RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

 Average results of two trials comparing ground shelled and rolled high moisture corn,
with cottonseed hulls as roughage, are shown in Table 4. For the groups with citrus
molasses, no molasses, and the two groups combined, steers fed rolled high moisture corn
gained 0.44, 0.40, and 0.42 pound, respectively, more per head daily than those fed dry
ground shelled corn. Rolled high moisture ccn cattle consumed 12.2 percent (129 pounds)
less feed per 100 pounds gain, with a $3.48 lower feed cost per 100 pounds gain than the
ground shelled corn cattle. Net advantage in return above costs was $10.33 more per head
for the rolled high moisture corn cattle. Rolled high moisture corn was worth $10.18 more
per ton on a dry (14 percent moisture) basis than ground shelled corn. Feeding citrus
molasses resulted in increased gain, improved feed efficiency, and greater net return with
both moist and dry corn.

 Results presented in Table 5 are similar to those in Table 4. In the one trial
reported with Coastal Bermuda haylage, rolled high moisture corn produced more gain with
14 percent less feed per 100 pounds gain ($3.76 less cost per 100 pounds gain) than dry
ground shelled corn. Return above costs of cattle and feed averaged $9.91 more per head
for the moist corn cattle. Citrus molasses improved results with both dry and moist grain.

 A two trial comparison of cottonseed hulls and haylage as roughage in high moisture
corn rations is presented in Table 6. As previously stated sorghum-sudan haylage was used
in the first trial and Coastal Bermuda haylage in the second trial. Steer gains were
slightly larger and more efficient with the cottonseed hulls; but with cottonseed hulls
priced at $34.50 and haylage at $12.27 per ton, cost ot gain and return above costs of
cattle and feed did not differ greatly with the two roughages. With both roughages, citrus
molasses improved results. The one trial comparison of cottonseed hulls with sorghum-sudan
(Lindseys 77F) haylage are summarized in Table 7, and the cottonseed hull-Coastal Bermuda
haylage comparison is shown in Table 8. In considering the results presented in Tables 6-8,
it should be noted that quality of roughage was not an important factor with these rations,
because the roughage level was relatively low (approximately 20 percent of the total ration).

 With dry ground shelled corn, cottonseed hulls as roughage produced slightly larger and
more efficient gains than Coastal Bermuda haylage; but costs of gains and net returns were
similar with the two roughages (Table 9). Citrus molasses improved performance with both
roughages.

 Table 10 summarizes results of two trials comparing ground shelled corn-cottonseed
hulls with ground snapped corn. As previously stated, roughage level was the same for
the two rations, and in both the corn was air dry (14 percent moisture). Steer performance
and net returns slightly favored the ground shelled corn-cottonseed hull-mixture, although
other trials at the North Florida Station indicate no difference with similar comparisons.
In the trials reported in Table 10, one group of steers fed ground snapped corn without
citrus molasses made an unusually poor gain, possibly due to inferior animals allotted to
the group. It is apparent that the ground snapped corn (Lots 31 and 32) did not compare
more favorably with high moisture corn (Lots 37 and 38) than did the ground shelled corn
(Lots 33 and 34, Tables 4 and 10).

 Detailed carcass data (Table 11) reveal differences in carcass weights but small
differences in other carcass characteristics. There was a tendency for carcasses of cattle
fed high moisture grain to be slightly fatter than those of dry grain cattle and for
carcasses of citrus molasses steers to bc slightly fatter than those of cattle not fed
molasses.