J. Anim Sci.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Caton, J. S.
Right arrow Articles by Belyea, R. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Caton, J. S.
Right arrow Articles by Belyea, R. L.

Journal of Animal Science, Vol 69, Issue 8 3406-3415, Copyright © 1991 by American Society of Animal Science

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Evaluation of dairy food processing wash water solids as a protein source: I. Forage intake, animal performance, ruminal fermentation, and site of digestion in heifers fed medium-quality hay

J. S. Caton, J. E. Williams, T. May, E. E. Beaver and R. L. Belyea
University of Missouri, Columbia 65211.

Twelve ruminally, duodenally, and ileally cannulated (average initial BW 313 +/- 20 kg) and 27 intact Hereford heifers (average initial BW 256 +/- 17 kg) were used in two experiments to evaluate dairy food wash water solids (WWS) as a protein source in medium-quality hay diets. Heifers received a basal diet of orchardgrass hay (7.4% CP) and were assigned to one of three supplement treatments: control (C; .9% CP), WWS (18.8% CP)-, and soybean meal (SBM; 19.1% CP)-based supplements (fed at 1.5 kg of DM/d). Supplements were formulated to have similar ME concentrations. Ruminal ammonia concentrations were greater (P less than .10) for WWS- and SBM-supplemented heifers than for C heifers at most sampling times. Moreover, WWS and SBM increased (P less than .10) total VFA (mM) and acetate (mol/100 mol) and lowered propionate (mol/100 mol) at several sampling times. Ruminal fluid volume (liters) was unchanged (P greater than .10) by treatment; however, fluid dilution and flow rate (liters/h) were less (P less than .10) in C heifers than in heifers fed SBM or WWS supplements. Wash water solids and SBM supplementation increased (P less than .10) OM, NDF, and ADF digestibilities compared with C heifers. Feeding WWS and SBM supplements increased BW at 84 d (P less than .10) compared with C-supplemented heifers. Forage intake at 54 and 84 d by heifers supplemented with SBM or WWS was greater (P less than .10) than by C heifers. Control-supplemented heifers had the least, WWS intermediate, and SBM the greatest ADG at 84 d (P less than .10; .14 vs .35 vs .48 kg/d, respectively). These data indicate that WWS may be used as a protein source without serious adverse effects in heifers consuming medium-quality hay for 84 d.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J ANIM SCIHome page
J. C. Marini, D. G. Fox, and M. R. Murphy
Nitrogen transactions along the gastrointestinal tract of cattle: A meta-analytical approach
J Anim Sci, March 1, 2008; 86(3): 660 - 679.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1991 by the American Society of Animal Science.