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 Beck, T. J.
Right arrow Articles by Kuhl, G. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Beck, T. J.
Right arrow Articles by Kuhl, G. L.

Journal of Animal Science, Vol 70, Issue 2 349-357, Copyright © 1992 by American Society of Animal Science

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Supplementation of ammoniated wheat straw: performance and forage utilization characteristics in beef cattle receiving energy and protein supplements

T. J. Beck, D. D. Simms, R. C. Cochran, R. T. Brandt Jr, E. S. Vanzant and G. L. Kuhl
Department of Animal Science and Industry, Kansas State University, Manhattan 66506.

Two experiments were conducted to evaluate performance and forage utilization characteristics of beef cattle fed ammoniated wheat straw (AWS) unsupplemented except for minerals or supplemented with energy and protein. In Exp. 1, 194 crossbred beef cows (BW = 472 kg) in late gestation were allotted by weight, breed type, and age during two consecutive winters to 12 drylot pens (three pens/treatment) for a 60-d feeding trial. The AWS (3% NH3 wt/wt) was tubground through a 7.6-cm screen, and cows were allowed ad libitum access to the AWS. In Exp. 2, 16 ruminally fistulated Angus x Hereford steers (BW = 300 kg) were blocked by weight and randomized to treatments in a 35-d intake-digestion trial. Daily supplementation treatments in both experiments were Control, no supplemental energy or protein; LSG, 1.36 kg of sorghum grain (SG); HSG, 2.72 kg of SG; and SG + SBM, 1.02 kg of SG + .34 kg of soybean meal (SBM). All animals received .23 kg of mineral mixture formulated to meet a pregnant cow's mineral requirements. Supplements LSG and SG + SBM were fed to provide the same daily ME, and HSG and SG + SBM were fed to provide the same daily CP. Cows were managed as one group during and after calving. In Exp. 1, all supplements increased gain (P less than .01) vs Control, and cows fed SG + SBM had higher (P = .05) gains than those fed LSG. The SG + SBM supplement increased (P less than .01) change in cow body condition score compared with LSG.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J ANIM SCIHome page
B. G. Fieser and E. S. Vanzant
Interactions between supplement energy source and tall fescue hay maturity on forage utilization by beef steers
J Anim Sci, January 1, 2004; 82(1): 307 - 318.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J ANIM SCIHome page
R. D. Wiedmeier, F. D. Provenza, and E. A. Burritt
Exposure to ammoniated wheat straw as suckling calves improves performance of mature beef cows wintered on ammoniated wheat straw
J Anim Sci, September 1, 2002; 80(9): 2340 - 2348.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1992 by the American Society of Animal Science.