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 Jordon, D. J.
Right arrow Articles by Adams, D. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Jordon, D. J.
Right arrow Articles by Adams, D. C.

Journal of Animal Science, Vol 80, Issue 3 818-824, Copyright © 2002 by American Society of Animal Science

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Dried poultry waste for cows grazing low-quality winter forage

D. J. Jordon, T. J. Klopfenstein and D. C. Adams
Department of Animal Science, University of Nebraska, Lincoln 68583-0908, USA.

Two trials conducted in 1996-97 measured BW and body condition score changes of cows fed different sources of degradable intake protein, including dried poultry waste and soybean meal, while grazing low-quality winter forages. In Trial 1, 60 spring-calving cows (5 yr; 555 kg) were used in an individual supplementation trial. Cows were gathered three times a week, sorted into individual pens, and fed their respective supplement. Cows grazed dormant native Sandhills winter range (common pasture) and were assigned to one of six supplemental treatments: 1) no supplement, 2) urea, 3) 22% dried poultry waste + urea, 4) soybean meal, 5) 22% dried poultry waste + soybean meal, or 6) 44% dried poultry waste. All supplements were based on wheat middlings and soybean hulls and were formulated to contain 44% CP. Thirty-six cows were selected randomly (six per treatment) for a 5-d measurement of forage intake from December 16 through December 20, 1996. Cows receiving supplements gained more weight (P < 0.001) and maintained greater body condition (P < 0.001) than unsupplemented cows. Cows receiving urea gained less (P < 0.10) than cows receiving a source of natural protein, but body condition remained similar. No differences were found in daily forage or total organic matter intake (P > 0.10). In Trial 2, cows grazed corn residues. Forty-eight spring-calving cows were group-fed supplements in one of six 4-ha paddocks. Cows received supplements containing either soybean meal or dried poultry waste that were the same as the soybean meal and 44% dried poultry waste supplements fed in Trial 1; gains were not different (P > 0.10). Under the economic conditions that existed at the time of these experiments, the supplement containing dried poultry waste resulted in a savings of $.04 per cow per day and a total savings of $3.20 per cow over an 80-d period. Feeding a supplement containing dried poultry waste resulted in performance similar to that when feeding a more conventional supplement containing soybean meal.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J ANIM SCIHome page
J. L. Martin, K. A. Vonnahme, D. C. Adams, G. P. Lardy, and R. N. Funston
Effects of dam nutrition on growth and reproductive performance of heifer calves
J Anim Sci, March 1, 2007; 85(3): 841 - 847.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2002 by the American Society of Animal Science.