Progress Report Series No. 52 
March 1955
AGRICU LTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
of The Alabama 
Polytechnic 
Institute, Auburn, 
Ala.
* * * * E. V. SMITH, Director . .
.
THREE-YEARS' RESULTS FROM CREEP-FEEDING EXPERIMENT
Black Belt Substation, 1952-54 AR 29 1955
W. B. Kelley, L. A. Smith, and C. M. Martin* ;ALAAMA
Does it pay to creep feed calves that have good milking dams? This question
has been raised by Black Belt commercial beef cattle producers who have well-bred
herds of beef cows.
The cow-and-calf program now followed by many commercial beef producers of
Alabama is based on practices found to be profitable at the Black Belt Substation.
Cattlemen in the region who have used the recommended 
practices have developed
good producing herds. Calves from these herds carry slaughter finish at weaning
age and are in demand by packer buyers.
The program resulted from 
pasture and forage plant studies, 
fertilizer ex-
periments, and work on pasture and herd management. This research 
showed that it
is quite practicable to produce weanling calves carrying slaughter 
finish on
grasses, clovers, and their mothers' milk. The 
cow-and-calf program emphasizes
the following:
(1) Use good sires out of good milking dams.
(2) Retain in the herd only those cows that produce heavy, high quality,
fat calves.
(3) Select herd replacements from the fattest heifers at weaning age.
(4) Graze the dams and their calves on good, well-fertilized 
pastures and
forages.
During recent years, there has been considerable interest in creep feeding
in the Black Belt region. Beef producers who 
have well-bred herds of good milking
cows wanted to know whether it would pay to feed 
grain to their calves. To help
answer this question, a creep-feeding experiment 
was started at the Black Belt
Substation in 1952. This publication reports 
3 years' results involving fall-
and winter-dropped calves, and 2 years' results 
with spring calves.
Experimental Animals and Management
The dams of the calves used in this experiment 
were well-bred Herefords with
good milking capacity. The sires of the calves 
were of the Hereford, Shorthorn,
*Superintendent, Black Belt Substation; Assistant Superintendent, Black Belt Sub-
station; and Associate Animal 
Husbandman, Agricultural Experiment 
Station of the
Alabama Polytechnic Institute.
Angus, and Brahman breeds. Approximately the same number of calves from each
breed of bulls was used in the creep-fed and non-creep-fed groups. All fall-
and winter-calving cows received a winter ration that consisted of 2 pounds of
cottonseed meal and about 15 pounds of Johnsongrass hy from December through
March. The spring-calving cows were fed 15 to 20 pounds of hay and no concen-
trates during the winter unless they calved before spring grazing was available.
Cows that calved prior to the period of ample grazing were fed 2 pounds of
cottonseed meal in addition to the hay.. Spring and summer grazing consisted of
white clover and Dallisgrass.
Records were available on the producing ability of the cows. This permitted
accurate division of the calves on the basis of producing ability of the dams.
Age of dams also was a factor in the division.
Rotation between pastures at 14-day intervals was practiced with the two
groups to offset any variation in productivity of the pastures. From li to 2
acres of pasture were available per cow.
.1The fall and winter calves were dropped from September through January.
They were marketed at about 9 months of age in June, July and August. The spring
calves were dropped from February through May; these were sold in October, averag-
ing about 7 months of age. All calves were marketed at public auction with
slaughter, feeder, and stocker buyers on hand for bidding. Marketing was on an
age basis, with an equal number, of creep-fed and non-creep-fed calves going to
market on a given date.
Creep Ration
The creep ration fed the fall and winter calves consisted of 8 parts
cracked yellow corn and 1 part 36 per cent cottonseed meal. This ration also
was fed to the 1953 spring calves. The 1954 spring calves were fed a ration of
shelled yellow corn. The creep ration was put out fresh daily and kept before
the calves at all times. The feed was charged to the calves at actual market
cost. Labor and creep construction costs are not included in the tables of results.
Weather Conditions
Pastures were below normal during all years of this study because of limited
rainfall. Both spring clover and summer Dallisgrass were affected by 
the lack of
moisture. The drouthy conditions also lowered the quality of the hay used 
for
winter feeding.
Experimental Results
All creep-fed calves had more finish at market age than did non-creep-fed
calves. This was reflected in the spread in price between the two groups. 'Market
grades of the calves were not obtained.
In the case of fall and winter calves, each 
100 pounds of additional gain
from creep feeding required 1,408 pounds of 
creep ration, Table i. With spring
calves, the additional 100 pounds of grain required 
1,028 pounds of feed in the
long feeding period and 2,347 pounds in the 
short feeding period (Table 2 and Table 3)
These results, however, compare favorably with 
findings of research from other exper-
iment stations.
There was some difference in gain of dams of 
creep-fed and non-creep-fed calves,
but the small variation is not considered significant. 
The average additional
gain of the dams of the creep-fed fall and winter calves was 9 pounds. The gain of
dams of spring calves was 6 pounds in favor of the dams of non-fed calves.
Summarv
An experiment on creep feeding calves was conducted with the 1952, 1953,
and 1954 calf crops of the Black Belt Substation. During the 3-year period
120 calves were creep-fed and 123 calves were not creep-fed.
Creep feeding-increased the weight of the calves, the market price and
market value per calf. The increase, however, was not sufficient to return a
profit over the cost of feed required. The non-creep-fed calves returned more
net profit than the creep-fed calves.
These calves were produced by good milking cows on improved Black Belt
pastures. Creep-feeding experiments are being condutted at other substations.
When the results of these experiments are available, it will be possible to
make an economic evaluation of creep feeding under various environmental
conditions.
Table 1. Comparison of Creep-Fed and Non-Creep-Fed Fall- and Winter-Dropped
Calves, B1tck Belt Substation, 3-year Average, 
1952-54
Item 
Creep- NonCreep-
fed fed
Calves, total number, 3 years,.. 96 96
Average initial age, days 87 87
Average initial weight, pounds* ................ 200 
200
Average days on feed . ......
182
Average final home weight, pounds . ................
574 538
Gain per day, pounds....... 
2.05 1.84
Average gain from creep- feeding, pounds 
. . . . . 36
Feed consumed per pound of gain, pounds . ........... 
14.08
Feed consumed per day, pounds . ... .......... .
2.79
Average market weight, pounds .......... . . . . . . 549 
511
Shrink,.. per cent .... .... .....
4....4.41 5.14
Market price .per 100 pounds, dollars .......... 23.32 
21.,59
Average market value per head, dollars ...... ....... 128.03 
110.32
Average feed consumed per"head, poundsa.......... 
507
Cost of feed per 100 pounds,.dollars 4.02
Average cost of feed consumed per head, dollars 20.38
Average net increase per head from creep feeding, dollars -2.67
* Adjusted to the same initial weight.
Table 2. Comparison of Creep-Fed and Non-Creep-Fed Spring Calves.Black Belt'
Substati L,1952-
Item Creep- 
Non-Creep-
fed fed
Calves, total number
Average initial age, days
Average initial weight, pounds* . 9*. 0.&
Average days on, feed
Average final home weight, pounds
Gain per days, pounds
Average gain from creep feeding, pounds
F-eed. consumed perpon of gain., 
pounds..
Feed consumed per day, pounds
Average market weight, pounds
Shrink, per cent
Market price per 100 pounds, dollars.......
Average market value per head, 
dollars......
Average feed consumption per head, pounds 
.
Cost of feed per 100 pounds, dollars 
0.
Average cost of feed consumed per head, 
dollars
aq
Average net increase per head from 
creep feeding, dollars
15,
43
159
172.
530
2.16
43
10 *28
2.57
509
3.90
23.95
121.91
442
4.30
19.01
-6.14
17
47
159
487
1.96
469
3.60
23.25
109.*04
SAdjusted to the same initial 
weight.
Table 3. Comparison of Creep-Fed 
and Non-Creep-Fed Spring Calves, 
Black Belt
Substaiin; 1954
Item 
Creep- Non-Cree p-
fed fed
Calves, total number............ 
........... 9 10
Average initial age, days... 
.. . .. .. .
137 135
Average initial. 'weight, pounds**.337 
337
Averagedays onf. feed .. 
. . . 83
Average final home weight', .pounds.... 
506 490
Gain per day, pounds....................2.*04 
1.84
Average gain from creep feeding, 
pounds...16
Feed consumed per pound of gain, pounds.............23.47
Feed c.'onsumed per day, pounds...................452
Average market weight,, pounds..............484 
465
Shrink, per cent,........................4.39 
5.*02
Market price per 100 pounds., dollars...............19.46 
.17.15
Average market value per head,- dollars...........94.19 
79.75
Average feed consumption per head, pounds.......... 
375.5
Cost of feed per 100 pounds, 
dollars....................... 
3.75
Average cost of feed consumed. per head, dollars.........14.*08
Average net increase per head from creep 
feeding, dollars. w36
*Adjusted to same initial- weight.
,