Nutritive changes in ammoniated or liquid protein treated wheat straw Treatment Dry MatterCPNDFADF Ammoniation Pretreatment94.72.877.646.7 Post-treatment89.89.970.841.6 Liquid Supplement Pre-treatment95.42.977.846 Post-treatment95.23.575.742.2 Goehring et al., 1990
Gas Production, ml/hr TDN Estimate TreatmentIVDMDADFIVDMD Ammoniation Pretreatment30.9 d 9.2 d 42.639.6 d Post-treatment41.4 f 12.7 e 48.547.4 g Liquid Supplement Pre-treatment33.3 e 9.1 d 43.541.3 e Post-treatment35.2 g 10.0 d 47.842.8 f d,e,f,g Means with different superscripts differ. P<0.05 Goehring et al., 1990 34% ↑ 6% ↑
ControlNaOH Liquid Suppl Ammoniated Cow Trial ADG, lb.26 b 0 a.10 a.88 c Straw intake, lb19.3 a 17.3 a 17.8 a 23.0 b Sheep metabolism trial DM digestibility,%53.6 a 53.5 a 52.4 a 59.7 a Intake, lb.99 a 1.30 b 1.32 b 1.43 c IVDMD,%50.3 a 54.2 b 49.7 a 57.7 c 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 1Trial 2 TreatmentUntrt NaOH UntrtLS Estimated intake, lb2.313.32.512.1 IVDMD37.646.737.641.1 NDF, %87.782.087.786 Crude Protein, %22.214.171.124.6 Paterson et al., 1980
Hay quality following injection with molasses-urea solution - LSU Study 1 – Bermudagrass hay Study 2 – Johnsongrass- crabgrass hay Item (%DM)ControlInjectedControlInjected CP12.3126.96.36.199 ADF39.538.647.347.0 NDF70.770.374.773.9 TDN53.054.044.144.4 IVDMD69.871.664.364.2 McCormick et al., 2010
Hay palatability following injection with molasses-urea solution - LSU Study 1 Hay – Bermudagrass Study 2 Hay – Johnsongrass-crabgrass Item (%DM)ControlInjectedControlInjected Bales tested8866 Bale weight1227128212291272 Hay refusals, lb641 a 343 a 700 a 555 b Intake/period586 a 939 b 529 a 717 b Intake/calf/d5.22 a 8.28 b 5.01 a 6.38 b Hay intake, %BW0.751.180.710.91 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 CP treat group of bales LS injection Increase intake Nutrient content function of dilution treat individual bales
Gas Production, ml/hr TDN Estimate TreatmentIVDMDADFIVDMD Ammoniation Pretreatment30.9 d 9.2 d 42.639.6 d Post-treatment41.4 f 12.7 e 48.547.4 g Liquid Supplement Pre-treatment33.3 e 9.1 d 43.541.3 e Post-treatment35.2 g 10.0 d 47.842.8 f d,e,f,g Means with different superscripts differ. P<0.05 Goehring et al., 1990 20%
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 ground a 16% Processed, fed in bunk a 11% Hay Feeders 7-9 % Ground Hay <5%? a Blasi et al., 1993 Cattlemen’s Day
Access time to hay 3 hours6 hours9 hours Free choice Weight change, lbs a 119161191207 Body condition change a 0.10.50.70.8 Hay disappearance, lbs DM/d a 17.624.429.334.1 Hay waste, lbs DM/d b 188.8.131.52.4 Manure production, lbs DM/d b 11.715.019.622.7 a linear and quadratic effects (P<0.01) b linear effect (P<0.01)
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.