Application of liquid protein supplements on intake and digestibility of low quality forages Sandy Johnson NW ASI Update Nov 7 2012 Nutritive changes in ammoniated or liquid protein treated wheat straw ID: 770677
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Application of liquid protein supplement..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Application of liquid protein supplements on intake and digestibility of low quality forages Sandy Johnson NW ASI Update Nov. 7, 2012
Nutritive changes in ammoniated or liquid protein treated wheat straw Treatment Dry Matter CP NDFADFAmmoniation Pretreatment94.72.877.646.7 Post-treatment89.89.970.841.6Liquid Supplement Pre-treatment95.42.977.846 Post-treatment95.23.575.742.2 Goehring et al., 1990
Gas Production, ml/hr TDN Estimate Treatment IVDMDADFIVDMDAmmoniation Pretreatment30.9d9.2d42.639.6d Post-treatment41.4f12.7e48.547.4gLiquid Supplement Pre-treatment33.3e9.1d43.541.3e Post-treatment 35.2 g 10.0d47.842.8f d,e,f,g Means with different superscripts differ. P<0.05 Goehring et al., 1990 34% ↑ 6% ↑
Control NaOH Liquid Suppl Ammoniated Cow TrialADG, lb .26b 0a .10a .88cStraw intake, lb19.3a17.3a17.8a23.0bSheep metabolism trialDM digestibility,%53.6a53.5a52.4a59.7aIntake, lb .99a1.30b1.32b 1.43 c IVDMD,% 50.3a54.2b49.7a 57.7c Faulkner et al., 1981 (yr?) a,b,c, Unlike superscripts in a row differ (P<0.05) using orthogonal contrasts
Cow Preference for NaOH or Liquid Supplement treated straw compared to untreated straw Trial 1 Trial 2 Treatment UntrtNaOHUntrtLS Estimated intake, lb2.313.32.512.1 IVDMD37.646.737.641.1 NDF, %87.782.087.786 Crude Protein, %3.34.53.38.6Paterson et al., 1980
Church and Santos, 1981
Hay quality following injection with molasses-urea solution - LSU Study 1 – Bermudagrass hay Study 2 – Johnsongrass-crabgrass hay Item (%DM) ControlInjectedControlInjectedCP12.313.27.87.5ADF39.538.647.347.0NDF70.770.374.773.9TDN53.054.044.144.4IVDMD69.871.664.364.2 McCormick et al., 2010
Hay palatability following injection with molasses-urea solution - LSU Study 1 Hay – Bermudagrass Study 2 Hay – Johnsongrass-crabgrass Item (%DM) ControlInjectedControlInjectedBales tested8866Bale weight1227128212291272Hay refusals, lb641a343a700a555bIntake/period586a939b529a717bIntake/calf/d5.22a8.28b 5.01 a 6.38 bHay intake, %BW0.751.180.71 0.91 McCormick et al., 2010 a,b, Study 1 means differ P<0.01; Study 2 means tend to differ P<0.10
Summary Ammoniation Increase digestibility Increase intake Increase CPtreat group of balesLS injectionIncrease intakeNutrient content function of dilution treat individual bales
Ammoniation Project
Gas Production, ml/hr TDN Estimate Treatment IVDMDADFIVDMDAmmoniation Pretreatment30.9d9.2d42.639.6d Post-treatment41.4f12.7e48.547.4gLiquid Supplement Pre-treatment33.3e9.1d43.541.3e Post-treatment 35.2 g 10.0d47.842.8f d,e,f,g Means with different superscripts differ. P<0.05 Goehring et al., 1990 20%
Nitrates KPICS
Nitrate Concentration in Forages Survey Date Location of forage sampled (City) County/District of forage sampled
Nitrate tests KPICS Sub-samples you were asked to collect correct sub sample procedure 2 teaspoons to ¼ cup type of forage actual nitrate value and associated units (copy analysis sheet)
Starting weight and condition EW NW n 1818Cow age, yr4.3 ± .64.6 ± .6Julian calving date 57 ± 360 ± 3Calf weight, lbs. 351 ± 13367 ± 13Cow weight, lbs. 1023 ± 391072 ± 38 Cow body condition 3.6 ±.23.9 ± .2
Ending weight and condition EW NW P Cow weight, lbs1182 ± 101137 ± 100.01Cow weight change, lbs137 ± 1093 ± 10Cow body condition 4.7 ± 0.14.5 ± 0.10.08Cow body condition change0.9 ± 0.10.7 ± 0.1 Dry matter intake20.4 ± 325.5 ± 3
Body condition change in 2-yr old and mature cows after a 77 day re-feeding period following nutrient restriction
Day 0 Day 77
Ideas for local demonstrations technology that isn’t being used scales
Hay waste – Feeder type Access time Shred vs unrolling At current cost of hay when does it pay to buy bunks/processing ect.
Methods of Feeding Hay Method Amount Wasted Unrolled on the ground a 22%Processed, fed on grounda 16%Processed, fed in bunka 11%Hay Feeders 7-9 %Ground Hay <5%?aBlasi et al., 1993 Cattlemen’s Day
Access time to hay 3 hours 6 hours 9 hours Free choiceWeight change, lbs a119161191207Body condition change a0.10.50.70.8Hay disappearance, lbs DM/d a17.624.429.334.1Hay waste, lbs DM/d b5.95.79.213.4Manure production, lbs DM/d b11.715.019.622.7 a linear and quadratic effects (P<0.01) b linear effect (P<0.01)