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


     

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
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 Buskirk, D. D.
Right arrow Articles by Kaercher, M. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Buskirk, D. D.
Right arrow Articles by Kaercher, M. J.
J. Anim. Sci. 2003. 81:109-115
© 2003 American Society of Animal Science

Large round bale feeder design affects hay utilization and beef cow behavior1,2

D. D. Buskirk*,3, A. J. Zanella*, T. M. Harrigan{dagger}, J. L. Van Lente*,4, L. M. Gnagey*,4 and M. J. Kaercher{ddagger}

* Departments of Animal Science and and {dagger} Agricultural Engineering, and {ddagger} Extension, Michigan State University, East Lansing 48824-1225

3 Correspondence:
2265 Anthony Hall (phone: 517-432-0400; E-mail:
buskirk{at}msu.edu).


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results and Discussion
 Implications
 Literature Cited
 
One hundred sixty beef cows (631 ± 78 kg) were used to evaluate the quantity of hay loss and feeding behaviors from different round bale feeders. Twenty cows were allotted by weight and body condition score to one of eight pens with four feeder designs: cone, ring, trailer, or cradle. All feeder types provided approximately 37 cm of linear feeder space per animal. Alfalfa and orchardgrass round bales were weighed and sampled before feeding. Hay that fell onto the concrete surrounding the feeder was considered waste and was collected and sampled daily. At the end of a 7-d period, each feeder type was assigned to a different pen for a second 7-d period. On four consecutive days in each period, animal behavior was recorded using a time-lapse video system. Data were collected from 5-min observational intervals from the video tapes every 0.5 h each day. Feeder access, occupancy rate, and occurrence of agonistic interactions were recorded. Dry matter hay waste was 3.5, 6.1, 11.4, and 14.6% for the cone, ring, trailer, and cradle feeders, respectively. Calculated dry matter intake of hay ranged from 1.8 to 2.0% of body weight and was not different among feeder type (P < 0.05). Percentage of organic matter, neutral detergent fiber, acid detergent fiber, and crude protein were all lower and acid detergent lignin was higher in the recovered waste compared to the hay fed (P < 0.05). Cows feeding from the cradle feeder had nearly three times the agonistic interactions and four times the frequency of entrances compared to cows feeding from the other feeder types (P < 0.05). Feed losses were positively correlated with agonistic interactions, frequency of regular and irregular entrances, and feeder occupancy rate (P < 0.05). Agonistic interactions by cows and frequency of feeder entrances differed among feeders and were correlated to feeder design induced feed losses.

Key Words: Aggressive Behavior • Beef Cows • Behavior • Feeding • Utilization


   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Materials and Methods
 Results and Discussion
 Implications
 Literature Cited
 
Harvested feed is the largest cost contributor to maintenance of beef cows in the upper Midwest United States and feed cost is the single largest variable influencing profitability of the cow-calf enterprise in this region (Miller et al., 2001). Most harvested feed is packaged, stored, and fed as large round hay. Storage losses of large round hay bales can range from 2 to 18% of the dry matter, depending on type of forage, storage method, environmental conditions, and length of time stored (Huhnke, 1987; Harrigan and Rotz, 1994). Little has been done to characterize losses of hay due to feeding method, even though studies have identified that feed losses may reach 20 to 30% of the dry matter fed (Belya et al., 1985; Baxter et al., 1986). Many unique designs of large round bale feeders exist and are often accompanied by claims of reduced waste potential. There is a lack of research comparing the magnitude of feed loss and its relationship to animal behavior. An understanding of the relationship between feeder design and animal behavior will provide an opportunity for more efficient feed use, and enhance animal performance and well-being.

The objectives of this study were to evaluate: 1) hay dry matter loss when feeding large round bales in cone, ring, trailer, and cradle-type feeders, 2) feeding behavior for each feeder design, and 3) the relationship between feeding behavior, feeder design, and feed loss.


   Materials and Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
Results and Discussion
 Implications
 Literature Cited
 
Two lots of second-cutting hay, one predominately alfalfa (Medicago sativa) and one predominately orchardgrass (Dactylus glomerata), were baled in June using a round baler (New Holland, Belleville, PA; model 848) at Michigan State University (East Lansing). The twine-wrapped round bales were approximately 122 cm wide x 150 cm in diameter. Round bales were removed from the field within 24 h of baling and were placed in an enclosed barn for storage until fed.

One hundred sixty nonlactating, pregnant beef cows (631 ± 78 kg) from the Michigan State University campus herd were used to evaluate the quantity of hay loss and feeding behaviors from different round bale feeders during November. Cows were weighed on two consecutive days and cow BCS were assigned on a 1 to 9 scale (1 = extremely thin, 9 = obese) by two experienced evaluators. Cows were equally divided into two weight blocks. Within a weight block, cows were allotted by BCS to one of four treatments, with 20 cows per pen. Each of eight outside pens was assigned to one of two replicates of four round bale feeder treatments, representing an array of round bale feeder designs: cone (Weldy Enterprises, Wakarusa, IN; model R7C), ring (Weldy Enterprises, model R7), trailer (S.I. Feeders, Portage WI; Arrow Front Feeder Wagon), or cradle (Weldy Enterprises; model 6 x 12 feet HGF) (Figure 1Go). The outside mounded dirt pens were 110 x 19.5 m, and a single feeder was placed in the same location in each pen on a 17 x 19.5 m concrete pad. Both the ring and cone feeders were 2.34 m in diameter. The cradle feeder was 3.66 x 1.83 m. The trailer feeder was 6.10 x 2.13 m; however, hay was placed only in a 3.66 m length of the feeder. Therefore, all feeder types provided approximately 37 cm of linear feeder space per animal. There were a total of 18, 18, and 19 feeding spaces for the cone, ring, and trailer feeders respectively. The cradle feeder did not have defined feeding spaces. The cone and ring feeders had identical feeding spaces with bars oriented at 70° with a 35.5-cm spacing; the trailer feeder bars were oriented at 50° with a 40-cm spacing. The height of the top rail was 191, 121, 163, and 152 cm for the cone, ring, trailer, and cradle feeders, respectively.



View larger version (118K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 1. Round bale feeder types: (a) ring, (b) cone, (c) trailer, and (d) cradle.

 
Bales were sampled for compositional analysis immediately before feeding by boring three cores from the side of each bale using a Penn State forage sampler (Nasco, Fort Atkinson, WI). Round bales were individually weighed immediately before feeding (281 ± 24 kg) and twine was removed. Cows were given ad libitum access to hay in the feeders. Hay that fell onto the concrete surrounding the feeder was considered waste and was collected in plastic barrels daily at 1530 h. Care was taken to avoid collection of manure, although some contamination was unavoidable. The concrete pads were scraped clean of manure after collection to minimize contamination on the following day. All waste was weighed and a 1-kg representative sample was obtained daily by pen for composition analysis. Fresh bales were placed in feeders within a treatment when the quantity of hay remaining in a feeder would have potentially limited intake during the following 24 h. At the end of a 7-d period, all residual hay within the feeder was removed, weighed, and sampled. Each feeder type was then assigned to a different pen, within a block, for the second 7-d period. Alfalfa hay was provided during the first 7-d period and orchardgrass hay was provided during the second 7-d period. All experimental procedures were conducted according to those approved by the Michigan State University All-University Committee on Animal Use and Care (AUF# 07/98-119-00).

Behavior Analysis.
On d 4 to 7 in period 1 and d 2 to 5 in period 2, areas surrounding each round bale feeder type in four pens were recorded from 0800 to 1730 using a time-lapse video recording system (Panasonic camera model CCT 330 and Panasonic video cassette recorder model AG6740, Secaucus, NJ). Data were collected from 5-min observational intervals of the videotapes every 0.5 h each day (20 intervals•pen-1•d-1). Instantaneous sampling was carried out at the start and end of the 5-min observation intervals. Using these data, feeder occupancy rate was calculated as the mean of the beginning and ending occupancy divided by the total number of animals in the pen. Behavioral sampling and continuous recording were used to characterize access to the feeders and occurrence of agonistic interactions during the 5-min observation intervals. Access to the feeders was defined as regular or irregular. A regular entrance was defined as the positioning of the head below the top rail, as intended by the feeder manufacturer. An irregular entrance was defined as access to the feeder above the top rail. Agonistic interactions were broadly defined to include behaviors of a cow that resulted in the displacement of another cow from the feeder. This definition included threats, head butting, and pushing. To represent hourly behavior, observation interval data were multiplied by 12. Mean behavioral data were then summarized for the time frame directly corresponding to hay waste collection (1530 to 1730 and 0800 to 1500) for comparison of animal behavior impact on hay waste.

Sample Analysis.
Air-dry content of hay from bales, hay waste, and residual hay samples were determined by weighing samples, drying in a forced-air oven at 57°C overnight, allowing samples to equilibrate to ambient conditions for 24 h, and then weighing again. Air-dry samples were ground in a Wiley mill to pass a 1-mm screen and composited by pen and period. Dry matter was determined by further drying samples in a forced-air oven at 105°C for 24 h. Crude protein was determined by combustion method 990.03 (AOAC, 1995; Leco FP-2000, Leco Corp., St. Joseph, MI). Neutral detergent fiber, ADF, and ADL were determined using a filter bag technique (Vogel et al., 1999) with an Ankom 220 Fiber Analyzer (Ankom Technology, Fairport, NY) and corrected for ash. Ash content was determined after 5 h of oxidation at 500°C in a muffle furnace.

Statistical Analysis.
Feed disappearance was calculated as the amount of hay delivered to each pen, less the residual amount of hay remaining in the feeder at the end of a 7-d period. The total amount of hay recovered from the concrete pad around the perimeter of each feeder was considered feed waste. Percentage waste was calculated as the amount of waste divided by feed disappearance. Feed intake was estimated as the difference between feed disappearance and feed waste. Video equipment failure resulted in 46 missing data points for the 480 observation times.

The GLM procedures of SAS (SAS Inst., Inc., Cary, NC) were used to analyze feed and behavior data. Pen served as the experimental unit. The model for animal characteristics and feed loss data included feeder type, replicate, period, and their two-way interactions as independent variables. The model for hay nutrient data included sample type (feed or waste), feeder type, replicate, period, and their two-way interactions as independent variables. The model for behavior data included feeder type, day, period, and their two-way interactions as independent variables. The residual mean square was used as the error term in all analyses. The level of probability at which the main effects were considered significant was P < 0.05. Model sums of squares were partitioned into treatment effects that were separated using a significant F-test.


   Results and Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results and Discussion
Implications
 Literature Cited
 
The effect of feeder type on hay waste and intake is shown in Table 1Go. There was a significant difference in feed loss among all feeders with the exception of the trailer and cradle feeders, which tended (P = 0.06) to be different from one another. Use of the ring feeder resulted in nearly twice the amount of waste compared to the cone feeder, whereas the trailer and cradle feeders resulted in four times the waste per animal (P < 0.05) compared to the cone design. Hay waste, as a percentage of hay disappearance, was less for the cone and ring feeders compared to the trailer and cradle feeders (P < 0.05). In addition, there was a tendency for a lower percentage of waste from the cone compared to the ring (P = 0.09) and a lower percentage of waste with the trailer compared to the cradle (P = 0.06). Comerford et al. (1994) also reported increased forage utilization when using a cone-type feeder. They compared the feed losses from round bale grass hay and balage with either a metal ring-type feeder or a raised cone-type feeder with a solid base. Dry matter feed losses in their trial were 1.9% and 8.0% for the cone- and ring-type feeders, respectively. In the present trial, our observation indicated that cattle eating from the cone and ring feeders would have been able to more closely mimic a grazing position than those eating from the trailer and cradle feeders would, and this may have contributed to reduced feed losses. Feed wastage from cows tossing feed over their backs or along their sides may be reduced by allowing the animals to eat in a head-down, natural grazing position from ground level rather than an elevated platform (Albright and Stricklin, 1989). In addition, an animal’s ability to throw its head and toss feed is limited when their head is beneath a rail, such as the top rail on the cone, ring, and trailer feeders in the present study.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1. Effect of feeder type on hay waste and intake by beef cows (least squares means)
 
The percentage of hay waste in our trial ranged from 3.5 to 14.6%, which is lower than some other reports (Belya et al., 1985; Baxter et al., 1986). Some factors that may have contributed to relatively less waste in this experiment were that all hay was stored inside until fed and that the bale diameter:feeder diameter ratio was relatively small, causing cows to reach for the feed with some of the designs. In addition, fly and insect annoyance was not a problem, which could increase waste in summer trials.

Feed loss (refusal or waste) is influenced by storage method. Belyea et al. (1985) fed large round alfalfa hay bales to beef cows in bunks with angled headgates. Feed losses were similar for bales stored inside (12.4%) or covered with plastic outside (13.4 to 14.5%), but were higher for bales stored uncovered outside (24.7%). Similar results were obtained by Baxter et al. (1986) when feeding alfalfa-orchardgrass hay to dairy cows in bunks with angled headgates. Feed losses averaged 6% for bales stored inside or covered outside, but exceeded 19% of hay fed when stored uncovered outside.

Round bale feeders limit access to forage and thus limit waste from trampling and manure contamination. Lechtenberg et al. (1974) reported that an average of 29% more dry matter was required when feeding round-baled hay without racks. Slanted bar designs encourage animals to keep their heads in the feeder opening by providing some constraint. Depending on bar angle and spacing, this design may force cows to rotate their heads when entering or leaving the feeder. This design attribute may contribute to fewer feeding transitions and less feed loss; however, optimal bar angles and bar spacing for cattle have not been reported. Schultheis and Hires (1982) evaluated slanted-bar head gates with the use of an additional "pusher" gate placed between the slanted gate and the hay bales. The purpose of the pusher gate was to force cattle to reach further for hay and discourage backing away while eating. Use of the slanted gate alone resulted in 16% waste, but when used in combination with the pusher gate, waste was 9% (Schultheis and Hires, 1982). Likewise, Petchey and Abdulkader (1991) observed that hay utilization might be improved when cattle are encouraged to reach for forage. However, this design feature needs to be balanced with the possibility of limiting intake, which may not be desirable in all feeding situations. In our trial, the cone and trailer feeders had bars that centered the bale in the feeder, forcing the cattle to reach for hay.

Calculated daily intake of hay DM was not different among feeder type (P < 0.05). Calculated DMI of cows in this study ranged from 1.8 to 2.0% of BW, which is similar to that predicted from NRC (1996) equations (2.0% of BW). Collectively, this indicates that feeder design attributes responsible for differing feed loss did not cause significant restriction of feed intake.

Table 2Go shows nutrient composition of hay fed and recovered waste. Hay fed was similar in percentage of OM, NDF, ADF, ADL, and CP among feeder types (P < 0.05). Percentage of OM, NDF, ADF, and CP were all lower, and ADL was higher, in the recovered waste compared to the hay fed (P < 0.05). The percentage of OM, NDF, ADF, and ADL in the recovered waste were all significantly affected by feeder type. The cone and ring feeders resulted in a significantly lower percentage of OM, NDF, and ADF and tended (P = 0.07) to have a lower percentage of ADL in the waste compared to the trailer and cradle feeders. Because leaves of mature alfalfa and orchardgrass have a lower percentage of OM, NDF, ADF, and ADL than stems (Bourquin and Fahey, 1994), our results indicate that leaves may have been a greater percentage of the waste from the cone and ring feeders. This may have been directly related to the quantity of waste, with feed losses consisting of more leaves when little waste occurred and more stems when waste was greater. A greater percentage of leaves would result in higher CP content; however, CP was similar among feeder types (P > 0.05). Although not visually significant, some soil contamination of the waste likely occurred; however, differences in contamination between feeder types should be related only to the quantity of feed waste.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2. Effect of feeder type on nutrient content of hay fed and recovered waste (least squares means)
 
Behavioral observation data are described in Table 3Go. Most notable is the fact that cows feeding from the cradle feeder had nearly three times the agonistic interactions and four times the frequency of entrances compared to cows feeding from the other feeder types (P < 0.05). This may be partially due to a lack of vertical partitions to create feeding positions in the cradle feeder. There was no barrier to deter cows from interacting with one another, nor were they hindered from entering or exiting the feeder. Bouissou (1970) found that manger divisions protected submissive cows’ heads and enabled them to eat for longer bouts. We observed that a single animal more easily displaced multiple cows eating from a rectangular feeder compared to a round feeder. In this manner, an animal often relocated its pen mates along the full length of a linear feeder, whereas this behavior was not observed in pens with round feeders. Because hay was not placed in the nose section of the trailer feeder, it is not known how feeding dynamics may have differed if the full length of the feeder were used.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 3. Effect of feeder type on feeding behavior and dry matter hay waste (least squares means)
 
Another potential difference between round and rectangular designs may involve the cows’ visual perception. Cattle have nearly 360° of vision, with the exception of a narrow blind spot directly behind them (Grandin, 1993). The area in which animals react to a perceived threat by moving away is their flight zone. In a competitive feeding situation, round geometry of a feeder may allow cows to maintain a larger flight zone, thereby allowing both comfortable herd interaction and awareness of an agonistic cow approaching from behind and asserting position.

The frequency of irregular entrances, or entering the feeder to eat over the top bar was greatest for the cradle feeder (P < 0.05). The top bar of the cradle feeder was relatively high compared to the other designs. However, the frequency of irregular entrances may have been higher because the cradle feeder had no means by which to maintain the bale in the center of the feeder. Feeder occupancy at the ring feeder was lower (P < 0.05) than the trailer and cradle and tended (P = 0.06) to be lower than the cone.

Correlations between observed behaviors and feed waste are reported in Table 4Go. Feed losses were positively correlated with agonistic interactions, frequency of regular and irregular entrances, and feeder occupancy rate (P < 0.05). The social organization of a herd is established through aggressive behavior, whereby animals approach, threaten, and possibly butt other animals with their head (Schein and Fohrman, 1955). When a competitive condition exists for available feed, dominant cows assert their position in eating before less dominant cows. The amount of time feeding has been positively correlated with dominance behavior (McPhee et al., 1964; Friend and Polan, 1975). However, agonistic actions during feeding are not limited to dominant animals. Dominance relationships of cattle based on spontaneous aggressive interactions have been identified as being different than those based on interactions motivated by competitive feeding (Arnold and Grassia, 1983; Jezierski and Podluzny, 1984). It was observed from the tapes of the present study that hay often fell from the mouths of one or both animals during the course of an agonistic interaction. Because these interactions occurred outside of the feeder perimeter it is not surprising that agonistic interactions were positively correlated with feed loss.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 4. Pearson correlation coefficients among feeding behaviors and hay waste
 

   Implications
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results and Discussion
 Implications
Literature Cited
 
Feed losses were significantly influenced by feeder type and ranged from 3.5 to 14.6% of hay disappearance. Both agonistic interactions of cows around the feeders and frequency of feeder entrances differed among feeders and were correlated to feed losses. Feeder design features including size, geometry, bar angle and spacing, and inclusion of a top bar may affect cattle behavior and resulting feed utilization. Implementation of design strategies that reduce agonistic interactions and/or reduce feeder entrances would be expected to reduce feed losses.


   Footnotes
 
1 Mention of trade names or commercial products in this article is solely to provide specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by Michigan State University, nor does it imply approval to the exclusion of other products. Back

2 This research was supported by the Michigan Agric. Exp. Stn. and was funded through a grant from the Michigan Animal Industry Coalition. The authors gratefully acknowledge K. Tjardes for his work in sample and data collection. We thank Weldy Enterprises, Wakarusa, IN, for use of their feeder equipment. Acknowledgment is also given to the crews of the Michigan State Univ. Beef Cattle Teaching and Research Center, and Beef Cow-Calf Teaching Center for care of the experimental animals. Back

4 Current address: College of Veterinary Medicine, Veterinary Medicine Center, East Lansing, MI 48824-1316. Back

Received for publication May 20, 2002. Accepted for publication August 21, 2002.


   Literature Cited
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results and Discussion
 Implications
 Literature Cited
 


Albright, J. L., and W. R. Stricklin. 1989. Recent developments in the provision for cattle welfare. Page 149 in New Techniques in Cattle Production. C. J. C. Phillips, ed. Butterworths, Guildford.

AOAC. 1995. Official Methods of Analysis. 16th ed. Assoc. Offic. Anal. Chem., Arlington, VA.

Arnold, G. W., and A. Grassia. 1983. Social interactions amongst beef cows when competing for food. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 9:239–252.

Baxter, H. D., B. L. Bledsoe, M. J. Montgomery, and J. R. Owen. 1986. Comparison of alfalfa-orchardgrass hay stored in large round bales and conventional rectangular bales for lactating cows. J. Dairy Sci. 69:1854–1864.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Belyea, R. L., F. A. Martz, and S. Bell. 1985. Storage and feeding losses of large round bales. J. Dairy Sci. 68:3371–3375.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Bouissou, M. F. 1970. Role du contact physique dans la manifestation des relations hierarchiques chez les bovins. Consequences pratiques. Annal. Zootechnol. 19:279–285.

Bourquin, L. D., and G. C. Fahey. 1994. Ruminal digestion and glycosyl linkage patterns of cell wall components from leaf and stem fractions of alfalfa, orchardgrass, and wheat straw. J. Anim. Sci. 72:1362–1374.[Abstract]

Comerford, J. W., D. R. Buckmaster, and E. H. Cash. 1994. Effects of three storage methods on nutrient losses from harvest, storage and feeding of large bales. J. Anim. Sci. 72(Suppl. 2):130 (Abstr.).

Friend, T. H., and C. E. Polan. 1975. Cow behavior: Varying free-stalls and bunk space. J. Anim. Sci. 41:238 (Abstr.).[Free Full Text]

Grandin, T. 1993. Behavioral principles of cattle handling under extensive conditions. Page 43 in Livestock Handing and Transport. T. Grandin, ed. CAB International, Walingford, Oxon, U.K.

Harrigan, T. M., and C. A. Rotz. 1994. Net, plastic, and twine-wrapped large round bale storage loss. Appl. Eng. Agric. 10:188–194.

Huhnke, R. L. 1987. Large round bale alfalfa hay storage. Appl. Eng. Agric. 4:316–317.

Jezierski, T. A., and M. Podluzny. 1984. A quantitative analysis of social behavior of different crossbreds of dairy cattle kept in loose housing and its relationship to productivity. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 13:31–40.

Lechtenberg, V. L., W. H. Smith, S. D. Parsons, and D. C. Petritz. 1974. Storage and feeding of large hay packages for beef cows. J. Anim. Sci. 39:1011–1015.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

McPhee, C.P., G. McBride, and J.W. James. 1964. Social behavior of domestic animals. III. Steers in small yards. Anim. Prod. 6:9–15.

Miller, A. J., D. B. Faulkner, R. K. Knipe, D. R. Strohbehn, D. F. Parrett, and L. L. Berger. 2001. Critical control points for profitability in the cow-calf enterprise. Prof. Anim. Sci. 17:295–302.

NRC. 1996. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle. 7th ed. Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, DC.

Petchey, A. M., and J. Abdulkader. 1991. Intake and behaviour of cattle at different food barriers. Anim. Prod. 52:576–577. (Abstr.).

Ray, D. E., and C. B. Roubicek. 1971. Behavior of feedlot cattle during two seasons. J. Anim. Sci. 33:72–76.

Schein, M. W., and M. H. Fohrman. 1955. Social dominance relationships in a herd of dairy cattle. Brit. J. Anim. Behav. 3:45–55.

Schultheis, R. A., and W. G. Hires. 1982. Self-feeding head gates for large round bales. Transactions of the ASAE. 25:1553–1555.

Vogel, K. P., J. F. Pedersen, S. D. Materson, and J. J. Toy. 1999. Evaluation of a filter bag system for NDF, ADF, and IVDMD forage analysis. Crop Sci. 39:276–279.[Abstract/Free Full Text]


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J ANIM SCIHome page
J. T. Vasconcelos, L. W. Greene, N. A. Cole, M. S. Brown, F. T. McCollum III, and L. O. Tedeschi
Effects of phase feeding of protein on performance, blood urea nitrogen concentration, manure nitrogen:phosphorus ratio, and carcass characteristics of feedlot cattle.
J Anim Sci, November 1, 2006; 84(11): 3032 - 3038.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J ANIM SCIHome page
N. A. Lenehan, J. M. DeRouchey, T. T. Marston, and G. L. Marchin
Concentrations of fecal bacteria and nutrients in soil surrounding round-bale feeding sites
J Anim Sci, July 1, 2005; 83(7): 1673 - 1679.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
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 Buskirk, D. D.
Right arrow Articles by Kaercher, M. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Buskirk, D. D.
Right arrow Articles by Kaercher, M. J.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS