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 Soder, K. J.
Right arrow Articles by Olson, B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Soder, K. J.
Right arrow Articles by Olson, B.

Journal of Animal Science, Vol 73, Issue 10 2853-2859, Copyright © 1995 by American Society of Animal Science

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Influence of energy or protein supplementation during midpregnancy on forage intake of ewes grazing Montana winter range

K. J. Soder, V. M. Thomas, R. W. Kott, P. G. Hatfield and B. Olson
Montana State University, Bozeman 59717, USA.

A 2-yr winter experiment was conducted to determine the influence of either energy or protein supplementation during midpregnancy on fecal output (FO), forage intake, blood metabolite profiles, and BW changes of ewes grazing winter range. Thirty-two Targhee ewes were selected for uniformity in age and BW and assigned randomly to one of four dietary treatments 1) no supplement (NONE); 2) 150 g of barley supplement (BAR); 3) 75 of feather g meal, blood supplement (FM/BM); and 4) 75 g of FM, BM, urea supplement (FM/BU/U). Two 5-d experimental periods were conducted during each winter (January and February). Forage FO (P = 0.9), total FO (P = 0.7), and subsequent forage intake (P < .01) were higher during Yr 1 than during Yr 2. Supplement type did not affect forage DMI when expressed either as grams/day (P = .57) or as a percentage of BW (P = .52). Body weight changes and body condition scores were not affected (P > .10) by year but were affected (P < .01) by treatment; unsupplemented ewes lost more (P < .01) BW and body condition than supplemented ewes. Serum urea N (SUN) concentrations were affected (P < .03) by a year x treatment interaction. Unsupplemented, FM/ BM, and FM/BM/U ewes had higher (P < .10) SUN concentrations during Yr 1 than during Yr 2, averaging 9.8 ml/dL and 7.5 mg/dL, respectively. Barley-supplemented ewes had similar (P > .10) SUN concentrations both years, averaging 7.4 mg/dL. Alternate-day supplementation during midpregnancy with energy of protein had no effect on forage DMI of ewes grazing winter range.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J ANIM SCIHome page
C. J. Lupton
ASAS CENTENNIAL PAPER: Impacts of animal science research on United States sheep production and predictions for the future
J Anim Sci, November 1, 2008; 86(11): 3252 - 3274.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Crop Sci.Home page
H. Lippke
Estimation of Forage Intake by Ruminants on Pasture
Crop Sci., May 1, 2002; 42(3): 869 - 872.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1995 by the American Society of Animal Science.