AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF
Jenny J. White for the degree of Master of Science in Animal Science presented on
July 24, 2003.
Title: Effects of Forage quality and Type of Protein Supplement on Intake and
Diestibi1itv in Beef Steers and Performance of Postpartum Beef Cows.
Abstract approved
Redacted for Privacy
t yDelCurto
Two experiments were conducted to evaluate the effects of forage quality and
supplemental undegradable intake protein (UIP) level on intake, digestibility, and
performance of beef cattle. In Exp. 1, five ruminally cannulated steers (BW = 456 ±
6 kg) were used in a 6 x 5 incomplete Latin square with treatments in a 2 x 2
factorial plus two controls. Factors were hay quality, moderate (M, 8.0% CP, 62.1%
NDF) and low (L, 4.0% CP, 8 1.5% NDF), and supplement type, high UIP (HUIP,
60% UIP, 48% CP) and low UIP (LUIP, 40% UIP, 49% CP). Supplement was
provided daily to meet 100% of CP requirements. Intake and total fecal output were
measured on days 15 to 19 and total rumen evacuations were performed on d 21.
Steers consuming M forage had greater (P
0.07) DM1, DM digestibility, NDF
intake, CP intake, CP digestibility, and particulate turnover rate, while decreasing (P
0.07) NDF fill, liquid fill, rumen volume @rior to feeding), insoluable acid
detergent fiber (TADF) fill, and particulate passage rate compared to steers
consuming L forage.
Supplementation increased (P < 0.01) DM intake and
digestibility and NDF intake in steers fed L forage. An interaction (P = 0.10)
occurred for NDF intake. In steers fed L forage, NDF intake was greater with HUIP
supplement (5.7 kg/d) than with LUIP supplement (5.2 kg/d), but in steers fed M
forage NDF intake did not differ (6.7 vs. 6.8 kg/d, respectively). In Exp. 2, 96
postpartum multiparous cows (BW 555 ± 8 kg) were blocked by calving date and
assigned to treatments in a 2 x 2 x 2 factorial arrangement within a split plot design.
The additional treatment factor in Exp. 2 was two levels of supplement intake with
low and high representing 100 or 120% of CP requirements, respectively. The low
quality hay was (L) 6.3% CP and 76% NDF, whereas moderate quality hay (M) was
8.6% CP and 69% NDF. Supplements were fed three times weekly to groups of four
cows from calving to breeding. Cow BW and body condition score (BCS) were
taken at calving, end of supplementation, and end of breeding.
Cvclicity was
determined prior to breeding, pregnancy was evaluated at weaning, and calving
interval was based upon 2002 and 2003 calving dates. Calves were weighed at birth,
the end of the supplementation period, and the end of breeding. Body weight loss
from calving to the end of the supplementation period was decreased (P < 0.10) in
cows on the high supplement intake level and HUIP supplement compared to cows
on the low supplement intake level and LUIP supplement. Body condition loss from
calving to the end of the supplementation period was decreased (P < 0.01) in cows
on the high supplement intake level compared to the low supplement intake level. A
supplement type by supplement intake level interaction (P < 0. 10) was detected for
cow BCS change from calving to the end of supplementation.
When HUIP
supplement was fed, increasing supplemental intake decreased body condition loss,
from calving to breeding, more than when LUIP supplement was fed. Calves from
cows fed the M forage weighed more (P < 0.10) than calves from cows fed the L
forage at the end of the supplementation period. Cow cyclicity prior to breeding,
was lower (P = 0.03) with cows consuming L forage compared cows consuming M
forage. Cow pregnancy rate at weaning was not effected by treatment (chi-square =
0.59). Calving interval was influenced (P
0.01) by an interaction of forage type,
supplement type, and supplement intake level. On the M forage, there were no
differences between treatments, but with cows consuming L forage, the high
supplement intake level improved calving interval with the HUIP supplement, but at
the low supplement intake level calving interval was shortened by the LUIP
supplement. These results indicate that forage quality affects the response of cattle
to protein supplementation. Low quality forages respond to supplementation with
increases in intake and digestibility.
It
also appears that UIP may be more
advantageous than degradable intake protein (DIP) for steers on low-quality forage
through increased intake.
KEYWORDS: Beef cattle, Forage quality, Protein supplementation
©Copyright by Jenny J. White
July 24, 2003
All Rights Reserved
Effects of Forage Quality and Type of Protein Supplement on Intake and
Digestibility in Beef Steers and Performance of Postpartum Beef Cows
by
Jenny J. White
A THESIS
submitted to
Oregon State University
in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the
degree of
Master of Science
Presented July 24, 2003
Commencement June 2004
thesis of Jenny J. White presented on
Master of Scie
yi4003.
Redacted for Privacy
Major Professor,
ting Animal Science
Redacted for Privacy
Head of the Department of Animal Sciences
Redacted for Privacy
Dean of the Oraduate School
I understand that my thesis will become part of the permanent collection of Oregon
State University libraries. My signature below authorizes release of my thesis to any
reader upon request.
Redacted for Privacy
Jenny J. White, Author
CONTRIBUTION OF AUTHORS
Dr. Gary D. Pulsipher of Oregon State University designed the two research
projects and assisted with the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data. Kenric
Walburger and Micah S. Wells, both of Oregon State University helped with the
collection and analysis of data.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pane
I. UNDEGRADABLE INTAKE PROTEIN SUPPLEMENTATION
OFCATTLE ........................................................................
INTRODUCTION ............................................................
1
..........................
2
GENERAL PROTEIN SUPPLEMENTATION
UNDEGRADABLE PROTEIN SUPPLEMENTATION
...............
3
UIP COMPARED TO DIP SUPPLEMENTATION .....................
4
CONCLUSION ................................................................
14
II. EFFECTS OF FORAGE QUALITY AND TYPE OF PROTEIN
SUPPLEMENT ON INTAKE AND DIGESTIBILITY IN BEEF
STEERS AND PERFORMANCE OF POSTPARTUM BEEF COWS.....
16
ABSTRACT .....................................................................
17
INTRODUCTION .............................................................
19
MATERIALS AND METHODS .............................................
20
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .............................................
24
IMPLICATIONS ...............................................................
40
BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................
42
APPENDICES ............................................................................
49
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table
Forage and supplement nutrient analysis for beef steers fed two
qualities of forage and supplemented with two types (low UIP
and high UIP) of protein supplement ..........................................
23
Forage and supplement nutrient analysis for cows in response to
two qualities of basal forage supplemented with two types of
protein supplement (high UIP and low UIP) at two intake levels .........
23
Intake and digestibility of nutrients in beef steers fed two qualities
of forage and supplemented with two types (low UIP and high
UIP) of protein supplement ...................................................... 26
4.
6.
Ruminal fill and volume in beef steers fed two qualities of forage
and supplemented with two types (low UIP and high UIP) of
protein supplement ...............................................................
30
Particulate passage rate in beef steers fed two qualities of forage
and supplemented with two types (low UIP and high UIP) of
protein supplement ...............................................................
32
Cow BW, BW change, BCS, BCS change and calf birth weight
and ADG in response to two qualities of basal forage
supplemented with two types of protein supplement (high UIP
and low UIP) at two intake levels from calving to end of breeding ........ 35
Cow cyclicity, pregnancy, and calving interval in response
to two qualities of basal forage supplemented with two types of
protein supplement (high UIP and low UIP) at two intake levels .......... 39
LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES
Table
A. 1.
Page
Journal of Animal Science accepted abbreviations used
inthis paper .......................................................... 50
A.2.
A.3.
A.4.
A.5.
A.6.
A.7.
The influence of forage quality and supplement type on
steers weights .........................................................
51
The influence of forage quality and supplement type on
steer DM and OM intakes ..........................................
52
The influence of forage quality and supplement type on
steer NDF and CP intakes ..........................................
54
The influence of forage quality and supplement type on
steer DM, OM, NDF, and CP fecal output .......................
56
The influence of forage quality and supplement type on
steer DM, OM, NDF, and CP digestibility ........................
57
The influence of forage quality and supplement type on
steer rumen DM, OM, liquid, and NDF fill and rumen
volume .................................................................
58
A.8.
The influence of forage quality and supplement type on
steer IADF passage rate and fill and turnover rate ............... 61
A.9.
The influence of forage quality and supplement type on in
situ extent of DM, NDF, and CP digestion ........................ 62
A. 10.
The influence of forage quality, supplement type, and
supplement intake level on cow BW and BCS .................... 63
A. 11.
The influence of forage quality, supplement type, and
supplement intake level on calf weight ............................
67
A. 12.
The influence of forage quality, supplement type, and
supplement intake level on cow cyclicity .......................... 70
A.13.
The influence of forage quality, supplement type, and
supplement intake level on cow pregnancy ........................
73
LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES
Table
A.14.
Page
The influence of forage quality, supplement type, and
supplement intake level on cow calving interval ............... 76
Effects of Forage Quality and Type of Protein Supplement on Intake and
Digestibility in Beef Steers and Performance of Postpartum Beef Cows
I. UNDEGRADABLE INTAKE PROTEIN SUPPLEMENTATION OF
CATTLE
INTRODUCTION
Cow-calf producers have a difficult time realizing a profit in the beef
industry. In order to do so they must have the knowledge and skill to increase their
revenue and/or decrease inputs costs. Feeding the cow herd is the greatest single
expense in the business, and the most economical way to do this is through grazing.
However, ranchers in the Western United States are at a disadvantage because of
harsh environmental conditions and lack of pasture, which limit them to as few as six
months or less of grazing, and requires that they feed 1.5 to 2.5+ tons of hay per cow
per year.
One advantage that western producers have is the availability of low-cost,
low-quality harvested forages and dormant, stock-piled forages. Low-quality forages
are those, which are well below the nutritional requirements of the animals whereas
moderate-quality forages are adequate or only slightly nutritionally deficient for the
animals under consideration. The low-quality forages available to western beef
producers are often deficient in protein (3.5% to 12.0% CP) but close to adequate in
energy (50% to 55% TDN). Therefore, when quantity is not limiting, protein
supplementation is the best way to increase the value of these feeds to elicit
acceptable performance.
2
GENERAL PROTEIN SUPPLEMENTATION
Many studies have documented the benefits of protein supplementation.
When Hereford steers on low-quality prairie hay (4% CP) were supplemented with
different levels of soy bean meal (SBM) or a grain-based protein, Guthrie et al.
(1988) found that protein supplementation increased forage intake and digestibility
with the high level exhibiting the greatest response and no difference between
sources. Protein given to late gestation cows grazing dormant range has been shown
to decrease weight and body condition loss (DelCurto et al., 1 990b; Willms et al.,
1998; Wheeler et al., 2002; Sowell et al., 2003), increase forage dry matter intake
(DM1) (Wheeler et al., 2002; Sowell et al., 2003) and digestibility (Sowell et aL,
2003). Similarly, cows fed ammoniated wheat straw and protein increased body
weight (Beck et al., 1992; Fide et al., 1995) and condition (Fide et al., 1995).
However, protein supplementation given during late gestation has had little affect on
reproductive measurements or calf performance (DelCurto et al., 1990b; Beck et al.,
1992; Fide et al.. 1995), except DelCurto et al. (1990b) did find that increasing the
level of protein supplementation in late gestation cows resulted in a tendency for
larger birth weights. Protein supplementation with cannulated steers on low-quality
forage has increased DM1, (McCol!um et al., 1985; Guthrie et al., 1988; DelCurto et
al., !990a; Hannah et al., 1991; Fide etal., 1995; Bodine et al., 2000; Wheeler et al.,
2002) rumen fill (DelCurto et al., 1990a), digestibility (Guthrie et al., 1988; De!Curto
et a!, 1990a; Hannah et al., 1991; Olson et al., 1999; Wheeler et al., 2002) and rumen
ammonia (McCoIlum and Galyean, 1985; Guthrie et al., 1988; Freeman et al, 1992;
Fide et al., 1995). Conversely, there is also documentation that protein
supplementation has no affect on DM1 (Freeman et al., 1992; Wheeler et al., 2002),
digestibility (Beck et al., 1992; Fide et al., 1995; Wheeler et al., 2002), passage rate,
retention time, or VFA's (Freeman et al., 1992). Mathis et al. (2000) also recorded
conflicting results when he used three different basal forages; with bermudagrass and
bromegrass, increasing the level of protein had no affect on forage organic matter
intake (FOMI), but with forage sorghum, increasing the amount of supplemental
protein improved FOMI. The overall consensus remains that protein
supplementation conveys benefits to cattle consuming low-quality forages.
However, the response to supplemental protein is variable and possibly related to
quality of the forage basal diet.
UNDEGRADABLE INTAKE PROTEIN SUPPLEMENTATION
Since protein supplementation is beneficial, the next issue to consider is the
type of protein to supply. The above-mentioned research used supplements high in
ruminal DIP, but other research has evaluated the use of high ruminal UIP in
supplements. Degradable intake protein is digested in the rumen and used by the
microbes to make microbial crude protein, which is later absorbed in the small
intestine. In contrast to this. UIP passes undigested to the abomasum where it is
broken down into its amino acid components and directly absorbed by the animal in
!,iI
the form it was fed. There is not a universal consensus on the usefulness of UIP
because results and conclusions have varied. When extra UIP was provided to
yearling steers consuming ammoniated wheat straw (5.9% CP). UIP had no affect on
forage intake but did increase ADG (Zorrilla-Rios et al., 1991). Using first-calf
heifers on moderate-quality hay (8-9% CP) with some supplemented with UIP (60%
UIP), Hunter et al. (1988) reported no effect on forage DM1 or milk yield during the
first 8 weeks after calving, but during the second 8 weeks UTP decreased milk
production and plasma growth hormone while increasing insulin concentrations. In
another study, early lactation Flereford cows receiving low-quality grass hay (2.7%
CP) and supplemented with a high UIP supplement (60% UIP) at different intake
levels showed increased forage DM1 and reduced weight loss as well as higher
concentrations of ruminal VFA's. Increasing the intake of UIP increased milk
production and yields of milk protein, lactose, solids-not-fat, and fat. At the higher
intake levels, rumen ammonia concentration increased as well as calf growth rate
(Lee et al., 1985).
UIP COMPARED to DIP SUPPLEMENTATION
Performance/Production
Other studies have compared high UIP to low UIP supplements. There does
not appear to be any standard levels of UIP in a protein supplement that characterize
it as high or low, some studies use a low and high UIP supplement which are both at
levels which are low compared to other studies which use supplements with a greater
UIP spread. For example, Brown et al. (1997) used a low UIP level of2l% UIP and
a high level at 34% UIP, while McCann (1991) had a low UIP supplement at 50%
UIP and a high at 74% UIP. In general though, it appears that a low UIP supplement
is 40% UIP or less while a high UIP supplement is around 60% UIP or greater. In
yearling cattle UIP has increased DM1 (Sriskandarajah et al., 1982; McCann et al.,
1991; Pate et al., 1995), ADG (Gutienez-Ornelas et al., 1991), and plasma albumin
concentration (Veira et al., 1994); but in other research it has had no affect on DM1
and feed efficiency (Coomer et al., 1993; Veira et al., 1994; Ludden et al., 1995;
Brown et al., 1997) or plasma glucose (Veira et al., 1994). Brown (1997) using
Brahman cross steers grazing dormant pasture with ad libitum access to ammoniated
grass hay (11 .6% CP) and supplemented at different intake and UIP levels with urea
in combination with SBM or feather meal (14, 18, 23% UIP and 21, 29, 34% UIP for
low, moderate, high intake levels of ureaISBM and urea/feather meal, respectively)
observed that in one year of his research, at a low supplement level, high UIP elicited
better performance than low UIP, but at the higher supplement levels there were no
differences between protein sources. In addition, McCann (1991) only saw a benefit
from UIP supplements (50% or 74% UIP) after the quality of the pasture declined
(29 to 9% CP). Yearling heifers supplemented with UIP (8 or 58% UIP) while on
low-quality grass hay and straw diets (periodically adjusted to maintain 0.4 kg/d
ADG) had increased energy utilization efficiency, blood urea nitrogen (BUN),
insulin, age at puberty and a numerical decrease in the percent serviced in the first
21d of the breeding season (Lalman et at., 1993). With primiparous beef cows. UIP
has increased weight gain (Wiley et at., 1991; Anderson et al., 2001), milk
production and/or components (Rusche et at., 1993; Hess et at., 1998), serum IGF-t
(Strauch et al., 2001), insulin and BUN (Wiley et at., 1991), reproductive
performance (Wiley et al., 1991; Rusche et al., 1993), and calf performance (Rusche
et at., 1993). In contrast, in other studies involving UIP supplementation with
primiparous cows, there has been no effect on weight (Hess et at., 1998; Anderson et
at., 2001; Strauch et al., 2001), BCS (Rusche et at., 1993; Strauch et at., 2001),
digestibility (Hess et al., 1998; Anderson et at., 2001) milk production and/or
components (Wiley etal., 1991; Anderson et at., 2001; Strauch et al., 2001), blood
metabolites (Hess et at., 1998), reproductive performance (Alderton et at., 2000;
Anderson et at., 2001; Strauch et at., 2001), or calf performance (Alderton et at.,
2000; Strauch et at., 2001). In studies involving multiparous or mixed multi- and
primiparous cows, response to UIP supplementation has again been varied. Triplett
et at. (1995) supplemented grazing Brahman cows with three isonitrogenous levels
of UIP (3 8%, 56%, 76%) for the first four months ater calving and observed that the
moderate level of UIP improved first-service conception rates and tended to improve
pregnancy rates. They also saw an increase in milk production in the primiparous
cows on the medium UIP compared to the high UIP, but this difference was not
evident in the multiparous cows. In two studies involving early or late calving
multiparous cows grazing spring range pasture (5.8 to 12.5% CP) and supplemented
with high (50%) or low (25%) VIP from calving to breeding, Dhuyvetter et al.
(1993) found that UIP had no affect on BCS, pregnancy rate, milk production, serum
albumin, cholesterol, plasma glucose, or calf gain. However, in the late calving
cows UIP increased BUN, number serviced in the first 21d, and reduced weight loss.
Two other studies involving cows on low-quality grass hay (5-6% CP) found no
advantage in using UIP in protein supplements. Sletmoen-Olson et al. (2000) fed
UIP at three different levels (2%, 46%, 63%) in isoenergetic supplements that had
the same level of DIP but different levels of UIP and thus increasing levels of total
CP, from three months before to three months after calving. Undegradable intake
protein had no affect on weight, BCS, days to first estrus, days to rebreeding, or calf
weight and gain, so he concluded that UIP was of little value when DIP was
adequate. Furthermore, Bohnert et al. (2002c) supplemented with two
isonitrogenous levels of UIP (18%, 60%) to cows in late gestation and found that
UIP had no affect on cow weight and BCS change, calf birth date, or calf birth
weight.
Studies with dairy cows have yielded similar conflicting results where UIP
has had no affect on milk yields (Hoffiian et al., 1991; Hongerholt et al., 1998)
while results from McCormick et al. (1999) concluded that UIP increased fat
corrected milk but had no influence on reproductive performance. Cunningham et
al. (1996) found a tendency for increasing levels of UIP to increase milk yield,
however parity and dietary CP influenced the response. Primiparous cows had
increased milk yield with the high CP (18.5% CP), high UIP (8.3% UIP for total
ration) diet but there was no effect from the moderate CP (16.5% CP), high UIP
8
(7.3% UIP for total ration) ration; while multiparous cows on the high UIP at the
moderate CP level had increased milk production with no effect at the high UIP, high
CP level. However, it was noted that while increasing the level of UIP improved
milk production, it was in concert with increased DM1, so the impact of UIP on
metabolizable protein and milk production was confounded by the effects of UIP on
energy status.
Rocha et al. (1995) tested young peripuberal Brahman bulls by feeding hay
(10-12% CP) with either low UIP (47%) or high UIP (72%) supplement. He found
that UIP increased total weight gain, ADG, and efficiency; but had no affect on age
at first motile spermatozoa, age at puberty, scrotal circumference, semen quality, or
LH and testosterone concentrations.
Metabolism
Research involving fistulated animals has again yielded an assortment of
results. Petit and Flipot (1992) fed two different basal diets (hay 14% CP; silage
18% CP) with three levels of UIP and found no difference in DM1 or weight change,
but ruminal ammonia was highest with the moderate level of UIP. When steers were
consuming low-quality hay (5% CP) and supplemented daily, every 3d, or every 6d
with low UIP (18%) or high UIP (60%) there was no difference in forage DM1,
nitrogen (N) intake, or intestinal N disappearance due to CP degradability, but UIP
did increase duodenal nonbacterial N flow (Bohnert et al., 2002a). Further data
collected during this research led to the conclusion that the results suggested that DIP
and UIP elicit different effects on ruminal fermentation when supplemented
infrequently to ruminants consuming low-quality forage while not adversely
affecting nutrient intake and digestibility (Bohnert et al., 2002b). Sriskandarajah et
al. (1982) supplemented wheat straw (5.7% CP) with casein (DIP) or formaldehydetreated casein (UIP) and found that UIP elicited the greatest increase in straw
consumption and the highest N flow to the abomasum; however, they concluded that
protein supplements do not consistently stimulate intake of low-quality roughages
when the animal's DIP requirements are met. In addition, they felt that the effects of
UIP supplements on live weight may be attributable to the effects of absorbed amino
acids on the efficiency of tissue protein synthesis either directly or through
gluconeogenesis. Coomer et al. (1993) fed a total mixed ration that was
isonitrogenous but consisted of protein from either soybean meal (35% UIP in total
ration), heat-treated soybean meal (48% UIP in total ration), corn gluten meal (43%
UIP in total ration). or a combination of heat-treated soybean meal/corn gluten meal
(44% UIP in total ration) to multiple cannulated steers. Undegradable intake protein
increased the flow of OM to the terminal ileum. fecal OM output, total, bacterial, and
apparent dietary CF flow to the abomasum, bacterial CP synthesis efficiency, and
absorption of essential amino acids and non-essential amino acids from the small
intestine; while reducing true OM digestion in the rumen and ruminal ammonia
concentrations. There were no differences in total tract OM apparent digestibility or
ruminal fluid pH, suggesting that in the low UIP more digestion occurred in the
rumen, while in the high UIP, digestion shifted to the small intestine. Additionally,
protein sources of similar UIP content elicited different responses, signifying that
10
source of UIP may be important in predicting response. Corn gluten meal reduced
ruminal ammonia N and increased bacterial CP flow to the abornasum compared to
heat-treated soybean meal. Differences between protein supplements fed to supply
the same level of UTP and CP but originating from different sources was also noted
by Petersen et al. (1985) who found that NDF digestibility was improved with a
soybean meal-urea supplement compared to a blood meal-urea supplement, but the
blood meal-urea caused less urinary loss of N and a higher N retention rate compared
to the soybean meal-urea. Ludden and Cecava (1995) fed a 70% corn-based diet to
multiple cannulated steers with protein from urea (35% UIP in total ration), soybean
meal (58% UIP in total ration), high ruminal escape soybean meal (65% UIP in total
ration), or corn gluten meal/blood meal (61% UIP in total ration). There were no
differences in the flow of essential, non-essential, or total amino acids; small
intestinal disappearance of amino acids; or total tract N disappearance; but there
were some differences between protein sources. Corn gluten meal/blood meal
increased non-microbial N flow but tended to decrease microbial N flow compared
to the other supplements, and microbial protein synthesis efficiency was highest for
urea and tended to decrease with high ruminal escape soybean meal and corn gluten
meal/blood meal. Ragland-Gray et al. (1997) abomasally inftIsed steers consuming
vegetative wheat silage (12.3% CP) with specific amino acids or casein to evaluate
their affects on nitrogen balance and hormonal status. All infusions served as UIP
because they never entered the rumen and instead were available for absorption from
the small intestine. Altering the amino acid profile did affect response. Casein
11
increased urinary N and N retention over the limited amino acids as well as
increasing plasma insulin concentration and IGF-I. Arginine increased N retention
over the limited amino acids as well as increasing plasma growth hormone. The
conclusion of this study was that the improved growth observed in calves and lambs
fed forages supplemented with UIP can be explained by the increase in insulin and
IGF-I after casein infusion. Using duodenally cannulated Holstein cows fed a mixed
ration (17% CP) consisting of different sources of protein, Erasmus et al. (1994)
found that the composition of UIP affected the composition of protein entering the
intestine.
Therefore, one explanation for the differences in response when the same
level of UIP is fed from various sources is that the supplements differ in their amino
acid profiles and thus their absorption and utilization. How protein is metabolized
likely affects an animal's response to supplementation and may explain why in some
studies UIP has an effect while in others it does not. Response is sometimes limited
not by gross protein availability, but by protein quality (specific amino acid
deficiencies). Undegradable intake protein supplements can supply a higher quality
of protein to the small intestine for absorption, and if it supplies limiting amino
acids, production will increase above the levels possible by only increasing microbial
protein (standard amino acid profile) supplied to the small intestine.
Response to UIP may be affected by protein concentration of the supplement.
Cunningham et al. (1996) found that UIP had no affect on OM intake, flow to the
duodenum, digestion, ruminal pH, and VFA concentrations when fed to multiparous
12
dairy cows at several protein levels (14.5, 16.5, 18.5% CP). Increasing the level of
UIP (5.2, 6.2, 6.7, 7.3, 8.3% UIP) decreased ammonia concentration, increased the
flow of N to the duodenum, increased the flow of non-ammonia, non-microbial N at
the moderate protein level but not at the high protein level, but had no affect on the
flow of microbial protein to the small intestine or on the apparent total tract digestion
of N. There was also a trend for an increase in the flow of essential amino acids and
nonessential amino acids as well as an interaction of CP and UIP in ADF apparent
digestion where increasing the UIP with the mid protein improved ADF digestion,
but at the high protein level, ADF digestion decreased. Additionally, there was a
tendency for increasing levels of UIP to increase milk and milk component yield.
Volden (1999) evaluated the effects of UIP in dairy cows during early (high feeding
level) and late (low feeding level) lactation and found that at the high feeding level,
the high protein (17.7% CP), high UIP (39% UIP) treatment increased duodenal flow
of non-ammonia N and increased milk production, while at the low feeding level,
UIP had no affect on the amount of non-ammonia N or total amino acids passing to
the small intestine. At both feeding levels, the high protein, high UIP increased the
proportion of Met, His, and Arg at the duodenum and increased milk protein
production. He concluded that the level of feeding affects the efficiency of bacterial
protein synthesis, ruminal escape of dietary protein, and the amount of amino acids
passing to the small intestine.
Sheep have also been used to investigate the effects of UIP. Bohnert et al.
(1999) measured net nutrient flux in multicatheterized wethers which received 2%
LD
BW DM of a 13% CP ration consisting of either urea (0% UIP), SBM (25% UIP),
poultry by-product meal (PBM) (55% UIP), or bloodmeal:corn gluten meal
(BMCGM) (93% UIP). The data from this experiment suggested that PBM and
BMCGM improved efficiency of N use compared to urea and SBM by reducing
urinary N loss. In a later trial by this same scientist, wethers consumed low-quality
meadow hay (5% CP) ad libitum and were supplemented with none, low UIP (18%
UIP), or high UIP (60% UIP). The high UIP came from a mix of protected SBM and
blood meal. Supplementation increased DM1, OM intake, N retention, N
digestibility, digested N retained, and plasma urea, but the UIP had no affect on the
measurements (Bohnert et al., 2000c). In an experiment examining the effects of
energy and protein, Ferrell et al. (1999) fed multicatheterized wethers bromegrass
hay (4.3%CP) ad libitum with supplements of none, energy, energy plus urea, energy
plus SBM, or energy plus UIP. Energy was provided through cornstarch and UIP
came from a mix of blood meal (BM) and feather meal. There was no affect on
DM1, but supplementation increased apparent digestibilities of DM, OM, and energy
with UIP eliciting the greatest response.
In vitro experiments have also been used to help expand our knowledge of
the effects of UIP in ruminants. Calsamiglia et al. (1995) used continuous culture
fermenters to look at the effects of protein supplements on ruminal fermentation and
CP digestion. The ration was formulated for lactating dairy cows and consisted of
alfalfa, corn silage, barley, and SBM with treatments containing urea and tryptone
(control), SBM, lignosulfonate-treated SBM (LSBM), corn gluten meal (CGM), BM,
14
hydrolysed feather meal (HFM), fish meal (FM), or meat and bone meal (MBM).
They found no differences in digestion of DM, OM, or carbohydrates (CHO), total N
flow, bacterial N flow, and efficiency of microbial protein synthesis. However. UIP
increased the flows of non-ammonia N, dietary N, and total and essential amino
acids (EAA); and modified the amino acid (AA) profile leaving the fermenter.
CONCLUSION
Even with the large number of studies conducted investigating the effects of
UIP, a complete understanding of this protein remains elusive. It is obvious that the
response to UIP supplementation is influenced and confounded by different factors
which may include the source (quality) and level of UIP and DIP; total protein
concentration in the supplement and basal diet; basal diet type, quantity, and quality;
whether DIP requirements are met and whether UIP is additional protein or
substitutes for DiP; energy level of the supplement and basal diet; the animal's
breed, sex, condition, and stage of production; and the span of time that the study
covers. Of these possible influencing factors, basal diet is one that draws attention
because in most of the research conducted on this subject, basal diet has been
uncontrolled (grazing) or has only included one source. Therefore, we hypothesized
that basal diet, specifically the level of protein, may provide a possible explanation
for the response of UIP in beef cattle and the objectives of our study were to evaluate
15
the effects of forage quality and supplemental UIP level on intake and digestibility in
beef steers and performance of postpartum beef cows.
16
II. EFFECTS OF FORAGE QUALITY AND TYPE OF PROTEIN
SUPPLEMENT ON INTAKE AND DIGESTIBILITY IN BEEF STEERS AND
PERFORMANCE OF POSTPARTUM BEEF COWS
Jenny J. White, Gary D. Pulsipher, Timothy DelCurto, Kenric Walburger, and Micah
S. Wells
Keywords: Beef cattle, Forage Quality, Protein supplementation
Authors are Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Animal Sciences, Oregon
State University, Corvallis, Oregon 9733 1; Assistant Professor, Department of
Animal Sciences, Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center, Oregon State
University, Union, Oregon 97883; Associate Professor, Department of Animal
Sciences, Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center, Oregon State University,
Union, Oregon 97883; Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Animal
Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, 9733 1; Graduate Research
Assistant, Department of Animal Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis,
Oregon, 97331.
17
flSTP 4CT
Two experiments were conducted to evaluate the effects of forage quality and
supplemental UIP level on intake, digestibility, and performance of beef cattle. In
Exp. I, five ruminally cannulated steers (BW = 456 ± 6 kg) were used in a 6 x S
incomplete Latin square with treatments in a 2 x 2 factorial plus two controls.
Factors were hay quality; moderate (M, 8.0% CP, 62.1% NDF) and low (L, 4.0%
CP, 81.5% NDF), and supplement type; high UIP (HUIP, 60% UIP, 48% CP) and
low UIP (LUIP, 40% UIP, 49% CP). Steers consuming M forage had greater (P
0.07) DM1, DM digestibility, NDF intake, CP intake, CP digestibility, and particulate
turnover rate; while decreasing (P
0.07) NDF fill, liquid fill. rumen volume (prior
to feeding), IADF fill, and particulate passage rate compared to steers consuming L
forage. Supplementation increased (P
0.01) DM intake and digestibility and NDF
intake in steers fed L forage. In Exp. 2, 96 postpartum multiparous cows (BW 555 ±
8 kg) were blocked by calving date and assigned to treatments in a 2 x 2 x 2 factorial
arrangement within a split plot design.
The additional treatment factor was two
levels of supplement intake with low and high representing 100 or 120% of CP
requirements, respectively. The low quality hay was (L) 6.3% CP and 76% NDF,
whereas moderate quality hay (M) was 8.6% CP and 69% NDF. Body weight loss
from calving to the end of the supplementation period was decreased (P < 0.10) in
cows on the high supplement intake level and HUIP supplement compared to cows
on the low supplement intake level and LUIP supplement. Body condition loss from
calving to the end of the supplementation period was decreased (P < 0.01) in cows
18
on the high supplement intake level compared to the low supplement intake level.
Calves from cows fed the M forage weighed more (P < 0.10) than calves from cows
fed the L forage at the end of the supplementation period. Cow cyclicity prior to
breeding was lower (P = 0.03) with cows consuming L forage compared to cows
consuming M forage, whereas cow pregnancy rate at weaning was not affected (P>
0.10).
These results indicate that low quality forages have a greater response to
supplementation with increases in intake and digestibility and UJP may be more
advantageous than DIP for steers on low-quality forage.
KEYWORDS: Beef cattle, Forage quality, Protein supplementation
19
INTRODUCTION
Making a profit in the beef industry is difficult, especially for ranchers in the
western U.S. because of harsh environmental conditions and a lack of pasture, which
limits grazing to as few as six months or less. However, one advantage that western
cow-calf producers have is the availability of low-cost, low-quality harvested forages
and dormant, stock-piled forages. These forages are deficient in protein so when
forage quantity is not limiting, protein supplementation is the best way to increase
the value of these feeds.
The use of UIP in protein supplements has been researched with inconclusive
results. PregTlant beef cows supplemented with UIP have experienced decreased
weight loss (Miner et al., 1990) while primiparous, postpartum beef cows fed UIP
have shown increased milk protein (Hess et al., 1998), and weight gain (Sawyer,
2000). In contrast, Strauch et al. (2001) found no affect on body weight or condition,
reproductive performance, or calf growth. Steers supplemented with UIP have
demonstrated increased protein efficiency (Brown and Pate, 1997) and gain (ZorrillaRios, 1991) in some studies, while showing lower gain (Ludden et al., 1995) or
variable response (Gutierrez-Ornelas et al., 1991) in others.
Undegradable intake protein has been tested with basal diets ranging from
low quality grass hay (Alderton et al., 2000) and dormant pasture (McCann et al.,
1991) to high quality grass pasture (Hongerholt, 1998). Protein levels ranged from 4
to 25% CP, and in all but one of the experiments (McMormick et al., 1999) the basal
diets were constant across treatments. The protein differences of the basal diets may
20
be an important contributing factor in the variability of responses observed in cattle
fed UIP.
The objectives of this study were to evaluate the interaction of basal diet
quality and supplement type on intake and digestibility in beef steers and
performance of postpartum beef cows.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Two experiments were conducted at the Eastern Oregon Agricultural
Research Center in Union, OR to evaluate the effects of forage quality and protein
supplement type on rumen digestibility and production. In Exp. 1, five ruminally
cannulated crossbred steers
(BW = 456 ± 6
randomly assigned to treatments in a
6 x 5
kg) were placed in individual pens and
incomplete Latin square. Treatments
were arranged in a 2 x 2 factorial plus two controls. Factors were basal diet, grass
hay or grass straw and supplement type, high UIP or low UIP (Table I).
Supplements were isonitrogenous and the controls were an unsupplemented
treatment of each forage type.
Experimental periods were 21 days in duration with days 1 to
14
for diet
adaptation and days 15 to 21 for sample collection. Steers were fed forage twice
daily at approximately 0800 and 1600 hour and supplement was given once a day at
0800 hour before the forage. Fresh water and trace mineral salt blocks were always
available. Grab samples of the forage were collected daily from days 15 to 19 and
composited by period. Samples of the supplement were collected each period. Orts
21
were removed, weighed, and sampled in the morning and steers were fed 120% of
the previous day's consumed feed. Basal forage and supplement were ground in a
Wiley Mill at 2mm or less and analyzed for DM, OM, N (AOAC, 1990), NDF, ADF
(ANKOM Technology Corporation Fairport, NY), and IADF (Sunvold and Cochran,
1991; ANKOM Telmology Corporation Fairport, NY). Oils were composited by
steer within period, ground, and analyzed for DM, OM, N, NDF, and IADF. Fecal
bags were placed on steers from days 15 to 19 and changed twice daily at which time
fecal weight was recorded and a 5% subsample was removed and frozen. At the end
of each period the feces were mixed, subsampled, dried and ground. Feces were
analyzed for DM, OM, N, and NDF. Beginning on day 17, in situ bags containing
samples of the basal diet each steer was currently receiving were placed in the rumen
to represent 0, 2, 4, 6, 12, 24, 36, and 48 hours of digestion. Bags were removed at
the same time and rinsed until the water was clear, dried, and weighed. All in situ
samples were analyzed for DM and OM, while a subset of situ bags representing two
steers across periods were analyzed for N and NDF. On day 21 total rumen
evacuations were conducted just prior (0 hour) and 5 hours after the morning
feeding. Ruminal contents were weighed, and volume was measured. Subsamples
were dried and analyzed for DM, OM, N, NDF, and IADF.
Data were analyzed using the GLM procedures of SAS (1996) appropriate for
a Latin square design. Means were separated using orthogonal contrasts for a 2 x 2
factorial. Results were considered significant at the P
was considered to be between P> 0.10 and P < 0. 16.
0.10 level, and a tendency
22
In Exp. 2, 96 postpartum multiparous cows
(BW 555 ± 8
kg) were stratified
by calving date and assigned to one of eight treatments (12 cows/treatment) in a 2 x
2 x 2 factorial arrangement of treatments. Factors were basal diet quality,
supplement type, and supplement intake level. Basal diets were two qualities of
fescue grass straw with supplements at two levels of UIP fed at two intake levels
(Table 2). Intake levels of supplement were based on basal diet quality and expected
intake so that animals received enough CP to meet approximately 100% of CP and
DIP requirements (NRC, 1996) for the low intake level (LI), or 120% of CP and DIP
requirements for the high intake level (HI) with the LUIP supplement.
Sixteen cow/calf pairs were blocked by calving date and placed in each of six
pens. One basal diet was fed in each pen (3 pens per basal diet). Cows were
assigned to treatments immediately following calving and placed in the appropriate
pen. Cows were fed supplement in groups of four, three times per week. Therefore,
each supplement type and intake level was represented in each pen.
The
supplementation period was from calving until breeding.
Cows were weighed and body condition scored (1 -9, 1 = extremely
emaciated, 9 = very obese; Wagner et al., 1988) at calving (initiation of
supplementation), the mid point of the supplementation period, before breeding (end
of supplementation), and at the end of breeding. For all BCS measurements except
the initial one, cows were held overnight without feed or water and then the average
score of two trained evaluators was used. For the initial BCS right after calving the
cows were not shrunk and were scored by one trained evaluator. Calves were
23
Table 1. Forage and Supplement Nutrient Analysis for beef steers fed two qualities of forage and
supplemented with two types (low UIP and high UIP) of protein supplement.
%
% NDF'
% CP
% ADFa
% OM'
% DM
Description
IADF
ModerateForage
LowForage
8.0
4.0
49.1
90.1
93.3
93.3
94.3
93.8
92.4
92.3
LUIP supplementb
48.2
96.9
HUIP supplement
a On %DM basis
b
Composition: 57.5% SBM, 35.0% Barley, 7.5% Feather meal
Composition: 60.0% Barley. 33.0% Feather meal, 7.0°/s SBM
62.1
81.5
12.7
19.6
40.4
56.9
13.1
26.2
1.8
4.8
Table 2. Forage and Supplement Nutrient Analysis for cows in response to two qualities of basal
forage supplemented with two types of protein supplement (high UIP and low UIP) at two intake
levels.
Description
% DM
% OMa
% CP'
% NDF"
ADFa
40.9
92.2
8.6
68.9
93.3
Moderate Forage
47.5
93.7
6.3
76.1
92.5
Low Forage
48.2
96.9
19.6
92.3
LUIP (1) supp1ement
49.1
12.7
92.4
93.3
HUIP (1) supplementbd
45.9
97.2
22.5
91.0
LUIP (2) supp!ement'
45.7
93.7
13.2
90.2
HUIP (2) supplementb
On %DM basis
bSupplement (1) was fed from calving to 3/19/02, supplement (2) was fed from 3/20/02 to
4/16/02.
Composition: 57.5% SBM, 35.0% Barley, 7.5% Feather meal.
d
Composition: 60.0% Barley, 33.0% Feather meal, 7.0% SBM.
Composition: 560% Barley, 39.0% SMB. 5.0% Feather meal.
Composition: 75% Barley, 25% Feather meal.
24
weighed at birth, the end of supplementation, and the end of breeding. At the midpoint in the trial, the energy content in the supplements was increased in an attempt
to reduce the weight loss in the cows, but CP, DIP, and UIP levels provided for
each treatment remained the same by decreasing the CP concentration of the
supplement. Two blood samples were collected ten days apart from each cow just
prior to initiation of an estrous synchronization protocol and analyzed for
progesterone to determine cyclicity prior to breeding. Pregnancy was determined at
weaning by rectal palpation. Calving interval was determined after the 2003 calving
season based upon each cow's calving dates for 2002 and 2003. Forages and
supplements were subsampled weekly, composited, ground, and analyzed for DM,
OM, NDF, ADF, and N. Five cows were removed from the study during the
supplementation period due to sickness and death, which resulted in unequal
treatment numbers.
Data were analyzed as a split-plot within a randomized complete block
design using the MIXED procedure of SAS (1996). The whole-plot experimental
unit was pen and the sub-plot experimental unit was supplementation groups within
pens. Cyclicity was analyzed using the catmod procedure of SAS, and pregnancy
was analyzed using the chi-square procedure of SAS. Chi-squ are was used because
some groups had a 100% or 0% pregnancy rate.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Experiment I
25
Forage and total intake and digestibility are presented in Table 3. Steers on the L
forage had lower (P < 0.01) forage and total DM1 expressed as kg of intake or as a
percent of BW than steers on M forage. Supplementation increased forage DM1 (P =
0.01) and total DM1 (P < 0.01) in steers consuming L forage but not in steers
consuming M forage. Dry matter intake as a percent of BW also was increased (P <
0.01) by supplementation with the L forage but not with the M forage. For forage
and total DM1 intake there was a tendency (P = 0. 11) for an interaction between
forage quality and supplement type. On the L forage, forage DM1 was greater with
HUIP supplement compared to LUIP (6.9 kg vs. 6.4 kg, respectively), but on the M
diet, LUIP and 1-JUIP supplement resulted in similar intake levels (II . 1 kg vs. 10.8
kg). The interaction tendency for total DM1 mirrored that for forage DM1. In
agreement with our study where we observed an increase in DM1 with steers
consuming L forage and supplemented with HUIP, Sriskandarajah et al. (1982)
observed a greater increase in forage DM1 from UIP than from DIP in steers
consuming wheat straw (5.7% CP). He also stated that when DIP requirements of an
animal are met, supplementation does not consistently stimulate intake of low-
quality roughages. In contrast to our study, Bohnert et al. (2002a) fed a low-quality
hay (5% CP) with three levels of UIP (none, 18% UIP, 60% UIP) and observed no
effect on forage DM1 but did find that supplementation increased total DM1,
regardless of type of supplement. He interpreted the lack of an increase in forage
DM1 with supplementation as the consequence of high forage NDF and OM intake.
In his experiment, NDF intake ranged from 13.9 to 16.0 gkg' BWd which was
Table 3. Intake and digestibility of nutrients in beef steers fed two qualities of forage and supplemented with two types (low UIP and high UIP) of protein
supplement.
Item
Forage DM1, kg
Total DM1, kg
TotalDMI,%BW
DM digestibility, %
Forage NDF intake, kg
Total NDF intake, kg
Total NDF intake,
Treatment"
Low
Mod.
Control
LUIP
Contrast, OSLb
SE
Mod.
Control
Mod.
IIUIP
10.7
10.7
2.3
10.8
11.0
11.1
5.7
Low
HUIP
6.9
11.2
5.7
7.3
Low
LUIP
6.4
6.8
2.4
60.2
6.8
6.8
1.2
1.5
1.4
60.4
6.6
6.6
2.4
60.4
6.6
6.7
52.3
4.7
4.7
53.7
5.6
5.7
54.1
1.1
5.2
5.2
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.2
1.2
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.0
1
2
3
4
5
0.42
0.17
0.25
0.96
0.54
0.46
0.32
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.24
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.58
0.60
0.50
0.91
0.39
0.33
0.25
0.11
0.11
0.14
0.79
0.10
0.10
0.12
% BW
0.83
0.82
0.21
0.37
0.55
1.5
59.2
60.9
59.2
56.9
57.6
58.4
NDF digestibility, %
0.51
0.73
<0.01
0.53
0.86
0.04
0.26
0.22
0.21
0.87
0.86
0.88
Forage CP intake, kg
0.79
0.88
<0.01
<0.01
0.10
0.03
0.46
0.21
0.47
0.94
0.94
0.88
Total CF intake, kg
1.00
0.69
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.87
0.10
0.04
0.10
0.20
0.20
0.20
Total CP intake,
% BW
0.81
0.74
0.07
<0.01
0.94
4.0
50.4
14.9
48.1
57.1
56.7
56.5
ApparentCP
digestibility, /o
Treatments, Mod. = moderate hay quality, Low = low hay quality, IIUIP = high UIP supplement, LUIP = low UIP supplement.
b
Contrast observed significance level, I = moderate hay control versus moderate hay supplemented, 2 = low hay control versus low hay supplemented, 3
moderate hay versus low hay, 4 = 1-IUIP supplement versus LUIP supplement, and 5 = the interaction of hay quality and supplement type.
Standard error of the least square means (n= 5).
N.)
27
higher than the 12.5 gkg' BWd suggested by Mertens (1985, 1994) to maximize
DM1. Similarly, Moore et al. (1999) suggested that when forage OM intake is at or
above 1.75% BW, supplementation does not increase intake of forage, and on his
trial all OM intakes were over 2.00% BW. These results would explain our
observation of an effect of supplementation with the L forage but not with the M
forage. Total NDF intake on the M forage was 14.5, 14.7, and 14.9 gkg BWd for
MC, MHUIP, and MLUIP respectively, while for the L forage it was 10.3, 12.5, and
11.4 gkg BWd' for LC, LHUIP, LLUIP respectively. On the M forage control
treatment, steers were consuming well over 12.5 gkg' BWd of NDF and thus
supplementation had no effect, but on the L forage control NDF intake was only 10.3
gkg BWd and supplementation increased it to 12.5 and 11.4 gkg BWd1 for the
HUIP and LUIP supplements respectively. Likewise, forage OM was 2.1, 2.2, and
2.2% BW for MC, MHUIP, and MLUIP respectively, but only 1.2, 1.4, and 1.3%
BW for LC, LHUIP, and LLUIP respectively. The M control was already
consuming over the 1.75% BW level and so supplementation did not result in an
increase in forage DM1, but the L control was only at 1 .2% BW and thus
supplementation increased forage OM intake. It appears that the M forage was of a
high enough quality to support close to maximal rumen function while
supplementation with the L forage increased rumen function.
Apparent total tract dry matter digestibility (DMD) was greater (P < 0.01) for
steers on the M forage compared to the L forage (Table 3). Neither supplementation
nor type of supplement had an affect on DMD (P
0. 10). Coomer et al. (1993) limit
28
fed total mixed rations to Holstein steers and heifers with different levels of UIP (35,
43, 44, 48% UIP) and found no difference in total tract OM apparent digestibility
and attributed his results to the fact that with low UTP, more digestion occurs in the
rumen while with high UIP digestion takes place in the small intestine with no
differences in total tract digestibility. In similar fashion, Petersen et at. (1985) while
feeding low-quality hay (5.1% CP) with four different levels of UIP (0, 16.5, 21.5,
54.2% UIP), found no differences in rumen OMD. The reduction in DMD we
observed on the L forage was possibly due to a lack of available protein for optimal
microbial function and the small amount of protein provided in the supplements were
not enough to make up the deficits.
Intake of forage NDF was increased (P < 0.01) in the M diet compared to the
L diet (6.7 kg vs. 5.2 kg). Supplementation with the L forage increased (P <0.01)
forage NDF intake but had no effect with the M forage. There was an interaction (P
= 0.10) between forage and supplement types for forage NDF intake. On the L
forage, HUIP increased forage NDF intake to a greater extent than LUIP (5.6 kg vs.
5.2 kg) whereas on the M forage, both HUIP and LUIP resulted in similar NDF
intake (6.6 kg vs. 6.8 kg). As a percentage of BW, NDF intake did respond to
supplementation and forage type. Moderate forage increased (P < 0.01) intake of
NDF over L forage (1.5% vs. 1.1%) while supplementation increased (P <0.01)
NDF intake only for the L forage (1 .2% vs. 1 .0%). There were no differences (P>
0.10) in NDF digestibility. In contrast to this, Petersen et al. (1985) while feeding
29
different levels of UIP (0, 16.5, 21.5, 54.2% UIP) to steers on low-quality (5.1% CP)
native forage found that the high level of UIP reduced NDF digestibility.
Total CP intake was increased (P
0.10) by supplementation on the L forage
(0.47 kg vs. 0.21 kg) and on the M forage (0.94 kg vs. 0.88 kg). Additionally, steers
on the L diet consumed less (P < 0.01) CP than steers on the M diet (0.92 kg vs. 0.38
kg). Crude protein intake as a percentage of BW was greater (P < 0.01) for the M
forage than the L forage (0.20% vs. 0.08%), and supplementation increased (P <
0.01) CP intake for L forage compared to M forage (0.10% vs. 0.04%). Apparent
crude protein digestibility was greater (P = 0.07) for the M forage than L forage
(56.8 vs. 37.8%) while supplementation increased (P < 0.01) apparent CP
digestibility for the L forage (49.3 vs. 14.9%), but had no affect (P>0.l0) on the M
forage. Endogenous protein losses resulted in apparent digestibility figures that are
depressed compared to true digestibility, especially with the L forage where
intestinal cell sloughing would have been considerable compared to total CP intake.
Ruminal fill and volume are presented in Table 4. There were no differences
(P> 0. 10) in DM fill or DM fill as a percentage of 13W. The only factor affecting
NDF fill and NDF fill as a percentage of BW was forage type. Ruminal NDF fill
was greater (P < 0. 10) for the L forage than the M forage both before and 5 hours
post-feeding and NDF fill as a percentage of BW was also greater (P < 0. 10) for the
L forage compared to the M forage at both time points. Liquid fill at times 0 and 5
were only affected by forage type and were greater (P < 0.01) for L forage than M
forage (73.7 [vs. 64.5 Land 81.0 L vs. 74.3 L for time 0 and 5, respectively). Total
Table 4._Ruminal fill and volume in beef steers fed two qualities of forage and supplemented with two types (low UIP and high
UIP) of protein supplement
Treatmenta
Contrast, OSLb
Item
Mod.
Mod.
Mod,
Low Control Low HUIP Low LUIP SEC
1
2
3
4
5
Control
HUIP
LUIP
DM fill t-0', kg
8.7
8.9
9.2
9.1
9.3
8.9
0.3
0.39
0.98
0.94
0.86 0.33
DM fill
kg
10.4
10.3
10.7
10.2
10.3
10.1
0.4
0.91
0.98
0.53
0.84
0.54
DM fill tOd, % BW
1.9
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
0.1
0.35
0.94
0.90
0.84
0.49
DM fill tSd, % BW
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.2
2.3
2.2
0.1
0.80
0.89
0.55
0.81
0.71
NDF fill tOd, kg
5.7
5.9
6.0
7.0
6.9
6.6
0.3
0.4
0.52
<0.01
0.68
0.38
NDF fill tSd, kg
6.9
6.7
7.0
7.9
7.6
7.4
0.4
0.89
0.36
0.89
0.07
0.41
NDF fill tOd, % BW
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.5
1.5
0.1
0.39
0.54
<0.01
0.68
0.58
NDF fill t-5, % BW
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.7
1.7
1.6
0.1
0.98
0.43
0.08
0.84
0,55
Liquid fill t01, L
65.6
62,4
65.6
74.4
74.0
72.6
1.8
0.48
0.61
<0.01
0,63
0.23
Liquid fill t5, L
73.8
73.3
75.7
80,2
81.7
81.2
1.9
0.76
0.61
0.62
<0.01
0.48
Total volume t-0', L
68.3
62.1
67.2
66.4
68.0
69.6
2.1
0.17
0.36
0.07
0.13
0.42
Total volume t-5, L
77.0
77.9
72,6
74.4
76.5
2.1
0.66
0.28
0.35
0.49 0.81
Treatments, Mod. = moderate hay quality, Low = low hay quality, HUIP = high UIP supplement, LUIP = low UIP supplement.
b
Contrast observed significance level, 1 = moderate hay control versus moderate hay supplemented, 2 = low hay control versus
low hay supplemented, 3 =
moderate hay versus low hay, 4 = HU1P supplement vei'sus LU1P supplement, and 5 = the interaction of hay quality and supplement
type.
C
Standard error of the least square means (n= 5).
d
Time in reference to the morning feeding, t-0 = just prior to the morning feeding and t-5 = five hours after the morning feeding.
a
76
31
rumen volume was only different at t-0 where L forage had a larger (P = 0.07)
volume than M forage (65.9 L vs. 68.0 L).
Indigestible acid detergent fiber rumen fill was increased (P < 0.01) by the L
forage compared to the M forage (3.23 kg vs. 2.14 kg) (Table 5). There was also a
tendency towards an interaction (P = 0.13) between forage and supplement type.
With the M forage, IADF fill was greater for LUIP supplement (2.22 kg vs. 2.09 kg)
while with the L forage, HUIP supplement resulted in the highest IADF fill (3.38 kg
vs. 3.11 kg). The particulate passage rate in g/hour was faster (P <0.01) for the L
forage compared to the M forage (68.38 g/h vs. 57.01 g/h) and supplementation on
the L forage increased (P = 0.01) passage rate (72.18 g/h vs. 60.80 g/h), but had no
affect (P> 0.10) with the M forage. There was a tendency (P = 0. 15) for an
interaction with HUIP in combination with the L forage having a higher passage rate
than the LUIP (77.10 g/h vs. 67.25 g/h), while there was no difference between the
two supplement types with the M forage (57.43 g/h vs. 57.48 g/h). Steers on the M
forage had a higher (P < 0.01) percent/hour particulate passage rate than those on the
L forage (2.68 %/h vs. 2. 11 %/h), but with the L forage, supplementation increased
(P = 0.02) passage rate (2.23 %/h vs. 1.88 %/h). Particulate turnover rate was faster
(P < 0.01) for the M forage compared to the L forage (38.Oh vs. 49.3h), and was
improved (P = 0.03) with supplementation on the L forage (46.8h vs. 54.4h). This
data supports our previous findings. There was a greater particulate fill with the L
forage and a faster actual passage rate in g/h, but the total percent moving through
was less and the time required to turnover the entire rumen contents was greater than
Table 5. Particulate passage rate in beef steers fed
two qualities of forage and supplemented with two types (low VIP and high VIP) of protein
Item
IADF Fill, kg
IADF passage,
Mod.
Control
2.1
56.1
Low
Control
57.4
Mod.
I.VIP
2.2
57.5
2.8
2.7
H VIP
2.1
Low
Low
SEC
3.2
60.8
II VIP
3.4
77.1
LVI P
3.1
0.1
67.3
3.3
1.9
2.3
2.19
0.11
g/h
IADF passage,
2.6
Contrast, OSLb
Treatment'1_________
Mod.
2
3
4
5
0.78
0.57
0.76
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.57
0.15
0.13
0.15
0.55
0.02
<0.01
0.44
0.87
1
IADF
38.2
36.9
39.0
54.4
44.8
48.8
2.5
0.93
0.03
<0.01
0.25
turnover, h
Treatments, Mod. = moderate hay quality, Low = low hay quality, IIUIP =
high VIP supplement, LUIP low UIP supplement.
h
Contrast observed significance level, 1 = moderate hay control versus moderate hay supplemented, 2 =
low hay control versus low hay
supplemented, 3 = moderate hay versus low hay, 4 = HUIP supplement versus LUIP supplement, and 5
the interaction of hay quality and
supplement type.
Standard error of the least square means (n= 5).
0.71
33
with the M forage. Particulate passage rate thus limited intake and resulted in
reduced DM1 with the L forage. Supplementation increased passage rate and intake
indicating that protein supplementation improved the rumen environment. On the L
control, CP intake may have limited reticulo-rumen function and, as a result, passage
rate was slowed and intake reduced.
Twenty-four hour extent of CP digestion was increased on the M forage
compared to the L forage (71.8 vs. 54.7%). Additionally, 48h extent of digestion for
both DM and NDF was higher with the M forage. Extent of DM digestion
was68.0% for the M forage but only 52.5% for the L forage while 55.0% of NDF
was gone after 48h for the M forage with only 49.7% gone for the L forage. This
verifies the great differences between the two basal diets and enhances the other
findings of this study that show there are significant differences in rumen kinetics
when forage quality is varied. The M quality forage was digested to a greater degree
as well as passing through quicker, thus more nutrients were available to the animals.
With the L forage, digestion and passage rate were reduced and protein deficiency
was severe due to the low protein content and extent of digestion.
Experiment II
Cow BW and BCS and calf birth weight and ADG for Exp. 2 are shown in Table 6.
Initial BW was not different (P> 0.17) between treatments. There was an
interaction (P = 0.08) between basal diet and supplement intake level for body
weight loss from calving to the mid-point of the supplementation period. Weight
34
loss was reduced on the L forage for cows receiving the high supplement intake level
compared to the low intake level (-16.9 vs. -30. 1 kg), while for the M forage there
was no difference in BW loss between the high and low supplement intake levels (-
26.7 vs. -28.7 kg). Between the mid-point and end of the supplementation period
BW loss was reduced (P = 0.06) in the high intake treatments compared to the low
intake treatments (-27.1 vs. -33.6 kg) and there was a tendency (P = 0.13) for an
interaction between supplement type and intake level. The LUIP supplement at the
low intake level resulted in a greater BW loss than at the high intake level (-37.8 vs.
26.4 kg), while there was no difference in BW loss with the HUIP supplement at the
low and high intake levels (-29.4 vs. -27.8 kg). For the entire supplementation
period from calving to breeding, BW loss was affected by supplement type and
intake level. Cows receiving HUIP supplement lost less BW (P = 0.07) than those
on the LUIP supplement (-52.1 vs. -59.6 kg), and cows on the high supplement
intake level lost less BW (P < 0.01) than those on the low intake level (-48.9 vs.
62.9 kg). From the end of supplementation (beginning of breeding) to the end of
breeding, cow weight change was affected by previous supplement intake level.
Cows previously on the low supplement intake level gained more weight (P = 0.06)
than those on the high intake level (13.5 vs. 4.8 kg); this was probably the result of
compensatory gain since those on the low intake level had lost more weight during
the supplementation period. There were no treatment affects (P> 0. 10) on weight
change for the entire measured period from calving to the end of breeding. With
cows on low-quality grass hay, Sletmoen-Olson et al. (2000) found that UIP
Table 6. Cow BW, BW change, BCS, BCS change and calf birth weight and ADG in response to two qualities of basal forage supplemented with two types
of protein supplement (high UIP and low UIP) at two intake ve1s from_calving to end of breeding.
Item
Initial cow BW, kg
Cow BW change, kg
Initiation to 3/19/02,
kg
3/19/02 to 4/16/02,
kg
Initiation to 4/16/02,
kg
Initial cow BCS'
Cow BCS change
Initiation to 3/l9/O2
3/19/02 to 4/l6/02c
Initiation to
4/1 6/O2'
Calfbirth weight, kg
CalfBW 4/16/02, kg
Calf ADG, birth
M-HUIP-HI
549.9
M-HUIP-LIM-LUIP-HI
538.3
-15.7
-29.6
-18.1
-30.6
5.5
-32.6
-37.3
-33.8
-34.4
-42.9
6.8
-48.9
-63.7
-53.0
-63.4
-52.5
-73.4
6.2
4.4
4.4
4.6
4.2
4.2
4.3
4.5
0.13
-0.46
-0.44
-0.90
-0.27
-0.40
-0.67
-0.40
-0.63
-1.02
-0.27
-0.38
-0.65
-0.50
-0.56
-1.06
-0.25
-0.59
-0.83
-0.36
-0.47
-0.83
0.12
0.10
0.15
41.7
2.1
2.5
0.04
0.04
-22.7
-26.2
-30.7
-31.1
-18.3
-24.9
-18.3
-41.0
-51.0
4.3
-0.06
-0.35
-0.42
41.6
41.7
42.9
40.6
104.2
107.3
39.1
97.5
0.86
42.9
99.2
100.1
0.94
102.8
0.91
0.81
0.86
39.9
95.5
0.81
0.95
0.92
0.88
0.83
0.88
0.82
to
0.92
Calf Adj. ADG, birth to
0.93
0.90
'
Treatments: M=moderate-quality forage, L
SEb
527.8
557.1
4/16/02 kg/dc
a
L-HUIP-LIL-LUIP-I-JI
L-LUIP-LI
570.9
548.4
101.9
0.88
4/16/02
Treatmentsa
M-LUIP-LI
L-1IUIP-Hl
563.3
585.9
23.4
low-quality forage, HUIP=high UIP supplement, LUIP = low UIP supplement, 1-lI = high supplement intake
level, and LI = low supplement intake level.
h
Standard elTor of the least squares means (n = 3).
Initiation is at calving and the start of supplementation, 3/19/02 is the mid-point of the supplementation period, and 4/16/02 is the end of the
supplementation period which was just prior to breeding.
d,e.f.g.l,
Means within a row were significant (P < 0.10) for the Ibilowing effects; d = basal diet quality, e = supplement intake level, f
supplement type, g =
the interaction of basal diet quality and supplement intake level, h = the interaction of supplement type and supplement intake level.
Adjusted for sex of calf
36
supplementation (2, 46, 63% UIP) had no affect on body weight, while Strauch et al.
(2001) using moderate quality pasture (11.7% CP) also observed the same effect.
However, Rusche et al. (1993), who also fed two levels of UIP (33 and 46% UIP)
and intake levels (100 and 150% requirements), to cows on low-quality forage (6%
CP) found that at the high intake level, high UIP was more beneficial than at the low
intake level and increased weight gains in cows postpartum were observed by Wiley
et al. (1991) when UIP was fed.
Initial BCS was not different (P> 0. 13) between treatments. Body condition
loss from calving to the mid-point of the supplementation period was decreased (P <
0.01) in cows on the high supplement intake level compared to the low supplement
intake level (-0.21 vs. -0.43). From the mid-point to end of supplementation there
were no differences (P> 0.10), but over the entire supplementation period from
calving to the beginning of breeding there was a supplement type by intake level
interaction (P = 0.08). The HUIP supplement fed at the high intake level reduced
BCS loss to a greater extent than the LUIP supplement at the high intake level (-0.54
vs. -0.75) while both supplement types had similar BCS losses when fed at the low
intake level (-0.98 vs. -0.93). From the beginning to end of breeding there were no
differences (P > 0. 10) in BCS change, but over the entire time from calving to the
end of breeding BCS change was affected by a three-way interaction of basal diet,
supplement type, and supplement intake level (P = 0.09). On the M forage, BCS loss
was reduced at the low intake level by the HUIP supplement compared to the LUIP
supplement (-0.27 vs. -0.46), whereas with the L forage, BCS loss was reduced on
37
the low intake level by LUIP supplement compared to HUIP (-0. 15 vs. -0.3 1). We
saw more response in the form of interactions for BCS than for weight change in this
trial, while in other studies, a response in weight change has been observed but none
for BCS (Dhuvvetter et al., 1993; Rusche et al., 1993).
Calf birth weight was not different (P> 0. 10) among treatments. Calves
from cows fed the M forage weighed more (P = 0.05) than calves from cows fed the
L forage at the end of the supplementation period. There was a tendency (P = 0. 15)
for calves nursing cows on the M forage to have higher ADG from birth to the end of
the supplementation period compared to calves on cows on the L forage (0.91 vs.
0.84 kg). Calf ADG from birth to the end of supplementation also tended (P = 0.15)
to be affected by cow supplement intake level. Calves nursing cows on the high
supplement intake level had higher ADG than calves nursing cows on the low
supplement intake level (0.90 vs. 0.85 kg). When calf ADG was adjusted for sex of
calt there were no differences (P> 0. 10) between treatments. (This adjustment was
done by averaging all the steers and heifers across treatments for each ADG
measurement, finding the multiplicative factor which made the heifer ADG equal the
steers and then multiplying that factor with each heifer ADG to figure the adjusted
ADG.) The remaining weights and ADG for the calves which included end of
breeding weight, ADG and adjusted ADG from beginning of breeding to the end of
breeding and from birth to the end of breeding showed no treatment effect (P>
0.10). Strauch et al., supplemented first-calf heifers on stockpiled tall fescue pasture
(11.7% CP) with a high or low UIP supplement (adjusted over course of study for
38
changing requirements) from 60 days prepartum to first estrus postcalving and
observed no differences in milk production or calf weight. This is in agreement with
our study where supplement type had no affect on calf weight and assumably milk
production. In contrast to this is the study by Rusche et al. (1993) where calf ADG
from birth to the end of supplementation was increased by UIP supplementation (33
and 46% UIP)
Cow cyclicity, pregnancy, and calving interval are shown in Table 7. Cow
cyclicity at the beginning of the breeding season was affected by forage quality (chisquare = 0.03). Cyclicity was increased in the cows on the M forage compared to
those on the L forage (62.5% vs. 4 1.0%). There were also tendencies for cyclicity to
be affected by the interactions of basal diet x supplement type (chi-square = 0.12)
and supplement type x intake level (chi-square = 0. 15). On the M forage, HUIP
supplement resulted in a higher percentage of cows cycling (66.5% vs 58.5%),
whereas with the L forage, cyclicity was improved in those on the LUIP supplement
(5 1 .5% vs. 30.0%). With the HUIP supplement, cyclicity was greater in the cows on
the high intake level (57.5% vs. 39.0%), but the better cyclicity rates were achieved
at the low intake level for the cows consuming the LUIP supplement (60.0% vs.
40.0%). Cow pregnancy rate at weaning was not affected by treatment (chi-square =
0.59). Calving interval from 2002 to 2003 was influenced by a three-way interaction
(P <0.01) of basal diet, supplement type, and supplement intake level. There were
no differences in calving interval between cows on the M forage (368 days), but for
cows on the L forage, calving interval was reduced at the high intake level with
Table 7.
Cow intake, cyclicity, pregnancy, and calving niterval in response to two qualities of basal forage supplemented with two types of protein
lreatnicnts'
Item
M-I1UIP-I-Il
M-llUlP-li
75.0
58.3
91.7
368.2
M-LUIP-HI
M-LUIP-LlI-IlUip-Hl
Intake kg
Cyclicity, %d
Pregnancy, %
Calving_interval, d
100.0
371.2
41.7
83.3
365.4
low-quality forage, HUIP
L-IIUIP-LI
40.0
75.0
100.0
91.7
368.3
368.8
high UIP supplement. LUIP
Treatments: M moderate-quality forage, I. =
level, and LI = low supplement inake level.
h
Standard error of the least squares means (ii = 3).
d
Means within a row were signi6cant (P < 0.10) for the lllowing effects; d
and supplement intake level.
basal diet quality, e
I.-LUIP-HII.-I.UIP-L1
58.3
83.3
377.3
375.1
low UIP supplement, HI
20.0
90.0
SEb
45.5
100.0
363.0
= high
2.64
supplement intake
the interaction of basal diet quality, supplement type,
40
HUIP supplement (368 vs. 375 days), but at the low intake level calving interval was
improved for those receiving the LUIP supplement (363 vs. 377 days). The reason
for this response is not clear since it counteracts common nutritional knowledge
where one would expect increased calving interval in cows on the L forage and low
supplement intake level. Sletmoen-Olson et al. (2000) found that feeding protein
supplements with equal levels of CP and three levels of UIP (2, 46, 63% UIP)
reduced days to first estrus or rebreeding, but Dhuyvetter et al. (1993) found that UIP
(25 and 50% UIP) had no affect on estrual cyclicity before the breeding season or on
pregnancy rate. When supplementing isonitrogenous amounts of protein differing in
UIP content (18 and 60% UIP) to late gestation cows, Bohnert et al. (2002c) saw no
effect of UIP on cow performance. In contrast, Triplett et al. (1995) observed that in
postpartum cows provided isonitrogenous protein supplements at three levels of UIP
(38, 56, 76% UIP), first-service conception rates and pregnancy rates were reduced
in the low UIP treatment.
IMPLICATIONS
Forage quality affects the response of cattle to protein supplementation. Low
quality forages respond to supplementation with increases in intake and digestibility.
Our results indicate that UIP may be more advantageous than DIP for steers on low-
quality forage through increased intake. However, in cows fed low-quality forage,
LUIP supplements appear to be more beneficial while in cows consuming moderate-
quality forage HUIP supplements appear to be more valuable. However, due to only
41
slight response differences between HUIP and LUIP supplements, it may not be
economically more advantageous to feed HUIP because of its generally higher cost.
In addition, it is apparent from the significant weight loss across treatments
that cows consuming either a moderate or low-quality forage postpartum cannot
perform acceptably under the conditions of our study with only protein
supplementation; additional energy is also required during this period of greatly
elevated nutritional demands.
42
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alderton, B. W., D. L. Hixon, B. W. Hess, L. F. Woodard, D. M. Haliford, and G. E.
Moss. 2000. Effects of supplemental protein type on productivity of
primiparous beef cows. J. Anim. Sci. 78:3027-3035.
Anderson, L. P., J. A. Paterson, R. P. Ansotegui, M. Cecava, and W. Schmutz. 2001.
The effects of degradable and undegradable intake protein on the
performance of lactating first-calf heifers. J. Anim. Sci. 79:2224-2232.
Beck, T. J., D. D. Simms, R. C. Cochran, R. T. Brandt, Jr., E. S. Vanzant, and G. L.
KuhI. 1992. Supplementation of ammoniated wheat straw: Performance and
forage utilization characteristics in beef cattle receiving energy and protein
supplements. J. Anim. Sci. 70:349-357.
Bodine, T. N., H. T. Purvis, II, C. J. Ackerman, and C. L. Goad. 2000. Effects of
supplementing prairie hay with corn and soybean meal on intake, digestion,
and ruminal measurements by beef steers. J. Anim. Sci. 78:3144-3154.
Bohnert, D. W., B. T. Larson, S. J. Lewis, C. J. Richards, K. C. Swanson, D. L.
Harmon, and G. E. Mitchell, Jr. 1999. Net nutrient flux in visceral tissues of
lambs fed diets differing in supplemental nitrogen source. J. Anim. Sci.
77:2545-2553.
Bohnert, D. W., C. S. Schauer, M. L. Bauer, and T. DelCurto. 2002a. Influence of
rumnen protein degradability and supplementation frequency on steers
consuming low-quality forage: I. Site of digestion and microbial efficiency.
J. Anim. Sci. 80:2967-2977.
Bohnert, D. W., C. S. Schauer, S. J. Falck, and T. DelCurto. 2002b. Influence of
rumen protein degradability and supplementation frequency on steers
consuming low-quality forage: II. Ruminal fermentation characteristics. J.
Anim. Sci. 80:2978-2988.
Bohnert, D. W., C. S. Schauer, and T. DelCurto. 2002c. Influence of rumen protein
degradability and supplementation frequency on performance and nitrogen
use in ruminants consuming low-quality forage: Cow performance and
efficiency of nitrogen use in wethers. J. Anim. Sci. 80:1629-1637.
43
Brown, W. F. and F. M. Pate. 1997. Cottonseed meal or feather meal
supplementation of ammoniated tropical grass hay for yearling cattle. J.
Anim. Sci. 75:1666-1673.
Calsamiglia, S., M. D. Stern, and J. L. Firkins. 1995. Effects of protein source on
nitrogen metabolism in continuous culture and intestinal digestion in vitro. J.
Anim.Sci. 73:1819-1827.
Coomer, J. C., H. E. Amos, M. A. Froetschel, K. K. Ragland, and C. C. Williams.
1993. Effects of supplemental protein source on ruminal fermentation,
protein degradation, and amino acid absorption in steers and on growth and
feed efficiency in steers and heifers. J. Anirn. Sci. 7 1:3078-3086.
Cunningham, K. D., M. J. Cecava, T. R. Johnson, and P. A. Ludden. 1996.
Influence of source and amount of dietary protein on milk yield by cows in
early lactation. J. Dairy Sci. 79:620-630.
DelCurto, T., R. C. Cochran, D. L. Harmon, A. A. Beharka, K. A. Jacques. G.
Towne and E. S. Vanzant. l990a. Supplementation of dormant taligrassprairie forage: 1. Influence of varying supplemental protein and (or) energy
levels on forage utilization characteristics of beef steers in confinement. J.
Anim. Sci. 68:515-53 1.
DelCurto, T., R. C. Cochran, L. R. Corah, A. A. Beharka, E. S. Vanzant and E. E.
Johnson. 1 990b. Supplementation of dormant taligrass-prairie forage: II.
Performance and forage utilization characteristics in grazing beef cattle
receiving supplements of different protein concentrations. J. Anim. Sci.
68:532-542.
Dhuyvetter, D. V., M. K. Petersen, R. P. Ansotegui, R. A. Bellows, B. Nisley, R.
Brownson. and M. W. Tess. 1993. Reproductive efficiency of range beef
cows fed different quantities of ruminally undegradable protein before
breeding. J. Anim. Sci. 71:2586-2593.
Erasmus, L. J. and P. M. Botha. 1994. Effect of protein source on ruminal
fermentation and passage of amino acids to the small intestine of lactating
cows. J. Dairy Sci. 77:3655-3665.
Ferrell, C. L.. K. K. Kreikemeier, and H. C. Freetly. 1999. The effect of
supplemental energy, nitrogen, and protein on feed intake, digestibility, and
nitrogen flux across the gut and liver in sheep fed low-quality forage. J.
Anim. Sci. 77:3353-3364.
44
Fide, G. D., D. D. Simms, R. C. Cochran, F. S. Vanzant, G. L. Kuhi, and R. T.
Brandt, Jr. 1995. Protein supplementation of ammoniated wheat straw:
Effect on performance and forage utilization of beef cattle. J. Anirn. Sci.
73:1595-1601.
Freeman, A. S., M. L. Galyean, and J. S. Caton. 1992. Effects of supplemental
protein percentage and feeding level on intake, ruminal fermentation, and
digesta passage in beef steers fed prairie hay. J. Anim. Sci. 70:1562-1572.
Guthrie, M. J. and D. G. Wagner. 1988. Influence of protein or grain
supplementation and increasing levels of soybean meal on intake, utilization
and passage rate of prairie hay in beef steers and heifers. J. Anim. Sci.
66: 1529-1537.
Gutierrez-Ornelas, E. and T. J. Klopfenstein. 1991. Diet composition and gains of
escape protein-supplemented growing cattle grazing corn residues. J. Anim.
Sci. 69:2187-2195.
Hannah, S. M., R. C. Cochran, E. S. Vanzant and D. L. Harmon. 1991. Influence of
protein supplementation on site and extent of digestion, forage intake, and
nutrient flow characteristics in steers consuming dormant bluestem-range
forage. J. Anim. Sci. 69:2624-2633.
Hess, B. W., E. J. Scholijegerdes, S. A. Coleman, and J. E. Williams. 1998.
Supplemental protein plus ruminally protected methionine and lysine for
primiparous beef cattle consuming annual rye hay. J. Anim. Sci. 76: 17671777.
Hoffman, P. C., R. R. Grummer, R. D. Shaver, G. A. Broderick, and T. R. Drendel.
1991. Feeding supplemental fat and undegraded intake protein to early
lactation dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 74:3468-3474.
Hongerholt, D. D and L. D. Muller. 1998. Supplementation of rumen-undegradable
protein to the diets of early lactation Holstein cows on grass pasture. J. Dairy
Sci 8 1:2204-2214.
Hunter, R. A. and T. Magner. 1988. The effect of supplements of formaldehydetreated casein on the partitioning of nutrients between cow and calf in
lactating Bos Indicus x Bos taurus heifers fed a roughage diet. Aust. J. Agric.
Res. 39:1151-1162.
Lalman, D. L., M. K. Petersen, R. P. Ansotegui, M. W. Tess, C. K. Clark, and J. S.
Wiley. 1993. The effects of ruminally undegradable protein, propionic acid,
45
and monensin on puberty and pregnancy in beef heifers. J. Anim. Sci.
71:2843-2852.
Lee, G. J., D. W. Hennessy, P. J. Williamson, J. V. Nolan, T. J. Kempton. and R. A.
Leng. 1985. Responses to protein meal supplements by lactating beef cattle
given a low-quality pasture hay. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 36:729-74 1.
Ludden, P. A. and M. J. Cecava. 1995. Supplemental protein sources for steers fed
corn-based diets: I. Ruminal characteristics and intestinal amino acid flows.
J. Anim. Sci. 73:1466-1475.
Ludden, P. A., J. M. Jones, M. J. Cecava, and K. S. Hendrix. 1995. Supplemental
protein sources for steers fed corn-based diets: II. Growth and estimated
metabolizable amino acid supply. J. Anim. Sci. 73:1476-1486.
Mathis, C. P., R. C. Cochran, J. S. Heldt, B. C. Woods, I. E. 0. Abdelgadir, K. C.
Olson. E. C. Titgemeyer, and E. Z. Vanzant. 2000. Effects of supplemental
degradable intake protein on utilization of medium- to low-quality forages. J.
Anim. Sci. 78:224-232.
McCann, M. A., R. S. Donaldson, H. E. Amos and C. S. Hoveland. 1991. Ruminal
escape protein supplementation and zeranol implantation effects on
performance of steers grazing winter annuals. J. Anim. Sci. 69:3112-3117.
McCollum, F. I. and M. L. Galyean. 1985. Influence of cottonseed meal
supplementation on voluntary intake, rumen fermentation and rate of passage
of prairie hay in beef steers. J. Anim. Sci. 60:570-577.
McCormick, M. E., D. D. French, I. F. Brown, G. J. Cuomo, A. M. Chapa, J. M.
Fernandez, J. F. Beatty, and D. C. Blouin. 1999. Crude protein and rumen
undegradable protein effects on reproduction and lactation performance of
Holstein cows. J. Dairy Sci. 82:2697-2708.
Mertens, D. R. 1985. Factors influencing feed intake in lactating cows: From
theory to application using neutral detergent fiber. In: Proc. Georgia Nutr.
Conf.. Univ. of Georgia, Athens. pp 1-18.
Mertens, D. R. 1994. Regulation of forage intake, In: G. C. Fahey, Jr. (ed) Forage
Quality, Evaluation, and Utilization. pp 450-493. Am. Soc. Agronomy, Inc.,
Crop Sci. Soc. Am., Inc., Soil Sci. Soc. Am., Inc., Madison, WI.
Miner, J. L., M. K. Petersen, K. M. Havstad, M. J. Mclnerney, and R. A. Bellows.
1990. The effects of ruminal escape protein or fat on nutritional status of
pregnant winter-grazing beef cows. J. Anim. Sci. 68: 1743-1750.
Moore, J. F., M. H. Brant, W. E. Kunkle, and D. I. Hopkins. 1999. Effects of
supplementation on voluntary forage intake, diet digestibility, and animal
performance. J. Anim. Sc 77(Suppl. 2):122-135.
NRC. 1996. Nutritional Requirements of Beef Cattle,
Press, Washington D.C.
7th
ed. National Academy
Olson, K. C., R. C. Cochran, T. J. Jones, E. S. Vanzant, E. C. Tithemeyer. and D. E.
Johnson. 1999. Effects of ruminal administration of supplemental
degradable intake protein and starch on utilization of low-quality warmseason grass hay by beef steers. J. Anim. Sci. 77:1016-1025.
Pate, F.M., W. F. Brown, and A. C. Hammond. 1995. Value of feather meal in a
molasses-based liquid supplement fed to yearling cattle consuming a forage
diet. J. Anim. Sd. 73:2865-2872.
Petersen, M. K.. D. C. Clanton and R. Britton. 1985. Influence of protein
degradability in range supplements on abomasal nitrogen flow, nitrogen
balance and nutrient digestibility. J. Anim. Sci. 60: 1324-1329.
Petit, H. V. and P. M. Flipot. 1992. Feed utilization of beef steers fed grass as hay
or silage with or without nitrogen supplementation. J. Anim. Sci. 70:876883.
Ragland-Gray, K. K., H. E. Amos, M. A. McCann, C. C. Williams, J. L. Sartin, C. R.
Barb, and F. M. Kautz. 1997. Nitrogen metabolism and hormonal responses
of steers fed wheat silage and infused with amino acids or casein. J. Anim.
Sci. 75:3038-3045.
Rocha, A., M. Carpena, B. Triplett, D. W. Forrest, and R. D. Randel. 1995. Effect
of ruminally undegradable protein from fish meal on growth and
reproduction of peripuberal Brahman bulls. J. Anim. Sci. 73:947-953.
Rusche, W. C., R. C. Cochran, L. R. Corah, J. S. Stevenson, D. L. Harmon, R. T.
Brandt. Jr., and J. F. Minton. 1993. Influence of source and amount of
dietary protein on performance, blood metabolites, and reproductive function
of primiparous beef cows. J. Anim. Sci. 7 1:557-563.
Sawyer, J. E. 2000. Manipulating the nutritional environment with protein
supplementation and grazing management. Ph. D. Dissertation. New
Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM.
47
Sletmoen-Olson, K. E., J. S. Caton, K. C. Olson, and L. P. Reynolds. 2000.
Undegraded intake protein supplementation: I. Effects on forage utilization
and performance of periparturient beef cows fed low-quality hay. J. Anim.
Sci. 78:449-455.
Sowell, B. F., J. G. P. Bowman, E. E. Grings, and M. D. MacNeil. 2003. Liquid
supplement and forage intake by range beef cows. J. Anim. Sci. 81:294-303.
Sriskandarajah, N., R. C. Kellaway, and Jane Leibholz. 1982. Utilization of lowquality roughages; effects of supplementing with casein treated or untreated
with formaldehyde on digesta flows, intake and growth rate of cattle eating
wheat straw. Br. J. Nutr. 47:553-563.
Strauch, T. A., E. J. Scholijegerdes, D. J. Patterson, M. F. Smith, M. C. Lucy, W. R.
Lamberson, and J. E. Williams. 2001. Influence of undegraded intake
protein on reproductive performance of primiparous beef heifers maintained
on stockpiled fescue pasture. J. Anim. Sci. 79:574-581.
Sunvold, G. D., and R. C. Cochran. 1991. Technical note: Evaluation of acid
detergent lignin, alkaline peroxide lignin, acid insoluble ash, and indigestible
acid detergent fiber as internal markers for prediction of alfalfa, bromegrass,
and prairie hay digestibility by beef steers. J. Amin. Sci. 69:4951-4955.
Triplett, B. L., D. A. Neuendorff, and R. D. Randel. 1995. Influence of undegraded
intake protein supplementation on milk production, weight gain, and
reproductive performance in postpartum Brahman cows. J. Anim. Sci.
Veira, D. M., G. Butler, J. G. Proulx, and L. M. Poste. 1994. Utilization of grass
silage by cattle: Effect of supplementation with different sources and
amounts of protein. J. Anim. Sci. 72:1403-1408.
Volden, Harald. 1999. Effects of level of feeding and ruminally undegraded protein
on ruminal bacterial protein synthesis, escape of dietary protein, intestinal
amino acid profile, and performance of dairy cows. J. Anim. Sci. 77:19051918.
Wagner, J. J., K. S. Lusby, J. W. Oltjen, J. Rakestraw, R. P. Wettemann, and L. F.
Walters. 1988. Carcass composition in mature Hereford cows: Estimation
and effect on daily metabolizable energy requirement during winter. J.
Anirn. Sci. 66:603-6 12.
Wheeler, J. S., D. L. Lalman, G. W. Elorn, L. A. Redmon, and C. A. Lents. 2002.
Effects of supplementation on intake, digestion, and perfonTnance of beet'
cattle consuming fertilized, stockpiled bermudagrass forage. J. Anim. Sci.
80:780-789.
Wiley, J. S., M. K. Petersen, R. P. Ansotegui and R. A. Bellows. 1991. Production
from first-calf beef heifers fed a maintenance or low level of prepartum
nutrition and ruminally undegradable or degradable protein postpartum. J.
Anim. Sci. 69:4279-4293.
Wilims, W. D., L. M. Rode, and B. S. Freeze. 1998. Protein supplementation to
enhance the performance of pregnant cows on rough fescue grasslands in
winter. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 78:89-94.
Zorrilla-Rios, J., G. W. Horn, W. A. Phillips and R. W. McNew. 199!. Energyand
protein supplementation of ammoniated wheat straw diets for growing steers.
J. Anim. Sci. 69:1809-1819.
49
APPENDICES
50
Table A. 1. Journal of Animal Science accepted abbreviations used in this
Term
acid detergent fiber
average daily gain
body weight
crude protein
dry matter
DM1
dry matter intake
EDTA
ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid
GLM
General Linear Model
IGF
insulin-like growth factor
IVDMD
in vitro dry matter disappearance
LH
luteinizing hormone
NUF
neutral detergent fiber
OM
organic matter
SE
standard error
TDN
total digestible nutrients
VFA
volatile fatty acid
x
multiplied by or crossed with
a
Journal of Animal Science Style and Form. 1999. J. Anim. Sci. 77:250-266
Item
ADF
ADG
BW
CP
DM
paper.a
51
Table A.2. The influence of forage quality and supplement type on steer weights.a
Steer
Date
a
278
2061
3041
4091
6141
PERIOD I
Beginning
Ending
July 6, 2001
July 28, 2001
867.0
884.0
1016.0
1071.5
992.0
1015.0
942.0
938.5
939.0
938.0
PERIOD 2
Beginning
Ending
July 28, 2001
August 17, 2001
884.0
904.0
1071.5
1128.0
1015.0
1008.5
938.5
976.0
938.0
999.5
PERIOD 3
Beginning
Ending
August 31, 2001
September 21, 2001
968.5
933.0
1083.5
1106.0
984.5
1038.5
945.5
1006.0
955.0
977.5
PERIOD 4
Beginning
Ending
September 27, 2001
October 19, 2001
959.5
923.5
1164.0
1069.5
1059.5
1013.0
1032.5
1028.5
995.0
986.0
PERIOD 5
Beginning
Ending
October26, 2001
November 16, 2001
971.5
957.5
1072.0
1053.0
1044.0
1066.0
1080.0
1012.5
997.0
1014.5
PERIOD 6
November23, 2001
994.5 1087.0
Beginning
December
14,
2001
971.5 1078.5
Endinq
Experimental design was a 6x5 incomplete Latin square
1096.5
1062.5
1072.0
1016.0
1010.0
1038.5
Table A.3. The influence of forage quality and supplement type
STEER PERIOD TREATMENTb
278
278
278
278
278
278
2061
2061
2061
2061
2061
2061
3041
3041
3041
3041
3041
3041
4
5
Hay, LUIP
Straw, HUIP
Straw, LUIP
Hay, HUIP
Hay Control
6
StrawControl
1
Hay, HUIP
Hay, LUIP
Straw, HUIP
1
2
3
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
StrawControl
Straw, LUIP
Hay Control
HayControl
StrawControl
Ofl
steer DM and OM intakes.a
Forage
Forage
Suppi.
Suppi.
Forage % BW
DM1
OMI
DM1
OMI
DM1
OMI
10.05
6.78
6.97
10.89
10.96
6.73
10.27
10.82
6.37
9.06
6.32
6.49
9.76
9.93
6.28
9.26
9.79
5.95
5.69
5.56
9.46
8.72
4.39
9.58
6.08
10.77
7.35
0.17
0.42
0.42
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.17
0.17
0.42
0.00
0.42
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.17
0.42
0.17
0.16
2.53
1.67
1.62
2.55
2.51
2.28
1.56
1.50
2.29
2.27
1.51
1.41
6.01
5.97
10.52
9.64
4.69
10.70
6.37
11.84
7.88
0.41
0.39
0.16
0.00
0.00
0.16
0.16
0.41
0.00
0.39
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.16
0.39
0.16
0.40
Forage %BW
2.17
2.17
1.28
1.19
1.24
2.14
2.12
1.02
2.33
1.36
2.48
1.96
1.96
1.20
1.12
1.15
1.93
1.92
0.96
2.09
1.29
2.25
1.61 -___________________
1.50
Hay, HUIP
Straw, LUIP
5
Hay, LUIP
6
Straw, HUIP
0.41
Experimental
design
was
a
6x5
incomplete
Latin
square.
b
Treatments were Hay = moderate forage; Straw = low forage; LUIP = low undegradable intake protein; HUIP = high
undegradable intake protein; Controls = no protein supplements.
4
Ui
Table A.3. (continued). The influence of forage quality and supplement type on steer DM and OM
STEER
4091
4091
4091
4091
4091
4091
6141
6141
6141
6141
6141
6141
PERIOD
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
TREATMENTb
StrawControl
Hay, HUIP
Hay, LUIP
HayControl
Straw, HUIP
Straw, LUIP
Straw, LUIP
HayControl
StrawControl
Straw, HUIP
% BW
intakes.a
Forage
Forage
Suppi.
Suppl.
DM1
OMI
DM1
OMI
DM1
OMI
5.19
10.16
10.64
11.00
6.62
7.05
5.68
11.43
5.70
7.48
4.79
9.17
9.54
9.85
6.16
6.60
5.27
10.35
0.00
0.17
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.16
0.16
0.00
0.40
0.39
0.39
0.00
0.00
1.22
2.34
2.40
1.12
2.11
2.35
1.39
1.49
1.33
2.11
1.30
1.39
1.24
2.60
2.36
1.30
1.66
2.48
2.51
1.21
5.31
7.08
10.30
10.52
0.41
0.42
0.42
0.00
0.00
0.42
0.17
0.17
0.41
Forage
Forage %BW
11.31
Hay, HUIP
0.16
6
11.68
Hay, LUIP
0.15
a
Experimental design was a 6x5 incomplete Latin square.
b
Treatments were Hay = moderate forage; Straw = low forage; LUIP = low undegradable intake protein; HUIP
undegradable intake protein; Controls = no protein supplements.
2.16
1.58
2.26
2.27
high
Tabk A.4. The influence of forage quality and supplement type on steer NDF and CP intakes."
STEER
278
278
278
278
278
278
2061
2061
2061
2061
2061
2061
3041
3041
PERIOD
TREATMENTb
Forage
Suppi.
% BW NDF
Forage
NDF
NDF
Intake
CPI
Suppi. CP
% BW CP Intake
Hay, LUIP
5.76
1.45
0.02
0.82
0.08
0.2
Straw, HUIP
5.42
1.36
0.08
0.1
0.32
0.26
3
Straw, LUIP
5.75
0.06
1.35
0.24
0.21
0.1
4
Hay, HUIP
6.79
0.03
1.60
0.98
0.08
0.2
5
Hay Control
6.89
1.58
0.00
0.86
0.00
0.2
6
StrawControl
5.52
1.24
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.1
1
Hay, HUIP
6.00
1.28
0.04
0.84
0.2
0.09
2
Hay, LUIP
6.37
0.03
1.28
0.83
0.08
0.2
3
Straw, HUIP
1.08
5.30
0.07
0.20
0.23
0.1
4
Straw Control
5.01
0.99
0.00
0.16
0.00
0.0
5
Straw, LUIP
4.81
1.01
0.05
0.29
0.21
0.1
6
Hay Control
6.62
1.35
0.00
0.2
0.89
0.00
1
Hay Control
1.26
5.75
0.00
0.77
0.00
0.2
2
Straw Control
3.78
0.82
0.00
0.21
0.00
0.0
3041
3
Hay, HUIP
6.74
1.48
0.03
0.82
0.09
0.2
3041
4
Straw, LUIP
5.36
1.15
0.05
0.14
0.21
0.1
3041
5
Hay, LUIP
7.39
1.55
0.02
0.2
0.88
0.08
3041
6
Straw, HUIP
6.46
0.08
1.34
0.27
0.17
0.1
a
Experimental design was a 6x5 incomplete Latin square.
b
Treatments were Hay = moderate forage; Straw = low forage; LUIP = low undegradable intake protein; HUIP = high
undegradable intake protein; Controls = no protein supplements.
1
2
Table A.4. (continued). The influence of forage quality and supplement type on steer NDF and CP
STEER
TREATMENTb
Forage
NDF
4.13
5.95
Suppi.
% BW NDF
Forage
NDF
Intake
CPI
0.27
0.79
0.00
0.03
2
0.02
6.72
3
0.00
6.79
4
0.09
5.33
5
0.05
5.78
6
0.04
4.57
1
0.00
6.75
HayControl
2
4.73
0.00
StrawControl
3
0.07
6.22
Straw,
HUIP
4
0.04
7.12
Hay, HUIP
5
0.02
7.31
Hay, LUIP
6
Experimental design was a 6x5 incomplete Latin square.
4091
4091
4091
4091
4091
4091
6141
6141
6141
6141
6141
6141
a
PERiOD
1
Straw Control
Hay, HUIP
Hay, LUIP
Hay Control
Straw, HUIP
Straw, LUIP
Straw, LUIP
0.97
1.38
1.52
1.45
1.14
1.23
1.08
1.54
1.08
1.40
1.57
1.58
0.81
1.01
0.31
0.24
0.27
0.86
0.19
0.19
0.84
0.98
intakes.a
Suppl. CP
% 8W CP Intake
0.00
0.10
0.08
0.00
0.17
0.19
0.1
0.21
0.00
0.00
0.19
0.07
0.08
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.2
Treatments were Hay = moderate forage; Straw = low forage; LUIP = low undegradable intake protein; HUIP = high
undegradable intake protein; Controls = no protein supplements.
b
(11
56
Table AS. The influence of forage quality and supplement type on steer DM,
OM, NDF, and CP fecal output.a
STEER PERIOD TREATMENTb
278
278
278
278
278
278
2061
2061
2061
2061
2061
2061
3041
3041
3041
3041
3041
3041
4091
4091
4091
4091
4091
4091
6141
6141
6141
6141
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
Hay, LUIP
Straw, HUIP
Straw, LUIP
Hay, HUIP
Hay Control
Straw Control
Hay, HUIP
Hay, LUIP
Straw, HUIP
Straw Control
Straw, LUIP
Hay Control
Hay Control
StrawControl
Hay, HUIP
Straw, LUIP
Fecal
DM
OM
4.36
3.47
3.27
4.00
3.87
2.85
4.49
4.43
3.45
3.19
3.60
3.16
2.81
2.55
3.53
3.29
2.07
3.89
3.07
3.59
3.57
2.22
3.55
4.13
4.02
2.28
4.69
3.41
2.91
3.22
3.17
2.57
3.73
3.66
3.12
2.91
Fecal
NDF
Fecal
2.67
2.39
2.16
0.40
0.26
0.24
2.41
0.41
2.49
0.34
0.20
0.44
0.44
0.25
0.17
0.19
0.32
0.36
0.16
1.86
2.74
2.77
2.37
2.33
1.94
2.80
2.51
1.58
3.17
2.44
2.94
CP
0.41
0.21
4.34
0.39
3.93
2.69
0.28
6
1
StrawControl
2.52
1.58
0.19
Hay, HUIP
4.32
2.86
0.42
2
Hay, LUIP
4.36
3.61
2.95
0.38
3
4.18
Hay Control
4
3.38
2.59
0.40
Straw, HUIP
2.59
1.78
2.35
0.19
5
Straw, LUIP
3.27
2.94
2.28
0.22
6
2.79
Straw, LUIP
1
2.50
1.83
0.22
4.80
Hay Control
2
3.98
3.18
0.44
StrawControl
2.88
3
2.56
1.88
0.19
Straw, HUIP
4
3.67
3.32
2.59
0.22
4.09
Hay, HUIP
6141
3.40
2.72
0.35
5
4.56
6141
Hay,
LUIP
6
3.85
3.09
0.36
Experimental design was a 6x5 incomplete Latin square.
b
Treatments were Hay = moderate forage; Straw = low forage; LUIP = low
undegradable intake protein; HUIP = high undegradable intake protein; Controls
no protein supplements.
5
Hay, LUIP
Straw, HUIP
Fecal
57
Table A.6. The influence of forage quality and supplement type on steer DM,
OM, NDF, and CP digestibility.a
STEER PERIOD TREATMENTb
OM
DIGEST
1
2
57.28%
NDF
DIGEST
CP
DIGEST
60.94%
53.72%
55.93%
53.01%
56.52%
55.73%
3
55.72%
57.79%
62.80%
45.93%
4
63.86%
67.58%
64.61%
61 .00%
64.69%
68.11%
5
63.91%
60.14%
StrawControl
57.61%
59.11%
6
66.26%
20.85%
2061
1
Hay, HUIP
57.02%
60.42%
54.57%
51 .91%
2061
Hay, LUIP
59.65%
63.26%
2
56.72%
52.32%
49.15%
Straw, HUIP
2061
50.94%
41.25%
3
55.88%
Straw Control
46.85%
2061
4
48.83%
53.40%
-6.99%
Straw, LUIP
55.94%
57.08%
2061
5
60.08%
61 .00%
Hay Control
60.76%
2061
62.72%
57.73%
6
64.36%
Hay Control
3041
1
58.35%
62.23%
56.46%
53.51%
3041
2
Straw Control
51.30%
52.90%
58.10%
24.22%
Hay, HUIP
3041
3
56.86%
60.02%
53.16%
54.44%
3041
4
Straw, LUIP
49.88%
52.61%
54.92%
41 .35%
Hay, LUIP
3041
5
63.89%
67.20%
60.34%
60.04%
3041
Straw, HUIP
52.60%
6
53.94%
58.84%
37.23%
StrawControl
4091
1
51.48%
53.60%
61.84%
29.26%
4091
2
Hay, HUIP
58.18%
61.94%
52.20%
52.97%
4091
Hay, LUIP
59.64%
3
62.75%
56.23%
56.81%
4091
4
Hay Control
62.03%
65.71%
61.92%
60.74%
4091
5
Straw, HUIP
63.09%
64.27%
67.09%
61 .25%
4091
Straw, LUIP
6
56.18%
57.97%
60.99%
49.44%
6141
1
Straw, LUIP
54.31%
55.95%
60.36%
54.05%
6141
Hay Control
57.98%
2
61.53%
52.92%
49.53%
6141
StrawControl
49.46%
3
51.85%
60.30%
0.07%
6141
Straw, HUIP
4
53.50%
55.74%
58.80%
43.11%
6141
5
Hay, HUIP
64.39%
67.51%
61 .95%
61.16%
Hay, LUIP
61 .54%
6141
6
63.95%
57.80%
65.88%
a
Experimental design was a 6x5 incomplete Latin square.
b
Treatments were Hay = moderate forage; Straw = low forage; LUIP = low
undegradable intake protein; HUIP = high undegradable intake protein; Controls =
no protein supplements.
278
278
278
278
278
278
Hay, LUIP
Straw, HUIP
Straw, LUIP
Hay, HUIP
HayControl
DM
DIGEST
51 .80%
Table A.?. The influence of forage quality and supplement type on steer rumen DM, OM, liquid, and NDF fill and rumen volume.a
STEER PERIOD TIME TREATMENTb
278
278
278
278
278
278
278
278
278
278
278
278
2061
2061
2061
2061
1
1
2
2
0
5
0
5
3
0
3
5
4
4
5
5
6
6
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
Hay, LUIP
Hay, LUIP
Straw, HUIP
Straw, HUIP
Straw, LUIP
Straw, LUIP
Hay, HUIP
Hay, HUIP
DM
OM
FILL
Liquid
FILL
Fill
Volume
7.5
51.8
67.6
8.9
6.4
8.7
8.0
10.1
9.1
9.4
10.9
7.7
9.8
7.6
9.4
9.3
11.0
11.0
10.5
8.4
9.8
6.6
8.4
6.4
8.0
8.4
10.0
9.3
8.9
9.5
73.7
72.3
83.2
59.8
59.8
59.9
58.6
63.2
73.4
69.6
77.4
78.8
82.8
83.0
99.7
86.2
91.3
83.3
86.7
51.6
71.4
70.0
68.6
72.7
76.9
60.6
64.6
59.3
70.0
62.0
71.4
70.0
85.4
84.0
82.5
10.1
75.1
% BW
DM fill
% BW
OM fill
1.9
1.6
2.5
2.2
2.5
2.2
2.5
2.2
2.0
2.2
2.0
2.3
1.8
1.5
2.3
2.0
% BW
NDF
Volume
FILL
5.9
8.2
7.8
7.7
7.6
4.68
6.40
6.47
7.30
7.06
8.16
4.94
6.22
5.14
6.30
7.14
8.57
6.74
6.33
8.1
6.4
6.9
NDF FILL %
BW
1.18
1.61
1.59
1.80
1.64
1.89
1.16
1.46
1.18
1.44
1.60
1.92
1.42
1.34
1.39
1.32
1.66
1.90
1.7
1.5
6.1
HayControl
2.2
Hay Control
1.8
7.3
StrawControl
2.1
1.9
6.3
StrawControl
2.5
2.2
7.3
1
Hay, HUIP
2.3
2.0
6.7
1
Hay, HUIP
2.2
1.9
8.2
2
11.1
Hay, LUIP
2.2
1.9
7.6
6.91
2
5
10.6
9.1
Hay, LUIP
2.1
1.8
7.5
6.57
2061
3
0
10.9
9.9
Straw, HUIP
81.1
2.2
2.0
7.4
8.23
2061
3
5
12.4
11.2
Straw, HUIP
92.7
2.5
2.3
8.5
9.44
2061
4
0
StrawControl
10.5
9.5
74.1
2.1
1.9
6.6
8.14
1.61
2061
4
5
StrawControl
12.0
10.9
81.1
2.4
2.1
7.3
9.41
1.86
2061
5
0
9.1
8.2
Straw, LUIP
75.5
1.9
1.7
7.1
6.77
1.41
2061
5
5
10.4
9.3
Straw, LUIP
92.7
2.1
1.9
7.70
8.7
1.60
a
Experimental
design
was
a
6x5
incomplete
Latin
square.
b
Treatments were Hay = moderate forage; Straw = low forage; LUIP = low undegradable intake protein; HUIP = high undegradable intake
protein; Controls = no protein supplements.
Table A.7. (continued). The influence of forage quality and supplement type on steer rumen DM, OM, liquid, and NDF fill and
rumen vo1ume.'
% BW
OM
Liquid
PERIOD
TIME
TREATMENTb
DM
STEER
% BW
FILL
Volume
DM fill
Volume
FILL
2061
2061
6
0
6.8
10.3
0
Hay Control
8.1
1
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
9.6
8.2
9.6
8.9
11.6
9.4
10.0
9.8
11.8
7.8
7.0
7.2
2
HayControl
StrawControl
StrawControl
Hay, HUIP
Hay, HUIP
Straw, LUIP
Straw, LUIP
6.35
7.97
4.99
6.15
6.22
7.37
6.24
10.1
9.9
8.9
11.4
10.4
8.0
8.8
9.0
7.1
84.0
70.0
72.7
62.0
68.6
59.3
85.4
70.0
76.9
64.6
75.5
63.3
71.4
64.6
64.6
63.3
75.5
67.3
79.7
65.9
75.5
2.1
1
85.4
65.0
67.4
71.2
78.3
62.0
78.9
75.3
84.6
70.7
77.6
72.5
76.7
69.7
74.2
63.0
74.2
62.3
73.5
62.0
74.0
2.0
2.4
1.8
5
9.9
11.8
74.1
6
HayControl
HayControl
Fill
74.2
% BW
OM fill
NDF
FILL
3041
3041
3041
3041
3041
3041
3041
3041
3041
3041
3041
3041
4091
4091
4091
4091
4091
4091
4091
4091
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
0
5
1
0
1
5
2
0
2
5
3
0
3
5
0
5
Hay, LUIP
Hay, LUIP
Straw, HUIP
Straw, HUIP
StrawControl
StrawControl
Hay, HUIP
Hay, HUIP
Hay, LUIP
Hay, LUIP
10.1
8.6
10.1
8.4
10.4
8.6
6.9
8.2
7.4
8.7
7.7
8.5
9.0
8.4
10.1
7.9
7.8
8.7
7.3
8.7
7.0
8.9
1.8
2.1
1.8
2.1
1.9
2.5
2.0
2.1
2.1
2.5
2.0
2.3
1.9
2.1
2.1
2.3
1.9
1.5
1.8
1.6
1.9
1.7
2.2
1.8
1.9
1.8
2.1
1.8
2.1
1.7
1.8
1.8
2.0
1.7
6.1
6.8
5.9
8.4
6.8
7.4
6.1
7.2
5.9
6.6
6.9
6.9
6.6
7.9
6.9
8.2
6.4
7.3
7.91
7.10
7.33
6.78
8.15
7.51
8.69
5.90
6.62
6.08
6.47
5.88
6.94
5.25
6.65
NDF FILL
BW
1.29
1.62
1.10
1.35
1.35
1.61
1.36
1.72
1.51
1.56
1.42
1.70
1.53
1.78
1.38
1.55
1.40
1.49
1.33
1.57
1.12
1.42
2.3
2.0
HayControl
1.8
1.5
4
HavControl
2.2
1.9
a
Experimental design was a 6x5 incomplete Latin square.
b
Treatments were Hay = moderate forage; Straw = low forage; LUIP = low undegradable intake protein; HUIP = high undegradable
intake protein; Controls = no protein supplements.
4
%
Table A.7. (continued). The influence of forage quality and supplement type on steer rumen DM, OM, liquid, and NDF fill and
rumen volume.'t
STEER
PERIOD
TIME
TREATMENTb
4091
4091
4091
4091
6141
6141
6141
6141
6141
6141
6141
6141
6141
6141
6141
6141
5
0
5
5
6
0
Straw, HUIP
Straw, HUIP
Straw, LUIP
Straw, LUIP
Straw, LUIP
Straw, LUIP
6
5
1
0
1
5
2
2
3
3
4
4
0
DM
OM
FILL
FILL
8.1
7.3
6.8
8.3
6.1
9.1
8.1
10.6
9.1
7.5
8.2
7.2
9.6
7.8
8.7
8.9
9.5
8.3
10.2
6.7
7.9
7.8
9.0
%
Liquid
Fill
% BW
% BW
Volume
DM fill
OM fill
Volume
FILL
71.9
75.7
60.2
73.2
69.8
78.2
64.8
77.8
80.5
85.7
70.2
86.6
61.4
78.0
63.3
64.6
64.6
62.0
64.6
64.6
71.4
68.6
84.0
71.4
78.3
63.3
78.3
59.4
75.5
68.6
1.7
1.4
1.5
1.3
1.8
1.6
1.7
1.7
2.2
1.8
2.0
2.0
6.2
6.2
5.9
6.2
6.9
7.6
6.10
4.99
6.23
6.73
1.9
1.9
2.5
2.1
BW
7.1
NDF
5.71
7.39
6.06
6.60
7.58
8.09
6.89
8.35
5.19
5.98
5.63
6.66
NDF FILL
% BW
1.29
1.05
1.31
1.42
1.34
1.74
1.38
1.50
1.73
1.85
1.53
1.86
1.14
HayControl
8.7
2.3
10.1
Hay Control
7.4
2.3
StrawControl
10.0
0
8.1
2.4
2.2
10.6
StrawControl
5
6.4
2.0
1.8
9.2
0
Straw, HUIP
7.9
2.5
2.3
11.3
5
Straw, HUIP
5.9
1.7
1.5
7.8
5
0
Hay, HUIP
1.31
7.5
2.0
1.7
9.3
5
5
Hay, HUIP
1.21
6.7
1.9
1.7
6
9.0
0
Hay, LUIP
1.43
2.2
7.9
1.9
76.1
81.1
6
10.4
5
Hay, LUIP
a
Experimental design was a 6x5 incomplete Latin square.
b
Treatments were Hay = moderate forage; Straw = low forage; LUIP = low undegradable intake protein; HUIP = high undegradable
intake protein; Controls = no protein supplements.
5
61
Table A.8. The influence of forage quality and supplement type on steer IADF
passage rate and fill and turnover rate.a
STEER
PERIOD
TREATMENTb
glh IADF
passage
47.74
69.09
77.82
%/h IADF
passage
Rumen
IADF Fill
Turnover
2.38%
2.01
42.0
1.99%
3.47
50.3
2.69%
2.89
37.1
3
62.21
3.37%
1.85
29.7
4
41.3
59.17
2.42%
2.44
5
81.44
2.22%
45.0
3.66
6
50.12
2.07%
2.43
48.4
2061
1
47.82
1.94%
2.47
51.6
2061
2
72.80
45.9
2.18%
3.34
2061
3
71.71
2.15%
3.34
46.5
2061
4
58.27
1.67%
3.49
59.9
2061
5
56.31
2.28%
2.47
43.9
2061
6
48.05
1.99
2.42%
41.4
3041
1
46.41
1.47%
3.16
68.1
3041
2
59.96
3.03%
1.98
33.0
3041
3
74.52
2.61%
2.86
38.3
3041
4
63.14
2.27%
2.78
44.0
3041
5
99.35
2.60%
3.82
38.4
3041
6
44.90
1.62%
2.78
61.9
4091
1
43.05
2.37%
1.82
42.3
4091
2
60.29
4091
3.50%
1.72
28.6
3
59.57
4091
4
2.96%
2.02
33.8
66.27
2.49%
2.66
40.2
4091
5
86.43
2.80%
35.7
4091
6
3.08
49.49
1.52%
6141
1
3.26
65.8
HayControl
50.13
2.70%
6141
2
1.86
37.0
Straw Control
61.32
2.10%
47.7
6141
3
2.92
Straw, HUIP
4
89.52
2.45%
40.8
6141
3.65
58.59
Hay,
HUIP
6141
2.74%
2.14
36.5
5
Hay, LUIP
60.46
6141
6
2.82%
2.15
35.5
a
Experimental design was a 6x5 incomplete Latin square.
b
Treatments were Hay = moderate forage; Straw = low forage; LUIP = low
undegradable intake protein; HUIP = high undegradable intake protein; Controls = no
protein supplements.
278
278
278
278
278
278
1
2
Hay, LUIP
Straw, HUIP
Straw, LUIP
Hay, HUIP
Hay Control
Straw Control
Hay, HUIP
Hay, LUIP
Straw, HUIP
Straw Control
Straw, LUIP
Hay Control
Hay Control
Straw Control
Hay, HUIP
Straw, LUIP
Hay, LUIP
Straw, HUIP
Straw Control
Hay, HUIP
Hay, LUIP
Hay Control
Straw, HUIP
Straw, LUIP
Straw, LUIP
62
Table A.9. The influence of forage quality and supplement type on in situ
extent of DM, NDF, and CP digestion.a
STEER PERIOD TREATMENTb
48h% DM
48h% NDF
Extent
Extent
24h% CP
Extent
Hay, LUIP
66.01
99.82
Straw,
HUIP
58.33
99.54
2
Straw, LUIP
58.52
99.62
3
Hay, HUIP
4
69.66
99.50
69.34
Hay Control
99.74
5
Straw Control
50.90
6
99.53
Hay, HUIP
68.47
2061
1
Hay, LUIP
67.44
2061
2
49.76
Straw, HUIP
2061
3
4
Straw Control
49.45
2061
43.65
2061
Straw,
LUIP
5
Hay Control
69.23
2061
6
Hay Control
65.75
3041
1
99.81
3041
2
Straw Control
53.46
99.58
Hay, HUIP
69.15
3041
3
99.77
Straw,
LUIP
49.70
3041
4
99.46
3041
Hay, LUIP
68.05
5
99.75
Straw, HUIP
54.19
3041
6
99.55
4091
1
Straw Control
59.47
55.52
70.93
Hay, HUIP
4091
2
59.54
4091
Hay,
LUIP
71.82
3
61.37
4091
4
Hay Control
72.85
62.87
4091
Straw, HUIP
5
52.52
49.48
57.64
4091
6
Straw, LUIP
53.95
6141
1
Straw, LUIP
57.23
53.05
Hay Control
6141
2
64.11
49.53
6141
Straw Control
49.15
43.65
3
4
Straw, HUIP
48.86
6141
44.83
6141
Hay, HUIP
70.30
5
59.07
6141
Hay, LUIP
71.43
6
60.06
a
Experimental design was a 6x5 incomplete Latin square.
b
Treatments were Hay = moderate forage; Straw = low forage; LUIP = low
undegradable intake protein; HUIP = high undegradable intake protein;
Controls = no protein supplements.
278
278
278
278
278
278
1
Table A. 10. The influence of forage quality, supplement type, and supplement intake level on cow BW and BCS.a
ID#
6037
8043
8125
8243
5009
5127
6187
8142
5160
7110
7140
8234
5192
7127
8027
8128
1067
5003
5030
5197
2107
8017
9018
Treatmentb
HF/HUIP/HI
HF/HUIP/HI
HF/HUIP/HI
HF/HUIP/HI
HF/HUIP/Hl
HF/HUIP/Hl
HF/HUIP/Hl
HF/HUIP/HI
HF/HUIP/HI
HF/HUIP/Hl
HF/HUIP/Hl
HF/HUIP/Hl
HF/HUIP/LI
HF/HUIP/LI
HF/HUIP/LI
HF/HUIPJLI
HF/HUIP/LI
HF/HUIP/LI
HF/HUIP/LI
June
Wt
4
3.5
1188
4
4.25
3.75
4.5
4
1222
1107
4
1064
4
4.5
4
3.5
4.25
5
4.75
4.25
5
4.75
4.25
3
4
3.5
4.5
3.5
3.5
4.5
4.75
4.25
4.5
4.5
4.5
1089
1183
1262
1079
1230
1127
1122
4
4
3.5
4.5
5.25
4.5
964
1270
3/19/2002
Mid Wt
4/16/2002
Initial
Final Wt
BCS
1169
1125
1130
1124
1153
1068
4
4.5
1
1245
1230
1165
4
4.25
1
1074.5
1031
1078
4
4
3
1234.5
1260.5
1204
1232
1121
3
3
1457
3
1151.5
1385
1150
5
1269
1211
5
1099.5
Pen #
1
1
June
BCS
Initial
Wt
COW
Mid
BCS
Final
BCS
4.25
4.75
5
1302
1070
1265
5
1061.5
978
1281
1
1347
1267
1159
1307
1105
1156
1033
1202
959
1243
1156
1106.5
5
4.25
3.5
1121
5
1
956
901.5
4
3
3
1154.5
1022
5
4.5
3.75
3
1359
4.5
3.5
3.5
3
1438.5
1247
1229
5
4
3.25
3
1381
1241
4.5
4
3.5
900
1032
1243
1285
1245
3.5
1
968
1085
1284
1304
1274
1072
1192
1022
1110
862
4.5
3.75
3.75
1221
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.25
1111
5
4
3.75
3.5
3.5
3.5
2.75
1084
824
3.5
1
HF/HUIP/LI
HF/HUIP/LI
3
1397
1306
5
1121
HF/HUIP/LI
HF/HUIP/LI
5
1208
5
874.5
1158
850
4.5
3.5
5
4.5
4.5
4
5.25
4
4
4
4
4
a
Experimental design was a split-plot within a randomized complete block.
Treatments were HF = moderate forage; LF = low forage; LUIP = low undegradable intake protein; HUIP = high
undegradable intake protein; HI = high supplement intake; LI = low supplement intake.
b
Li.)
Table A. 10. (continued). The influence of forage quality, supplement type, and supplement intake level on cow BW
and BCS.a
COW
ID#
9158
6185
7113
8182
8246
6140
6177
7106
9024
4007
5135
7175
9239
8115
8154
8237
9187
1159
2069
6141
9208
5002
5195
a
3/19/2002
Mid Wt
Initial
Final Wt
BCS
Mid
BCS
Final
Pen #
Initial
Wt
4/16/2002
Treatmentb
BCS
June
Wt
HF/HUIP/Ll
HF/LUIP/HI
5
1083.5
986
4
3.5
3
1021
3
1
1078.5
891
4.5
3.25
3.25
4
996
4.5
4
3.5
1084.5
4
4
4
HF/LUIP/HI
1
HF/LUIP/Hl
1
1033
1162
1006
978
1052
1082
HF/LUIP/Hl
1
1309.5
1209.5
1204
4.5
5
4.25
HF/LUIP/HI
HF/LUIP/Hl
HF/LUIP/Hl
3
1344
1241
1210.5
5.5
5
4.25
3
1267.5
4
3.25
3
1293.5
4.5
4
3.5
3
988
3
3.25
2.5
HF/LUIP/HI
HF/LUIP/HI
5
1531.5
4.5
4.25
4.5
5
1235.5
3.5
3.75
4
HF/LUIP/Hl
5
1311
1093
1153
962
1387
1188
1224
5
HF/LUIP/HI
5
5
4.5
HF/LUIP/HI
5
1051
4
3.75
3
HF/LUIP/LI
1
1185
1184
1058
4.5
4
3
HF/LUIP/LI
1
1011
3.5
3
1
1230.5
866
1096
4.5
HF/LUIP/LI
1162
1230
983
1378
1214
1334
1064
1099
909
1130
4.5
4.25
3.5
HF/LUIP/LI
1
1024
931
891
4
3.5
2.75
HF/LUIP/LI
3
1534.5
HF/LUIP/Lt
3
1437
HF/LUIP/LI
3
1361.5
HF/LUIP/LI
3
1114.5
HF/LUIP/LI
5
HF/LUIF/LI
5
1217
1362
1536
1409
1250
1055
1127
1298
June
BCS
1380
4.5
5
4
1313.5
5.5
5
3.75
955
1099
1038
1214
1258
1114
1276
963
1293
1175
1270
1025
1139
926
1166
922
1448
1293
1161
5
4.5
3.75
1211
4
930
1046
1222
3.75
945
4.5
3.5
3
1051
4.5
3.75
3.5
1196
5
5
5
Experimental design was a split-plot within a randomized complete block.
b
Treatments were HF = moderate forage; LF = low forage; LUIP low undegradable intake protein; HUIP =
high
undegradable intake protein; HI = high supplement intake; LI low supplement intake.
4.25
4.25
4.5
5
4.5
4.5
3.5
4.75
4
5
3.25
4
3.75
4
3.5
4.5
5
3.5
5
Table A.l0. (continued). The influence of forage quality, supplement type, and supplement intake level on cow BW
and BCS.'
COW
ID#
8135
8212
1116
6002
7152
8052
4094
5213
4113
9025
9211
9223
6124
6128
8101
9152
5027
6040
8010
8211
6165
9269
6020
Treatmentb
Pen #
Initial
Wt
3/19/2002
Mid Wt
4/16/2002
Initial
Final Wt
BCS
Mid
BCS
4.25
Final
BCS
June
Wt
HF/LUIP/LI
5
1290
1218
1205
4
4
1206
HF/LUIP/LI
5
1139
1121
1057
4.5
4
3.5
1069
LF/HUIP/HI
2
1389
1438.5
4
4.5
1347
4
1330
LF/HUIP/Hl
2
1365
1382
3.5
3.75
1208
1214
3
LF/HUIP/HI
2
1387.5
1198
5
4
1126
3.75
1196
LF/HUIP/HI
2
1260
1254.5
1154
4.5
3.5
1187
3
LF/HUIP/HI
4
1406.5
1326
1244
4.5
4
4
1271
LF/HUIP/Hl
4
1352
4.5
4.5
1308
1228
3.75
1226
LF/HUIP/Hl
6
1352.5
1348
4.5
1243
4
3.75
1211
LF/HUIP/Ht
6
981.5
997
1008
3.5
3
3.25
976
LF/HUIP/Hl
6
1214
1172
1088
4
4
3.5
1095
LF/HUIP/HI
6
1036
1030
977
3.5
3.5
3
913
LF/HUIP/LI
2
1274
4.5
1182
1081
4
3
1144
LF/HUIP/LI
2
1462
1340
1226
5
4.5
1278
3.5
LF/HUIP/Ll
2
1102
1009.5
4
916
3
3.5
984
LF/HUIF/Ll
2
1047.5
962
4.5
914
3.5
3
933
LF/HUIP/Ll
4
1347
1245
1125
4
3.5
1297
3
LF/HUIP/LI
4
1105.5
1084
1019
4
4.25
1042
3.25
LF/HUIP/LI
4
862
814
3.5
784
3
2.5
764
LF/HUIP/Ll
4
1045.5
4
952
950
3.25
928
3
LF/HUIP/Ll
6
1323
1368
1253
4.5
4.75
4
1329
LF/HUIP/Ll
6
1036.5
4
928
883
3
2.5
864
LF/LUIP/HI
2
4.5
1336.5
1238.5
1170
4
1237
3.25
a
Experimental design was a split-plot within a randomized complete block.
b
Treatments were HF = moderate forage; LF = low forage; LUIP = low undegradable intake protein; HUIP = high
undegradable intake protein; HI = high supplement intake; LI = low supplement intake.
June
BCS
4.5
4
4
3.75
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
4.75
3.5
4
3.5
4
4
3.5
3.5
4
4.25
3.25
3.75
4.75
3.5
4
Table A.1O. (continued). The influence of forage quality, supplement type, and supplement intake level on cow BW
and
COW
ID#
8031
8130
8139
5209
6023
7136
9191
7108
7155
Treatmentb
LF/LUIP/HI
LF/LUIP/HI
LF/LUIP/HI
LF/LUIP/Hi
Pen #
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
BCS.1
Initial
Wt
3119/2002
969
928
1180
1346
954
967.5
1065
1294
1202
1264
1080
1355
1260
1014
Mid Wt
4/16/2002
Final Wt
850
895
1004
1203
1095
1185
1030
1246
1172
957
1048
1159
1134
938
997
1194
1180
1016
1132
1160
1109
1013
Initial
BCS
4
3.5
5
Mid
BCS
3.5
Final
3.5
3.5
3.5
4.25
3.5
3.5
4.25
BCS
3
June
Wt
860
924
1055
1206
1129
1213
1060
1166
4.5
5
LF/LUIP/HI
1290
5
4.75
LF/LUIP/HI
1317
4.5
4.5
LF/LUIP/Hl
1079.5
3.5
3.5
3
LF/LUIP/HI
6
1409
4
4
3.5
LF/LUIP/HI
6
1320
4.5
4.25
1161
3.75
8266
LF/LUIP/HI
6
945.5
4
3.25
3
943
9255
LF/LUIP/HI
6
1123
1071
4
3.5
1000
3.25
5214
LF/LUIP/LI
2
1342
1304
5
4.5
1272
4.25
6186
LF/LUIP/LI
2
1287
1236.5
5
4.25
3.5
1115
8140
LF/LUIP/Ll
2
1072
1020.5
4
3.75
3
1005
9121
LF/LUIP/LI
2
1153.5
1063
4.5
4
959
3.25
2061
LF/LUIP/LI
4
1373.5
1259
4.5
3.5
3.5
1229
5121
LF/LUIP/LI
4
1400.5
1299
5
5
4.75
1241
8122
LF/LUIP/LI
4
1176.5
1098
4.5
4.5
3.75
1102
6035
LF/LUIP/LI
6
1291
1264
4.5
4.5
1189
3.75
6137
LF/LUIP/LI
6
1364
1257
4.5
4
3.5
1146
6216
LF/LUIP/Ll
6
1242.5
1232
4
4
3.5
1164
9109
LF/LUIP/LI
6
1085.5
1045
4
3.5
955
3.5
a
Experimental design was a split-plot within a randomized complete block.
b
Treatments were HF = moderate forage; LF = low forage; LUIP low undegradable intake protein; HUIP = high
undegradable intake protein; HI = high supplement intake; LI = low supplement intake.
June
BCS
3.5
3.5
4
5
4.5
4.5
4
4.25
4.5
4
3.5
5
4
4
4
4.25
5
4.5
5
4
4.5
3.5
67
Table A. 11. The influence of forage quality, supplement type, and supplement
intake level on calf
weight.a
COW ID# Treatmentb
Pen Calf #
6037
8043
8125
8243
5009
5127
6187
8142
5160
7110
7140
8234
5192
7127
8027
8128
1067
5003
5030
5197
2107
8017
9018
9158
6185
7113
8182
8246
6140
6177
7106
9024
4007
5135
7175
9239
8115
8154
8237
9187
1159
2069
HF/HUIP/Hl
HF/HUIP/HI
HF/HUIP/HI
HF/HUIP/HI
HF/HUIP/HI
HF/HUIP/HI
HF/HUIP/HI
HF/HUIP/HI
HF/HUIP/HI
HF/HUIP/HI
HF/HUIP/Hl
HF/HUIP/Hl
HF/HUIP/Ll
HF/HUIP/LI
HF/HUIP/Ll
HF/HUIP/Ll
Birth date
calf calf bw final wt
sex
#
2112
2103
June
weight
2/1/2002 B
92
261
332
1/29/2002 B
93
255
293
1
2121
2/3/2002 B
102
234
300
1
2126
2/4/2002 H
86
280
219.5
3
2148
2/6/2002 B
110
216
255
2153
3
2/7/2002 H
84
254
212.5
2135
3
2/4/2002 H
87
275.5
291
2162
3
2/8/2002 B
103
223
307
5
2185
2/12/2002 H
93
245.5
295
5
2175
2/10/2002 H
80
181.5
279
2181
5
2/11/2002 B
82
220
283
5
2197
2/14/2002 B
88
214
306
1
2114
2/1/2002 H
93
247
249
1
2120
2/2/2002 B
96
235
306
1
2105
1/29/2002 H
87
246.5
301
1
2127
2/4/2002 B
76
183
268
HF/HI.JIP/LI
3
2150
2/6/2002 H
130
254
328
HF/HUIP/LI
2144
3
2/6/2002 B
112
267.5
289
HF/HUIP/Ll
3
2166
2/8/2002 H
106
260
322
HF/HUIP/LI
3
2156
2/7/2002 H
95
290
222.5
HF/HUIP/Ll
5
2196
2/13/2002 B
76
172.5
230
HF/HUIP/LI
5
2200
2/15/2002 B
81
223
230.5
HF/HUIP/Ll
2177
5
2/10/2002 H
73
159.5
210
HF/HUIP/Ll
5
2173
2/10/2002 H
79
217
255
HF/LUIP/Hl
1
2125
2/3/2002 H
78
235
293
HF/LUIP/Hl
1
2107
1/30/2002 B
79
279
364
HF/LUIP/HI
1
2115
2/1/2002 H
87
269
317
HF/LUIP/HI
1
2122
2/3/2002 B
84
217.5
277
HF/LUIP/Hl
3
2161
2/8/2002 B
116
255
348
HF/LUIP/HI
3
2154
2/7/2002 H
88
204.5
389
HF/LUIP/HI
3
2142
2/5/2002 B
110
281.5
346
HF/LUIP/Hl
3
2157
2/7/2002 B
111
211
280
HF/LUIP/Hl
2184
5
2/12/2002 B
114
295
323
HF/LUIP/HI
2195
5
2/13/2002 B
92
186
159.5
HF/LUIP/Hl
2170
5
2/9/2002 B
101
245
270
HF/LUIP/HI
5
2199
2/14/2002 B
75
188
246
HF/LUIP/Ll
1
2100
1/26/2002 H
82
233.5
319
HF/LUIP/LI
1
2110
1/30/2002 H
82
289
224.5
HF/LUIP/LI
1
2128
2/4/2002 B
89
240
302
HF/LUIP/LI
1
2118
2/1/2002 B
87
344
226.5
HF/LUIP/LI
3
2158
2/7/2002 B
102
253
367
HF/LUIP/LI
3
2168
2/8/2002 H
105
308
231.5
Experimental design was a split-plot within a randomized complete block.
b
Treatments were HF = moderate forage; LF = low forage; LUIP low undegradable
intake protein; HUIP = high undegradable intake protein; HI = high supplement intake;
LI = low supplement intake.
1
1
Table A. 11. (continued). The influence of forage quality, supplement type, and
supplement intake level on calf
weight.a
COW ID# Treatment' Pen Calf #
#
Birth
date
calf
sex
calf bw final wt
June
weight
HF/LUIP/LI
2139
2/5/2002
B
3
101
237
363
HF/LUIP/Ll
3
2143
2/5/2002
B
85
194.5
261
HF/LUIP/Ll
5
2176 2/10/2002
B
87
250.5
327
HF/LUIP/LI
5
2182 2/11/2002
H
92
238.5
306
2187 2/12/2002
HF/LUIP/Ll
5
B
81
216
280
HF/LUIP/Ll
5
2203 2/18/2002
B
81
174
244
LF/HUIP/Hl
2129
2/4/2002
2
B
111
285
322
2/1/2002
LF/HUIP/Hl
2
2113
B
105
214.5
329
LF/HUIP/Hl
2
2123
2/3/2002
H
88
170
224
LF/HUIP/HI
2
2104 1/29/2002
H
70
219
285
4
LF/HUIP/HI
2136
2/5/2002
H
81
238
260
LF/HUIP/HI
4
2167
2/8/2002
H
84
227
303
LF/HUIP/HI
6
2169 2/10/2002
B
94
252.5
316
LF/HUIP/HI
2204 2/19/2002
6
H
71
168.5
211
9211
LF/HUIP/Hl
6
2178 2/10/2002
H
82
168
265
9223
LF/HUIP/Hl
2194 2/13/2002
6
H
84
171.5
178
6124
LF/HUIP/LI
2
2119
2/2/2002
H
97
253.5
297
6128
LF/HUIP/Ll
2
2106 1/29/2002
B
84
267
325
8101
LF/HUIP/LI
2
2109 1/30/2002
B
100
207.5
212
9152
LF/HUIP/L!
2
2131
2/4/2002
H
72
152
198
5027
4
LF/HUIP/Ll
2164
2/8/2002
H
118
244
331
2147
6040
LF/HUIP/LI
4
2/6/2002
H
88
226.5
264
8010
LF/HUIP/Ll
4
2152
2/7/2002
B
87
202.5
285
8211
LF/HUIP/Ll
4
2134
2/4/2002
B
88
222.5
285
6165
LF/HUIP/LI
6
2191 2/12/2002
B
118
227
353
9269
LF/HUIP/Ll
6
2171
2/9/2002
H
82
198
247
6020
LF/LUIP/Hl
2
2130
2/4/2002
H
107
261.5
421
8031
LF/LUIP/HI
2
2111
1/30/2002
B
84
185
289
8130
LF/LUIP/Hl
2
2101
1/28/2002
B
86
249.5
332
8139
LF/LUIP/HI
2
2117
2/4/2002
H
88
205.5
231
5209
LFILUIP/HI
4
2137
2/5/2002
H
92
232.5
285
6023
LF/LUIP/Hl
4
2146
2/6/2002
H
77
198
255
7136
LF/LUIP/Hl
4
2163
2/8/2002
B
132
269.5
325
9191
LF/LUIP/HI
4
2151
2/6/2002
H
91
216
216
7108
LF/LUIP/HI
6
2201 2/17/2002
B
79
199.5
251
7155
LF/LUIP/Hl
6
2180 2/11/2002
H
98
228
305
8266
LF/LUIP/HI
2172 2/10/2002
6
H
81
197.5
214
9255
LF/LUIP/Hl
6
2188 2/12/2002
B
89
207.5
252
5214
LF/LUIP/LI
2
2102
2/4/2002
B
96
211
258
6186
LF/LUIP/Ll
2
2108 1/30/2002
B
90
255
292
8140
LF/LUIP/Ll
2
2116
2/1/2002
H
76
175.5
285
9121
LF/LUIP/LI
2
2124
2/3/2002
B
77
194.5
252
Experimental design was a split-plot within a randomized complete block.
b
Treatments were HF = moderate forage; LF = low forage; LUIP = low undegradable
intake protein; HUIP = high undegradable intake protein; HI = high supplement intake,
LI = low supplement intake.
6141
9208
5002
5195
8135
8212
1116
6002
7152
8052
4094
5213
4113
9025
69
Table A. 11. (continued). The influence of forage quality, supplement type, and
supplement intake level on calf weight.a
Calf
Birth
calf
calf
final
June
Treatmentb Pen #
#
date
sex
bw
wt
weight
LF/LUIP/LI
4
2138
2/5/2002
H
84
198.5
283
LF/LUIP/Ll
4
2145
2/6/2002
H
98
216.5
272
8122
LF/LUIP/Ll
4
2159
2/7/2002
B
95
227
264
6035
LF/LUIP/LI
6
2186 2/12/2002
B
91
234.5
298
6137
LF/LUIP/LI
6
2174 2/10/2002
B
83
233
310
6216
LF/LUIP/LI
6
2198 2/14/2002
B
98
173.5
282
9109
LF/LUIP/LI
6
2183 2/11/2002
B
75
192.5
289
a
Experimental design was a split-plot within a randomized complete block.
b
Treatments were HF = moderate forage; LF low forage; LUIP = low undegradable
intake protein; HUIP = high undegradable intake protein; HI = high supplement intake;
LI = low supplement intake.
COW
ID#
2061
5121
70
Table A. 12. The influence of forage quality, supplement type, and supplement
intake level on cow
cyclicity.'1
COW ID#
Treatmentb
Pen #
P4 4/08/02
P4 4/16/02
Cycling
HF/HUIP/Hl
1
<0.30
7.8
y
HF/HUIP/HI
1
1.77
2.94
y
HF/HUIP/HI
1
1.09
<0.3
y
HF/HUIP/HI
1
3.01
3.11
y
HF/HUIP/HI
3
0.623
0.55
n
HF/HUIP/HI
3
0.45
2.69
y
HF/HUIP/HI
3
0.42
4.38
y
HF/HUIP/Hl
3
<0.30
<0.3
n
HF/HUIP/HI
5
1.12
3.95
y
HF/HUIP/Hl
5
<0.30
<0.3
n
HF/HUIP/HI
5
1.79
1.21
y
HF/HUIP/Hl
5
4.42
0.67
y
HF/HUIP/LI
1
<0.30
3.51
y
HF/HUIP/Ll
1
<0.30
3.46
y
HF/HUIP/Ll
1
<0.30
<0.3
n
HF/HUIP/Ll
1
<0.30
<0.3
n
HF/HUIP/LI
3
3.5
<0.3
y
HF/HUIP/Ll
3
4.6
<0.3
y
HF/HUIP/Ll
3
<0.30
<0.30
n
HF/HUIP/LI
3
2.34
7.81
y
HF/HUIP/LI
5
<0.30
2.33
y
HF!HUIP/Ll
5
4.91
4.68
y
HF!HUIP/Ll
5
<0.30
<0.30
n
HF/HUIP/Ll
5
0.59
<0.3
n
HF/LUIP/HI
1
<0.30
<0.30
n
HF/LUIP/Hl
1
0.96
6.75
y
HF/LUIP/Hl
1
0.53
<0.3
n
HF/LUIPIHI
1
<0.30
<0.30
n
HF/LUIP/HI
3
3.14
7.63
y
HF/LUIP/Hl
3
<0.30
2.78
y
HF/LUIP/Hl
3
<0.30
<0.3
n
HFJLUIP/HI
3
<0.30
<0.3
n
HF/LUIP/Hl
5
1.24
3.16
y
HF/LUIP/Hl
5
<0.30
<0.3
n
HF/LUIP/HI
5
0.39
2.94
y
HF/LU)P!HI
5
<0.30
<0.3
n
HF/LUIP/Ll
1
<0.30
4.67
y
HF/LUIP/LI
1
0.44
3.06
y
HF/LUIP/LI
1
0.41
4.65
y
HF/LUIP/Ll
1
0.65
<0.3
n
Experimental design was a split-plot within a randomized complete block.
b
Treatments were HF = moderate forage; LF = low forage; LUIP low undegradable
intake protein; HUIP = high undegradable intake protein; HI = high supplement intake;
LI = low supplement intake.
6037
8043
8125
8243
5009
5127
6187
8142
5160
7110
7140
8234
5192
7127
8027
8128
1067
5003
5030
5197
2107
8017
9018
9158
6185
7113
8182
8246
6140
6177
7106
9024
4007
5135
7175
9239
8115
8154
8237
9187
71
Table A.12. (continued). The influence of forage quality, supplement type, and
supplement intake level on cow
cyclicity.a
COW ID#
Treatmentb
Pen #
P44108/02
P44/16/02
Cycling
1159
2069
6141
9208
5002
5195
8135
8212
1116
6002
7152
8052
4094
5213
4113
9025
9211
9223
6124
6128
8101
9152
5027
6040
8010
8211
6165
9269
6020
8031
8130
8139
5209
6023
7136
9191
7108
7155
8266
9255
HF/LUIP/LI
3
3
3
HF/LUIP/LI
3
HF/LUIP/Ll
5
<0.3
<0.30
4.96
0.32
9.27
HF/LUIP/Ll
5
3.9
<0.30
<0.30
<0.30
1.68
<0.30
y
HF/LUIP/Ll
HF/LUIP/LI
2.21
y
HF/LUIP/Ll
5
5
LF/HUIP/Hl
2
LF/HUIP/Hl
LF/HUIP/HI
2
<0.3
1.33
3.08
<0.3
<0.3
3.87
0.34
0.88
<0.3
<0.3
<0.3
<0.3
2.75
<0.3
<0.3
<0.3
0.45
0.44
<0.3
<0.30
<0.30
<0.30
4.14
0.43
1.05
3.27
<0.3
6.72
<0.3
<0.3
0.749
2.15
1.64
<0.3
y
HF/LUIP/Ll
1.6
1.6
LF/HUIP/Hl
LF/HUIP/HI
2
2
LF/HUIP/LI
4
4
6
6
6
6
2
2
LF/HUIP/Ll
2
LF/HUIP/Ll
2
4
LF/HUIP/Hl
LF/HUIP/HI
LF/HUIP/HI
LF/HUIP/Hl
LF/HUIP/Hl
LF/HUIP/LI
LF/HUIP/Ll
LF/HUIP/Ll
LF/HUIP/LI
4
4
LF/LUIP/HI
4
6
6
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
6
LF/LUIP/Hl
6
LF/LUIP/Hl
6
LF/LUIP/HI
6
LF/HUIP/LI
LF/HUIP/Ll
LF/HUIP/Ll
LF/LUIP/Hl
LF/LUIP/Hi
LF/LUIP/HI
LF/LUIP/HI
LF/LUIP/Hl
LFILUIP/Hl
LF/LUIP/HI
LF/LUIP/HI
2.55
<0.30
0.44
<0.30
2.02
<0.30
9.21
<0.30
<0.30
<0.30
<0.30
0.51
<0.30
<0.30
0.52
1.78
<0.30
<0.30
<0.30
<0.30
1.6
<0.30
<0.30
<0.30
2.59
3.55
0.44
<0.30
<0.30
<0.30
<0.30
<0.30
n
y
n
y
y
y
n
n
y
y
n
y
n
n
n
y
n
n
n
n
y
n
n
n
n
y
n
y
y
y
y
n
n
n
y
y
n
Experimental design was a split-plot within a randomized complete block.
Treatments were HF = moderate forage; LF = low forage; LUIP = low undegradable
intake protein; HUIP = high undegradable intake protein; HI = high supplement intake;
LI
low supplement intake.
b
72
Table A.12. (continued). The influence of forage quality, supplement type, and
supplement intake level on cow
cyclicity.a
COW ID#
5214
6186
8140
9121
2061
Treatmentb
Pen #
P44/08/02
P4 4/16/02
Cycling
LF/LUIP/LI
2
<0.30
<0.3
n
LF/LUIP/LI
2
7.56
<0.3
y
LF/LUIP/LI
2
<0.30
<0.3
n
LF/LUIP/LI
2
<0.30
<0.3
n
LF/LUIP/Ll
4
2.43
4.18
y
5121
LF/LUIP/Ll
4
<0.30
1.72
y
8122
LF/LUIP/Ll
4
<0.30
5.17
y
6035
LF/LUIP/LI
6
<0.30
<0.30
n
6137
LF/LUIP/Ll
6
<0.30
<0.30
n
6216
LF/LUIP/LI
6
<0.30
3.63
y
9109
LF/LUIP/Ll
6
<0.30
<0.3
n
Experimental design was a split-plot within a randomized complete block.
b
Treatments were HF = moderate forage; LF = low forage; LUIP = low undegradable
intake protein; HUIP = high undegradable intake protein; HI = high supplement intake;
LI = low supplement intake.
73
Table A. 13. The influence of forage quality, supplement type, and supplement
intake level on cow pregnancy.a
a
COW ID#
Treatmentb
6037
8043
8125
8243
5009
5127
6187
8142
5160
7110
7140
8234
5192
7127
8027
8128
1067
5003
5030
5197
2107
8017
9018
9158
6185
7113
8182
8246
6140
6177
7106
9024
4007
5135
7175
9239
8115
8154
8237
9187
1159
2069
HF/HUIP/HI
HF/HUIP/HI
HF/HUIP/HI
HF/HUIP/Hl
HF/HUIP/Hl
HF/HUIP/HI
HF/HUIP/HI
HF/HUIP/Hl
HF/HUIP/HI
HF/HUIP/HI
HF/HUIP/HI
HF/HUIP/HI
HF/HUIP/Ll
HF/HUIP/Li
HF/HUIP/Ll
HF/HUIP/Ll
HF/HUIP/LI
HF/HUIP/LI
HF/HUIP/LI
HF/HUIP/Ll
HF/HUIP/LI
HF/HUIP/LI
HF/HUIP/Ll
HF/HUIP/LI
HF/LUIP/HI
HF/LUIP/Hl
HF/LUIP/HI
HF/LUIP/HI
HF/LUIP/Hl
HF/LUIP/HI
HF/LUIP/HI
HF/LUIF/Hl
HF/LUIP/HI
HF/LUIP/Hl
HF/LUIP/HI
HF/LUIP/HI
HF/LUIP/LI
HF/LUIP/LI
HF/LUIP/LI
HF/LUIP/LI
HF/LUIP/Ll
HF/LUIP/Ll
Pen #
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
3
3
Preg status
bred
bred
bred
bred
bred
bred
bred
bred
bred
bred
bred
bred
bred
bred
bred
bred
bred
bred
bred
bred
bred
bred
open
bred
bred
bred
bred
bred
bred
bred
bred
open
bred
open
bred
bred
bred
bred
bred
bred
open
bred
Experimental design was a split-plot within a randomized complete block.
b
Treatments were HF = moderate forage; LF = low forage; LUIP = low undegradable
intake protein; HUIP = high undegradable intake protein; HI = high supplement intake,
LI
low supplement intake.
74
Table A.13. (continued). The influence of forage quality, supplement type, and
supplement intake level on cow pregnancy.a
COW ID#
Treatmentb
Pen #
Preg status
6141
9208
5002
5195
HF/LUIP/Ll
HF/LUfF/LI
HF/LUIP/LI
HF/LUIP/Ll
HF/LUIP/Ll
HF/LUIP/LI
LF/HUIP/Hl
LF/HUIP/Hl
LF/HUIP/Hl
LF/HUIP/HI
LF/HUIP/Hl
LF/HUIP/Hl
LF/HUIP/Hl
LF/HUIP/HI
LF/HUIP/HI
LF/HUIP/Hl
LF/HUIP/Ll
LF/HUIP/Ll
LF/HUIP/Ll
LF/HUIP/Ll
LF/HUIP/Ll
LF/HUIP/Ll
LF/HUIP/Ll
LF/HUIF/Ll
LF/HUIP/Ll
LF/HUIP/Ll
3
2
2
2
2
4
4
6
6
6
6
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
6
6
LF/LLJIP/Hl
2
bred
bred
bred
bred
bred
bred
bred
bred
bred
bred
bred
bred
bred
bred
bred
bred
bred
bred
bred
bred
bred
bred
open
bred
bred
bred
bred
bred
bred
open
bred
bred
open
bred
bred
bred
bred
bred
bred
bred
bred
bred
8135
8212
1116
6002
7152
8052
4094
5213
4113
9025
9211
9223
6124
6128
8101
9152
5027
6040
8010
8211
6165
9269
6020
8031
8130
8139
5209
6023
7136
3
5
5
5
5
LF/LUIP/Hl
2
LF/LUIP/HI
2
LF/LUIP/Hl
2
LF/LUIP/Hl
4
LF/LUIP/Hl
4
LF/LUIP/HI
4
9191
LF/LUIP/Hl
4
7108
LF/LUIP/Hl
6
7155
LF/LUIP/HI
6
8266
LF/LUIP/HI
6
9255
LF/LUIP/Hl
6
5214
LF/LUIP/Ll
2
6186
LF/LUIF/Ll
2
8140
LF/LUIP/Ll
2
9121
LF/LUIP/LI
2
a
Experimental design was a split-plot within a randomized complete block.
b
Treatments were HF = moderate forage; LF = low forage; LUIP = low undegradable
intake protein; HUfF = high undegradable intake protein; HI = high supplement intake;
LI = low supplement intake.
75
Table A.13. (continued). The influence of forage quality, supplement type, and
supplement intake level on cow pregnancy.'
COW ID#
2061
5121
8122
Treatmentb
Pen #
4
Preg status
LF/LUIP/Ll
Bred
LF/LUIP/LI
4
Bred
LF/LUIP/LI
4
Bred
6035
LF/LUIP/LI
6
Bred
6137
LF/LUIP/LI
6
Bred
6216
LF/LUIP/Ll
6
Bred
9109
LF/LUIP/LI
6
Bred
a
Experimental design was a split-plot within a randomized complete block.
b
Treatments were HF = moderate forage; LF = low forage; LUIP = low undegradable
intake protein; HUIP = high undegradable intake protein; HI = high supplement intake;
LI = low supplement intake.
76
Table A. 14. The influence of forage quality, supplement type, and supplement
intake level on cow calving interval.'
2002
2003
Treatmentb
COW ID#
Pen #
Calving date
Calving date
6037
HF/HUIP/Hl
1
2/1/2002
1/27/2003
8043
HF/HUIP/Hl
1
1/29/2002
1/28/2003
8125
HF/HUIP/Hl
1
2/3/2002
2/17/2003
8243
HF/HUIP/HI
1
2/4/2002
3/9/2003
5009
HF/HUIP/Hl
3
2/6/2002
1/28/2003
5127
HF/HUIP/Hl
3
2/7/2002
2/22/2003
6187
HF/HUIP/Hl
3
2/4/2002
1/25/2003
8142
HF/HUIP!Hl
3
2/8/2002
2/24/2003
5160
HF/HUIP/HI
5
2/12/2002
3/1/2003
7110
HF/HUIP/HI
5
2/10/2002
2/2/2003
7140
HF/HUIP/HI
5
2/11/2002
1/23/2003
8234
HF/HUIP/Hl
5
2/14/2002
3/17/2003
5192
HF/HUIP/Ll
1
2/1/2002
1/31/2003
7127
HF/HUIP/LI
1
2/2/2002
1/29/2003
8027
HF/HUIP/L!
1
1/29/2002
1/28/2003
8128
HF/HUIP/LI
1
2/4/2002
2/17/2003
1067
HF/HUIP/Ll
3
2/6/2002
2/3/2003
5003
HF/HUIP/LI
3
2/6/2002
2/23/2003
5030
HF/HUIP/Ll
3
2/8/2002
2/5/2003
5197
HF/HUIP/Ll
3
2/7/2002
2/19/2003
2107
HF/HUIP/LI
5
2/13/2002
2/25/2003
8017
HF/HUIP/Ll
5
2/15/2002
2/18/2003
9158
HF/HUIP/LI
5
2/10/2002
2/1/2003
6185
HF/LUIP/Hl
1
2/3/2002
2/1/2003
7113
HF/LUIP/Hl
1
1/30/2002
1/26/2003
8182
HF/LUIP/Hl
1
2/1/2002
1/30/2003
8246
HF/LUIP/HI
1
2/3/2002
2/24/2003
6140
HF/LUIP/Hl
3
2/8/2002
1/28/2003
6177
HF/LUIP/Hl
3
2/7/2002
2/5/2003
7106
HF/LUIP/HI
3
2/5/2002
1/27/2003
4007
HF/LUIP/Hl
5
2/12/2002
2/2/2003
7175
HF/LUIP/Hl
5
2/9/2002
2/19/2003
9239
HF/LUIP/HI
5
2/14/2002
3/2/2003
8115
HF/LUIP/Ll
1
1/26/2002
1/24/2003
8154
HF/LUIP/Ll
1
1/30/2002
2/12/2003
8237
HF/LUIP/LI
1
2/4/2002
2/2/2003
9187
HF/LUIP/Ll
1
2/1/2002
2/10/2003
2069
HF/LUIP/LI
3
2/8/2002
2/8/2003
a
Experimental design was a split-plot within a randomized complete block.
b
Treatments were HF moderate forage; LF = low forage; LUIP = low undegradable
intake protein; HUIP = high undegradable intake protein; HI = high supplement intake;
LI = low supplement intake.
77
Table A. 14. (continued). The influence of forage quality, supplement type, and
supplement intake level on cow calving interval.a
2002
Treatmentb
2003
COW ID#
Pen #
Calving date
Calving date
6141
HF/LU IP/LI
3
2/5/2002
2/6/2003
9208
5002
5195
8135
8212
1116
6002
7152
8052
4094
5213
4113
9025
9211
9223
6124
6128
8101
9152
5027
6040
8211
6165
9269
6020
8031
8130
5209
6023
HFILUIP/LI
3
2/5/2002
3/2/2003
HF/LUIP/LI
5
2/10/2002
2/22/2003
HF/LUIP/LI
5
2/11/2002
2/5/2003
HF/LUIP/LI
5
2/12/2002
2/16/2003
HF/LUIP/Ll
LF/HUIPIHI
5
2/18/2002
2/1/2003
2
2/4/2002
2/4/2003
LFIHUIP/HI
LF/HUIP/Hl
LF/HUIP/Hl
2
2/1/2002
1/29/2003
2
2/3/2002
2/22/2003
2
1/29/2002
2/6/2003
LF/HUIP/Hl
LF/HUIP/Hl
LFIHUIP/HI
LF/HUIP/H(
LF/HUIP/Hl
4
4
2/5/2002
2/7/2003
2/8/2002
2/3/2003
6
2/10/2002
2/24/2003
6
6
2/1 9/2002
3/3/2003
2/10/2002
2/17/2003
LFIHUIP/HI
LF/HUIP/LI
LFIHUIPILI
LF/HUIP/Ll
LF/HUIP/Ll
LFIHUIP/LI
LF/HUIPILI
LF/HUIP/Ll
LF/HUIP/Ll
6
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
2/13/2002
2/1/2003
2/2/2002
1/26/2003
1/29/2002
2/1/2003
1/30/2002
2/4/2002
3/4/2003
2/18/2003
2/8/2002
2/22/2003
2/6/2002
1/29/2003
2/4/2002
3/9/2003
2/12/2002
2/9/2003
2/9/2002
2/25/2003
2/4/2002
2/20/2003
LF/LUIP/Hl
6
6
2
2
2
4
LF/LUIP/Hl
LF/LUIP/HI
9191
LFIHUIP/LI
LF/LUIP/Hl
LF/LUP/Hl
LF/LUIP/HI
1/30/2002
2/17/2003
1/28/2002
2/19/2003
4
2/5/2002
2/6/2002
2/1/2003
1/30/2003
4
2/6/2002
3/6/2003
7108
LF/LUIP/HI
6
2/17/2002
2/28/2003
7155
LF/LUIP/Hl
6
2/11/2002
2/22/2003
8266
LF/LUIP/HI
6
2/10/2002
2/19/2003
9255
LF/LUIP/HI
6
2/12/2002
3/3/2003
5214
LF/LUIP/LI
2
2/4/2002
2/6/2003
6186
LF/LUIP/LI
2
1/30/2002
1/25/2003
8140
LF/LUIP/Ll
2
2/1/2002
1/23/2003
9121
LF/LUIP/LI
2
2/3/2002
1/24/2003
a
Experimental design was a split-plot within a randomized complete block.
b
Treatments were HF = moderate forage; LF = low forage; LUIP low undegradable
intake protein; HUIP = high undegradable intake protein; HI = high supplement intake;
LI = low supplement intake.
78
Table A.l4. (continued). The influence of forage quality, supplement type, and
supplement intake level on cow calving
interval.a
COW ID#
Treatmentb
Pen #
2002
Calving date
2003
Calving date
LF/LUIP/Ll
4
2/5/2002
2/25/2003
LF/LUIP/Ll
4
2/6/2002
2/7/2003
8122
LF/LUIP/Ll
4
2/7/2002
1/26/2003
6035
LF/LUIP/LI
6
2/12/2002
2/7/2003
6137
LF/LUIP/Ll
6
2/10/2002
1/26/2003
6216
LF/LUIP/Ll
6
2/14/2002
2/1/2003
9109
LF/LUIP/LI
6
2/11/2002
3/2/2003
Experimental design was a split-plot within a randomized complete block.
> Treatments were HF moderate forage; LF = low forage; LUIP = low undegradable
intake protein; HUIP = high undegradable intake protein; HI = high supplement intake;
LI = low supplement intake.
2061
5121