LIVESTOCK FEED REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DESIGN OF
MATERIALS HANDLING SYSTEMS

Thesis for Ike Degree of M. 5.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
Patrick Joseph Comerford
1963

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

LIVESTOCK FEED REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DESIGN OF
MATERIALS HANDLING SYSTEMS

presented bg

Patrick Joseph Comerford

has been accepted towards fulfillment

of the requirements for

M.S. degree in AgriCUItural MeChaniCS

 

 

Major professor
Date / ' T ‘3‘, j"; l” «V

0-1'69

 

LIBRARY“L

Michigan State
University

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

LIVESTOCK.FEED REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DESIGN OF
MATERIALS HANDLING SYSTEMS

by Patrick Joseph Comerford

The design of materials handling systems is a relatively new
area in Agricultural Engineering. In it the designer must combine his
engineering skill with a thorough knowledge of animal feed require-
ments to produce a satisfactory system for conveying, processing, and
storing feeds and other materials on the farm. A preliminary investi-
gation into the nature of these requirements revealed that it waS‘
essential to know the yearly and maximum daily feed consumptions of
these animals; this information was not available in a readily usable
form. It was the object of the present investigation to extract the
information on these requirements from the available data on animal
feeding, and to add to it allowances for eventualities such as varia-
tions in feed composition and availability, changes in animal appetite,
etc., so that a system, designed in accordance with the recommenda-
tions would be adequate under all conditions, but not excessively
large.

The feed requirements of dairy cattle, swine, sheep, beef cattle,
and poultry were calculated on a nutrient requirement basis and com-
pared with actual feed intakes obtained from results on feeding trials
on similar animals. It was found that they usually ate more feed than
they needed to meet their nutrient requirements, but the amount was
influenced by factors such as, palatability and dry matter content of
the feed, animal type, and system of managementt Throughout the in-

vestigation it was assumed that animals were on artificial feeding

Patrick Joseph Comerford

continually. This assumption simplified the calculations and avoided
having to estimate the number of days the animal was able to forage
for itself. It is more appropriate that these allowances should be
made by the individual when studying actual conditions. Typical rations
were selected for each animal group and balanced for protein (minor
elements and vitamins were not taken into account as they were only
needed in small quantities and did not constitute a storage or handling
problem). '

After the quantities of feeds required were decided, the type
of management, amount of flexibility required in the system, and pos-
sible future trends were examined, to decide how much Of a safety
margin to add on for design purposes. This margin was found to.
vary from 10% when management was good and the feed was all grain, to
more than 20% where roughages constituted part of the ration.

No consideration was given to estimates of water requirements

or animal manure.

Approved fZ/M

LIVESTOCK FEED REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DESIGN OF

MATERIALS HANDLING SYSTEMS

By

Patrick Joseph Comerford

A THESIS
Submitted to the College of Agriculture of Michigan
State University of Agriculture and Applied
Science in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Agricultural Engineering

1963

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance and encourage-
ment received from his major professor Dr. F. H. Buelow of the
Agricultural Engineering Department and the other members of his
guidance committee, Drs. L. D. Brown of the Dairy Department and
J. H. Stapleton of the Statistics Department. He is also deeply in-
debted to Drs. D. Hillman, W. J. Thomas, and C. F. Huffman of the
Dairy Department, Dr. P. J. Schaible of the Poultry Science Depart-
ment, Drs. L. H. Blakeslee and H. W. Newland of the Animal Husbandry
Department, Dr. C. R. Hoglund of the Agricultural Economics Department
and Dr. C. W. Hall of the Agricultural Engineering Department who gave
freely of their time in counselling and later in proof reading this
manuscript.

Sincere appreciation is also due to The W. K. Kellogg Founda-
tion for their fellowship which supplied the financial support that
made it possible for the author to come to America and undertake
this work; and to the Director and Council of An Foras Taluntais who
nominated him for the award.

Last but not least, the writer wishes to express deepest
gratitude to his wife and children for their constant encouragement

and patience throughout the entire period.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .
REVIEW OF LITERATURE .

PROCEDURE

FEED REQUIREMENTS OF DAIRY cows
FEED REQUIREMENTS OF SWINE .

FEED REQUIREMENTS OF SHEEP .

FEED REQUIREMENTS OF BEEF CATTLE .
FEED REQUIREMENTS OF POULTRY .
SUMMARY

SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY .
REFERENCES .

APPENDIX .

iii

Page

33
44
56
62
74
79
so

84

Table

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

LIST OF TABLES

Daily Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle .
Daily Nutrient Requirements for Milk Production .

Effect of Date of Cutting on Consumption of Hay
by Dairy Cows

Amount of Dry Matter Consumed by Dairy Cows When Fed
Silages Having Different Dry Matter Contents

Summary of Feeding Trials with Dairy Cows

Estimated Feed Requirements of Holstein Cows Greater
Than Three Years of Age .

Grain Intake by Dairy Cows for Maximum Economic
Returns

Feed Requirements of Holstein Heifers (Birth to
24 Months)

Production Requirements of Growing and Finishing Pigs

Incremental Feed Consumption of "Meat" and "Bacon"
Type Pigs

Proportions of Energy and Protein Feeds Required by
Pigs of Various Weights When Fed Different Rations

Basic Nutrient Requirements of Breeding Pigs

Pounds of Feed Consumed by Breeding Animals From
Conception to Weaning .

Feed Consumed by Pigs Fed in Dry-lot From 40 to
215 Pounds Under Various Degrees of Management

Daily Nutrient Requirements of Sheep

Daily Feed Requirements of Breeding Ewes

iv

Page

10

14

29

30

34

34

39

41

41

42
44

47

Table

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

LIST OF TABLES--Continued

Handy Ewe Feeding Guide .
Summary of Feeding Experiments on Feeder Lambs,
Including Estimates of Maximum Daily Feed

Requirements

Effect of Age on the Amount of Feed Needed by
Beef Cattle to Attain "Choice" Condition

Feed Requirements for Medium 850-lb. Two-year-old

Steers Fed to Good Choice 1200-1b. Slaughter Steers .

Daily Feed Consumed by Fattening Calves at Various
Stages of Growth

Daily Protein Requirements of Feeder Cattle .

Page

48

51

57

58

60

61

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Lactation Curves for Holstein, Guernsey, and Jersey
Cows With Various Milk Production Capabilities . . . . 17

2. Crude Protein Required in Meal-mix for 1200 lb. Dairy
Cows When Roughages are Fed at the Rate of 16 lb.
Hay Equivalent per Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l9

3. Crude Protein Required in Meal-mix for 1200 lb. Dairy
Cows When Roughages are Fed at the Rate of 20 lb.
Hay Equivalent per Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

4. Crude Protein Required in Meal-mix for 1200 lb. Dairy
Cows When Roughages are Fed at the Rate of 24 lb.
Hay Equivalent per Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

5. Crude Protein Required in Meal-mix for 1200 lb. Dairy
Cows When Roughages are Fed at the Rate of 28 1b.
Hay Equivalent per Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

6. Crude Protein Required in Meal-mix for 1200 lb. Dairy
Cows When Roughages are Fed at the Rate of 32 lb.
Hay Equivalent per Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

7. Crude Protein Required in Meal-mix for 1200 lb. Dairy
Cows When Roughages are Fed at the Rate of 36 lb.
Hay Equivalent per Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

8. Estimated Feed Consumption of Holstein Cows Over
3 Years of Age When Yielding 8,000 and 10,000 lb.
of Milk per Lactation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

9. Estimated Feed Consumption of Holstein Cows Over
3 Years of Age When Yielding 12,000 and 14,000 lb.
of Milk per Lactation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

10. Estimated Feed Consumption of Holstein Cows Over
2 Years of Age When Yielding 16,000 and 20,000 lb.

of Milk per Lactation . 26

vi

Figure

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

LIST OF FIGURES--Continued

Net Income for a 65-cow Dairy Farm, Two Qualities
of Forage and Two Levels of Milk Production,
Holstein Cows with Basic Producing Abilities of
10,000 and 13,500 lb. of 3.5% Milk per Lactation

Weight Gain and Feed Intake of Growing and
Finishing Swine .

Carbohydrate and Protein Feeds Consumed by Pigs,
From Weaning at 40 1b. to Slaughter at 220 1b.,
Using a Ration of Corn (9.3% Crude Protein) and
Protein Supplement (38.75% Crude Protein) . .

Carbohydrate and Protein Feeds Consumed by Pigs
From Weaning at 40 lb. to Slaughter at 220 1b.,
Using a Ration of Corn (9.3% Crude Protein) and
Protein Supplement (38.75% Crude Protein) .

Daily Feed Requirements of Calves, Yearlings, and
Two-year-olds at Various Stages of Fattening
(Feeding Commenced When Animals Were in a Thin
or "Feeder" Condition)

Yearly Feed Consumption of Laying Hens

Daily Feed Consumption per 100 Laying Birds .

Nomograph for Determining the Total Feed Consumption
of Laying Hens of Various Weights and Production

Levels

A Body Weight and Feed Consumption of Broiler
Chickens at Various Ages

Cumulative Feed Consumption of Laying-flock
Replacement Chickens

Efficiency of Feed Utilization of Beltsville
Small White Turkeys from Birth to Market

Efficiency of Feed Utilization of Broad Breasted
Bronze Turkeys from Birth to Market .

vii

Page

28

35

37

38

59

63

63

65

67

68

71

71

INTRODUCTION

Although the term "materials handling" is of recent origin the
problems associated with it are by no means new. From the time farmers
ceased to be nomads they have had to contend with the difficulties of
getting their crops harvested, stored, and fed to their animals. Be-
fore the advent Of "high-powered" farming, farmers worked on a small
scale and labor was cheap. Under these conditions the handling and
storage of feed needed no special attention, as field operations were
slow and no farmer had considered an alternative to hand feeding animals.
With the advent of increased mechanization in industry, came increased
prosperity and higher wages for employees; soon agriculture was fighting
a losing battle with industry for its labor force. About this time
farmers began to give serious consideration to mechanization on the
farm. The first problems to receive attention were the ones which
demanded the greatest labor concentration, particularly field cultiva-
tion and harvesting. Gradually engineers developed machines which not
only replaced the workers but could do the same work better, and in
only a fractiOn of the original time. While machines continued to be
developed for the farm, very little attention was given to mechaniza-
tion in the farmyard and soon facilities were inadequate to meet the
high outputs of harvesting machines. In addition, farming had become
more intensive over the years and much emphasis had been placed on
confinement feeding Of all types of animals. These conditions set up
the need for immediate investigation into the problems of handling and
processing the material from harvesting, through processing and storage,
to the animals. ’

Because of the immense variations in feeds and farmsteads and
the innumerable combinations Of feed given to animals, no two materials
handling problems are exactly alike. The present-day problems associated
with materials handling are no longer the lack of equipment to handle,

1

2

Store, or process the feed but the estimation of the type and size of
equipment to use and the design of a system such that all components
combine to give a free-flowing system without "bottle-necks" at an
economic cost.. This involves, among other things, a thorough know-
.1edge of the material being handled and the feed consumption capacities
of the animals. When designing a materials handling system, one must
know both the yearly and maximum daily requirements of the animal in
order to estimate the Storage and maximum conveying capacities required.
To date the only reliable information available on these requirements
are contained in the results Of animal feeding experiments reported
throughout the country. These figures vary considerably, depending on
the conditions under which the tests were carried out and the type of
feed used. In addition, very few experiments are set up specifically
to test the maximum feed capacity of animals, so some interpretation

is needed in order to extract reliable data. Even when the data have
been obtained, adequate safety factors must be added when specifying
equipment sizes to take care Of year-to-year variations in feed intake
and availability.

Materials handling system design is a relatively new field in
agriculture and every effort must be made to provide additional informa-
tion to speed the day when the services of a well informed materials
handling advisory service will be available to all farmers. Farming
is no longer a leisurely occupation but a well organized bUSiness.
Industrial managers have seen the need for plant designers and effi-
ciency experts in industry for many years; now agricultural managers
require the same type of expert service.

The object of this study was to investigate as much literature
on animal and poultry feeding as possible and to extract from it their
feed intake characteristics under a variety of conditions. The data
thus obtained was to be presented in such a way that it could be
readily used by farm design engineers when designing materials handling
systems under different conditions. It was hoped to bridge the gap be-

tween the design engineer and the animal nutritionist.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

No known literature is available on the specific problem of
estimating feed requirements of animals from a materials handling point
of view. Most literature reviewed had as its main objective the ‘
examination of the effect of different types of feed on the animal's
growth and production from a strictly nutritional point of view. Since
the entire purpose of the present study is to examine this literature
and extract from it material of use in estimating materials handling
design parameters,it is more appropriate to review the literature in
its respective section. The data compiled by Schneider (1947) on feed
analyses were the most extensive for calculations involving nutrient
contents of feeds. However, the analyses presented by Morrison (1956)
and the National Research Council (1957) were adequate for common feeds.
The data presented by Ensminger (1961) and the Editorial Service Co.

Inc. (1959) on feed densities were used for estimating volumes of feeds.

PROCEDURE

The literature was first reviewed and useful data extracted.
For most sections of this study the animal's requirements were first
calculated from data giving net nutrient requirements for animals of
different sizes and types. Following this the results of actual
feeding trials for animals of similar type were presented and the dif-
ferences in feed requirements noted. In a final discussion on materials
handling requirements for these animals an attempt was made to present
the factors which influenced the amount of feed actually required and
suggestions were made as to the size of safety margin necessary to
avoid underestimating the capacity requirements of handling, storing,

and processing equipment.

FEED REQUIREMENTS OF DAIRY CATTLE

Nutrient Requirements

 

The nutrient requirements of dairy cattle may be considered
under two main headings--maintenance and production. The requirement
for maintenance is that needed by the animal to supply energy for
normal activities and to replace wear and tear of the body. Main-
tenance requirements are closely associated with body weight.

The nutrient requirements for production are those which the
animal needs to synthesize the milk which it produces. These are nor-
mally estimated on the weight of milk being produced, but accurate
requirements are governed by many factors.

In addition to the nutrient requirements for lactating cows,
those for growing and pregnant animals are also available. The National
Research Council (1958) recommendations on basic nutrient requirements
of dairy animals are reproduced in Table 1,whi1e Table 2 presents the
findings of recent investigations by Reid (1961) on requirements for
milk production at various levels. When using these tables one should
remember that the quantities quoted are net requirements. A safety
margin of 5 to 10 percent above these figures is recommended, to pro-

vide for unknown variables.

Practical Limitations to Estimating Daily Feed Consumption
From Nutrient Requirements

From what has been said in the previous section it is apparent
that, to meet the exact requirements, the animal must be fed accurately
measured quantities of feed, the composition of which is equally as
accurately known. Experience shows that such is seldom the case and
that at least one feed is fed ad libitum. Under these conditions there
is no guarantee that the animal will eat just the exact amount to meet

5

IallAZfiit

6

TABLE 1

DAILY NUTRIENT REQUIREMENTS OF DAIRY CATTLE
(From National Research Council publication 464. 1958)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Daily Gain Daily Nutrients Per Animal

Body Small Large . . . . a
Weight .Breeds Breeds Crude Protein Digestible Protein T.D.N.
lb. 1b. 1b. 1b. lb.

Normal Growth of Dairy Heifers
50 0.5 - 0.31 0.20 1.0
100 1.0 0.8 0.62 0.40 2.0
150 1.3 1.4 0.78 0.50 3.0
200 1.4 1.6 0.94 0.60 4.0
400 1.2 1.8 1.25 0.80 6.5
600 0.8 1.4 1.33 0.85 8.5
800 1.1 1.2 1.40 0.90 10.0
1000 - 1.3 1.48 0.95 11.0
1200 - 1.2 1.56 1.00 12.0
Maintenance of Mature Cowsb
800 - - 0.95 0.50 6.0
1000 - - 1.13 0.60 7.0
1200 - - 1.32 0.70 8.0
1400 - - 1.51 0.80 9.0
1600 - - 1.64 0.87 10.0
Reproduction (Add to Maintenance, last 2-3 months)
- -2.0 2.0 1.13 0.60 6.0
Maintenance of Breeding Bulls

1200 - - 1.56 1.00 10.3
1600 - - 1.87 1.20 12.9
2000 - - 2.20 1.45 15.6
2400 - - 2.50 1.60 18.2

aT.D.N.--Abbreviation for Total Digestible Nutrients.

bWhen calculating the intake of lactating heifers that are still
growing, it is recommended that one use the figurasfor growth rather
than maintenance.‘.

7

TABLE 2

DAILY NUTRIENT REQUIREMENTS FOR MILK PRODUCTION
.(From Reid 1961)

 

 

 

 

 

Milk Yield (4% F.c.M a) Proteinb Dig. Proteinb T.D N.
1b. 1b. 1b. lb.
0 - 10 .067 .043 0.30

11 - 20 .068 .044 0.31
21 - 30 .070 .045 0.32
.31 - 40 .072 .047 0.33
41 - 50 .075 .049 0.35
51 - 60 .078 .052 0.37
61 - 70 .083 .055 0.40
71 - 80 .088 .058 0.43
81 - 90 .094 .062 0.47
91 - 100 .098 .065 0.53
a

F.C.M.--Abbreviation for Fat Converted Milk.

bBy interpolation. (Added by author.)

its immediate requirements. It may on the one hand eat much more than
is actually required, in which case the excess feed is usually converted
to body fat, or it may eat less than its requirements and have to draw
on body reserves or become under-productive. The amount of free-choice
feed eaten depends on such factors as palatability of feed, and confor-
mation, physical condition and age of the animal. These must all be
taken into account for accurately estimating the daily feed intake.
Variations in palatability are most frequently found in forage
feeds. Many factors may affect palatability. Stone EE.EL,(196O) re-
ported on the effect of time of cutting on dry matter intake of hay.

Table 3 presents a summary of their findings.

8

TABLE 3

EFFECT OF DATE OF CUTTING ON CONSUMPTION 0F HAY
BY DAIRY cows (From scone-51.; -~ §_1_ 1960)

 

 

Dry Matter Intake

Date of Cutting per 100 1b. Body-Weight

 

June 3 - 4 2.72
9 - 10 2.64

11 - 12 2.36

14 - 15 2.45

15 - 18 .2.28

July 1 2.30
5 2.13

7 - 8 2.05

9 1.95

 

Dry matter also affects intake. Table 4 has been compiled by
Thomas g£_al (1962) and gives the findings of many investigators when
comparing the voluntary intake of animals fed silage having different
dry matter percentages, and hay. A trend for high intake can be noted
in practically every comparison.

Thomas g£_al (1961) also concluded that some other undesirable
chemical factors in silage were contributing to the low voluntary intake

of direct cut Silages. This was further substantiated by Hillman (1959).

How Much Will a Cow Eat?

 

Because of the infinite variety of feeds available and the varied
conditions under which dairy cows are kept, much diversity exists among
published results. In addition, many of the workers were primarily
concerned with the effects of varying the quantity and quality of dif-
ferent feeds on the milk production, and gave no indication of the
actual limits of the animals feed intake. Table 5 presents a summary
of experiments carried out where total feed intake was measured, and

where at least one feed was Offered ad lib.

Roughages Only
Based on the data presented in Table 5, a 1200 lb. cow can be

10

 

 

S.mm ow.o ~.m a.6m 6a.o o.HH ESHH amass
6.Hh No.~ ~.m~ ma.w «.mm +66mmaum
ooL m6.~ o.6~ 6.a~ o.oa «.6oa coca mmwmaam
OOH m~.m n.5m ~.Hm am.m 66 mmma Raw:
n.66 mo.~ m.m~ 6.Em H6.N mN as:
a.mm so.a H.NH 66.4 An coda +66mmamm
Ameaav n.0m ms.a ma.oa ~.am OA.H mm mama Ram
caocm m.o6 ~6.a mm.mm Nm.6 m.o~ +mmwmaam
w.mm ma.o m.m H.om ma.o om okoH am:
N.wo ca.m ~.ma am.a Hm +66wmaam
ooH AN.N m.m~ 6.om H.0H mam mmaa mammaam
ooE mm.m o.H6 a.om «0.6 as mesa 6A6:
m.a6 wo.~ 6.6N o.am om.~ mm «has as:
m.om Hm.o a.oH ma.m as +amwmaam
Asmaav 6.om om.a 6.6H ~.aN Na.a as scam Ram
cmemaam «.ms a6.m ~.6H mm.m so +mmmmmam
6.0m mm.o a.w H.6N Sa.o ca coca am:
6.m6 ww.a m.mm H~.m am +66mmaam
ooE 66.N ~.6N 6.6N o.oa 6am maom mmwmaam
.aa .9H .8H .AH .aa .na
.z.a L6
o 6 EA . sfl
a “MA
Ema .z.n H6669 .z.o.m Ema SERDEH H6069 Ream

 

 

mzoo NMH<D mHHB mA<HMH UZHnmmm mo wm<zzam
m m4m<H

AamaHv
condonowz

11

Aomaav

Hm um anammsm

Ammaav

mm 06 amafiaam

aaomav
:3oum

MNQI'
Q’MN

NMQ’
I-fiNN

\Dc-tN

MO NI-tln

[\m \OCDVO NOCD v-I\'I"-n
{\N

\‘1'0 06' mm
In\‘l' OO‘ \OC‘O
wu—l [\N ”H

OCH
OCH

00H

«.cu
o.nm

O‘Olfi NMCD \‘I’MO
(no name \1’\D\O NGN

r-IO HOD v-lOO H00

l\

|'\

mm.o
mH.N
mm.o
oa.H
Nm.o
ww.H

SH.m
o¢.N

m¢.N
mn.o
mo.N

,4

Ha) <rr-tt\ tnx-rcm l-n\"|'e—t
Oxxo one «woo Nah
H

H

H

H.0m

N.wN

O.mN

o.mN

«.mm

N.¢m

m.Nm

o.mN

m.m~
«.wN

H.¢N
o.m~

Int-1N

Inl\ ~¢<nr\ ~o\or\ tm<3t\
r\<: socpca uwc>c> q-~1c>

mm Nfix‘l'

O

Ln<f

ww.N
ca.o

o.¢~

Int-l

O O

om m<rln doom ONw
[\h sons axon con

\D

l\

N.Nm
n.0H
o.m~

msqa

oHoH

ONoH

omoH

omoH

mHHH

mMaH
MNHH

mHHH
coda

ONHH
oaHH

cfimuu
+mowmawm

sauna
+ hum
+mowmawm

GHEHU
+ has
+66wmaam

awake
+ as:
+66waaam

cacao
+mmmmaam

awake
+mam=
:Hmuu
+mmmm
:Hmuu
+nmwmawm

MEAN:

mommafim

“Chg

awoke
+ummm

12

I! .\~ .s~.>-.-

 

 

6.66 66.6 6.6 66.6 6.6 66666
6.6 66.6 6.6 66.66 66.6 6.6 666 + 66:
6.66 66.6 6.66 66.6 6.66 +6666666
6.66 66.6 6.6 66.6 6.6 66666
6.66 66.6 6.6 66.66 66.6 6.6 666 + 66:
666666 6.66 66.6 6.66 66.6 6.66 +6666666
zwsm3
6.66 66.6 6.6 66.6 6.6 66666
6.66 66.6 6.6 6.66 6.6 6.6 666 + 666
6.66 66.6 6.66 66.6 6.66 +6666666
6.66 66.6 6.6 66.66 66.6 6.6 66666
6.66 66.6 6.66 66.6 6.66 666 +6666666
6.66 66.6 6.66 66.6 6.66 66666
6.66 66.6 6.66 6.66 66.6 6.66 6666 + 66m
6.66 66.6 6.66 66.6 6.66 +6666666
6.66 66.6 6.6 66.6 6.6 66666
. 6.66 66.6 6.66 6.66 66.6 6.66 6666 + 66:
. . . o . me H
A66666 6 66 66 6 6 66 66 6 6 66 +6 6.6
63666 6.66 66.6 6.6 66.6 6.6 66666
6.66 66.6 6.6 6.66 66.6 6.66 6666 + 66:
6.66 66.6 66.6 66.6 6.66 +6666666
6.66 66.6 6.66 6.66 66.6 6.66 6666 66666
6.66 66.6 6.66 66.6 6.66 +6666
.66 .66 .66 .66 .66 .66
.z.6 6o 6
. . ~A .
M6
666 .2.6 66666 .z.o.6 666 666666 66666 6666

 

 

vmdcfiucoonum mqm<9

13

 

666666
Odoum

666666.

ocoum

<f<f Om
ON 00‘
m N

o.am

o.mm

«.mq

m.H¢

Nu.o
mm.m
Nm.o
nm.~

.666 66 6666

6666 66666
+6666666

6666 66666
+666m

cwmuu

6666 +6666666
6666 66666

+666:

14

expected to consume an average of 112 1b. of silage or 41 1b. Of hay,
and provided these quantities contain sufficient protein, she should
produce 28 1b. of 4% F.C.M. per day without the addition of grain. If,
however, all the silage is made from corn, it will only contain suf-
ficient protein for 17 1b. of 4% F.C.M. Knowing these limits one can
reason that one pound of hay replaces 2.73 lb. of silage when some hay
is substituted into an all-Silage ration. It might be well to remember
that these quantities are actual amounts consumed and reflect the
appetite of the animal rather than its actual nutrient requirements.

In general more feed is consumed than is actually required. For animals
of other weights the necessary corrections for maintenance may be made

by reference to Table 1.

Roughages plus Grain

As has just been pointed out, cows fed only roughages are re-
stricted in output. To meet the requirements of the higher producing
animals some of the bulky roughages must be replaced by more concen-
trated grain. Table 6 presents the annual feed requirements in grain
and hay equivalents of high and low yielding Holstein cows as compiled
from Tables 1 and 2.

TABLE 6

ESTIMATED FEED REQUIREMENTS OF HOLSTEIN COWS
GREATER THAN 3 YEARS OF AGE

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lactation Dry Period Total
Annual
Production Hay . Hay Hay
Equivalent Grain Equivalent Grain Equivalent Grain
1b. milk tons tons tons tons tons tons
8,000 2.44 2.00 0.66 0.17 3.10 2.17
3.05 1.58 0.66 0.17 3.71 1.75
3.66 1.16 0.66 0.17 4.32 1.33
4.27 0.77 0.66 0.17 4.93 0.94
4.88 0.44 0.66 0.17 5.54 0.61
5.49 0.17 0.66 0.17 6.15 0.34
10,000 2.44 2.50 0.66 0.17 3.10 2.67
3.05 2.08 0.66 0.17 3.71 2.25

TABLE 6--Continued

15

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lactation Dry Period Total
Annual

Production Hay . Hay . Hay .
Equivalent Grain Equivalent Grain Equivalent Grain

1b. milk tons tons_ tons tons tons tons
3.66 1.66 0.66 0.17 4.32 1.83

4.27 1.24 0.66 0.17 4.93 1.41

4.88 0.88 0.66 0.17 5.54 1.05

5.49 0.51 0.66 0.17 6.15 0.68

12,000 2.44 3.00 0.66 0.17 3.10 3.17
3.05 2.58 0.66 0.17 3.71 2.75

3.66 2.16 0.66 0.17 4.32 2.33

4.51 1.74 0.66 0.17 4.93 1.91

4.88 1.32 0.66 0.17 5.54 1.49

5.49 0.97 0.66 0.17 6.15 1.14

14,000 2.44 3.50 0.66 0.17 3.10 3.67
3.05 3.08 0.66 0.17 3.71 3.25

3.66 2.66 0.66 0.17 4.32 2.83

4.27 2.24 0.66 0.17 4.93 2.41

4.88 1.82 0.66 0.17 5.54 1.99

5.49 1.40 0.66 0.17 6.15 1.57

16,000 2.44 4.00 0.66 0.17 3.10 4.17
3.05 3.58 0.66 0.17 3.71 3.75

3.66 3.16 0.66 0.17 4.32 3.33

4.27 2.74 0.66 0.17 4.93 2.91

4.88 2.32 0.66 0.17 5.54 2.49

5.49 1.90 0.66 0.17 6.15 2.07

18,000 2.44 4.50 0.66 0.17 3.10 4.67
3.05 4.08 0.66 0.17 3.71 4.25

3.66 3.66 0.66 0.17 4.32 3.83

4.27 3.24 0.66 0.17 4.93 3.41

4.88 2.82 0.66 0.17 5.54 2.99

5.49 2.40 0.66 0.17 6.15 2.57

20,000 2.44 5.00 0.66 0.17 3.10 5.17
3.05 4.58 0.66 0.17 3.71 4.75

3.66 4.16 0.66 0.17 4.32 4.33

4.27 3.74 0.66 0.17 4.93 3.91

4.88 3.32 0.66 0.17 5.54 3.49

5.49 2.90 0.66 0.17 6.15 3.07

 

16

The lactation requirements have been arrived at by increasing
the hay equivalent in the ration by increments of four pounds per day
and calculating the grain required to supply the remaining nutrients.
Assuming a T.D.N. value of 50% for the hay equivalent, 16 pounds of hay
is sufficient only to maintain the cow, so grain must be added for each
pound of milk produced. Assuming that grain contain 72% T.D.N. and
that the average T.D.N. requirement per gallon of milk produced is
0.36 1b., one pound of grain must be fed for each two pounds of milk
produced. Similarly 20 1b. of hay equivalent contains sufficient T.D.N.
for maintenance and 5-1/2 pounds of milk, so one pound of grain must be
added for each two 1b. produced in excess Of this quantity. By reference
to lactation curves (Fig. 1) produced from data calculated by McGilliard
(undated) it was possible to determine the monthly meal requirements
for different breeds, having various production levels.

The requirements during the dry period were determined on the
basis that grain feeding was discontinued (where grain was being fed)
immediately after the cow was put dry, and only roughages, consisting
of some hay and corn silage were fed. Grain was again introduced about
3 weeks before calving and the daily ration was increased by 2 1b.
daily until 20 1b. were being consumed daily. The cow was maintained
on this level of feeding until she calved. This system of feeding
should be used irrespective of whether or not the cow is a poor yielder
as it provides a good start to her lactation and encourages higher
yields.

It might be pointed out here that the estimates of animal needs
to this point have been based on T.D.N. requirements only. When poor
quality roughages are fed in large quantities they do not contain suf-
ficient protein to produce as much milk as their T.D.N. value would
suggest, hence a grain supplement must be fed sooner than would other-
wise be necessary. A more complete discussion of this aspect is
presented in the following section.

The data presented in Table 6 are for Holstein cows over 3 years
of age. Similar data may be prepared for other animal groups by refer-
ence to Fig. l and Tables 1 and 2. Generally the requirements for each

group differ very little after allowances have been made for differences

Milk production per day. (pounds)

cows with various milk production capabilities.

90

 

 

 

Guernsey and Jersey cows under 3 years of age ~

I 1 I 1 l J t l l

 

 

20 Thousand pounds of milk per 4
lactation

 

 

 

 

 

Holstein cows over 3 years of age ~

I I L l J 1 1 J n

 

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Months after Freshening

Fig. l.--Lactation curves for Holstein, Guernsey, and Jersey

(From data compiled

by McGilliard, undated.)

18

in body weight. In preparing this table the roughages were calculated
in hay equivalents on the assumption that 3 1b. of silage were equal

to one pound of "Hay Equivalent." For high quality Silages with higher
dry matter a more realistic approximation is 2-1/2 1b. silage equal to I
1 1b. hay equivalent, and for haylage 2 1b. equal to 1 1b. hay equiva-
lent.

Balancing the Feeds for Protein

In many instances the roughages are low in protein, so supple-
ments must be added to the grain ration to bring the protein up to the
required amount. If grain is fed at the rate of one pound per 2 pounds
of milk produced above that which the T.D.N. in roughage will support,
the following formula can be used to estimate the percentage protein
required in the meal mix to balance the ration:

(M+P-R)2
Y - (w - 16)1.375

 

Protein percentage in grain mix = X 100

Where:

Daily protein requirements for maintenance (1b.).
Pounds of protein supplied by roughage daily.
Pounds of milk produced per cow daily.

Weight of "Hay Equivalent" consumed daily.

Daily milk yield (1b.).

KNEW-02H!
n

In arriving at this formula, T.D.N. values were assumed for the
roughages such that 16 1b. of Hay Equivalent supplied just enough
energy for maintenance. If the numerator in the above formula is a
negative quantity, the roughages are supplying adequate protein without
including any in the grain. If the denominator is negative the amount
of grain fed cannot supply sufficient protein.

Using this formula curves were prepared (Figs.2-7) which illuStrate
the trends in protein content of grains when good, medium, and poor
quality roughages were fed. Notice that all curves approach a limit of
about 15%. This can be explained by pointing out that the calculations
are based on a crude protein requirement of .076 lb. per pound of milk
produced. When it is realized that grain is being fed at the rate of
one pound per 2 pounds of milk produced it becomes obvious that a 15.2%
grain mix supplies exactly the required amount of protein for that

amount of milk. With high quality hay (curve A) it can be seen that

19

 

A. Roughages = 16 1b. Alfalfa Hay/day.
B. Roughages = 8 1b. Alfalfa Hay + 24 1b.
Corn Silage per day.
30 ' C. Roughages = 48 lb. Corn Silage per day.‘

20:- ‘ '-

 

 

 

Percentage Crude Protein

 

I I 1 l I j I I J I

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Pounds Milk Produced per Day

 

 

 

Fig, 2.--Crude protein required in meal-mix for 1200 lb. dairy
cows when roughages are fed at the rate of 16 1b. Hay Equivalent per
day.

 

I ' I I F F I I r I

A. Roughages
B. Roughates

20 1b. Alfalfa Hay per day.
10 1b. Alfalfa Hay + 30 1b.
Corn Silage per day. 4
60 lb. Corn Silage per day.

30 F’ C. Roughages

 

 

 

Percentage Crude Protein

 

 

 

l L I

10 20 30 40' 50 60 70 80’ 90 100
Milk PrOduced per Day

I l I l l

 

Fig. 3.—-Crude protein required in meal-mix for 1200 lb. dairy
cows when roughages are fed at the rate of 20 lb. Hay Equivalent per
day.

20

_l_l

 

 

 

 

I I T I I I I I I I
A. Roughages = 24 lb. Alfalfa Hay per day.
B. Roughages = 12 1b. Alfalfa Hay + 36 1b.
Corn Silage.
’? 30 h' C. Roughages = 72 1b. Corn Silage per day.
S
a
.,..I
3 r
o 20 I”
u .
D- : K
g _- -------- B -----------------------------------------------------------------------
a I-
H I
‘9 10 :-
3 III I I I I. I I I I

 

 

 

10 20 ' 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Milk produced per day (1b.)

Fig. 4.--Crude protein required in meal-mix for 1200 lb. dairy
cows when roughages are fed at the rate of 24 1b. Hay Equivalent per
day.

 

T' I 7 I I I I I l I If

A. Roughages = 28 1b. Alfalfa Hay per day.

B. Roughages = 14 lb. Alfalfa Hay + 42 1b.
Corn Silage. ;

. Roughages = 84 lb. Corn Silage per day.

u:

c>
I
c:

 

 

""D ..................................... I ...............................

ITIUVIV1

Crude protein (Z)
N
c:

H
O
l V

11"!!!

 

 

J I I l L I 1 I l

 

 

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Pounds of Milk produced per day

I
Fig. 5.--Crude protein required in meal-mix for 1200 lb. dairy
cows when roughages are fed at the rate of 28 1b. Hay Equivalent per
day.

21

 

I I I I I I I I I I

32 1b. Alfalfa Hay

per day.

16 1b. Alfalfa Hay +

48 1b. Corn Silage. _

C. Roughages = 96 1b. Corn Silage
' per day;

A. Roughages

B. Roughages

C:
O
I

UUI'IIII

Crude protein_(%)
N
c:
I

H
O

 

 

 

'lllllll'l'

I I I I I J I I I

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 8O 90 100
Milk produced per day (1b.)

 

Fig. 6.--Crude protein required in meal-mix for 1200 lb. dairy
cows when roughages are fed at the rate of 32 1b. Hay Equivalent per
day.

 

 

 

I I I I I-. I I I l I
A. Roughages = 36 lb. Alfalfa Hay
per day.
B. Roughages = 18 1b. Alfalfa Hay +
30 r- 54 lb. Corn Silage. —
f‘ C. Roughages = 108 1b. Corn Silage
is per day
a
91-4
3 20 :- ~
0 .
H ..
n- - .
-.. -———-——--B.—----_--- _--------__--__---_-_- -- - - ----.---------_---.
m -
nu I'
3 C
63 10 L- ‘-
i
“ I L I

 

 

 

 

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 ~9037 100
Milk produced per day (1b.)

Fig. 7.--Crude protein required in meal-mix for 1200 lb. dairy
cows when roughages are fed at the rate of 36 1b. Hay Equivalent per day.

22

the roughages supply protein for more milk than their.T.D.N. will suppOrt,
hence a very Small protein percentage will suffice in the grain when
the milk.production is low. However,.as the production and grain re-
quirement increases the influence of the good roughages becomes less
apparent and the protein percentage must be increased. Where the
roughage is low in protein.(curve C) it does not contain sufficient to
keep pace with its T.D.N. potential, consequently;where the milk pro-
duction is only slightly greater than the point at which grain is intro-
duced to the ration their protein content will need to be very high.
If, however, you introduce grain at the stage where the protein content
of the roughage ceases to be adequate, the crude protein content need
only be 15 percent no matter how much grain is fed. Line D (Figs. 2-7)
represents the stage at which grain must be introduced to the ration
under these conditions.

By combining the information contained in Table 6 with that in
Figs. 1 ax) 7 an estimate can be made of the amount of protein which
must be added to the grain to supply the protein needs of the animal.
(See Appendix A for method of estimating weight of protein supplement
required to supply the protein needed.)

The net protein requirements during the dry period are supplied
by a grain mixture containing 12% crude protein but a slightly higher

percentage will be needed if the roughage is of poor quality.

Discussion

It must be remembered that all the quantities specified in the
preceding sections have been based on theoretical estimations of a
cows feed requirements. No allowances have been made for body weight
changes in the animal, variations in appetite, wastage, inconsistancy
in feed analysis etc. Under normal conditions grain is rationed and
at least some of the roughages fed ad_lib, Under these conditions a
more realistic estimate of the feed intake could be gotten by increasing
the roughage: estimates by about 15%. No alteration need be made to the
grain since this is being rationed.

Based on these assumptions and those presented in the preceeding

23

sections, charts have been prepared which present the estimated feed
consumption of cows yielding from 8,000 to 20,000 lb. of milk per lacta-
tion under a variety of conditions (Figs. 8.- 10). These charts Should assist

in estimating the annual feed intakes under specific conditions.

Example
A 1200 lb. holstein cow can produce 16,000 pounds of milk per

lactation. Half the roughage dry matter is fed in the form of corn
silage and the other half as alfalfa hay. If the cow is fed 2.75 tons
grain per year, find the quantities Of hay and silage required,
assuming a two months dry period.

Entering chart for cows producing 16,000 lb. milk per lactation
at a point on slope A corresponding to 2.75 tons grain. Extend ver-
tically from this point until a point is reached on curve B. Con-
tinuing horizontally from this point it is found that the annual hay
equivalent requirement is 6 tons. Converting this to hay and silage,
the requirements become 3 tons of hay and 9 tons silage. Should the
silage be of high quality and dry matter, the requirements Would be 3
tons hay + 7.5 tons silage.

If all the roughages had been composed of corn silage the chart
would have been entered at a point on slope X and extended to a point

on Y.

Economic Consideration in Feeding Grain

 

No specific rate of feeding grain can be selected to give optimum
production under all conditions. Factors such as milk and grain prices,
basic production abilities of animals, housing and labor have a con-
siderable effect on the amount of grain which can be fed economically.

The tendency over the years has been to increase the amount of
grain being fed to dairy cows. In a 9 year survey by the United States
Department of Agriculture (U.S.D.A.), (1942) of ten Agricultural Ex-
periment.' Stations it was discovered that the best all round results
were obtained by feeding one pound of grain for every 3.5 to 4 1b. milk

Produced. In a recent summary by the Dairy Herd Improvement Association

.GOwumuomH pom waE mo mwcmom ooonoH
6cm ooo.w wcHUHOHm owm mo 6666» m um>o 6300 samumaom mo mucoEmuwscmu comm owumEHummII.w .wwm

 

 

24

‘T

\
I I
I I
I
<3:
I
\0 In \‘l’

 

 

 

 

_
_
.6006 mum mmwwstOM moss momma _
Imuwsvmm unmam>6svm 66m wowpcommmuuoo u w m II M
.uooa m
mum mmwmswsou :653 mucosmuwsvmu H662 n x _
.voow mum mmwmnwsou c653 mucmE _
16665666 ucmam>65vm >mm w566506666600 n m _
.ooow IIIIIIIIII II
mum mommnwsou c653 mucmEomwswmp Ham: I

 

666666666 6:65 A: 66666 I I 666666666 666 6:66. a: 666.6 I 6

 

 

 

 

 

193A lad suol

25

.666666666 666 6666 66 .66 666.66 666

ooo.NH wcflpamfih sons owm MO 6666» m uo>o msoo awwumfiom mo mocoemuwdvmu poem mommawumqu.m .wwm

 

 

 

 

 

 
     

m

cofiumuomfi pom Mafia .oH ooo.¢H I

 

mmwmcwsou c653 mECCEmuflovmh Hmoz u x
.600& mum mmwmswrou COLE mocme
Impflswmp ucon>6ovm 66$ wowpcoammuwoo u m

mum mmwmnwooa CCLB mucoEmaflovmu Hmmz

fl.

 

.uooa mum mmwmmw306 c653 momma
-mpwsvmn mamam>flovm >6: wchcommmuuoo

ll
>4

.uooa mum

       
 

.Uoow

666666666 666 6665 .66 666.66

 

 

 

1993 Ted suol

26

 

 

co£3 mocmEmuwswmu ucmam>6scm ham wcfiocoammupoo u
.ooow mum mowmswsou cons muc65666ovmm H662 H

II

666666666 666 6666 .66 666.66 .1

.666666666 666 6666 66 .66 666.66 666
000.06 wcfloamfih c653 mwm no 6666» m mm>o 6300 cflmomfiom wo mDCCEmuwovmu poem pmumefiumqu.oH .wmm

 

 

 

 

.uoom mum mommzwson

c633 mocmEmmflscon somfim>wsdm mam wcflvcommmuuoo u w
.6006 mum wmwmswsou :653 mommEouwsvmu H662 u x

.poow mum mowmswsou

1

 

<2CQ

666666666 666 6666 .66 ooo.66

 

 

193A lad suol

27

(D.H.I.A.) (1962) the average production for all breeds was 11,626 lb.
of milk per year and the average grain intake per cow was 3,944 lb.
(one lb. per 2.95 lb. milk produced). This represents an increased
grain intake of 427 lb. per cow over the previous year. Brown gt El.
(1962) in an investigation into the effect of high level grain feeding
on milk production pointed out that yields of corn in certain areas
'had increased to such an extent that the cost of 100 1b. of T.D.N.
from ear cornwes less than from hay crop silage or hay. Their investi-
gation showed that cows fed high levels of grain over a period of 260
days produced more milk than was expected and the increase in income,
even when grain was fed ad_lib,, more than balanced the extra outlay
on the grain. These conclusions were drawn on the basis of $40, $20
and $7 per ton for grain, hay and silage respectively, and a price of
$4.60 per 100 lb. for milk.

Hoglund (1962) compared the economic returns on a 65 acre dairy
farm when two qualities of forage and two milk prices were considered
for cows with basic production abilities of 10,000 and 13,500 pounds
per annum (Fig.11). It is conspicuous that, with the low producing
animals the point of diminishing returns was reached much sooner. It
Was also worthy of note that itwas economically justifiable to feed more
grain when the roughagesvnnxaof average quality. Table 7 briefly sum-
marizes the grain feeding allowances for maximum income under various

sets of conditions.

Feed Requirements for Replacements

 

Many dairy farmers rear their own replacements and for this
reason some estimate should be given of the amount of feed needed for
this purpose. This involves estimating the feed intake of young animals
from birth to about 24 months, after which they are incorporated into
the dairy herd.

The requirements may be expressed in one of two forms, as actual
requirements per animal or as extra allowances per cow to provide for
replacements. The former has the advantage that it gives unit animal

requirements which can be applied to any condition, whereas the latter

.66666 6666666 66666
.COADMDOMH you MHHE Nm.m mo .oH oom.mH 6:6 ooo.oH mo mmfiuwflwom wcfloopoua aflmmn nu63 6300 :wmumaom .moufium
x665 mo mHm>wH oBu mam mwmuom mo wmfiuwflmnv osv .Eumm 66662 300 no 6 How wEooCH uszI.HH .wwm

mom eunuxflz cfimuo .DH ooo.H

w o c N w

w 6 N

 

_ 6 _ L MI

28

IIIIIIIIIIIIAII
366 .66 666 66 x66

 

 

 

.xaflz .630 you ow.~w .meuom meum><
.xHHz .u3o Mom ow.Nw .Ommuom uanHmoxm
.xafiz .u3o Mom ow.mw .mwmuom wwmumk<
.xfiflz .uso you om.mw nmwmuom uanHmoxm

6 _ _

IIIIIIIIIIAII
366 .66 666 66 666

o//////IOIIIIIIIOI\\\\\\O

oxnd

 

 

0H

NH

SH

0H

wH

9m°°uI :aN 000‘1$

29

is a convenient "rule-Of-thumb" method which is reasonably accurate

under normal conditions.

TABLE 7

GRAIN INTAKE BY DAIRY COWS FOR MAXIMUM
ECONOMIC RETURNS
(From Hoglund 1962)

 

 

Grain Intake for

BaSIc Milk Production Milk Price Forage Quality Max. Production

 

lb/year $/cwt. lb.

13,500 3.80 Excellent 5,000
13,500 3.80 Average 6,000
13,500 2.80 Excellent 4,000
13,500 2.80 Average 5,000
10,000 3.80 Excellent 4,000
10,000 3.80 Average 5,000
10,000 2.80 Excellent 3,500
10,000 2.80 Average 4,000

 

Both Keener e£_al. (1958) and Sykes 35 31. (1955), investigating
the effect of varying the type of roughage while limiting the grain
and milk, found that animals consumed considerably more dry matter
when the roughage contained mainly hay. Holstein calves fed an all
hay roughage maintained satisfactory growth and were above the
Morrison Normal (Morrison 1956) at 24 months, whereas those fed all
silage weighed only from 82 to 94 percent of the normal. Based on the
resultsxof~these Experiments and the recommendations of Hillman EEEEL'
(undated);a‘table has been prepared (Table 8) whiéh gives.the:aVerage
feed requirements of Holstein heifers from birth.to 24 months.

The requirements for smaller breeds were correspondingly less.
However, the slower growing animals did show a tendency towards more
efficient utilization of roughages containing high proportions of
silage.

When expressing feed requirements for replacements as extra

allowances per cow a number of assumptions were made (1) Culling in

30

the dairy herdtuusat the rate of 25% per annum. (2) Half the calves
reared were heifers. Based on these assumptions it was 'reasoned:-that'
for every two cows in the herd, additional feed had to be provided

to bring one animal from birth to 12 months and another from 12 to 24
months each year. On an annual per cow basis this amounted to half the

recommended quantities in Table 8.

TABLE 8

FEED REQUIREMENTS OF HOLSTEIN HEIFERS
(Birth to 24 months.)

 

 

Milk Grain Hay Silage Hay Equivalenta

 

Type of Roughage

 

1b. 1b. tons tons tons
.All Hay 400 550 6.3 - 6.3
Hay & Silage 400 1400 3.0 7.5 5.5

 

3The total hay equivalent requirements may be reduced by_2 tons
if the animal is allowed out to grass for 5 months.

Another recommendation frequently found is to increase the cows

roughages 50 per cent and add 300 to 400 lb. grain per cow.

Materials HandlingiConsiderations
in Feeding Dairy Cattle

 

 

The feeding of dairy cattle is such a complex system, with so
many different feeds and feeding methods that no single materials
handling system can be described as the most ideal. In fact, any set
of feeding conditions can be mechanized efficiently using several dif-
ferent materials handling systems. When designing a system around a
given set of conditions one should take into consideration the fol-
lowing points.
1. The annual feed consumptions as presented in Figs.8 E 10 pnly‘indicate
what a cow should eat in one year. They do not take into account
the amount of feed which is wasted or deteriorates in storage. In

addition, allowances must be made for under-estimation of requirements

31

and year to year variations in quality of feed.

In estimating hay storage requirements it is important to know
whether the hay is loose, baled, or pelleted.

It may be feasible in many instances to contract with a local feed
merchant to supply protein supplement at regular two-monthly or
such intervals. This relieves the farmer of the worry of making
_exact estimates of yearly requirements and guards against deteriora-
tion in prolonged storage.

It Should be remembered that most of the discussions in previous
sections concerned typical 1200 lb. Holstein cows. When designing
systems for smaller breeds the necessary reductions should be made.
Although the recommendations in the previous sections are set up
on the basis of a 305 day lactation and a 60 day dry period, these
are not rigid and frequently the period between the beginning of
one lactation and the next is longer than one year. When this
occurs the feed requirements are slightly over-estimated.

Cows are sometimes allowed to pasture during the Summer months.
Under normal conditions the amount of grass consumed is sufficient
only to supply the roughage portion of the ration, without any
reduction in the quantity of grain being fed.

From the lactation curves in Fig. 1 it can be seen that cows reach
their peak production (hence maximum feed requirements) at from 4
to 6 weeks after calving. In view of the evidence presented by
Brown g£_gl, (1962) in favor of increased levels of grain feeding,
and the suggestions of Hillman (1961) and Reid (1961) on rates of
feeding in early lactation, it seems reasonable to assume that many
cows would peak at from 120 to 130 pounds of milk per day. In
addition, since many of the cows calf in the same period each year
the feed handling equipment should have the capacity to handle at
least 75 percent of the total possible daily feed requirements of
the entire herd within the allotted time. If some of the grain is
being fed in the milking parlor the maximum capacity of the outside
feeders may be scaled down accordingly.

In "year-round" feeding, silos should be designed so that at least

one is ready for filling whenever material is available. In order

32

to avoid excessive spoilage the diameter of the silos should be
such that a depth of at least 3 inches of feed is removed daily.

In specifying materials handling equipment it should be remembered

that silage is a corrosive substance.

FEED REQUIREMENTS OF SWINE
The feeding of swine may be divided into three main sections,
depending on the age and type of animal being fed, (1) growing and

finishing pigs (2) pigs from birth to weaning, and (3) breeding stock.

Feeding Growing and Finishing Swine

 

From a feeding point of view, two periods may be recognized in
the production Of slaughter pigs, (1) growing period when animals are
using most of their feed for body building and (2) finishing period
when bones and organs have been fully developed, and most of the feed
is being used to "condition" the animal. All pigs are fed alike in
the growing period but the type of carcase required will determine the
rate and type of feeding for finishing. If bacon type carcases are
desired the pigs are finished at a slow rate with feeds having high
protein contents to encourage lean meat production, while with "meat"
type pigs less emphasis is placed on the production of lean carcases
and the animals are finished as quickly as possible. Table 9 presents
The National Research Council (1959) recommendations oh rate of gain,
and feed consumption for pigs of different weights and types as well
as the protein percentage required in the meals.

' By plotting daily weight gain versus bodyweight (Figs 12, it
was possible, by taking weight increments of 20 lb. and noting the mean
daily weight gain for that period, to calculate the number of days
taken to gain each 20 lb. By referring the figures obtained to the
mean daily feed consumption for the Same period it was possible to
estimate the amount of feed consumed by the pig during any period. By
using this method and assuming a weaning weight of 40 1b. (Hoeferfi
1963) estimates were obtained of the amount of feed consumed by pigs of
different types, from weaning to slaughter (Table 10).

33

34

TABLE 9

PRODUCTION REQUIREMENTS OF GROWING AND FINISHING PIGS
(From National Research Council 1959)

 

 

Finishing Pigs

 

 

 

Growing
Pigs Meat Type Bacon Type
Liveweight (1b.) 25 50 100 .150 200 100 150 200
Expected daily gain (1b.) 0.8 1.2 1.6 1.7 1.9 1.5 1.7 1.7
Total feed (air-dry) 2.0 3.2 5.3 6.8 8.0 5.2 6.5 7.1
Crude Protein (%) 17 15 13 12 12 16 14 14
TABLE 10

INCREMENTAL FEED CONSUMPTION OF 'MEAT' AND

'BACON' TYPE PIGS

 

_—

 

r

 

J

 

4—;

Bacon Type

if

r

 

 

 

Body Meat Type
"33‘? ... A...) i?3.‘2:“i‘i¥.“f§ 6..., mania:

40 56 0 56 0
50 65 25 65 25
60 72.5 53.3 72.5 53.3
80 87 112.2 87.5 114.0
100 100 176.9 101 179.6
120 112 245.4 113.5 249.2
140 123.5 317.6 125.5 322.6
150 130 355 131.5 360

.160 134.5 393.2 137.5 399
180 145.5 472.1 149 479.5
200 156 554.6 161 562.2
220 166.5 639.8 172.5 646.4

 

 

A-£-V

:63:

«:1..va 4A — .3:

A

.2;

6 q (I

:-~.1 Un—xwuusa \Anu-A~

Daily weight gain (1b.)

Daily weight gain (1b.)

1.5

1.0

0.5

1.5

1.0

0.5

35

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P
I-
b
I-
I.—
L
” X, Key -- — Weight gain
I. I
L ' """" " Feed intake
I I l L l I l l 1 I

L
I.
I
r
r
I .

7’ Key:' — Weight gain
- I """" ' Feed intake
I I I I . I m I I I I I
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 1160 180 200

swine.

Body Weight (lb)
.Fig. 12.--Weight gain and feed intake of growing and finishing

4‘ U1 O\ \|

Daily feed intake (1b.)

(.40

N

0‘ \l

9 U1

Daily feed intake (1b.)

U)

N

36

Balancing the Feed for Protein

 

Approximately 98 percent of the feed eaten by pigs is composed
of a combination of carbohydrate and protein feeds, with the carbo-
hydrate or energy feeds comprising by far the greatest proportion. For
this reason, only these two feed types are worthy of consideration from
a materials handling point of view. The energy feeds consist mainly of
shelled corn and similar grains containing small amounts of protein,
whereas the protein supplement usually consists of three separate feeds
(1) animal protein (2) plant protein and (3) alfalfa meal. Under
normal conditions these protein constituents are mixed in the approxi-
mate ratio of 1:2:1 by weight, and the supplement contains approximately
40 percent crude protein. As already indicated (Table 9) the amount of
protein required in the feed ration varies depending on the age of the
animal and the type of carcase desired. Table 11 presents the propor-
tion of energy and protein feeds required when the ration varies from
one with all corn to one containing no corn. In some instances (such
as the finishing period) where the protein requirement is low and where
the energy feeds supply almost all the protein needed, it still remains
necessary to include some animal protein and alfalfa meal to supply
essential amino acids and carotene. In these cases the protein content
of the ration for pigs in the older age groups is higher than would
otherwise be necessary.

Combining the data in Tables 10 and 11 curves were drawn which
illustrate the quantities of energy and protein feeds required for
satisfactory growth from weaning at 40 1b. to market at 220 1b., using
.a ration containing all corn (Fig.13) and one containing barley and

oats (Fig614) along with a 40 percent protein supplement.
Feeding Swine From Birth to 8 Weeks
(According to Ensminger (1961) each thrifty pig should consume

about 25 lbs. of "creep" feed before the age of eight weeks, with about

two-thirds of this consumption between the sixth and eighth week.

37

TABLE 11

PROPORTIONS OF ENERGY AND PROTEIN FEEDS REQUIRED BY PICS
OF VARIOUS WEIGHTS WHEN FED DIFFERENT RATIONS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Protein Meat Type
No. Ration Content
% 40—50 50-100 100—150
1. Corn 9.3 .739 .806 .874
+
Protein supp. 38.75 .261 .194 .126
2. Corn 65%
Barley 35% 10.1 .759 .829 .899
+
Protein supp. 38 75 .241 .171 .101
3. Corn 66%
Barley 17% 10.27 .764 .834 .902
Wheat 17%
+ a
Protein supp. 38.75 .236 .166 .098
4. Corn 33.3%
Barley 33.3% 10.9 .781 .853 .902
Oats 33.3%
I + a
Protein supp. 38.75 .219 .147 .098
5. Corn 33.3%
Barley 66.7% 10.84 .779 .851 .902
+ a
Protein supp. 38.75 .221 .149 .098
6. Barley 70%
Oats 30% 11.66 .803 .877 .902
+ a
Protein supp. 38.75 .197 .123 .098

 

aA minimum of 10% protein

supplement to supply essential amino-

38

TABLE ll--Continued

 

 

(1b.) Bacon Type (1b.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

150—200 200-220 40-50 50-100 100-150 150-200 200-220
.902 .902 .739 .772 .772 .840 .840
.098a .0988 .261 .228 .228 .160 .160
.902 .902 .759 .794 .794 .864 .864
.098a .098a .241 .206 .206 .136 .136
.902 .902 .764 .799 .799 .869 .869
.098a .0988 .236 .201 .201 .131 .131
.902 .902 .781 .817 .817 .889 .889
.098a .098a .219 .183 .183 .111 .111
.902 .902 .779 .815 .815 .887 .887
.098a .0988 .221 .185 .185 .113 .113
.902 .902 .803 .840 .840 .902 .902
.098a .098a .197 .160 .160 .098a .098a

 

acids and carotene.

39

.Acflououa .U Nmm.me u:oEmHmdsm awououm cam AcHououm Donna Nm.mv auooumo cowumu m magma .nH CNN um
umuswsmam ou .nH OS on wawcmos Eoum .mmfid kn medmcoo mwoom samuoum paw mumuphnonumuII.mH .wwh

 

 

 

‘ , 6.63 666663 .6666 6.63 666663 .6666
666 666 666.666 666 666 666 66 66 66 666 666 666 666 666 666 666 .66 66 66
. _ .. . _ , . _ . 6 . \ o . _ . _ A _ _ 6 _ o
\\s
666 I I 666
., \\\
6666 6646666666666
666 I x. m 666
\\
\\\
-666 I $66.6 I 666
kw
66¢
\ 0
.36
666 I 8.7 I 666
666 I I 666
\\
x
6666 666.6 6.8666 6666 .6666. 666.6:
I I 666 I I 6.66

 

 

 

 

 

 

(°q1) pamnsuoo paag

4O

flaw Achuoua .0 New. HHV mumo van hmHumm.mo coaumaHnEou m wchs .nH ONN um “muswsmHm on

.Achuoum .u Nmm. wmv ucmEmHQQSm :Hmuoum

mchmm3 Eoum mem mmmu :coomm: van :ummz: kn 66656300 vmmm chuoum cam mumuwhsonumuII. ¢H .me

OON

I H.6Hv 6:66
66H 66H

mzahvom
ow

 

 

 

_ . _

Qmmm wH<mnwmomm<o

me

mmwa zoodm

 

 

OOH

CON

oom

Voo¢

oom

coo

H.6Hv 666603 6606

. 666 666 666 66

 

 

_ . H _ _ _ _

Qmmm MH<manomm<o \\

UHm mmwa H<mz

 

 

.nH o¢ um

ooH

CON

oom

ooq

com

900

(°q1) pamnsuoa pea; 19301

41

Feeding Breeding Stock

 

The feed requirements of breeding stock are summarized in

Table 12.

TABLE 12

BASIC NUTRIENT REQUIREMENTS OF BREEDING PIGS
(From National Research Council 1959)

 

 

 

 

Gestating Lactating
Gilts Sows Gilts Sows
Liveweight (1b.) 300 500 350 450
Expected daily gain (lb.) 1.0 0.7 - -
Total feed (air dry) (1b.) 6.0 7.5 11.0 12.5
per day
Crude Protein (Z) 15.0 13.0 15.0 13.0

 

Based on the data in the above table, the total feed consumed
by a gilt during gestation and lactation is about 1306 lbs. and by a
mature sow is about 1562 lbs. These requirements may be itemized as

follows-~(Table 13).

TABLE 13

POUNDS FEED CONSUMED BY BREEDING ANIMALS
FROM CONCEPTION TO WEANING

 

 

 

 

 

 

Type of . Food Type
B d' Aial Permd
ree 1ng n m Energy Protein

Gilt Bred 556 134
Lactating 496 120
Totals 1052 254

Sow Bred 754 108
Lactating 612 88

 

Totals 1366 196

 

42

The above quantities are for ration number 1 as set out in the
section dealing with growing and finishing pigs. The necessary altera-
tions can be made to the above quantities for other rations by referring

to the proportions in Table 11.

Discussion

 

The nutrient requirement presented in Tables 9 and 12 have been
extracted from reliable experimental data and do not have built in
safety margins. A number of factors, such as management, breed,
thriftiness, and environment can appreciably affect the amount of feed
eaten by animals. In addition, many feeds do not have a consistent
analysis and frequently deteriorate in storage. Thus swine producers
Inust, in most cases, incorporate a liberal margin of safety when com-
pounding feeds. This will invariably mean that the amount of protein
fed will be somewhat higher than that recommended. The data in Table
14 (Hoefer 1962) will help to illustrate the variations which can

exist in feed requirements among different groups of animals.

TABLE 14

FEED CONSUMED BY PIGS FED IN DRY LOT FROM 40 TO 215 POUNDS
UNDER VARIOUS DEGREES OF MANAGEMENT
(From Hoefer 1962)

 

 

 

Management
Excellent Average Poor
Corn (1b.) 477 537 661
Supplement (1b.) 92 110 127
Total (1b.) 569 683 788

 

The quantities for breeding animals specified in Table 12 are
for average conditions and must not be expected to cater for all con-
ditions. The breed of sow, milking capabilities, size of litter, etc.
will have an appreciable effect on the amount of feed required. When
estimating feed consumed by breeding animals deductions should be made

for periods during which the animals have access to other feed types

43

such as hay or pasture. During the bred period either good legume hay
or pasture can replace approximately one third of the meals normally
consumed. ,(Carroll eg 31. 1962)

Occasionally, systems are encountered where growing pigs are
allowed on pasture. Because of the variations which may exist among
these systems each should be examined individually and the savings in

meals assessed on the evidence.

Materials Handling Consideration in Feeding Pigs

 

The design of a satisfactory materials handling system for
feeding swine is much simplified by the fact that the entire feed is
composed of grain. Since all grains are within approximately the same
density range and have the same flow characteristics (compared to hay,
silage, etc.) the proportions of grains of different kinds fed can be
changed without appreciably affecting the handling or storing facil-
ities. In designing storage facilities it should be remembered that
the figures quoted for total feed consumption do not make allowances
for feed spoilage, wastage, variations in both feeds and animals, and
other factors. In order to insure that the storage is adequate a
safety margin of not less than 10 percent should be incorporated. On
farms where corn is the main feed, sufficient storage should be sup-
plied to accommodate one whole yearb requirements. With protein
supplement it is usually better to contract for regular supplies as
this feed is frequently used as a "balancer" and contains some trace-
element ingredients which deteriorate in prolonged storage.

In designing feeding equipment, one needs to take.accounf ofwthe
fact that pigs are usually arranged in pens according to their weights.
This means that the feeders in certain pens should have a greater
capacity than in others. The size of feeder units may be determined
from the daily feed consumption estimates in Table 9 or Fig. LZafter
due allowances are made for wastage, overeating etc. The amount of

feed wasted is much greater in dry feeding than wet.

FEED REQUIREMENTS OF SHEEP

The feed requirements of sheep may be considered in three sec-
tions-~(l) Feed requirements of breeding ewes, (2) Feed requirements
of feeder lambs, (3) Feed requirements of Spring lambs. Because of
the varied climatic conditions and systems of management throughout
the country it is impossible to draw a dividing line between where the
animals are fed pasture and where they are brought indoors for artifi-
cial feeding. For this reason,the discussion which follows pre-supposes
artificial feeding in all stages, on the assumption that the necessary
allowances can be made when actual conditions are being studied. It
should also be pointed out at this juncture that the feed requirements
for ewes in the period between weaning and conception are not discussed
because sheep are scarcely ever artificially fed at that time.

The National Research Council (1957) recommendations on nutrient
requirements of sheep are widely accepted and should be consulted when-
ever there is doubts as to the adequacy of any ration. Their recommenda-
tions for Total Digestible Nutrients (T.D.N.) and Total Protein are

presented in Table 15.

TABLE 15

DAILY NUTRIENTS REQUIREMENTS OF SHEEP
(Based on air-dry feed containing 90 percent dry matter)
(From National Research Council 1957)

 

 

 

Body Gain or Feed Daily Nutrients
Wiight iii: Per Animal Z Liveweight Protein T.D.N.
(1b) (1b) (1b)

 

Ewes--Non-lactating and First 15 Weeks of Gestation

 

100 0.07 2.6 2.6 0.20 1.3
120 0.07 3.0 2.5 0.23 1.5
140 0.07 3.4 2.4 0.27 1.7
160 0.07 3.8 2.4‘ 0.29 1.9

44

45

TABLE 15--Continued

 

 

_‘JIt

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Body Gain or Feed Daily Nutrients
wiigyt 23:: Per Animal Z Liveweight Protein T.D.N.
(lb) (1b) (lb)
Ewes--Last 6 Weeks of Gestation
100 0.37 3.8 3.8 0.31 2.0
.120 0.37 4.2 3.5 0.32 2.2
140 0.37 4.6 3.3 0.36 2.4
160 0.37 4.8 3.0 0.36 2.5
Ewes--First 8 to 10 Weeks of Lactation
100 ' - 0.08 4.6 4.6 0.40 . 2.7
120 - 0.08 5.0 4.2 0.42 2.9
140 - 0.08 5.4 4.0 0.45 3.1
.160 -0.08 5.6 3.5 0.47 3.2
Ewes-~Last 12 to 14 Weeks of Lactation
100 0.07 3.8 3.8 0.31 2.0
120 0.07 4.2 3.5 0.32 2.2
140 0.07 4.6 3.3 0.34 2.4
160 0.07 4.8 3.0 0.36 2.5
Ewes--Rep1acement Lambs
60 0.30 2.7 4.5 0.29 1.6
80 0.20 3.2 4.0 0.27 1.7
100 0.14 3.4 3.4 0.25 1.7
120 0.07 3.4 2.8 0.25 1.7
Rams--Lambs and Yearlings
80 0.40 3.2 4.0 0.31 2.0
100 0.30 3.7 3.7 0.31 2.1
120 0.20 4.2 3.5 0.31 2.2
140 0.10 4.6 3.3 0.32 2.3
160 0.10 4.8 3.0 0.32 2.4
VLambs--Finishing
60 0.30 2.7 4.5 0.31 1.6
70 0.40 3.1 4.4 0.33 1.9
80 0.40 3.4 4.3 0.35 2.1
90 0.40 3.8 4.2 0.36 2.4
100 0.35 4.0 4.0 0.36 2.6

 

46

Feed Requirements of Breeding Ewes--
Conception to Weaning

 

 

From the time a sheep conceives until her lambs are weaned some
9 months later, she has passed through phases where her feed require-
ments differed considerably. For the first 100 days there is relatively
little development of the foetus and her demands scarcely exceed those
for maintenance. During the last 60 days of gestation the foetus is
developing rapidly so the sheep must receive feeds of higher energy
and protein content. After the lambs are born and during the early
lactation period, her demands are greatest due to high milk production.
As the lactation progresses and her milk yield declines her demands
decrease until she is back on maintenance at weaning time. Sheep are
efficient users of roughage and good quality alfalfa hay forms the
basis for almost all rations. According to the National Research
.Council's recommendations (Table 15) alfalfa hay containing 50 percent
T.D.N., fed ad lib_will supply all the major nutrients for the first
100 days of pregnancy. For the remaining periods some higher energy
grains must be added to the hay to meet the increased demand for T.D.N.
If the hay contains more than about 10 percent protein no additional
protein supplements are needed. Table 16 summarizes data presented by
various researchers on the daily feed requirements of ewes.

From these data it appears that the total feed consumed by light
sheep is approximately 915 1b. alfalfa hay and 143 1b. grain,and by
heavy sheep is 1372 lb. alfalfa hay and 240 1b. grain. More precise
requirements may be calculated for a sheep of particular weight by
referring to Table 15 and assuming 50 and 75 percent T.D.N. and 15 and
8.7 percent protein contents for alfalfa hay and grain reSpectively.

When part of the roughage is composed of non leguminous hay,
additional feed must be consumed to supply the required nutrients.
Ensminger (1952) in his ewe feeding guide (Table 17) illustrates the
amount of extra feed needed when part and all of the alfalfa hay is
replaced by other less nutrient feeds.

When ewes are on pasture there is usually no need to supply
artificial feeding. When introducing ewes and lambs to pasture in

Springtime there is a transition period when some hay is fed in addition

47

.voH

nod coHumuomH muHuco pom

mucoEmuwsumu owmum>m ucmmmudmu moustw mumoHHdsnm

 

 

 

 

 

 

. 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6
mwmmfiw 65.6 06 66.6 on 65.6 as 6 cs
6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6
. 65.6 6.6 6.6
66.6.. .. s . ..
6 H mm 66.6 6.6 6.6
- 65.6 6.6 66.5 6.6 65.6 6.6 6.6
AommHv cu 06 cu ou ou Ou o ou
6066660: . . . . . . .
666 6 m6 6 666 6 m6 6 66 6 6 6 6 6
66.6 6 66.6 6 66.6 6 6
566666
umwawamcm ow cu 0» on 0w ou o Ou
665 6 m6 665 6 m6 65‘6 6 6
6665.66 6665.66 6665.66 6665.66 6665.66 6665.66 6665.66 6665.66
606666666 66666 6656666 66666 6666666 66666 6666666 66666 6666666
5.66 666 06. 5.66 666 on.
66.6%.”. 6.6.6.666“... a 6.22.... .2 6.2.3
6H ummH oH umuHm coHumummo mo :oHumummo mo

63663 e um

6666 666 umuam

 

IHIH
L!

mm3m wanmmmm mo mfizmzmmHDOmm Qmmm WHH<Q

0H £92...

 

 

48

 

 

 

m.o 06 mN.o ucoEoHddsm :Houonm
OH Ou w ..........mmewm mEdwwH
cos nonuo no Gnoo
m.o cu mm.o ucmEdednm cwmuonm
6 On m ....mwmswson mnv mesme
soc nmauo no km: mmmno
o 06 q .mmeH6 Essmnom no anoo
N Ou m.H ....... ....%UHHNDU Uoow
Am: mEDme “mm: omxHE mesme
.nH N 5656 Imwmnw no has mESon
mmmH wCH>mc
coHumn £666 06 mN.N 06 m.H ....mmm:w:on znp mesme
ucmEdedsm chu cos nonuo no km: mmmno
Iona .QH MN.O N Ou m.H ..... ......%umeSU UOOw
mst hHHmU mHHmU .66: vmxHE mesme
chnw .nH chnw .nH H On Immmnw no mm: mEDme
H On mm.o mum mm.o ppm cesHoo
CEDHoo umnHm umnHw 6:6 an q 06 m ...........%uHHm:U voow
man CH wmumHH omumHH mCOHumn .hms 60x68 mesme
conumn sumo 0H 656 MO sumo OH Immmnw no hm: wason
6665.66 6665.6n 6665.66
n.6n 666 cu H.6n 66n cu
:oHumuomH mHH wannwnozv ooH wanszoBV coHumm mo maxH
CH 663m coHumummo mo coHumummU mo

mx003 O ummfl

6666 666 66666

 

 

aNmmH nmwcnsmcm Eonmv

MQHDG UzHommm mzm wnz<m

NH MHm<H

49

 

m.o Ou mN.o .....ucmEoHdd5m anmuonm
6 On m .mmeHm Esawnom no :noo

m.N on N ....owm:w:on >nw mesme

cos nmsuo no 66: mmmnw

mN.m CU mNoN ...........%UHHNSU “Cow

“has woxHE meame
Immmnw no mm: mesmoH
cum. cocooooooooooooooomuoom

50

to the pasture (Morrison 1956). In estimating feed requirements of
lactating ewes before going on pasture, the most reliable figures are
those presented by the National Research Council; since other references
only give average daily requirements over the entire period (see

Table 16).

Feed Requirements of Feeder Lambs

 

Feeder lambs are usually purchased by commercial feeders and
fed in Specialized lots until they are ready for slaughter. Generally
these lambs weigh from 55 to 80 1b. when purchased and are fed to a
slaughter condition of from 90 to 100 lb. in 90 to 120 days (Ensminger
1952). Lambs are efficient users of roughage and their feed may con-
sist of a single high quality hay and a low protein grain; in fact,
alfalfa hay and shelled corn have become established as the standard

feed for fattening lambs (Kammlade 1955).

How Much Feed is Required to Fatten a Lamb?

As with other enterprises where meat production was the primary
concern, the most important consideration in feeding lambs is the
efficiency of feed utilization. This efficiency is governed by such
factors as--type and quality of feed consumed, method of feeding, pro-
portions of various feeds, and type of animal. In summarizing data
presented by Blakeslee (1959), Morrison (1956), Ensminger (1952),
Kammlade and Kammlade (1955), McKenney (1959), Cate §£_al. (1955) and
Jordan g£_al: (1950), (see Table 18) it appeared that lambs could make
faster gains and more efficient use of feed when it was pelleted and
self-fed. When comparing hand and self-feeding of unpelleted feed it
was noted that the efficiency of feed utilization for both groups was
approximately the same, but the self-fed group eat more feed per day
and maintained a considerably higher rate of gain. The proportion of
roughage to grain also had a marked effect on the rate of gain and
efficiency of feed utilization (see Table 18). In most of the discus-
sions,considerable emphasis was placed on the danger of overeating

when grain was fed too liberally. In the majority of feeding trials

51

 

A.mucmEmnH=vmn vmom do
adenumpawEEoomn Hmnmcmw mm
HHms mm .66: memem paw
anoo amsu nonuo mmwm£waon
6cm mcwmnm .mOnumn owm
Inwson 6cm awmnw mennm>
.mHmowemzo Honucoo wcnumm
Inm>o no mummu wcwwsHoch

 

 

om.m wa 6m.o ow.N msomcmHHmomwz
Ho.m HHoH mN.o mm.N N.N 06 H
oo.m 06w om.o 6m.N m.H on H
mm.N Nan Nm.o om.N H 06 H
6mm 06 snoo mo moHumm
66.6 665 56.6 6.6 666-6666 .6662
65.6 665 66.6 6.6 666-6666 .666:
66.6 666 n6.6 65.6 5666-66666 66666666 602
mN.6 men mm.o mo.m AcmmImHmmv vmumHHom
.nH .nH .nH .nH
mucmEmnwsvmm anmw c660 Ummm mucmennmdxm
6666 66666 .66 666 66666 66666
Esemez nod doom mwmnm>< mwmnm>¢

 

 

662626666666 6666 66n<6 2626642 66

mMH<EHHmm UZHQDHUZH .mm2<q anmmm zo mHszHmmmxm wzHQmmm mo wm<223m

wH mama;

52

the animals were introduced to grain very gradually. By the end of
the third week the proportion had been increased to 50 percent and re-
mained at that for most of the feeding period. Sometimes the propor-
tion was increased to 60 percent later in the feeding period but at
this level there was a much greater risk of overeating losses. 0n the
basis of these conclusions it seems reasonable to assume that the total
feed consumed will consist of half and half roughage and grain. Other
feeding systems such as separate feeding of hay (both long and chopped)
and grain were discussed but the general trend was towards chopping
the hay and mixing it with the grain. One experiment reported by Jordan
(1950) compared twice-a-day with three-times-a-day feeding and found
very little difference.

From the data available it seems that under the most suitable
conditions lambs can be expected to put on one pound of gain for every
7 1b. of a feed consumed,when the ration is composed of half-and-half
alfalfa hay and shelled corn. Under less ideal conditions of management
the requirement for a similar gain is between 8 and 8.5 lb. feed. Where
the proportion of roughage to grain is greater than 1 to l the amount
required to put on one pound of gain may exceed 10 1b.

If feeds other than alfalfa hay and shelled corn are used the
ration should be balanced for T.D.N. and protein according to the recom-

mendations of the National Research Council.

What are the Maximum Daily_Feed Requirements
of Fattening Lambs?

If lambs are purchased at 60 lb. and finished to 100 lb. at an
average rate of gain of 0.37 lb. per day the average and maximum daily
feed consumptions are 3.4 and 4.0 lb. respectively. (N.R.C. data,
Table 15) If this relation of rate of gain, average feed consumption,
and maximum daily consumption are assumed constant the maximum daily
consumption for other conditions may be calculated provided the daily
gain and average daily consumption are known. This has been done for
the data in Table 18 and recorded in the column at the right of the
table.

53

Feed Requirements of Spring Lambs

 

Spring lambs are ones which receive additional "creep feed"
while suckling their mothers and are ready for market when weaned in
April through July 1. Well fed Spring lambs will weigh from 55 to
100 lb. at slaughter. The amount of feed consumed by these lambs
depends to a large extent on the milking ability of the ewe and whether
the lamb is a single or one of a pair of twins. One experiment quoted
by Morrison (1956) showed that for each additional pound of milk pro-
duced by ewes, the average daily gains of their lambs was 0.16 lb. more
than those of the lower yielding sheep, and the lambs getting the most
milk gained 59 percent more from birth to 12 weeks than the ones from
the low milk producers. The National Research Council (1957) states
that twin lambs only get about two thirds as much milk as singles. It
further states that lambs begin to consume supplemental feed at about
two weeks of age and by the time they are 90 days old they have con-
sumed an average of 0.75 lb. concentrates and 0.5 lb. good legume hay
per day over that period. At the end the lambs were consuming 2 lb. of
concentrates per day. Because of the high protein content of sheep's
milk,no protein supplement is necessary in addition to the feeds just
mentioned. Kammlade (1955) suggests that nursing lambs under three
months may make 100 1b. gain on 125 to 150 lb. grain and 100 to 125 1b.

roughage in addition to the milk of the ewes.

Materials Handling Considerations in Sheep Feedigg

 

The finishing of feeder lambs is the most specialized and inten-
sive section in sheep production, hence it presents the greatest oppor-
tunity for mechanization. The production of finished lambs is a
seasonal Operation extending from August through May (Ensminger 1952);
and feeders tend to fill their yards with one or two shipments. Be-
cause it is possible to have a situation where almost all the lambs
are ready for slaughter simultaneously, it is necessary,in estimating
capacities of feeding equipment to do it on the basis of all animals

at maximum daily feed intake at once. Figures for maximum daily intake

54

of feeder lambs under a variety or conditions have been presented in

' Table 18. These figures are for air-dry feeds based on rations of
alfalfa hay and shelled corn, but the quantities will not vary appre-
ciably (as indicated in the figures for miscellaneous tests--Table 18)
if other feeds are used.

In estimating feed storage space, the important considerations
are--type of feed, proportions of feeds, and efficiency of feed utiliza-
tion. These have been discussed in the preceeding section on feeder
lambs. If the quantities of feed required to produce one pound of gain
are known,it is a simple matter to estimate the total feed required,by
subtracting the average initial body weight from the final body weight
and multiplying by the number of sheep and the quantity of feed required

to produce one pound of gain.

What Allowances Should be Made in Designing
a Materials Handling_§ystem on Estimated Feed
Requirements?

 

 

 

_A number of factors must be taken into account when estimating
a safety margin in the design of a materials handling system for feeder
lambs. (l) Wastage--Most experiments quote actual consumption figures
and take no account of the feed wasted, or spoiled and weighed back
when fresh feed was given. Kammlade, quoting experiments conducted in
Illinois indicated that lambs wasted 26 lb. of alfalfa hay or 102 lb.
of soybean hay per 100 lb. of gain. Having the feeder troughs in the

open increased Spoilage losses. (2) Variations in abilities of sheep_

 

to utilize feed--As with other animals, some strains of sheep can make
more efficient gains than others. While the figures quoted are from
experiments on large numbers of sheep, the possibility still exists,
eSpecially if the operator is inexperienced at purchasing the right
type of lamb, of having to provide more feed than anticipated to make
the necessary gain. (3) Variations in feed--This problem has already
been discussed for conditions where the variations are known, but even
feeds with well established analyses may vary considerably from one
year to another,and the animals may not make the expected gains due to

these unknown deficiencies. (4) Animal deaths--Provided estimates of

 

total feed requirements are made on the basis of the number of sheep

55

purchased,this factor tends to overestimate feed requirements. The
normal death rate is about 3 to 4 percent (Ensminger 1952) (Morrison
1956) and if the animals are assumed to die at regular intervals,the
feedrequirement is overestimated by an amount equal to that required
to finish half the sheep which die. The best approach is to ignore
this factor as it may compensate for some unknown factors tending to
underestimate requirements.

In conclusion it seems that under the most suitable conditions
where the feeds consist of good alfalfa hay and shelled corn, and where
the feeding system is well defined, an allowance of 10 percent above
the Specified requirements is adequate. On the other hand,where the
feeder wishes his system to remain more flexible, especially where

feeds are concerned, the safety margin should be increased to 15 percent.

FEED REQUIREMENTS OF BEEF CATTLE

Since most of the beef feeders buy in their animals for fattening,
only the final finishing period will be discussed in this presentation.
Almost all these animals are placed in dry lot and fed intensively until
they attain choice or good slaughter condition. The type of animal
fattened depends on many factors,such as relative cost of feeds, per-
sonal preference of the stockman, and buying-in price. In general, the
animals are bought in as either calves, yearlings, or two-year-olds.

The calves weigh about 400 lbs, and are fed to choice condition in from
8 to 9 months; the yearlings weigh about 650 lbs. at purchase and are

ready for slaughter after 6 to 7 months, while the two-year-olds weigh
850 lbs. on the average when purchased and only take from 5 to 6 months

to reach slaughter condition (Snapp and Neumann, 1960).

Average Dailygand Total Feed Requirements

 

The average daily and total feed requirements for fattening
calves and yearlings have been prepared by Henderson (Undeted) and are
reproduced in Appendix B. In estimating similar figures for two-year-
old steers, the first phenomenon noted was that if total feed require-
ments are estimated on an air dry basis, the amount of feed consumed
by calves, yearlings and two-year-olds from the time of purchase until
they reach choice condition is approximately the same. Evidence of
this is presented by Snapp and Neumann (1960), (Table 19) in which they
summarized data from seven trials on the effect of age on amounts of
feed needed to reach choice condition.

Assuming that two-year-old steers purchased at 840 lbs. consume
4400 lbs. feed before being turned out as choice animals at 1200 lbs.
and being fed at two rates such that their daily gain is 2.25 and 2.5

360 ‘ ~ 360 144

lbs. per day, the number of days required is {23- = 160 and 2—50
days respectively. The correSponding average daily feed consumptions
56 ‘

57

4400 4400 , . .
160 = 27.5 and -TZZ-= 30.5. U31ng these as a ba31s and allowing

 

are
the same minimum quantities of feed as Specified for calves and yearlings
in Appendix B, Table 20 has been prepared which gives the average daily

and total feed requirements of two-year-old steers.

TABLE 19

EFFECT OF AGE ON THE AMOUNT OF FEED NEEDED
BY BEEF‘CAITLE TO ATTAIN CHOICE CONDITION
(From Snapp and Neumann 1960)

 

 

r

 

Calves Yearlings Two-Year-Olds

FEED (lbs)
Shelled Corn 2735 2696 2811
Protein Concentrate 452 405 372
Dry Roughage 1139 1183 1203
TOTAL 4326 4284 4386
DAYS FED 235 177 151
AVERAGE daily gain 2.09 2.36 2.60

 

Da -to-Day Feed Requirements

 

The daily feed requirements vary somewhat depending on the ration
and rate of gain being made. Table 21 presents the daily, per head
consumption of calves at different stages in the fattening program as
obtained by Newland (1963) in an experiment involving more than 200
animals.

Similarly, recommendations on daily feed requirements are pre-
sented by the National Research Council (1958) for calves, yearlings,
and two-year-olds. Their findings, together with those of Newland, are
presented in graphic form in Fig. 15. By using this chart it is possible
to predict the daily feed requirements of animals at any stage of their
fattening program,and hence,to design a feed handling and feeding system
for maximum requirements.

When designing a materials handling system, additional safety
margins must be added to these figures to insure that both storage and
handling capacities are valued safely above the minimum estimated re-

quirements. Another point worthy of consideration is whether the animals

 

rf‘

Feedi
Expec

Feed:
Expe:

3’

are

58

TABLE 20

FEED REQUIREMENTS FOR.MEDIUM 850-LB TWO-YEAR-OLD STEERS FED
T0 GOOD-CHOICE 1200-LB SLAUGHTER STEERS

 

 

Average Total

Daily Feed
Feed Intake
Intake

 

(1b) (1b)

Feeding Period 144 days
Expected Daily Gain 2.50 lbs.

A. Steers confined to dry-lot, making optimum use of Corn Silage

Corn Silage (full-fed) ..................... 62.0a 8930
Shelled Corn (0.75 lb/100 1b body weight).. 8.0 1152
Protein Supplement (44%) ................... 1.5 216

B. Steers confined to dry-lot, making optimum use of Shelled Corn

Shelled Corn (full-fed) .................... 24.75 3565

Alfalfa Hay (0.50 1b/100 lb body weight)... 5.25 756

Protein Supplement (44%) ................... 0.50 72
Feeding Period 160 days

Expected Daily Gain _ 2.25 lbs.

.Au Steers confined to dry-lot, making optimum use of Corn Silage

Corn Silage (full-fed) ..................... 74.5a 11940
Protein Supplement (44%) ................... 2.5 400

B. Steers confined to dry-lot, making optimum use of Corn Silage
with limited grain

Corn Silage (full-fed) ..................... 52.5 8400
Shelled Corn (0.75 lb/lOO lb body weight).. 8.0 1280
Protein Supplement (44%) ................... 2.0 320

C. Steers confined to dry-lot, making optimum use of Shelled Corn

Shelled Corn (full-fed) .................... 21.75 ' 3480
Alfalfa Hay (0.50 1b/100 lb body weight.... 5.25 840
Protein Supplement (44%) ................... 0.50 72

 

8It may be difficult to achieve these intakes unless the animals
are fed three times per day.

OONH

ooHH

.AcoHuHucoo :nmvmmm: GHHu m an ono3 meeHcm cmn3 umoswaéou wcnwwmmV.w:H:muumm
mo mowmum meHnm> um muHOInmmmIo3u can mwcHHnmmh .mm>Hmo mo muamEmanvon voom hHHmQII.mH .mHm

oooH

H.666 666663 6606

com 006

o

o

m

 

59

 

mmannmmw manaouumm

mm>Hmo wcHamuumm

meo nmmwnosa wchmuumm

 

 

 

NH

6H

0H

wH

ON

NN

6N

oN

mN

(pea; Kip 1?? 'qI) 9893“? pee; A1190

60

are fattened as a group or whether some are being sold off and replaced
each week. The former places a much greater demand on feeding equipment

since almost all animals are at maximum feed requirements simultaneously.

TABLE 21

DAILY FEED CONSUMED BY FATTENING CALVES
AT VARIOUS STAGES OF GROWTH
(From Newland 1963)

 

 

Ayerage Body Average Dally Feed Consumed, Period

Weight

 

Days in Days to

 

Period Date During Period Corn Shelled Protein Total
Silage Corn Supplement Air Dry
(lb) (1b) (lb) (1b) (1b)
21 21 '544 23.7 5.8 0.98 14.29
35 56 611 27.4 6.3 1.02 16.44
28 84 691 31.6 6.9 1.01 18.38
28 112 767 32.6 7.3 1.00 19.20
35 147 846 33.1 8.1 1.02 20.09
16 163 913 32.7 8.7 1.00 20.55

 

Protein Requirements of Beef Cattle

 

When feed requirements are Specified in pounds of air dry feed,
it is necessary to determine the amount of the different feeds which go
to make up this quantity. This invariably involves determining the
quantity of protein supplement to add in order to satisfy the animal's
individual requirements. Table 22 presents the total and digestible
protein required by feeder cattle of different ages and body weights
as recommended by the National Research Council (1958).

If the approximate protein content of the other ingredients is
known, it should be possible, by using this table, to determine the
amount of protein supplement to add per day. See Appendix A. All
rations presented in Appendix B and Table 19 have been balanced for

protein.

61

TABLE 22

DAILY PROTEIN REQUIREMENTS OF FEEDER CATTLE
(From National Research Council 1958)

 

 

Average
Body Weight Daily Gain Total Protein Digestible Protein
.(lb) (lb) (lb/day) (lb/day)

 

Finishing Calves, Finished as Short Yearlings

 

 

 

 

 

400 2.3 1.3 1.0
600 2.4 1.8 1.3
800 2.2 2.0 1.5
1000 2 2 2.2 1.6
Finishing Yearlings
600 2.4 1.4
800 2.8 2. 1.6
1000 2.5 2.6 2.0
1100 2.3 2.7 2.0
Finishing Two-Year-Olds

800 2.8 2.4 1.8
1000 3.0 2.7

1200 2.6 2.9

 

FEED REQUIREMENTS OF POULTRY

LayinggHens

 

Two methods are in common use for expressing the feed require-
ments of laying hens. (1) Pounds of feed per year as a function of
number of eggs produced per year and (2) Pounds of feed per day per
100 birds as a function of percentage production (daily egg production
of 100 birds). Each of these estimates are further influenced by such

factors as weight of bird, age of bird, time of year, management, etc.

Pounds of Feed as a Function of
Eggs Produced Per Year

 

 

This method is based on allowing a certain amount of feed for
maintenance and adding additional feed depending on the number of eggs
produced annually. Although most references agree within reasonable
limits on the amount of feed required to maintain a bird of known
weight, some diversity exists concerning the amount required for egg
production. The National Research Council (1960) recommendations on
feed requirements for laying hens are based on a figure of 0.14 lb.
feed per egg produced. Data presented by Haberman (1956), Hartman
.(1956), Heuser (1955) and Parnell (1957) reflect an almost similar per-
egg requirement. Titus (1955), working with White Leghorn chickens
weighing 3.5 lbs., found the feed requirement per egg produced to be
as low as 0.0888 lb. He also quoted an independent source, working
with White Leghorns and Rhode Island Reds averaging 4.75 lb. body weight
as obtaining a per-egg feed requirement of 0.0865. An almost similar
figure is used by Schaible (1957) in preparing his table on total feed
requirements per hen per year.

Based on these recommendations, a chart has been prepared (Fig.
16)which illustrates the total feed requirements, per year, of birds

of various sizes. The "full" lines represent the total requirements
62

64

based on a per egg requirement of 0.14 1b., whereas the "broken" lines
represent requirements when a figure of 0.089 1b. feed per egg

is used.

Pounds of Feed per D§y_per 100 Birds as
a Function of Percentgge Egngroduction

 

 

This method also allows a certain amount of feed for maintenance
and adds additional feed depending on the daily egg production from the
100 birds. Using similar figures for maintenance and egg production as
those used in the previous section, a chart has been prepared (Fig. 17)
which presents the daily requirements of 100 birds of different weights
and production levels.

Hartman also presents a chart (reproduced in Fig. 18) which is
designed to predict the feed requirements of hens of any weight and
egg production. By selecting the weight of the bird on the left-hand
line and the egg production on the right line, the point at which a
line joining these points intersects the center line represents the
annual feed requirement. It will be noted that the figures thus ob-
tained coincide to a large extent with the higher requirements in
Fig. 16.

It should be remembered that the figures quoted are average and
do not reflect day-to-day or season-to-season variations. Heuser
presents tables in which the month-by-month feed consumptions are re-
corded. From these tables it is apparent that hens consume more feed
in the winter and less in the summer, depending on weather conditions.
One reference quoted, suggested an increase of 10 percent in feed
estimates in winter and a reduction of from 15 to 20 percent in very
hot weather. This reference also suggested that for older birds the
feed estimates may be reduced from 5 to 15 percent. Titus further
suggested that variations can occur among strains of the same breed
and between breeds of similar size in their ability to utilize feed

for egg production.

Feed Requirements of Broilers

 

Broilers, as defined by Morrison (1956), are chickens of either

65

IIT]

350
140 F
81--- ' r
— 130 '— 300 ‘-
P— — I—
«— 120 -- L
250 P
7 _ 1.. h
b 110 -— __

 

 

 

 

I—
100
6—
” 150'—'
90*— _
b _
9 _
50"-
4'— 60— —-
_ #— . 0—
AVS- Weight Feed Consumed Eggs per Year
(1b.) (Pounds/hen/year.)

Fig. l8.--Nomograph for determining the total yearly feed con-
sumption of laying hens of various weights and production levels.

66

sex which are finished for marketing when 8.5 to 12 weeks old and which
weigh 3 to 4 lbs. alive. ‘The most important consideration in broiler
production is efficiency of feed utilization, and this forms a basis
for estimating total feed consumption. With modern feeding techniques,
it is possible to raise 3.5-1b- BrOilers on a feed conversidn ratio of
2.5 lb. feed per pound of broiler. Heuser (1955) quotes figures from
large-scale broiler operations for 10 to 11 week old broilers in which
the body weight ranged from 3 to 3.75 lbs. and the feed conversion
varied between 2.5 and 3 lbs. feed per pound of broiler. These figures
are in agreement with recommendations by Schaible (1957) on broiler
growth and feed consumption. Allowing a feed conversion of from 2.5

to 3 lbs. feed per pound of bird, the amount of feed consumed by a 3
1b. broiler varies from 7.5 to 9 lbs. Similarly, a 3.75 lb. broiler
could be expected to consume from 9.4 to 11.25 lbs. feed. Since the
rate of conversion increases as the bird gets heavier (Schaible, 1957)
and (Heuser, 1955) it is reasonable to assume that,for a 3 1b. bird.the
feed requirement approaches the lower limit, whereas with the heavier
birds the higher requirement is appropriate.

.Schaible, Heuser, Titus (1955) and Parnell (1957) report on ex-
periments indicating the feed requirements of broilers from birth to
market weight. These figures have been averaged and expressed as total
feed consumed, feed consumed per week, and feed consumed per day. They
are presented in Fig. 19 together with a curve of body weight versus

age,for typical broilers.

LayingFlock Replacements

 

The main concern in this section is the feed required by the
lighter laying breeds from the time they are born until they are incor-
porated into the laying flock. This occurs when the birds are approxi-
mately 24 weeks old and weigh from 3.5 to 4 lbs. (Schaible, 1957).

Both Schaible and Heuser (1955) reported on experiments in which the
total feed consumed at different stages of growth was presented. Their
findings have been reproduced in graphic form in Fig. 20. The data

presented by Heuser concern Leghorn pullets fed from birth, whereas

67

 

 

 

 

l I I l I F I I l

9—

8"- _1.3

6—
’8?
'2 —4
3 Weight of Chicken 2
£5 6
'u
o
a Total Feed Co sumed
:
84—
'U
m
m
k.

‘1
Feed er Day (x 10)
2—
Feed per Week
I I J l 1 I I I l
1 2 3 4 5 6 '7 8 9 10

Age of Birds (Wks.)

Fig. l9.--Body weight and feed consumption of broiler chickens
at various ages.

Body Weight (pounds)

68

 

28 " ‘
26 _' . j

24 r- _.

Heuser Cornell
22 _. (Final bird weight: 3.73 lb.) __

Heuser

    

Schaible

(Mixed sex up to 10 wks._
Final bird weight:

3.4 lb.)

12 *-

Feed Consumed (pounds)

10 -

 

 

4 l I I I l I J 4 l 4 l I l !
4 8 12 16 20 24 28
Age (weeks)-

Fig. 20.--Cumulative feed consumption of laying-flock replace-
ment chickens.

69

those by Schaible are for cockerels and pullets (50:50) up to the age
of 10 weeks. ~The total feed consumption as indicated by these curves
are well in accord with a further suggestion by Schaible that the
normal feed requirement up to the start of egg production at 24 weeks
is 22 to 25 lbs., and an additional experiment cited by Heuser in
which the total feed consumed up to 26 weeks averaged 23.4 lbs. From
these comments, it seems reasonable to assume that the upper and lower
curves in Fig. 20 represent the maximum and minimum feed requirements
of the lighter laying breeds. Other references quoted by Heuser in-
dicate a slightly higher rate of feeding by which the birds reach 3.5
lbs. in 20 weeks. However, the total feed consumed in both cases is
almost identical as the saving in time in one instance is just about
offset by a reduction in daily feed intake in the other.

The total feed requirements for replacements of the larger breeds
are somewhat greater. Schaible suggested a range of from 26 to 35 1b.,
.while Heuser quoted experiments in which the total requirement for a

bird to reaCh 5.7 lbs. body weight at 20 weeks was 27 lbs.

$92222

Two breeds of turkeys are worthy of consideration; the Broad
Breasted Bronze representing the larger types and the Beltsville Small
White representing the smaller types. Considerable agreement exists
among workers as to amount of feed required to bring these birds to
market condition. Most estimates of both total and per-day feed con-
sumptions are based on feed efficiency factors. The accumulated feed
efficiency is the average number of pounds of feed required to produce
one pound of gain up to any given time; whereas the efficiency per
period is the weight of feed required to produce a pound of gain
within the given period. The former may be used to predict the total
feed required from birth, while the latter is useful in estimating the
average daily requirements for any period. ’

Heuser (1955), Winter and Funk (1960) and Schaible (1957) pre-
sent data in which the overall efficiency for Broad Breasted Bronze

turkeys, marketed at about 20 lbs. was 3.82 to 4.6 and those for

70

Beltsville Small Whites marketed at about 10 lbs. was 3.4 and 4.4.
The correSponding means were 4.2 and 3.8. Figs. 21 and 22 have been
prepared from data presented by Heuser and Winter and Funk reSpectively.
These data have been used because they represent approximate average
conditions. The figures on the right of the curves represent the
accumulated efficiency to the end of that period while those on the
left represent the average efficiency for the period on the curve
opposite which they occur. The latter figures have been taken from a?
smoothed curve on the original data. Using these curves, it is pos-
sible to estimate the total feed required to reach any age and the
average feed consumption over specified periods.

Example: In Fig. 21, when Beltsville White turkeys have reached
the age of 12 weeks, they should weigh 5.1 1b., should have consumed
5.1 X 2.69 lb. feed, and average daily feed consumption for the previous

05'1 - 3'8) = 0.283 lb. per day.

two-week period should be 3.05 X 14

Materials Handling Considerations in Poultry Production

In most cases where poultry is produced on a large scale the
producer has a contract with a feed merchant to supply the feed at
regular intervals throughout the year. Under this system, the only
materials handling problems are providing sufficient storage for the
feed required during the period between deliveries, and designing
feeders to meet the maximum daily feed requirements of the birds.
This system has the advantage that it relieves the farmer of some of
the worries of providing long-term storage facilities and also fits
in well with the general recommendation by nutritionists that mixed
feeds should not be kept in storage for more than three weeks,due to
deterioration of some of the ingredients (Schaible, 1957). The
principle ingredients which deteriorate are carotene, vitamins A, D
and B12 and trace elements. (American Feed Manufacturers Association-
undated). In addition, the ration for growing birds must be changed
as the birds grow older. This is not a particular problem in con-
tinuous enterprises such as broiler production, since birds at all

stages are continually present. With seasonal enterprises such as

 

  
   
  

I I I l l | I I l I l I I |
10 — ‘
1; - Efficiency per 6
g Period
5 _ -————‘ _
o
m-
V b .—
2
m 5 — -
8
3 Accumulated Efficiency -
>5
8
m 'I
1

 

 

 

- I I I I l I 1 I I I I
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Age (weeks)
Fig. 21.--Efficiency of feed utilization of Beltsville Small White
turkeys from birth to market.

 

     

 

 

 

 

. 'p I 1 I I I I 1 I r I I I I
20 ‘ ‘
Efficiency per
Period
A
g 15 — _
I:
5 _
o
a
V )-
2 -
_Q 10 P‘ ‘
w -
3 .
h -
'U
3 _
5 — _
k
0‘- I I I I l I I I I I I I

6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Age (weeks)

Fig. 22.--Efficiency of feed utilization of Broad Breasted Bronze
turkeys from birth to market.

72

turkeys, frequent delivery of feed is a decided advantage in guarding
against overstocking with one particular ration and the necessity of
providing individual storages for different rations does not arise.
On-the-farm mixing eliminates some of the obstacles just mentioned,
but the problem still remains of estimating total requirements of in-»
dividual feeds, and in view of changes in feed composition just men—

tioned, this would not be easy.

What Should be Known About Feed Requirements
in Order to Design a Satisfactory Materials
Handling System?

Feed requirements may be expressed in different ways depending
on the type of enterprise being considered; (1) daily feed requirements,
(2) yearly feed requirements, (3) total production requirements (less
than one year). The latter concerns birds such as broilers, which are
born and marketed in less than one year. Of these, the daily feed re-
quirements are by far the most useful from a materials handling point-
of-view. If the mean daily requirements for weekly of two-weekly
periods throughout the bird's life are known, both the total and
maximum daily feed requirements can be estimated. Feed efficiency
factors are frequently quoted in enterprises where the emphasis is on
meat production, and are used to estimate both daily and total feed
consumption. A fuller discussion on efficiency factors may be found

in the preceding sections dealing with the various poultry enterprises.

What Allowances Should be Made in Basing
a Materials Handligg System on Estimated
Feed Requirements?

 

 

 

As pointed out in previous discussions, the estimates of feed
consumption are for average conditions. It is essential, therefore,
when designing storage and feeding facilities to make sufficient
allowances to insure that the system is adequate under all conditions.
In addition to the normal allowances necessaryttoecater for .1:
the less efficient birds which consume more than average amounts of
feed, account must also be taken of other factors such as (1) £321
wastage; Schaible, in a discussion on this problem presented data
which show that wastage can go as high as 45 percent when the hOpperS

73

are overfilled and as low as 1.3 percent when the hOppers are filled
about one third. In many enterprises a certain amount of feed is fed

in the form of "scratch", that is, the grain is scattered on the litter
and the birds allowed to forage for it. This invariably leads to feed
losses and Spoilage. Schaible estimates that feed wastage on most farms

amounts to 200 lbs. per 100 birds per year (2-3%)- (2) Feed shrinkagg;

 

when feeds are processed and mixed on the farm a certain amount of loss
is inevitable. The American Feed Manufacturers Association, quoting a
recent survey of seven feed mills, indicated that the losses in storing,
handling, and grinding shelled corn and Oats were 3 and 4.4 percent
respectively. This is an important consideration on farms where home
processing is practiced.

When all these factors must be taken into account, it is dif-
ficult to generalize on what should be considered a reasonable safety
margin. Under the most extreme conditions, it seems necessary to allow
a-20 percent margin in storage facilities and a 10 to 15 percent margin

in feeding equipment.

Feeding Systems

 

Two systems are in common use in poultry feeding. (1) All mash
and (2) mash-grain. A full discussion on the latter system has been
excluded because of the infinite variety of combinations practiced.
However, in individual cases the problem consists only of estimating
what proportion of the feed is being fed as grain and designing storage

and handling facilities accordingly.

SUMMARY

The design of materials handling equipment and systems is a rela-
tively new area in Agricultural Engineering. In it the designer must
combine his engineering skill with a thorough knowledge of animal feed
requirements to produce a satisfactory system for conveying, processing,
and storing feeds and other materials on the farm. A preliminary in-
vestigation into the nature of these requirements revealed that it was
essential to know the yearly and maximum daily feed consumptions of the
animals; this information was not available in a readily usable form.
It was the object of the present investigation to extract information
on these requirements from the available data on animal feeding and to
add to it allowances for eventualities such as variations in feed com-
position and availability, changes in animal appetite, etc., so that a
system, designed in accordance with the recommendations, would be ade-
quate under all conditions, but not excessively large.

The feed requirements of dairy cows were first calculated on
the basis of nutrient requirements and then compared with data obtained
from feeding experiments. The latter were found to be considerably
higher because the animal was not content to stop eating when it had
taken in sufficient nutrients but continued until its appetite was
satisfied. It was apparent from this that considerable underestima-
tion of feed requirements was possible if estimates were based on
nutrient requirements alone. The type of feed offered had a consider-
able effect on the quantity of feed consumed daily, as animals did not
have the capacity to consume as much dry matter daily when the feeds
were bulky. For animals producing less than 28 lb. of milk per day, a
diet composed of all good quality roughage was adequate. If, however,
she was producing more than 28 lb. daily some of the roughage had to
be replaced by higher energy grain feeds. The method of grain feeding

found most satisfactory for calculation purposes was to give one pound
74

75

of grain for every two pounds of milk produced in excess of what the
roughage would support. Lactation curves were used to predict the
month-to-month variations in daily milk production. The grain was

balanced for protein according to the following formula:

.. ._ (M+P-R)2
Percent protein in meal-mix - Y _ (W _ l6)l.375 X 100

Where

Daily protein requirement for maintenance (1b).
Pounds of protein supplied by roughages daily.
Pounds of milk produced per cow daily.

Weight of "Hay Equivalent" consumed daily.
Daily milk yield (1b).

wawz
n

In normal feeding practice the roughage is fed gd_libitum, while
the grain is rationed. Under these conditions the quantity of grain
consumed can be estimated with a fair degree of accuracy, but the esti-
mated roughage requirement should be increased by not less than 15
percent to allow for feed wastage, and variations in animal appetite.
Curves were prepared of the yearly feed requirements of cows with
various milking capabilities, which incorporate these allowances. The
point of entry on these curves is critical, as the quantity of grain
fed must not exceed what is economically justifiable. In a review of
recent literature the tendency seemed to be to feed one pound of grain
for every 2.5 to 3 1b. of milk produced. The feed requirements for
herd replacements were met by adding 200 lb. of milk, 275 to 700 1b.
grain and 6.3 to 5.5 tons hay equivalent per cow per year depending on
the quality of the roughage.

When designing a materials handling system for daily animals,
one should make extra allowances for system flexibility and for deter-
ioration and spoilage of feed. In addition the following points should
be considered:

1. Method of preserving hay--loose, baled, or pelleted. ‘
2 Possible unknown deterioration of some feeds in prolonged storage.
3. Allowances should be made for very large or very small cows.
4 The lactation period has been assumed to be one year, sometimes
it is greater than this.
5. Silos should be designed so that at least 3 inches of silage is

removed daily.

76

The most important phase in swine management is the production
of slaughter pigs. The type of feed required is determined by the age
of the animal and the type of carcase desired. Weaner pigs and those
intended for the production of "bacon" type carcases need more protein
in the ration than older pigs or those fed to produce "meat" type car-
cases. The amount of protein needed in the ration was governed by the
type of animal and the composition of the energy feeds being offered.

A table was prepared which gave the proportions of energy and protein
feeds required for animals of different types and ages when fed various
rations. Even where the energy feeds contained the required amount of
protein, a minimum of 10 percent protein supplement, containing animal
protein and carotene was added to supply essential nutrients. The
total feed consumed by pigs from weaning at 40 1b. to slaughter at 215
1b. varied from 570 to 780 lb. depending on the type of management; the
maximum daily feed consumption was 8 lb.

The quantity of feed consumed by pigs from birth to weaning de-
pended on the size of litter and the milking capabilities of the sow.
Under normal conditions this did not exceed 25 lb. of "creep" feed.

The total feed consumed by breeding sows during gestation and lactation
was about 1560 lb.

The following points should be taken into account when designing
a materials handling system for swine:

1. Where possible it is better to arrange for periodic deliveries of
protein supplement to avoid deterioration of ingredients.

2. Pigs of different sizes are usually grouped together for feeding,
this will affect the size of feeding equipment needed.

3. A safety margin of at least 10 percent should be allowed when
basing a materials handling system on feed requirement estimates.

Beef cattle are purchased for feeding as either calves, yearlings,
or two-year-olds. It was noted that no matter which group was considered
the total amount of air dry feed required to bring them to slaughter
condition was about 4,400 lb. The maximum daily feed required by these
groups was 22, 27, and 29 1b. of air-dry feed respectively. The amount
of protein required was determined from the National Research Council

recommendations on nutrient requirements of beef cattle.

77

In designing a materials handling system for beef cattle the
following points should be considered:

1. Animals may be purchased as one group, hence feeding facilities
should be designed to cateriknrall animals on maximum daily feed
simultaneously.

2. Allow a safety margin of at least 15 percent when designing a
materials handling system on feed requirement estimates.

In dealing with the feed requirements of sheep it was found that
breeding animals needed little concentrate except for a time before
lambing and during the lactation period. For breeding sheep kept in
dry-lot the annual feed consumption for small animals was 915 1b. legume
hay and 143 lb. grain, and for small animals was 1370 lb. legume hay
and 240 1b. grain. When part of the hay was replaced by poor quality
roughage the amount of grain had to be increased. When estimating the
feed requirements of feeder lambs it was assumed that the lambs were
purchased weighing 55 - 80 1b. and fed to slaughter condition at 90 -
100 1b. The amount of feed required to produce 100 1b. gain was 800 lb.
of half and half grain and roughage. The maximum daily feed required
was 4.4 lb. The amount of feed eaten by spring lambs to bring them to
slaughter condition at 60 - 100 lb. varied according to the milking
abilities of the ewe. One reference suggested that spring lambs should
have consumed 67 1b. grain and 45 1b. legume hay by the time they were
90 days old.

In designing a materials handling system for feeder lambs the
following points should be taken into account:

1. It is possible to have all lambs on maximum daily feed consumption
simultaneously.

2. Animal deaths--normally a death rate of 3 - 4 percent should be
expected.

3. If the operator is inexperienced he may select a type of sheep
which will need more feed per pound of gain than anticipated.

4. Under good conditions of management allow a safety margin of at
least 10 percent when designing a materials handling system on
feed requirement estimates.

In dealing with poultry, the feed requirements of laying hens,

78

broiler chickens, laying flock replacements, and turkeys were considered.
The amount of feed required by laying hens depended on the size of the
bird and its egg production. Under average feeding conditions it takes
10.5 lb. feed to produce a 3.5 lb. broiler. Laying flock replacements
were treated as a separate entity until they began to lay at about 24
weeks. Up to that time they had consumed approximately 22 lb. of grain.
In estimating feed requirements of turkeys it was found that the amount
of feed required to produce one pound of gain were 3.9 and 4.3 lb. for
small and large birds reSpectively. Small birds were usually fit for
market at about 10 lb. and large birds at 20 lb. body weight.
The following factors should be taken into account when designing

a materials handling system for poultry:
1. It may be economical in some instances to have the feed delivered

periodically by a local feed merchant.
2. Birds waste considerable amounts of feed if the feeder is incor-

rectly designed.
3. In on-the-farm processing of feedsa 3 - 5 percent feed shrinkage

can be expected.
4. Under good management conditions allow a safety margin of 10 - 15

percent in system design.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE STUDIES

(1) The design of a successful materials handling system for
agriculture demands a thorough knowledge of both engineering and animal
nutrition. Since most designs are executed by engineers it is essential
that pertinent information on animal feeding capabilities be available
to them in a readily understandable manner. It was found, when ex-
tracting this information, that many researchers, being interested in
other facets of animal nutrition, omitted certain details which would
be useful to a materials handling design engineer. This was particu-
larly obvious in feeding trials on beef cattle, where the daily feed
consumptions and weight gains were recorded, but only overall averages
were given in the results. Valuable information of this kind exists
in the files of animal nutritionists throughout the country and is
available for the asking. It is suggested that such data be obtained
and reassessed on the basis of materials handling design requirements.

(2) The data obtained in this investigation should be integrated
with available information on feed lots and handling equipment to
present a more complete picture of what is needed to insure a satis-
factory system.

(3) The investigation just carried out is by no means complete.
Much work remains to be done on animal requirements under specialized
feeding and housing conditions.

(4) Similar data should be obtained for water requirements and

animal manure.

79

REFERENCES

Brown, L. D.
1961 Hay and Silage studies with dairy cattle. Thesis for
degree of Ph.D., Michigan State University, East Lansing.
(Unpublished)

Brown, L. D., Thomas, J. W., Emery, R. S., McGilliard, L.D.,
Armstrong, D. V., and Lassiter, C. A.
1962 Effect of high-level grain feeding on milk production
reSponse of lactating dairy cows. Jour. of Dairy Sci.
45:1184-1187.

Carroll, W. E., Krinder, J. L., and Andrews, F. N.
1962 Swine Production, 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill Inc., New York

 

Cate, H. A., Lewis, J. M., Webb, R. J., Mansfield, M. E.,
Garrigus, U. S.
1955 Effect of pelleting rations of varied quality on feed
utilization by lambs. Jour. of Anim. Sci. 14:137.

Cooperative Extension Service, Michigan State University
1962 Annual summary, Michigan Dairy Herd Improvement Association
Records, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Editorial Service Co. Inc.
1959 Feed Bag Red Book. Editorial Service Co. Inc., Milwaukee,
Wisconsin.

 

Ensminger, M. E.
1952 Sheep Husbandry, Interstate Printers and Publishers Inc.,
Danville, Illinois.

 

Haberman, J. J.
1956 Poultpy Farming for Profit. Prentice Hall Inc., New York.

 

Hartman, R. C., and King, D. F.
1956 Keeping Chickens in Cages, 4th ed., R. C. Hartman Publishing
Co., Redlands, California.

 

Henderson, H. E.
Undated Beef cattle programs. Annual feed requirements. Fact
Sheet 329. Cooperative Extension Service, Michigan State
University, East Lansing.

80

Heuser, G.
1955

Hillman, D.
1958

Hillman, D.
1959

Hillman, D.
Undated

Hoefer, J.
1962

Hoefer, J.
1963

Hoglund, R.

1962

Huffman, C.
1956

Jordan, R.
1950

81

F.
Feeding poultpy, 2nd ed., John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York.

, Lassiter, C. A., Huffman, C. F., Ducan, C. W.

Effect of all hay versus all silage rations on dry-matter
intake of dairy cows. Moisture and ph as factors affecting
appetite. Jour. of Dairy Sci. 41:720 (abstract).

Appetite studies in dairy cattle. Grass silage versus hay.
Thesis for degree of Ph.D. Michigan State University,

East Lansing. (Unpublished).

, Finney, W. D., and Maddex, R. D.

Materials handled per animal. Agricultural Engineering
Department information series, No. 47, Code 18.1.

A., Miller, E. A., and Hines, R. H.
Swine feeding recommendations, Animal Husbandry Department,
publication A. H. 71. Michigan State University, East Lansing.

A.
Professor, Animal Husbandry Dept., Michigan State University,
personal communication, July.

C.

Economic evaluation of forages for dairy cattle. Paper
presented at symposium on the economics and role of forages
in dairy and beef production. Anim. Sci. Meeting, Chicago,
Nov. 23.

F.
Grain equivalent value of pre-bud alfalfa hay and alfalfa
rye-grass silage in reSpect of milk production. Mich. Agr.
Exp. Sta. Quart. Bul. 39, No. 2. Michigan State University,
East Lansing. '

M., and Weakly, H.
Feeding Dakota Lambs, Animal Husbandry Department Bul. 403,
South Dakota State College, Bookings.

Kammlade and Kammlade

1955

Keener, H.
1958

McGilliard,
Undated

Sheep Science, revised ed. J. B. Lypencott Co.

A., Allen, F. E., Colonos, N. F., Paul, Ann C., Davis, H. A.
Value of adding corn silage and limited quantities of hay
to a grass-silage limited grain ration for dairy heifers.
Jour. Dairy Sci. 41:429-437.

L. D.
Average daily milk production in pounds, at various stages
of lactation (days from freshening) for Holstein cows under
and over 3 years of age. Cooperative Extension Service,
Michigan State University, East Lansing.

82

McKinney, J.

1959

The Sheeprook, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.

Morrison, F. B.

1956

National
1958

National
1959

National
1958

National
1957

National
1960

Newland H.

1963

Nicholson,

1957

Parnell, E.

1957

Reid, J. T.

1961

Feeds and Feeding, 22nd ed., Morrison Pub. Co., Ithaca,
New York.

 

Research Council

Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle, Publication 464,
revised. National Academy of Sciences, National Research
Council, 2101 Constitution Ave., Washington 25, D.C.

Research Council

Nutrient Requirements of Swine, Publication 648, revised,
National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council,
2101 Constitution Ave., Washington 25, D.C.

Research Council

Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle, Publication 579,
revised, National Academy of Sciences, National Research
Council, 2101 Constitution Ave., Washington 25, D.C.

Research Council

Nutrient Requirements of Sheep, Publication 504, revised,
National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council,
2101 Constitution Ave., Washington 25, D.C.

Research Council

Nutrient Requirements of Poultry, Publication 827, revised,
National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council,
2101 Constitution Ave., Washington 25, D.C.

W.

Personal Communication. Data summarized in Pub. AH 90,
Animal Husbandry Department, Michigan State University,
East Lansing.

J. W. S., and Parent, R. C.
Various combinations of grass silage and hay for dairy

 

cattle. Canadian Jour. Anim. Sci. 37:64.

D.

Profitable Poultry Production. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
New York.

Problems of feed evaluation related to feeding of dairy
cows. Jour. Dairy Sci. 44:No. 11 2105-2132.

Schaible, P. J.

1957

Poultry feeds, Circular bulletin 224, Department of Poultry
Husbandry, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

 

83

Schneider, B. H.
1947 Feeds of the World, Their Digestibility and Composition,
Jarrett Printing_Co., Charleston, W. Virginia.

Snapp, R. R., and Neumann, A. L.
1960 Beef Cattle, 5th ed., John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.

 

Stone, J. B., Trimberger, G. W., Henderson, C. R., and Reid, J. T.,
Turk, K. D., and Loosli, J. K.
1960 Forage intake and efficiency of feed utilization in dairy
cattle. Jour. Dairy Sci. 9:1275-1281.

Sykes, J. F., Converse, H. T., and Moore, L. A.
1955 Comparison of alfalfa hay and alfalfa silage as roughage
for growing dairy heifers in limited milk and grain
feeding. Jour. Dairy Sci. 38:1246.

Thomas, W. J., Moore L. A., and Sykes, J. F.
1961 Further comparisons of alfalfa hay and alfalfa silage for
growing dairy heifers. Jour. Dairy Sci. 44:862.

Thomas, W. J., Hillman, D., Lassiter, C. A., and Brown, L. D.
1962 Hay crop Silages. Proceedings of forage symposium, Michigan
State University, East Lansing P. 75.

Titus, H. W.
1955 The Scientific Feedipg of Chickens. Interstate printers
and publishers Inc., Danville, Illinois.

 

United States Department of Agriculture
1942 Input-Output Relationships in Milk Production. Tech.
Bul. 815, U.S.D.A., Washington, D. C.

Waugh, R. K., Poston, H. S., Mochrie, R. D., Murley, W. R., and
Lucas, H. L.
1955 Additions of hay to corn silage to maximize feed intake
and milk production. Jour. Dairy Sci. 38:688.

Winter, A. R., and Funk, E. M.
1960 Poultry Science and Practice, 5th ed., J. B. Lippincott Co.

 

APPENDIX A
1
CALCULATING FEED MIXTURES

Below is a simple method of determining how much grain and how
much protein supplement to use to make a mixture with a certain protein
content. In this example a mixture containing 16% protein is to be
made from corn containing approximately 9% protein and supplement con-
taining 40% protein.

Draw a square. In the center of the square put the protein con-
tent desired in the final mixture.

At the upper left-hand corner of the square write corn and its
protein content (9); at the lower left-hand corner write supplement and
its protein content (40).

Substract diagonally across the square (the smaller from the
larger), and enter the results at the corners on right-hand side
(16 - 9 = 7; 40 - 16 = 24).

The number at the upper right-hand corner gives the parts of
corn and the number at the lower right-hand corner the parts of supple-

ment needed to make a mixture with 16% protein.

 

Corn 9 24 parts corn or 77%

(24 + 31 = .77 x 100 = 77%)

16

 

 

Supp. 40 7 parts supplement or 23%
(7 + 31 = .23 x 100 = 23%)

 

31 parts

 

1 _:f ‘.' _ 1 A
. From Animal Husbandry Publication AH 71. Michigan State
University, East Lansing.

84

85

Therefore, a mixture of 77 pounds of corn and 23 pounds of protein

supplement would make a ration containing 16% protein.

Calculating the Protein Content
of a Ration (Examplp),

 

% Protein

in feed
900 1b. Corn times .09 = 81.00
500 lb. Oats times .12 = 60.00
300 1b. Alfalfa Meal times .17 = 51.00
280 lb. Soybean Meal times .44 = 123.20
20 1b. Mineral
2000 315.20

315.20 + 2000 = .157 x 100 = 15.7% protein

APPENDIX B

1

BEEF FEEDING PROGRAMS--ANNUAL FEED REQUIREMENTS

Feeding Systems

 

 

 

I. Good to Choice 400-pound Heifer Calves Fed FeedERzizifzde ts
to 900-pound Choice Slaughter Heifers (Ib ) m n
Feeds Daily Annual
Feeding Period 250 days
Expected Daily Gain 2.0 lbs.
A. Confined to Dry-Lot, Making Optimum
Use of Corn Silage
Corn silage, full fed 26.0 6,500
Corn, ground shelled (Corn and supple-
ment limited to 1 lb. per cwt. of
body weight daily) 5.0 1,288
44% protein supplement 1.5 375
Hay optional, if fed 2.0 500
(If hay is fed, reduce silage by 5 lbs.
daily or 1250 lbs. annually)
B. Confined to Dry-Lot, Making Optimum
Use of Ground Ear Corn
Corn, ground ear full-fed 13.0 3,290
Hay, limited to 1/2 lb. per cwt.
of body weight daily 3.25 800
44% protein supplement 1.0 250

 

 

1FromFact Sheet 329, Cooperative Extension Service, Animal Husbandry

Department, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

86

87

 

 

 

 

 

II. Good to Choice 400-pound Steer Calves Fed FeedER21:::::ents
to 1000-pound Choice Slaughter Steers (Ibs )
Feeds Daily Annual
Feeding Period 270 days
Expected Daily Gain 2.25 lbs.
A. Confined to Dry-Lot, Making Optimum
Use of Corn Silage
Corn silage, full-fed 28.0 8,000
Hay optional 2.0 600
(If hay is fed, reduce silage by 5
lbs. daily. 1500 lbs. yearly)
Corn, ground shelled 5.5 1,680
(Corn and supplement limited to 1 lb.
per cwt. of body weight daily.)
44% protein supplement 1.5 450
B. Confined to Dry-Lot, Making Optimum
Use of Ground Ear Corn
Corn ground ear, full-fed 14.0 3,780
Hay, limited to 1/2 lb. per cwt. of
body weight daily 3.5 1,000
44% supplement 1.0 270
III. Medium 400-pound Steer Calves Fed to 1000—
pound Standard to Good Slaughter Steers
Feeding Period 340 days
Expected Daily Gain 1.75 lbs.
A. Confined to Dry-Lot, Making Optimum
Use of Hay
Hay, full-fed 14.0 5,000
Corn, ground ear; limited to 3/4 lb.
per cwt. of body weight daily 5.0 1,750
No protein supplement needed
B. Confined to Dry-Lot, Making Optimum
Use of Corn Silage
Corn silage, full fed 42.0 14,000
44% protein supplement 2.0 700

(Limited to 2 lbs. daily)

 

88

 

 

 

 

 

IV. Good to Choice 650-pound Yearling Steers Fed FeedERzlflifzde ts
to 1100-pound Choice Slaughter Steers (Ibs )m n
Feeds Daily Annual
Feeding Period 225 days
Expected Daily Gain 2.25 lbs.
A. Confined to Dry-Lot Making Optimum
Use of Corn Silage
Corn silage, full fed 35.0 8,000
Corn, ground, shelled 7.25 2,100
(Corn and supplement limited to 1 lb.
per cwt. of body weight daily)
44% protein supplement 1.5 340
(Limited to 1-1/2 lbs. daily)
Hay optional, if fed 2.0 450
(If hay is fed reduce silage by 5 lbs.
daily, 1125 lbs. yearly)
B. Confined to Dry-Lot, Making Optimum
Use of Ground Ear Corn
Corn, ground ear, full-fed 17.0 3,850
Hay, limited to 1/2 lb. per cwt. of
body weight daily 4.5 1,000
44% protein supplement 1.0 225
(Limited to 1 lb. daily)
V. Medium 650-pound Yearling Steers Fed to 1000-
pound Standard to Good Slaughter Steers
Feeding Period 175 days
Expected Daily Gain 2.0 lbs.
A. Confined to Dry-Lot, Making Optimum
Use of Corn Silage
Corn silage, full-fed 55.0 9,500
44% protein supplement 2.0 350
(Limited to 2 lbs. daily)
B. Confined to Dry-Lot, Making Optimum
Use of Hay
Hay, full-fed 17.0 3,000
Corn, ground ear (Limited to 3/4 lb.
per cwt. of body weight daily) 6.0 1,050

No protein supplement needed

 

89

Exchange Ratios Based on Diggstible Energy or T.D.N.

 

In order to add more flexibility to the various feeding systems

outlined above, some exchange ratios are listed below.

When one feed is substituted for another in the ration, it must

be done on a digestible energy basis in order to maintain the desired
rate of gain. Feeders must be careful not to exceed dry-matter intake
capacity of the animal when a low-energy, density feed is substituted
for a feed of higher energy density.

1.

1.2 bu. of 30% moisture shelled or ear corn replaces l bu. of 15%

moisture corn.

8 bu. of 15% moisture ground ear corn will replace 1 Ton of 70%

moisture corn silage.

9 bu. of 15% moisture ground shelled corn will replace 1 Ton of 70%

moisture corn silage.

1-1/2 Tons of 75% moisture alfalfa silage will replace 1 Ton of 70%

moisture corn silage.

1 Ton of 10% moisture alfalfa hay will replace 2-1/2 Tons of 70%

moisture corn silage.
1 lb. of 44% protein supplement plus .4 lb. of shelled corn will
replace both the protein and energy contained in 1.4 lbs. of 32%

protein supplement.

1 lb. of ground Shelled corn replaces 1.1 lbs. of ground ear corn.

589

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'IIIIIIII'I‘I'