high third of the range in the grade.

Feeding Limited Concentrate to Steers 7

Feedlot Period
Upon completion of the prefeedlot trial, 10 steers were selected
from each treatment within each year and immediately placed in
drylot for fattening. The steers selected for fattening were of
average size and weight for the particular group, so the largest
and smallest animals were eliminated from this phase of the study.
In the drylot, the steers were full-fed corn silage and an average of
10 pounds of a concentrate mixture per head daily for 105 days.
The gains and market grade changes of the steers from the
various treatments were compared. Differences among treatments
were tested for statistical significance by using orthogonal com-
parisons as described by LeClerg (7).


Pasture Period
The average gains for steers on each treatment, for each of the
three years, are shown in the appendix (Table A) for the experi-
mental quarters. Treatment averages for the three years combined
are presented in Table 3. In all years, steers that were supple-
mented in the first quarter (November, December, and January)
out-performed those not receiving the concentrate mixture. In
two of the three years, the non-supplemented steers actually lost
weight in the first quarter.
In the second experimental quarter (February, March, and
April), the group receiving supplement outgained the three non-
supplemented groups each year. In fact, losses in weight were
recorded for some steers not supplemented during this quarter
in the first year. Some of this may have been because the previ-
ously supplemented steers had become somewhat dependent upon
the concentrate mixture. Then, when the supplementation ceased,
they had difficulty in consuming extra forage to compensate for
the change in nutrient intake.
In the third experimental quarter (May, June, and July), all
groups made satisfactory gains. In general, groups that had not
previously received the supplement outgained those that had
received the supplement in the first or second quarters. The
largest gains were made in this quarter for all of the treatments in
the first and third years, but groups in the second year made
lower summer gains. It is suspected that rainfall was responsible
for the erratic performance by steers in the second year. Rainfall

8 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

Table 3.- Average Weight, Gains, Feeder Grades, and Increase in Relative
Net Returns for Supplementing Yearling Steers on Pasture.

Prefeedlot Supplementation

Item 1st & 1st &
None 1st Qtr. 2ndQtr. 4th Qtr.

Number of steers 60 60 59 60
Initial weight (lbs.) 447 442 447 447
1st qtr. gain (Ibs.) 13 73 73 69
2nd qtr. gain (lbs.) 42 46 87 45
3rd qtr. gain (lbs.) 125 123 108 114
4th qtr. gain (lbs.) 35 36 40 60
Total gain (lbs.) 215 278 308 288
Benefit from supplement (lbs.) 63 93 73
Initial grade t 9.4 9.1 9.3 9.3
Final grade t** 9.7 9.9 10.2 10.1
Economic evaluation $
Value per cwt. ($) 20.91 21.16 21.52 21.32
Value per head ($) 138.41 152.41 162.49 156.69
Value from supplement ($) 13.98 24.08 18.28
Concentrate fed (lbs.) 0 408 660 625
Cost of feed @ 2.93/cwt. ($) 0 11.94 19.31 18.32
Returns from supplement ($) 2.04 4.77 -0.04

* Significant difference between treatments (P<0.05).
t Grades refer to feeder grades of 9, 10, and 11 equalling LOW, MEDIUM, and
HIGH GOOD, respectively.
** Significant differences between improvements in grades due to treatments
$ All values based on those actually existing during the years of 1960, 1961, and
1962 in Florida.

was normal in the first and third years but was below average in
the second year (3).
In the fourth quarter (August, September, and October), gains
by the non-supplemented groups dropped considerably from those
posted for the previous quarter. In fact, in the third year, steers
gained very little during this quarter. No explanation can be
offered for these phenomena.
Figure 1 illustrates the quarterly gains of the steers in the
four treatment groups for the 3 years combined. The lengths of
the segments represent the proportion of the total gains occurring
in the individual quarters and the figures within the bars are the
percentages of the total gain. Although the gains were similar for
several groups within the same quarter, variations in total gains
altered the percentages of these gains made in a particular quarter.

Feeding Limited Concentrate to Steers 9

For example, average gains were the same for steers in groups
2 and 3 in the first quarter, and yet the segments are not the same
length because they represent 26 percent of the total gains of
group 2 but only 24 percent of the total gains of group 3. Con-
versely, 24 percent of the total gains of groups 3 and 4 occurred in
the first quarter even though actual gains were 73 and 69 pounds,
respectively. The entire bars present the total gains produced
under each treatment and differences in total gains between treat-
ments were statistically significant.


2781b. 4th 2881b.
4Lhl 4th 21

215 lb.

3r.d 2d 28

2nd I1 26 111 24 1it 24

Group 1 2 3 4

Po Supplme t Posture Alone
Figure 1.- Average Annual Gains Showing the Percentage of These Gains
Occurring in the Four Quarters of the Prefeedlot Year.

10 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

The average initial and final feeder grades are listed in the
appendix (Table A) by treatment and year of study. The summary
of these grades is shown in Table 3. All groups averaged a low
Good feeder grade of 9 when starting the trial, and treatments had
a significant effect on the changes in feeder grades during the
course of the trial.
The relative economic aspects of supplementing the yearlings
are also shown in Table 3. Total feed costs were not quite the
same for the second and fourth quarters due to a few days' dif-
ference in the length of those two quarters. The market values
for the final feeder grades might seem confusing to the reader since
the average feeder grades all appear to be the same (approximately
10). This variation in value occurred because individual yearly
grades and prices were calculated separately, and then the average
of the three years was used as the market value per hundred-
weight. This same procedure was also used for the other calcu-
lations appearing in this table, such as the price of the concen-
trate mixture, since this cost fluctuated among the three years.
The cost of the labor in the feeding procedure was not included
since it would vary considerably from ranch to ranch.
The final values in Table 3 show that the greatest net return
above that of the non-supplemented group was produced by the
group receiving the concentrate mixture in the first and second
quarter. These steers averaged almost $5.00 a head more in net
value than the steers in the non-supplemented group at the end of
the prefeedlot year. Thus, supplemental feeding in the first quarter
and also in the second quarter improved gains and was econom-
ically advantageous. The use of the supplement in just the first
quarter gave a return of about $2.00 a head above the cost of the
concentrate. The results also indicate that it was of marginal
benefit to feed the supplement during both the first and fourth
quarters. The additional gains by this group were not quite
sufficient to cover the cost of the extra concentrate consumed.
The steers in this treatment gained an average of only 10 pounds
more than the steers supplemented during the first quarter only.
These steers supplemented in the fourth quarter gained less during
pasture periods than other groups when supplement was not
The pasture stocking rate was the same for all treatments each
year. Undoubtedly, this procedure tended to create differences in
the quality and quantity of forage in the four pastures. It was felt
that sufficient forage was present for all groups throughout the

Feeding Limited Concentrate to Steers 11

year, but differences in forage were not determined. The feeding
of the supplement could cause less forage to be consumed and thus
more would be available. It would seem practical to alter stocking
rates when nutritional treatments of this type are employed.
A summary of the changes in steer body measurements during
the prefeedlot year is shown in Table 4. In all cases, except for
the height of chest floor, the measurements showed larger increases
for the supplemented groups than for the non-supplemented steers.
These differences, favoring supplementation, were all highly signif-
icant. Groups supplemented in two quarters of the year generally
showed a greater increase in the size of the measurements than
did the group receiving the supplement for only one quarter.

Table 4.- Average Change in Body Measurements of Steers During the Pre-
feedlot Year by Nutritional Treatments in Centimeters.t

Initial Increase

Measurement 1959-60 1960-61 1959-60 1960-61 Average

Height at withers
Group 1 99.9 93.8 6.9 10.3 8.5
Group 2 99.3 92.3 9.8 11.7 10.8
Group 3 98.7 92.8 10.5 13.4 12.0
Group 4 99.9 94.3 9.8 13.0 11.3
Height at chest
Group 1 48.6 46.5 2.9 1.2 2.1
Group 2 50.2 45.3 0.5 1.9 1.7
Group 3 49.4 44.7 2.6 1.9 2.3
Group 4 50.6 46.5 1.8 2.2 2.0
Height at hooks
Group 1 106.1 96.9 4.2 9.3 6.8
Group 2 106.6 94.6 6.5 11.9 9.2
Group 3 104.2 94.7 8.7 12.6 10.7
Group 4 105.8 96.6 9.1 12.3 10.6
Width at hooks
Group 1 31.4 29.8 3.8 8.0 5.9
Group 2 31.2 30.1 5.4 8.7 7.1
Group 3 30.0 29.9 6.9 9.0 8.0
Group 4 30.1 29.8 7.9 8.8 8.3
Length of body
Group 1 120.1 115.1 13.5 20.8 17.3
Group 2 117.1 116.6 21.3 21.1 21.3
Group 3 117.3 116.8 17.5 22.6 20.1
Group 4 116.3 117.6 19.6 21.8 20.8

t 2.54 centimeters = 1 inch.
t Group number refers to experimental treatment. Group 1 = pasture only; Group
2 = supplemented in first quarter; Group 3 = supplemented in first and second
quarters; and Group 4 = supplemented in first and fourth quarters.

12 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

These data indicate that the nutritional treatments of this study
also affected the actual skeletal growth of the steers as well as
improving weight gains.

Feedlot Period
The animals from the different prefeedlot treatments that were
finished were not kept in original treatment groups but were
uniformly distributed within each of the drylots. The groups were
provided with an average of 10 pounds of a concentrate mixture
per head daily and all of the corn silage they could consume for
105 days, and then sold on the basis of carcass grades. The feed-
lot treatments were the same for the steers obtained from each of
the three years.
A summary of the gains and final market values of the steers
that were finished is shown by treatments in Table 5, while Appen-
dix Table B presents data for each year. The non-supplemented
groups weighed less, when going into the feedlot, than the pre-
viously supplemented groups. Therefore, they were also the lightest
groups at slaughter, since feedlot gains were practically the same
for all groups. This weight difference influenced the market value
of the carcasses, which was based on both weight and grade. At
slaughter, carcass grades for the third year were not as high as
those obtained in the previous two years.
The data from the three fattening periods combined, shown in
Table 5, indicate that the steers supplemented in the first and
second quarters of the prefeedlot year gained the most in the
fattening period (226 pounds). This group also showed a slightly
greater improvement in grade than the other treatment groups
(2.9). The average carcass value of steers from this group was
$199.00 compared to $180.32, $198.19, and $193.39 for carcasses
from groups 1, 2, and 4, respectively. However, when adjusted for
differences in initial weight,4 the carcass values for the four groups,
respectively, were $180.32, $199.74, $204.52, and $194.05. Values
were adjusted to compensate for initial group weight differences
so that the lighter weight groups would not be penalized in the
final results.
When the cost of the feed used during the prefeedlot period
was deducted from the adjusted market value of the carcasses, the
"The process of selecting and handling the steers going into the feedlot
resulted in a relative difference in weight compared to the control group of
-7 pounds for steers supplemented in the first quarter, -25 pounds supple-
mented in the first and second quarters, and -3 pounds supplemented in the
first and fourth quarters.

Feeding Limited Concentrate to Steers 13

Table 5.-Feedlot Performance of Steers on the basis of Prefeedlot Treat-

Prefeedlot Supplementation

Item 1st & 1st &
None 1st Qtr. 2nd Qtr. 4th Qtr.

Number of steers 30 30 30 30
Total gain (lbs.) 210 218 226 206
Daily gain (lbs.) 2.00 2.07 2.15 1.96
Slaughter grade t
Initial 6.1 6.7 6.5 6.9
Final 8.7 9.4 9.4 9.0
Increase 2.6 2.7 2.9 2.1
Dressing percentage 58.04 59.33 58.79 59.31
Carcass value I
per cwt. ($) 39.03 39.41 39.25 39.15
per head ($) 180.32 198.19 199.00 193.39
Adj. for init. wt. diff. ($) 1.55 5.52 0.66
Adjusted value per head ($) 180.32 199.74 204.52 194.05
Prefeedlot feed cost 11.94 19.31 18.32
Net value ($) 180.32 187.80 185.21 175.73
Returns from supplementation ($) 7.48 4.89 -4.59

t Slaughter grade: 6, 7, 8 = LOW, MEDIUM, and HIGH STANDARD; 9, 10, and
Initial grade by a University committee and final grades by federal meat graders.
$ Values based on those actually obtained from commercial packers in south Florida.
Differences in average weight of 10 steers due to selection and handling compared
to control groups: supplemented in first quarter = 7 pounds; supplemented in
first and second quarters = 25 pounds; supplemented in first and fourth
quarters = 3 pounds.

economic advantages of treatments shifted. The return per head
from supplementation was $7.48 from group 2, $4.89 from group
3, and -$4.59 from group 4.
The results from the feedlot phase might have presented a more
accurate evaluation of the effects of the prefeedlot treatments if
the steers from the various groups had been fattened as separate
groups. This would have allowed for a more accurate comparison
of feed efficiency and assured a more constant intake of feed by
steers within groups. However, facilities prevented the employ-
ment of this procedure in the feedlot. Therefore, limitation of the
fattening procedure must be considered when analyzing this phase
of the data.

14 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

In three consecutive years, groups of 80 yearling steers were
used to study the effects of supplementing pasture grazing during
certain quarters of the prefeedlot year. The pasture supplement
consisted of limited amounts of concentrate mixture supplied in the
first, second, or fourth quarters and combinations of these treat-
ments. Each test period was approximately a year's duration prior
to finishing the steers in drylot. Data presented include weight
changes, market grades, and economic aspects of the prefeedlot
Steers not supplemented gained an average of 215 pounds
during the prefeedlot year compared to 278, 308, and 288 pounds
for steers supplemented in the first quarter, first and second
quarters, or first and fourth quarters, respectively. A combination
of final feeder grades and live weights indicated that supplementa-
tion in the first and second quarters had the highest value. When
the cost of the supplement was deducted from the market values,
the steers in this treatment produced the highest net returns
during the prefeedlot year. When the steers later finished the
feedlot period, the group that had been previously supplemented
in the first quarter only yielded the highest net returns. Thus, it
was financially advantageous to supplement yearling steers on
pasture in the prefeedlot year with limited amounts of a concen-
trate mixture.
The study also showed that pasture supplementation increased
the skeletal growth of yearling steers to a significant extent.

Appendix Table A.- Average Quarterly Gains, Market Grades, and Final Value of Stocker Steers by Year of Study.

Prefeedlot Supplementation

Item None 1st Qtr. 1st & 2nd Qtr. 1st & 4th Qtr.

1959 1960 1961 1959 1960 1961 1959 1960 1961 1959 1960 1961

Steers per year 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 19 20 20 20 20 8
Steers per treatment 60 60 59 60
1st qtr.-yearly (lbs.) -2 69 -29 54 114 52 65 107 47 57 104 46
average (Ibs.) 13 73 73 69
2nd qtr.-yearly (lbs.) -30 76 80 -28 75 92 13 123 125 -41 90 87
average (lbs.) 42 46 87 45
3rd qtr.-yearly (lbs.) 124 84 169 112 106 150 101 65 159 114 89 138
average (Ibs.) 125 123 108 114
4th qtr.-yearly (lbs.) 54 42 8 75 18 16 76 41 3 104 59 16
average (lbs.) 35 36 40 60
Total by year (lbs.) 146 271 228 212 313 309 255 336 334 234 342 287
Treatment average (lbs.) 215 278 308 288
Average feeder grade to
Initial-yearly 9.7 9.3 9.2 9.2 9.0 9.1 9.6 9.0 9.2 9.7 9.0 9.0
average 9.4 9.1 9.3 9.3
Final-yearly 9.1 10.1 9.9 9.2 10.1 10.4 9.7 10.2 10.7 9.4 10.6 10.2
average 9.7 9.9 10.2 10.1
Value per cwt. ($)t 18.35 20.25 23.40 18.49 20.37 23.90 19.20 20.48 24.20 18.78 20.95 23.76
20.91 21.16 21.52 21.32

t Feeder Grade: 9, 10, and 11 = LOW, MEDIUM, and HIGH GOOD.
$ Determined by feeder grade and actual market values as set forth in Table 2.
Weighted by average final weight of steers. C0

Appendix Table B.- Average Feedlot Gains, Slaughter Grades, and Market Values of Steers from Different Prefeedlot Treat- -
ments by Year of Study.

Prefeedlot Supplementation

Item None 1st Qtr. 1st & 2nd Qtr. 1st & 4th Qtr.

1959 1960 1961 1959 1960 1961 1959 1960 1961 1959 1960 1961

Number of steers 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Treatment 30 30 30 30
Total feedlot gain (lbs.) 229 215 187 217 207 230 207 223 248 189 204 224
Treatment average (lbs.) 210 218 226 206
Feedlot daily gain (lbs.) 2.18 2.04 1.78 2.06 1.97 2.19 1.97 2.12 2.36 1.80 1.94 2.13 H
Treatment average (lbs.) 2.00 2.07 2.15 1.96
Initial slaughter grade t 5.6 6.6 6.1 5.9 6.8 7.5 6.2 6.3 7.0 6.5 7.3 7.0
Treatment average 6.1 6.7 6.5 6.9
Final slaughter grade t 8.7 9.6 7.8 9.2 10.6 8.4 9.0 10.3 8.8 8.6 10.0 8.3
Treatment average 8.7 9.4 9.4 9.0
Increase in market grade 3.1 3.0 1.7 3.3 3.8 0.9 2.8 4.0 1.8 2.1 2.7 1.3
Treatment average 2.6 2.7 2.9 2.0
Final market value
of steers ($) 171.77 173.23 195.97 189.80 185.06 219.70 189.24 183.45 224.33 180.74 183.13 216.31 "
Treatment average ($) 180.32 198.19 199.00 193.39
Cost of prefeedlot
supplement ($) 10.46 12.24 13.11 17.37 19.68 20.89 18.00 19.76 17.21
Treatment average ($) -11.94 19.31 18.32

t Grade: 6, 7, and 8 = LOW, MEDIUM, and HIGH STANDARD; 9, 10, and 11 = LOW, MEDIUM and HIGH GOOD.

Feeding Limited Concentrate to Steers- 17


1. Allen, R. J., Jr. Summarization of grazing trial experiments. Everglades
Station Mimeo 57-11. 1957.
2. Cunha, T. J. Special problems of life cycle feeding for beef cattle in the
Southeast. Feeds Illustrated 15:16. 1964.
3. Forsee, W. T., Jr. Everglades Station. Fla. Annual Rept. Page 238. 1962.
4. Haines, C. E. and H. L. Chapman, Jr. Results of grazing experiments
with yearling calves on four major pasture grasses of the Everglades for
one year. Everglades Station Mimeo 60-16. 1960.
5. Hogan, A. G. Retarded growth and mature size of beef steers. Mo. Agr.
Exp. Sta. Res. Bul. 123. 1929.
6. Kidder, R. W. Feeding steers from weaning to feedlot. Everglades
Station Mimeo 57-9. 1956.
7. LeClerg, E. L. Mean separation by the functional analysis of variance
and multiple comparison. ARS 203 (processed). USDA, Washington
25, D.C. May, 1957.
8. McCall, Ralph. Growth period nutrition to prepare beef cattle for feed-
lot fattening. Feeds Illustrated 15:13. 1964.
9. Morrison, F. B. Feeds and Feeding. The Morrison Publishing Co. Ith-
aca, N.Y. 22nd ed. 1957.
10. Winchester, C. F., R. L. Hiner, and V. C. Scarborough. Some effects on
beef cattle of protein and energy restriction. J. Animal Sci. 16:426. 1957.

University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs