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 Gunter, S. A.
Right arrow Articles by Krysl, L. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gunter, S. A.
Right arrow Articles by Krysl, L. J.

Journal of Animal Science, Vol 71, Issue 12 3432-3441, Copyright © 1993 by American Society of Animal Science

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Forage intake and digestion by cattle grazing midgrass prairie rangeland or sideoats grama/sweetclover pasture

S. A. Gunter, F. T. McCollum 3rd, R. L. Gillen and L. J. Krysl
Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station, Stillwater 74078-0102.

In mid-May, beef cattle fitted with esophageal (four steers/pasture) or ruminal and duodenal cannulas (six heifers/pasture; 274 +/- 6 kg BW +/- SE) grazed midgrass prairie (excellent range condition; PRAIRIE) or a seeded mixture of sideoats grama (48% of pasture DM) and sweetclover (6% of pasture DM; Bouteloua curtipendula [Michx.] Torr./Melilotus officinalis [L.] Lam.; PASTURE). Masticate NDF, ADF, and in vitro OM disappearance did not differ (P > .11) between forage types (average = 66.6, 36.1, and 58.8% of OM). Only N differed (P = .02) between PRAIRIE (2.1) and PASTURE (2.4% of OM). Extents of in situ OM and N disappearance were greater (P < .05) and rate of N disappearance between 12 and 36 h was slower (P < .10) from PRAIRIE than from PASTURE masticate. Based on in situ data, the ruminally degraded N: ruminally degraded OM (grams/kilogram) ratio differed (P < .05) between PRAIRIE (22) and PASTURE (25). Ruminal ammonia N concentration (milligrams/deciliter) was less (P = .02) for PRAIRIE (2.8) than for PASTURE (3.8). Forage OM intake and fecal OM output did not differ (P > .72; average = 8,207 and 3,380 g/d), but duodenal OM flow tended (P = .13) to be greater (PRAIRIE = 4,892, PASTURE = 5,170 g/d) in cattle grazing PASTURE. Apparent and true ruminal OM digestion did not differ between forage types (P > .18; average = 38.3 and 48.5%). Nitrogen intake, nonammonia N, and forage N flow at the duodenum were greater (P < .04) for PASTURE (198 vs 171, 242 vs 210, and 162 vs 135 g/d) than for PRAIRIE. Microbial N flow (average = 78 g/d) and microbial efficiency (average = 20 g of microbial N/kg of OM truly fermented) did not differ (P > .25) between forage types. Apparent and true ruminal N digestion did not differ (P > .65; average = -26.6 and 19.3%) between forage types. Flow of nonammonia N was in excess relative to digestible OM intake; hence, digestible OM intake seemed to be first-limiting for performance by cattle grazing either forage type.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J ANIM SCIHome page
D. A. Chabot, C. D. Chabot, L. K. Conway, and S. A. Soto-Navarro
Effect of fat supplementation and wheat pasture maturity on forage intake and digestion characteristics of steers grazing wheat pasture
J Anim Sci, May 1, 2008; 86(5): 1263 - 1270.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1993 by the American Society of Animal Science.