AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF
Jonathan D. Albro for the degree of Master of Science in
February 3, 1992
Animal Sciences presented on
Title:
EFFECT OF SOYBEAN PROTEIN SUPPLEMENTS WITH LOW
QUALITY ROUGHAGE ON PERFORMANCE AND DIGESTIVE
CHARACTERISTICS OF WEAIT BEEF STEERS
.
Abstract
approved:_Redacted
A
for Privacy
Two experiments were conducted to compare whole
soybeans (WSB), extruded soybeans (ESB), and soybean
meal+barley (SBM+BAR) as supplemental protein sources for
growing beef steers consuming low quality mature grass hay
(6.5% CP).
In Exp. 1, a 23 d digestion study, 4 ruminally
cannulated steers were assigned to the following treatments
in a 4 X 4 Latin square design.
1) Control, no supplement;
2) 1.5 kghd-Id-1 of WSB; 3) 1.36 kihd-1d-1 of ESB; 4) 1.48
kghd-Id-1 of 62%:38% SBM+BAR.
Apparent DMD was increased
by supplementation (P <.10), but NDF digestibility was not
changed.
No differences in digestibility were observed
among supplement treatments.
In situ rate and extent of
supplement CP disappearance did not differ among supplements
but extent of DM disappearance was greater for WSB than ESB
(P <.10).
In situ rate of forage NDF disappearance was
decreased by protein supplementation (P =.10).
In Exp. 2,
40 British X exotic weanling steer calves were stratified by
weight (average BW, 250 kg) and allotted randomly to two
replications of the 4 treatments above (8 pens, 5
animals/pen).
Forage DMI was not affected by treatment.
Average daily gain and feed efficiency were increased by
supplementation (P <.05).
Supplement source had no effect
on intake or ADG, but ESB tended to exhibit better feed
efficiency than WSB (P =.10). In conclusion, WSB and ESB
(full fat soybeans) appear to be as effective as soybean
meal protein supplements for growing beef cattle.
In
addition, full fat soybeans at the above levels can be
incorporated into diets for cattle consuming low quality
roughage without deleterious effects on fiber digestion or
subsequent performance.
(Key words:
Protein Supplements, Beef Cattle, Soybeans).
EFFECT OF SOYBEAN PROTEIN SUPPLEMENTS WITH LOW QUALITY
ROUGHAGE ON PERFORMANCE AND DIGESTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF
WEANED BEEF STEERS
by
Jonathan D. Albro
A THESIS
submitted to
Oregon State University
in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the
degree of
Master of Science
Completed February 3, 1992
Commencement June, 1992
APPROVED:
Redacted for Privacy
Associate Professor of Animal Sciences in charge of major
Redacted for Privacy
Hea'of Dkaydrg;;tZa?
sc6ces
Redacted for Privacy
Dean of G
duate'Ssloor
Date thesis is presented
Typed by
February 3, 1992
Jonathan D. Albro
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The most appreciation is expressed to my family.
The
never ending support and encouragement from my mother Janis
Albro, my sisters Laurie Albro and Lisa Albro Peterson, and
from my brother-in-law Kevin Peterson were the best tools
that I've had in graduate school.
The many family get
togethers were definitely worth the travel and expense.
A
great deal of gratitude is also expressed to my aunt,
Beverly Clark, who offered a place for me when I first
arrived in Corvallis and who has always had good advice
about graduate school.
To my major professor, Dr. Dale Weber.
Dale has been
an exceptionally good advisor and a good friend.
enjoyed working and teaching for him.
To Dr. Tim DelCurto,
who helped design experiments and analyze data.
certainly gone the extra mile for me.
I have
Tim has
A special thanks is
given to Drs. Cheeke, Hannaway, and Christensen for serving
on my committee and being interested in my progress.
I would like to thank all those people who work behind
the scene.
Thanks to Roger Miller and Farm Services for
grinding hay, supplying tools, and machinery.
Appreciation
is given to Marvin Martin for helping with research when I
wanted and to Deloras Martin for handling most of my
paperwork.
To Mark Keller in the nutrition lab, who was
often more excited about results than I was.
The College of
Veterinary Medicine deserves thanks, especially to Dr. Wayne
Schmotzer for performing cannulation surgery on 4 steers for
my study.
I would like to finally thank my fellow graduate
students.
The most gratitude is expressed to Tom Dill who
taught me how to play the graduate school game.
To Anne
Ayers who has been a very special friend, and who gave me
free haircuts.
To Marc Horney and Michelle Stamm, they
always gave me a good laugh.
Marc never turned me down and
Michelle always did more than was expected.
To Steve
Brandyberry for helping on weigh days and with rumen
evacuations, and to his wife, Kelly Brandyberry who helped a
great deal with lab work at Burns.
The list could certainly continue.
the Animal Sciences Department.
I thank everyone in
I have enjoyed very much
being a part of Oregon State University.
J.D.A.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
1
INTRODUCTION
THE ROLE OF SOYBEANS AS LIVESTOCK SUPPLEMENTS
CLASSIFICATION
FEEDING RAW SOYBEANS
FATS AND RUMEN FERMENTATION
FATS AND FIBER DIGESTION
PROTEIN SUPPLEMENTATION AND LOW QUALITY ROUGHAGE
PROTEIN SOLUBILITY AND FORAGE UTILIZATION
PROTEIN DEGRADABILITY OF SOYBEAN PRODUCTS
VOLATILE FATTY ACID PRODUCTION AND ABSORPTION
INDIVIDUAL VFA ABSORPTION AND METABOLISM
LIPID CONTAINING FEEDS AND VFA
PERFORMANCE STUDIES AND SOYBEAN SUPPLEMENTS
ECONOMICS
SUMMARY
1
2
4
.
.
6
9
13
.
.
.
.
.
COMPARISON OF WHOLE SOYBEANS, EXTRUDED SOYBEANS OR
SOYBEAN MEAL/BARLEY ON DIGESTIVE CHARACTERISTICS AND
PERFOMANCE OF WEANED BEEF STEERS CONSUMING MATURE GRASS
HAY
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
IMPLICATIONS
16
18
20
23
25
26
28
30
31
33
33
35
42
50
LITERATURE CITED
60
APPENDIX
67
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1.
Page
INFLUENCE OF SOYBEAN PROTEIN SOURCE ON RUMINAL
VALERATE CONCENTRATIONS (Exp 1)
51
INFLUENCE OF SOYBEAN PROTEIN SOURCE ON RUMINAL
AMMONIA CONCENTRATIONS (Exp. 1)
52
.
2.
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Page
CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF GROUND MATURE GRASS HAY AND
TREATMENT SUPPLEMENTS (Exp. 1)
53
INFLUENCE OF SUPPLEMENTAL WHOLE SOYBEANS (WSB),
EXTRUDED SOYBEANS (ESB), AND SOYBEAN MEAL+BARLEY
(SBM+BAR) ON DM INTAKE AND APPARENT DIGESTIBILITY
(Exp. 1)
54
INFLUENCE OF SUPPLEMENTAL WHOLE SOYBEANS (WSB),
EXTRUDED SOYBEANS (ESB), AND SOYBEAN MEAL+BARLEY
(SBM+BAR) ON RUMINAL KINETICS (Exp. 1)
55
INFLUENCE OF SUPPLEMENTAL WHOLE SOYBEANS (WSB),
EXTRUDED SOYBEANS (ESB), AND SOYBEAN MEAL+BARLEY
(SBM+BAR) ON RUMEN pH AND VFA CONCENTRATION
(Exp. 1)
56
IN SITU DEGRADATION OF TREATMENT SUPPLEMENTS AND
INFLUENCE OF SUPPLEMENT SOURCE ON DEGRADATION OF
GROUND MATURE GRASS HAY (Exp. 1)
57
INFLUENCE OF WHOLE SOYBEANS (WSB), EXTRUDED
SOYBEANS (ESB), AND SOYBEAN MEAL+BARLEY (SBM+BAR)
ON DM INTAKE AND PERFORMANCE OF WEANED BEEF STEERS
(Exp. 2)
7.
CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF FEEDSTUFFS (Exp. 2)
58
.
.
.
.
59
LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES
Table
A.1
A.2
A.3
A.4
Page
INFLUENCE OF SUPPLEMENTAL SOYBEAN SOURCE ON INTAKE
AND DIGESTIBILITY (Exp. 1)
67
INFLUENCE OF SUPPLEMENTAL SOYBEAN SOURCE ON
RUMINAL KINETICS (Exp. 1)
68
INFLUENCE OF SUPPLEMENTAL SOYBEAN SOURCE ON
RUMINAL VFA CONCENTRATIONS (Exp. 1)
69
INFLUENCE OF SUPPLEMENTAL SOYBEAN SOURCE ON
RUMINAL pH AND AMMONIA CONCENTRATION (Exp. 1)
.
.
.
71
.
.
.
73
A.5
IN SITU DEGRADATION OF SUPPLEMENTS (Exp. 1)
A.6
INFLUENCE OF SUPPLEMENTAL SOYBEAN SOURCE ON IN SITU
DEGRADATION OF FORAGE SOURCE (Exp. 1)
75
INFLUENCE OF SUPPLEMENTAL SOYBEAN SOURCE ON FEED
INTAKE (Exp. 2)
79
INFLUENCE OF SUPPLEMENTAL SOYBEAN SOURCE ON
PERFORMANCE (Exp. 2)
83
FEED COST AND COST/UNIT OF GAIN (Exp. 2)
91
A.7
A.8
A.9
.
EFFECT OF SOYBEAN PROTEIN SUPPLEMENTS WITH LOW QUALITY
ROUGHAGE ON PERFORMANCE AND DIGESTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF
WEANED BEEF STEERS
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
INTRODUCTION
Nutritional supplementation of beef cattle has been
explored throughout this century.
Early studies in the
1920's and 1930's reported animal performance by simply
comparing different feed sources available to researchers
and producers at the time.
Studies dealt with animal
performance and nutrition, but they were not focused on any
certain aspect such as protein or energy supplementation.
In the last 30 years protein supplementation of beef
cattle has been investigated more closely; and it has been
shown to increase overall performance in beef cattle
(Clanton and Zimmerman, 1970).
Protein supplementation has
increased reproductive efficiency (Clanton, 1982), live
weight. gain, and milk yield in lactating cows (Lee et al.,
1985).
Beef cow body condition and weight losses during
winter have been minimized due to protein supplementation
(DelCurto et al., 1990b).
The evidence for improved
performance due to protein supplementation is well
documented by the above researchers and numerous others.
2
THE ROLE OF SOYBEANS AS LIVESTOCK SUPPLEMENTS
Soybeans are a very versatile food source for both
humans and livestock.
For livestock, soybeans are a very
popular protein supplement because of a favorable amino acid
balance, especially that of lysine which is often the first
limiting amino acid in many livestock feedstuffs.
in the U.S
Soybeans
are normally in adequate supply and are usually
economical to feed.
Soybeans have the potential for
providing both energy and protein to ruminants (Illg and
Stern, 1990).
Proximate chemical composition of soybeans varies due
to variety and growing conditions; but average figures
report that soybeans contain 40% protein, 20% lipid, 35%
carbohydrate, and 5% ash on a dry matter basis (Snyder and
Kwon, 1987).
The lipid fraction of soybeans is primarily
composed of unsaturated fatty acids.
The following table
lists the amino acid and fatty acid content of soybeans.
3
Amino Acidsa
% of DM
Full fat
soybeans
Soybean
meal
Fatty Acidsb
Isoleucine
1.77
2.27
Myristic C14
1
Leucine
3.11
4.01
Palmitic C16
11
Lysine
2.51
3.16
Stearic C18
4
Methionine
0.58
0.72
Oleic C18:1
25
Phenylalanine
2.07
2.42
Linoleic C18:2
51
Threonine
1.61
1.99
Linolenic C18:3
Tryptophan
0.60
0.68
Valine
1.98
2.40
Histidine
1.09
1.43
aIllg and Stern (1990)
bSonntag (1979)
% of
Lipids
9
4
CLASSIFICATION
Soybean protein is available in several forms.
The
terminology that is used to classify different soybean
feedstuffs can be somewhat confusing.
Raw soybeans are
mature soybeans that have been harvested with no further
processing following the threshing.
Raw soybeans may be
whole, cracked, or ground and should be referred to as such.
Extruded soybeans are soybeans that have been processed
through a mechanical extruder.
The extruder is a screw
device that rotates within a barrel to cause friction and
high temperatures for a short period of time.
The heated
material is then forced through a restricted opening at the
end of the barrel (Snyder and Kwon, 1987).
Heat caused by
the extrusion process is intense enough to destroy trypsin
inhibitors and urease (Cheeke and Shull, 1985).
Extruded
soybeans are still considered full fat soybeans since little
oil is lost during processing.
Soybean meal is simply what is left of the soybean
after the oil has been extracted, either mechanically or
chemically.
Mechanical extraction is performed by an
expeller or screw press.
Expellers subject the soybeans to
high pressure which forces out the oil.
Expellers are
commonly used in small extraction plants throughout the
world that are capable of handling a variety of oil-bearing
seed crops (Snyder and Kwon, 1987).
On a larger scale,
solvent extraction is most commonly used.
Many different
5
solvents are adequate if they are non-toxic and if they do
not react with any soybean components.
Today, hexane is the
most commonly used solvent for extracting oil from soybean.
Soybean meal is the major protein supplement used for swine
and poultry diets in the U.S. (Cheeke and Shull, 1985), and
it is also a traditional component of many winter range
supplements for beef cattle (Hibberd and Martin, 1990).
6
FEEDING RAW SOYBEANS
Feeding raw soybeans has not been a very common
practice in the beef cattle and swine industries; however
the dairy industry feeds a significant amount.
Increased
potential in milk production has required an increased
energy content of dairy rations. Supplemental lipid for
dairy cattle increases the energy density of the diet,
allowing animals to consume required energy without
consuming excessive amounts of fermentable carbohydrates
(Illg and Stern, 1990).
Historically this energy
requirement has been met with high amounts of cereal grains.
The negative effects of excess starch feeding such as
acidosis and grain bloat, along with an increased
availability of feed-grade fats has led to an interest in
the use of fat sources to increase the energy content in
rations.
Soybeans, however are not recommended as an energy
supplement alone because excessive intake may cause ammonia
toxicity (McCormick et al., 1983).
In some areas of the U.S., producers have considered
using whole soybeans in livestock diets as an alternative
source for protein (Erickson and Barton, 1987).
The use of
whole soybeans in cattle diets may be one way to reduce
protein cost, salvage weather damaged soybeans and/or obtain
a greater return on the soybean crop (Mader, 1988).
Whole
soybeans in cattle diets have also shown gains comparable to
those fed soybean meal, cottonseed meal and linseed meal,
7
(Morrison 1956; Edwards et al., 1969).
Raw soybeans have not been popular in nonruminant
rations because of the presence of trypsin enzyme
inhibitors.
Trypsin inhibitors in soybeans bind to the
digestive enzyme trypsin and render it inactive (Snyder and
Kwon, 1987).
Deleterious effects of trypsin inhibitors
include decreased growth rates, poor protein digestion,
pancreatic hypertrophy, and sulfur amino acid deficiencies
(Liener and Kakade, 1980).
Most of these effects occur in
poultry or other nonruminants and the greatest effects are
observed in young animals.
Older animals seem to be less
susceptible to trypsin inhibitors.
Raw soybeans have been
fed with success to gestating swine as a protein supplement
resulting in similar pig survival rates compared with sows
fed soybean meal (Crenshaw and Danielson, 1985).
The effects of soybean trypsin inhibitors on ruminants
are not fully understood.
It has been shown that bovine
trypsin can be inactivated by trypsin inhibitors (Liener and
Kakade, 1980), but the feeding of raw soybean products has
not produced deleterious effects in mature ruminants.
Apparently, trypsin inhibitors are destroyed by rumen
fermentation.
Van Dijk et al. (1983) compared extruded
soybeans with raw soybeans by feeding them to early
lactating dairy cattle.
No advantage to feeding extruded
soybeans over raw soybeans was found.
In young ruminants
such as dairy calves, soybean meal has been the major source
8
of protein in starter rations.
Only limited amounts of raw
soybeans have been fed because of fear of its decreased
utilization.
Abdelgadir et al. (1984) reported that starter
dairy calves had poorer growth performance on raw soybeans
than on heated soybeans.
Other studies with young pre-
ruminant calves have not linked poor growth performance to
trypsin inhibitors in raw soybeans alone (Kakade et al.,
1976).
9
FATS AND RUMEN FERMENTATION
Other factors that are involved in feeding full fat
soybeans, either raw or extruded soybeans, are the negative
effects that the lipid content of soybeans can have on
performance and digestive characteristics of ruminants.
Fat may be added at levels of 3 to 4% in finishing
diets for cattle to control dust, hold the feed together,
increase the caloric density, or to protect protein from
ruminal degradation.
Levels of fat in ruminant diets above
5% have generally decreased animal performance.
High levels
of fat in the rumen can interfere with rumen microbial
function.
In a review by Shirley (1986), addition of fat in
ruminant diets has produced conflicting effects ranging from
improved ether extract digestibility to depressed
digestibility of nutrients other than fat.
In some studies,
addition of fats to diets of finishing cattle gave increased
gain; however, a number of investigators found that fat
additions to diets resulted in no improvement in gains and
others actually observed a depression in weight gains
(Shirley, 1986).
Rumen microbes can modify dietary lipids very quickly
and extensively as the lipids pass through the rumen (Byers
and Schelling, 1988).
Most fatty acids in conventional
diets are found in the esterified form which is generally
unavailable.
Rumen microbes act to hydrolyze these
esterified forms to free fatty acids and glycerol.
This
10
hydrolysis is known as lipolysis and is performed mainly by
rumen lipolytic bacteria.
Protozoa have little if any
lipolytic activity (Palmquist and Jenkins, 1980).
Hydrolysis can be affected in several ways.
First, it is a
rate limiting process, in other words, only a certain amount
of fatty acid can be hydrolyzed at once.
This may serve to
prevent the buildup of excessive amounts of free
polyunsaturated fatty acids which may interfere with fiber
digestion or inhibit biohydrogenation (Byers and Schelling,
1988).
Lipids found in plant seeds such as soybean seeds
are mainly in the form of triglycerides.
Microbes can
hydrolyze glyceride lipids and hydrogenate unsaturated fatty
acids when limited levels of fat are present in diets.
High
levels may delay the action of microbes (Shirley, 1986).
Two major properties of fat may influence their effect
on digestion in the rumen:
esterification.
These are unsaturation and
Unsaturated fats (usually of plant origin)
are more toxic to rumen microbes than are saturated fats
(usually of animal origin) (Henderson, 1973).
Soybean lipid
is predominantly composed of the polyunsaturated fatty acids
linoleic and oleic acids.
Plant oils are hydrolyzed much
more extensively in the rumen than are animal oils.
One
reason for this may be because some plant oils may already
be in the free form (unesterified) before they are fed.
Hydrolysis of plant oils in oil seeds can be extensive
during storage and most C1 -C6 fatty acids (volatile fatty
11
acids) are usually present in the free form (Byers and
Schelling, 1988).
Biohydrogenation is the next step following hydrolysis
in rumen fatty acid metabolism.
Hydrolysis is required
first and fatty acids that escape hydrolysis usually escape
biohydrogenation and subsequent rumen fermentation
(Palmquist and Jenkins, 1980).
Biohydrogenation is
basically a multistep process which incorporates the
addition of hydrogen (H) to fatty acids with double bonds
(unsaturated fatty acids).
The double bonds are converted
to single bonds forming saturated fatty acids.
The
saturation is not always complete and a variety of fatty
acids, both fully and non-fully saturated do result (Byers
and Schelling, 1988).
The process of biohydrogenation is
facilitated mainly by rumen bacteria.
Protozoa are also
fairly active but not as important as bacteria (Moore and
Christie, 1984).
Other researchers, however have reported
that protozoa are very important in biohydrogenation.
Byers
and Schelling (1988) reported that biohydrogenation is less
complete with low protozoa numbers on high grain diets than
with diets containing less grain.
This may be because
hydrolysis is also lower on high grain diets and if
hydrolysis is lower, then biohydrogenation will also be
lower.
The most common of the saturated fatty acids formed by
biohydrogenation is stearic acid (Palmquist and Jenkins,
12
1980).
Perry and Macleod (1968) observed that feeding
unsaturated fatty acids resulted in little deposition of
linoleic acid (predominant fatty acid in soybeans) in milk
fat, but that stearic and oleic acids increased.
This
indicates the efficiency of biohydrogenation of linoleic
acid by rumen microbes.
Biohydrogenation of unsaturated
fatty acids is one way that microbes can dispose of excess H
ions from the reducing environment of the rumen (Byers and
Schelling, 1988).
This could be why some studies involved
in feeding lipids have reported an increase in ruminal pH
(Larson and Shultz, 1970).
To summarize fatty acid metabolism in the rumen:
Through the process of lipolysis and biohydrogenation, a
high proportion of polyunsaturated fatty acids in the diet
are converted to a range of saturated fatty acids (Noble,
1984).
These fatty acids are then passed on to the omasum,
abomasum, and small intestine where further metabolism and
absorption occur.
13
FATS AND FIBER DIGESTION
The addition of fat in ruminant diets has been shown to
decrease fiber digestibility by numerous researchers.
Davendra and Lewis (1974) summarized 4 theories to explain
this effect.
1.)
Fat may physically coat fiber particles
in the rumen, causing a barrier to microbial attachment.
This could be beneficial from a protein standpoint.
Research has shown that lipid coating of protein supplements
such as oil coating soybean meal is an effective method for
reducing ruminal protein degradation (Glenn et al., 1977;
Davenport et al., 1987);
2.)
Rumen microbial populations
may be modified because of toxic effects that certain fats
have on certain microorganisms; 3.)
Inhibition of microbial
activity from surface active effects of fatty acids on cell
membranes; 4.)
Reduced cation availability (for cation
exchange) from formation of insoluble complexes with long
chain fatty acids.
The last effect could be caused by the
amount of minerals in the diet which may directly affect
cations available for microbial function or indirectly by
affecting rumen pH (Palmquist and Jenkins, 1980).
Most
research supports the theories of fat having a negative
effect on microbial activity (Henderson, 1973; Palmquist and
Jenkins, 1980).
The depression in digestibility from feeding fat has
been shown to be reversed by numerous researchers by the
addition of metal cations, especially that of calcium.
14
Divalent cations such as calcium (Ca") react with fatty
acids to cause the formation of insoluble soaps that do not
reduce ruminal digestibility of fiber (Palmquist and
Jenkins, 1982).
Other alkaline metal minerals capable of
forming these soaps are the divalent forms of barium and
magnesium (Ba" and Mg") (Palmquist and Jenkins, 1980).
Preformed calcium soaps have also been the form of fat added
to diets to increase energy content of rations (Jenkins and
Palmquist, 1984).
The formation of insoluble soaps remove
fatty acids from solution so they are no longer available to
bind with rumen microbes.
These soaps eventually escape
rumen fermentation and are passed to the lower gut where
they are broken down and absorbed.
One could think of these
soaps as a way to protect fats to increase their escape of
rumen fermentation.
Several factors may limit the formation
of soaps in the rumen when fat and minerals are fed
separately.
Two of these include type and amount of mineral
fed and rumen pH (Jenkins and Palmquist, 1982).
Fats can have positive effects on rumen function just
by reducing the level of readily available carbohydrate
needed for energy (Byers and Schelling, 1988).
Supplementing with readily available carbohydrate sources
such as corn or other cereal grains has been shown to
decrease forage intake and digestibility (Sanson and
Clanton, 1989).
The levels and types of fats fed, along
with mineral balance are very important in determining the
15
extent to which fat will impact fiber digestion.
16
PROTEIN SUPPLEMENTATION AND LOW QUALITY ROUGHAGE
Protein supplementation of low quality roughage
increases forage intake and utilization (DelCurto et al.,
1990a).
Increasing forage dry matter intake will result in
a greater substrate flow to the rumen, which in turn may
enhance microbial growth.
As the forage dry matter
component in the diet increases, saliva production increases
and many rumen characteristics improve such as maintained
rumen pH and improved microbial attachment to feed particles
(Sniffen and Robinson, 1987).
If the microbial population
is active, this leads to improved rumen fermentation and
decreases retention time of the forage.
Some protein supplementation studies have not found
differences in performance or forage intake and utilization.
Weston and Hogan (1968), reported that supplemental protein
did not increase intake of mature ryegrass hay in sheep but
that grinding and pelleting the hay did.
These researchers
concluded that intake was simply limited by a slow passage
rate of hay out of the rumen.
Palatability may have been a
contributing factor in this type of study as well (Grovum,
1988).
Other researchers that have failed to show a
response to protein supplementation have concluded that
protein must not have been a limiting factor in the diet
(Rittenhouse et al., 1970; Kartchner, 1980).
Reduced intake of forage is often associated with diets
of a crude protein content below 8%.
The low protein diets
17
starve rumen microbes of nitrogen (N) which will decrease
microbial health and activity.
This reduction in microbial
activity may lead to a decrease in forage digestibility
which subsequently may lead to lower forage intake (Van
Soest, 1982).
Rumen microbial populations require N as
ammonia (NH3), peptides, and amino acids for the synthesis
of amino acids and microbial protein.
Optimum microbial
growth requires NH3-N levels of 2 to 5 mg /dl of rumen fluid
(Satter and Slyter, 1974).
Normally ruminants receive 40 to
80% of their daily protein requirements from microbial
protein (Sniffen and Robinson, 1987).
Protein
supplementation of low quality forage diets elevates ruminal
NH3-N
to provide bacteria with an optimal environment for
growth (Gunter et al., 1990).
It has also been shown, that
the efficiency of microbial protein production is low
regardless of the N source supplied when low quality forage
contributes over 90% of the diet (Peterson et al., 1985).
18
PROTEIN SOLUBILITY AND FORAGE UTILIZATION
The types of proteins used for supplements can have an
influence on fiber fermentation and microbial activity.
Proteins low in soluble N content are less degradable in the
rumen and by-pass
the rumen in greater quantities than
proteins of high soluble N content (Chalupa, 1975).
Protein
low in degradibility may inhibit microbial growth because N
would not be available in the rumen.
protein can also be detrimental.
Too much degradable
If there is excess
degradable protein for the carbohydrate available, then
microbes will waste protein by producing excess NH3 that is
absorbed into the bloodstream. (Sniffen and Robinson, 1987).
This may be why urea is best utilized with high carbohydrate
feeds such as grains (Johnson, 1976).
By-pass protein values reported for many feeds have
been shown to be inconsistent (Zinn and Owens, 1983).
By-
pass values for soybean meal alone have ranged from 17 to
61%.
The variation may be accounted for by the fact that
by-pass values of protein supplements are lower when fed
with high roughage diets than with high concentrate diets.
High roughage diets will have slower digestion and greater
retention times which may allow microbes to degrade more
protein over a longer period.
With this in mind one could
conclude that a higher degradable protein would provide more
N for rumen microbes which would subsequently increase
19
forage intake and fiber digestion.
On the contrary to this
theory, McAllan and Griffith (1987) supplemented steers on
low quality roughage with fish meal, soybean meal, and ureacasein.
The researchers found that rumen digestibility of
the forage was highest when supplemented with a low
degradable protein such as the fish meal.
DelCurto et al.
(1990c), compared a soybean-sorghum supplement with alfalfa
hay and alfalfa dehydrated pellets.
It was found that in
situ protein degradability was lower in the dehydrated
pellets and that steers supplemented with the pellets had
greater basal forage intakes than steers receiving the other
supplements.
20
PROTEIN DEGRADABILITY OF SOYBEAN PRODUCTS
Ruminal protein degradation of soybean products is
extensive.
A review by Illg and Stern (1990) reports that
in situ protein degradability of raw soybeans (if ground)
may be as high as 90% with a disappearance rate of 20%/h.
Many processing methods have been used to decrease the
protein degradability.
Roasting soybeans has reduced crude
protein degradation to near 80%, or to a rate of 14%/h which
is similar to soybean meal.
Stern et al.
(1985) compared in
situ degradation of ground raw soybeans, soybean meal and
whole soybeans that had been extruded at temperatures of
132° or 149° C.
It was found in this study that ground raw
soybeans were more degradable than processed soybeans.
The
soybean meal and extruded soybean products revealed a
similar amount of N disappearance at 1 h of ruminal
digestion but as time of exposure increased to 24 h, the
extruded soybeans were more resistant to degradation.
Extent of protein degradation over 24 hrs was greater than
95% for soybean meal and ground raw soybeans, while the
extruded soybean treatments were at 60 and 77% respectively
for extrusion at 132° and 149° C.
As mentioned earlier,
extruded soybeans are heated during processing and this heat
causes considerable denaturation of protein and mallaird
product formation which lowers protein degradability.
As shown above, the processing method can greatly
21
affect crude protein degradability.
The raw soybeans in the
research above were ground for in situ analysis and this
will increase crude protein degradation by allowing more
surface area for microbial attachment.
Estimating crude
protein disappearance of whole oil seeds by in situ or in
vitro methods may be misleading because of normal procedures
used to prepare samples (such as grinding).
Feeding the
whole (unground) seeds may slow the release of nutrients
during rumen fermentation (Earleywine, 1989).
When the
whole seeds are ground for analysis, this factor is removed.
Earleywine (1989) suggests that the best analysis may be to
estimate a normal level of mastication and process seeds
used for analysis accordingly.
When ground raw soybeans are fed in performance
studies, poorer performance usually occurs when compared to
whole soybeans (Davenport et al., 1987; Mader, 1988).
These
results may be due to the reduced impact of the oil on rumen
fermentation due to its slower release from the whole seed
(Earleywine, 1989).
Protein release in whole soybeans may
also be slower resulting in a lower degradability and an
increase by-pass of the protein (Mader, 1990, personal
communication).
Ruminal NH3 levels may be another method used for
estimating ruminal degradability of protein (Mielke and
Schingoethe, 1981).
Ruminal NH3 concentrations in lambs fed
whole soybeans were lower than for lambs fed soybean meal
22
(Erickson and Barton, 1987).
Davis and Stallcup (1967),
reported lower ruminal NH3 levels in steers fed whole
soybeans than in steers fed soybean meal which also suggests
a lower protein degradibility in whole soybeans.
Extruded
soybeans have also been shown to have less degradable
protein by the use of NH3 assays (Cleale et al., 1985).
Davenport et al.
(1987) compared low and high levels of
ground raw soybeans and soybean meal supplements with corn
silage to growing calves.
among both treatments.
Ruminal NH3 levels were similar
This suggests that grinding raw
soybeans will make them equally degradable in crude protein
to soybean meal.
It also suggests that the lipid component
of the ground raw soybeans did not protect the protein from
ruminal degradation.
It was also found in a second trial,
that the in situ rate and extent on N disappearance was
highest for the ground raw soybean treatment.
In the same
trial, coating soybean meal with soybean oil did reduce NH3
levels but only for 3 h of incubation.
Since soybean products contain a high proportion of
degradable protein, it has been suggested that processing
methods to reduce degradibility be implemented (Stern et
al., 1985); or the inclusion of a relatively undegradable
protein source to improve overall protein quality (Davenport
et al., 1990).
Both of these practices have been shown to
improve overall performance in ruminant production schemes.
23
VOLATILE FATTY ACID
PRODUCTION AND ABSORPTION
With high forage diets, volatile fatty acids (VFA)
provide 50 to 85% of the metabolizable energy used by
ruminants (Owens and Goetsch, 1988).
High roughage diets
contain a high amount of cellulose, moderate amounts of
soluble sugars which depends on the quality, and a low
amount of starch.
With these types of diets cellulolytic
and saccharolytic bacteria are the most active bacteria in
the rumen.
Protozoa also thrive on high roughage diets.
With a high roughage diet, acetate production is high.
On
higher concentrate diets, amylolytic bacteria thrive and the
production of propionate and lactate increases.
VFA are produced by specific microbial pathways and are
absorbed continuously from the rumen (Owens and Goetsch,
1988).
Most VFA are absorbed across the ruminal wall.
Active transport is not involved, thus concentration
gradients between ruminal epithelial cells, ruminal
contents, and blood seem to dictate absorption.
Some VFA do
leave the rumen with digesta flowing to the lower gastrointestinal tract and are absorbed in the omasum (Merchen,
1988) .
The rate of VFA absorption is influenced mainly by pH
which is affected by the amount of free or undissociated VFA
in the rumen, so concentration does indirectly affect
absorption (Merchen, 1988).
Absorption of VFA will
24
stabilize rumen pH.
Ruminal papillae enlarge at a lower pH
so as pH drops, VFA absorption may increase, however
papillae surface area may be reduced.
its maximum at pH 5.5.
Papillae size is at
pH levels lower than 5.5 usually
indicate acidosis problems and papillae will be sloughed
from the rumen wall causing acids to build up even more
(Owens and Goetsch, 1988).
With roughage diets, slow breakdown of fiber sets the
pace for rumen fermentation and controls the release of
easily degraded cell contents such as sugars and starches.
If starches are added to roughage diets in moderation, the
high fiber content causes a barrier to the rapid breakdown
of starches so that the rate of VFA production and pH is
lower.
Under these conditions ruminal pH will remain at
physiological levels (6 to 7) and most microbes thrive at
this level (Owens and Goetsch, 1988).
VFA concentrations are normally stable in molar ratios
even though microbial populations and intake patterns
change.
With high roughage diets the ratios of
acetate:propionate:butyrate are usually near 65:25:10.
Changes from these ratios in roughage diets can be fast and
unpredictable (Owens and Goetsch, 1988).
25
INDIVIDUAL VFA ABSORPTION AND METABOLISM
ACETATE:
Most acetate absorbed is in the blood and is
carried to the liver and converted to acetyl-CoA.
Acetate
in this form is oxidized in the Tricarboxylic acid (TCA)
cycle or used for fatty acid synthesis.
Acetate is the main
precursor for fat synthesis in ruminant tissues because
glucose can supply only limited quantities of acetyl-CoA for
fatty acid synthesis (Fahey and Berger, 1988).
PROPIONATE:
epithelium.
Propionate is absorbed through the ruminal
Two to five percent of propionate is converted
to lactic acid and the rest reaches the liver where it is
either oxidized to propionyl-CoA or converted to glucose.
Propionyl-CoA is eventually converted to succinyl-CoA so it
can enter the TCA cycle (Fahey and Berger, 1988)
BUTYRATE:
Butyrate is converted mostly to ketones
during absorption through the ruminal epithelium.
B-
hydroxybutyric acid (B-HBA) accounts for more than 80% of
the ketones formed.
B-hydroxybutyric acid is oxidized in
cardiac and skeletal muscle, and is used for fatty acid
synthesis in adipose and mammary gland tissue (Fahey and
Berger, 1988).
26
LIPID CONTAINING FEEDS AND VFA
Lipid containing feeds fed to ruminants have been shown
to change the proportions of VFA produced in the rumen (Shaw
and Ensor, 1959).
The researchers reported that feeding cod
liver oil, oleic acid, and linoleic acid when given orally
to dairy cows on normal diets decreased the ratio of acetic
to propionic acid in the rumen.
Total VFA was also
increased with linoleic acid, the predominant fatty acid in
soybeans, having the greatest affect.
Brown et al. (1962)
observed that changes in VFA production by adding fat to the
diet were more noted on low roughage than high roughage
diets.
They also found an increase in valeric
concentrations when fat was added.
Proportions of valeric
and isovaleric acids have also been increased by feeding
soybean meal coated with soybean oil when compared to whole
soybeans and soybean meal alone (Larson and Shultz, 1970).
Perry and Macleod (1968) reported that feeding ground raw
soybeans in diets with a forage to concentrate ratio of 1:1
or higher did not affect the proportions of VFA production.
What was noted was a lower pH with the soybean diet for up
to 6 hrs post feeding which suggested an increased VFA
production and/or slower absorption.
and Macleod's work,
In contrast to Perry
Davis and Stallcup (1967) found that
total VFA production was lower with raw soybeans when
compared to soybean meal and corn gluten meal.
This
accounted for a higher rumen pH on the raw soybean
27
treatment.
It was concluded in this study that since acid
production has an effect on pH, pH would be expected to
remain higher on the raw soybean treatment.
Other researchers have not found a difference in VFA
production due to feeding full fat soybean sources compared
to non lipid protein sources (Palmquist and Conrad, 1971;
Stern et al., 1985; Keele et al., 1989).
However, Keele et
al. (1989) did report an increase in molar proportion of
propionic acid and a decreasing proportion of butyric acid
when whole cottonseeds were fed in comparison to extruded
soybeans.
They concluded that the increased intake of long
chain fatty acids in the cottonseed meal could have caused
rumen protozoa to decrease.
Annexstad et al.
This agrees to some extent with
(1987) who actually found an increase in
butyrate proportions when extruded soybeans were fed at high
levels in dairy concentrate rations.
28
PERFORMANCE STUDIES AND SOYBEAN SUPPLEMENTS
Numerous studies have reported different results on
performance when full fat soybeans are utilized in rations.
Many conditions may dictate whether or not these supplements
are to be used.
The most common rations that have utilized
full fat soybeans have been dairy and feedlot rations.
The
overall consensus among researchers has been that raw
soybeans or full fat soybeans are good protein supplement
alternatives if economic conditions allow (McCormick et al.,
1983; Van Dijk et al., 1983; Erickson and Barton, 1987;
Mader, 1988).
Mader (1988) compared soybean meal, rolled raw
soybeans, and whole raw soybeans as supplements to growing
steers consuming corn silage.
The raw soybean treatments
were fed at 2 levels, 10 and 20% of the diet.
Dry matter
intakes and average daily gains were lower for steers
consuming the raw soybean treatments, however, feed
efficiency tended to be improved.
Mader concluded that the
fat content of soybeans was responsible for the depressed
intake but the depression of intake did not differ whether
the soybeans were fed at 10 or 20% of the diet.
raw soybeans did not improve animal performance.
Rolling the
Steers fed
the whole soybeans gained faster and more efficiently
suggesting a more efficient utilization of protein in the
whole soybeans.
McCormick et al. (1983) conducted several trials
29
comparing rolled whole soybeans against soybean meal in
silage based rations to growing calves.
Calf performance
was not different in this trial, but in a second trial,
roasting whole soybeans did improve calf gains by 14% over
cottonseed meal controls.
The researchers concluded that
rolled raw soybeans may be substituted for conventional
protein supplements on an equal protein basis.
Conflicting reports exist on the effects of full fat
soybeans on DMI and performance.
Studies comparing extruded
soybeans to raw soybeans have mainly shown no differences in
DMI (Block et al., 1981; Van Dijk et al., 1983; Stern et
al., 1985).
When raw soybeans have been compared to soybean
meal, differences in intake have been reported (Palmquist
and Conrad, 1971; Erickson and Barton, 1987), and have not
been reported (Perry and Macleod, 1968; Stern et al., 1985).
Negative impacts on performance and intake due to feeding
full fat soybeans have in large been blamed on the lipid
component of full fat soybeans (Erickson and Barton, 1987).
Many of the studies reported above involved feeding high
levels of soybeans in rations high in concentrates such as
dairy or feedlot rations.
Factors affecting intake may have
possibly been due to excess starch in the diets and not fat.
30
ECONOMICS
The equation below can be used to determine when whole
soybeans may be economical to feed in substitution of
soybean meal on an equal protein basis:
X = soybean meal cost/ton
38.58
X = market price of soybeans
source: McCormick et al. (1983).
This equation is derived by using 44% soybean meal.
McCormick et al.
(1983) state that 114 pounds of whole
soybeans are needed to equal the amount of protein in 100
lbs of soybean meal containing 44% crude protein.
The
numerical value of 38.58 is derived by dividing 44 by 114
and then multiplying by 100.
This value is also the
approximate percentage of crude protein in whole soybeans.
When the market price of whole soybeans (bushel price) falls
below the figure derived by the above equation, whole
soybeans may be economical to feed.
This equation needs to
be manipulated when protein values of soybean meal and whole
soybeans vary from the above values.
31
SUMMARY
The incorporation of supplemental protein into ruminant
diets composed of low quality roughage is important in
improving the utilization of the forage component.
Soybeans
are considered a high quality protein source, however,
soybean protein is highly degradable in the rumen.
Feeding
soybeans whole, or as extruded soybeans will decrease CP
degradation compared to feeding ground soybeans or soybean
meal.
Soybeans contain approximately 20% lipid and should be
fed at a level that will not allow the entire diet to exceed
5% lipid.
The highly unsaturated fatty acid composition of
soybean lipid may interfere with ruminal microbial activity
subsequently interfering with digestion, especially that of
cellulose.
Performance studies with beef cattle report that whole
soybeans can be fed as protein supplements in moderate
levels, exhibiting similar animal performance as soybean
meal or other traditional protein supplements.
The decisive
factor in determining what to feed should be cost and
availability of supplements.
Feeding full fat soybeans has been shown to be adequate
for cattle consuming moderate to high quality roughage.
Since lower quality roughages are abundant, they exhibit a
strong potential as inexpensive feed sources.
The main
question that arises is whether or not full fat soybeans can
32
be incorporated into low quality roughage diets for cattle
without exhibiting deleterious effects on performance.
33
COMPARISON OF WHOLE SOYBEANS, EXTRUDED SOYBEANS OR SOYBEAN
MEAL/BARLEY ON DIGESTIVE CHARACTERISTICS AND PERFORMANCE OF
WEANED BEEF STEERS CONSUMING MATURE GRASS HAY.
INTRODUCTION
Whole soybeans (WSB) have been considered by many
producers in the U.S., as an alternative source of
supplemental protein.
The use of WSB in substitution of
soybean meal supplements for growing cattle has been shown
to provide similar gains (Edwards et al., 1969), and can be
economical (McCormick et al., 1983; Mader, 1988).
Depression in DMI has often been associated with feeding
full fat soybeans to ruminants in comparison to soybean meal
(Palmquist and Conrad 1971; Erickson and Barton 1987).
Most
research in feeding full fat soybeans to ruminants has been
conducted using high quality feeds, such as feedlot and
dairy diets.
Research involving the use of full fat soybeans with
low quality roughage diets is lacking.
Low quality
roughage, such as crop residues, are abundant and can
provide an economical source of feed if strategies to
effectively utilize them are implemented.
It is well
documented by previous research that protein supplementation
will increase the intake and utilization of low quality
roughage (McAllan and Griffith 1987; Sniffen and Robinson
1987; DelCurto et al., 1990a).
The purpose of the present
study, therefore was to compare the effects of three
34
different soybean supplements on the intake, utilization,
and performance of beef steers fed with a low quality grass
hay.
35
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Exp. 1:
Digestion study.
Four ruminally cannulated steers
(average wt 255 kg) were assigned to the following four
treatments in a 4X4 Latin Square design:
1) Control, no
supplement; 2) 1.5 kg of whole soybeans (WSB); 3) 1.36 kg of
extruded soybeans (ESB); and 4) 1.48 kg of a 62% soybean
meal 38% rolled barley mixture (SBM+BAR).
The formulation
of the rations were isonitrogenous, supplying approximately
.43 kganimalld4.
Ground mature native cool season grass
hay produced in the Willamette Valley of Western Oregon
(Table 1) supplied the basal forage component.
Steers were
individually housed in 3mX6mpens and had access to
water and a two to one mixture of trace mineralized salt'
and dicalcium phosphate.
Each period of the Latin square consisted of a 14 d
adaptation period followed by a 7 d intake and fecal
collection period.
On days 15 through 21 at 0800, hay orts
were weighed and sampled at 10% of the weight.
Supplement
was offered in separate feed bunks at this same time.
After
sampling orts, ground hay was offered at 120% of the
previous day's as-fed forage intake.
Samples of 100 g each
of hay and supplements were taken daily.
On d 14 at 1500,
fecal collection bags were placed on the steers.
On days 15
'The trace mineralized salt consisted of not less than
95% salt, .35% Zn, .3% Mn, .23% Fe, .023% Cu, .012% I, .006%
Co, and .009% Se.
36
through 21 at 1500, total fecal collections were weighed and
sampled at 2.5% of the daily fecal output.
Ort, feed, and fecal samples were dried at 50° C for 72
h in a forced air drying oven for DM determination.
All the
above samples were composited by period, ground to pass a 1
mm screen and analyzed for DM and ash by standard procedures
(AOAC, 1984).
Feed and ort samples were analyzed for CP by
the Macro Kjeldahl method (AOAC, 1984).
Acid detergent
fiber and NDF were analyzed for all samples (excluding ADF
for fecal samples), as described by Goering and Van Soest
(1970), but modified by a micro method described by Waldern
(1971)
.
In situ rate and extent of protein degradation were
determined for WSB, ESB, and SBM+BAR with methods described
by Orskov (1982).
One g samples of each supplement that had
been ground to pass a 2 mm screen were placed in nitrogen
(N) free dacron bags2 (5 cm X 10 cm).
The bags had pore
sizes of 53 A (± 10) and were placed in the rumen of steers
on the respective treatment.
Bags with sample, and empty
bags used as blanks were allowed to digest for 24, 18, 12,
9,
6, and 3 h.
In situ rate and extent of fiber digestion
were also determined.
Four g samples of the basal hay that
had been ground to pass a 2 mm screen were also placed in
dacron bags (10 cm X 20 cm).
2Ankom, Fairport, NY.
Bags were placed in the rumen
37
of all steers and allowed to digest for 96, 72, 48, 36, 24,
18, 12, and 6 h.
All bags were removed at the same time on
day 22, rinsed thoroughly, and dried for 72 h at 50° C.
Dry
weights were recorded to determine dry matter disappearance.
Residual N was determined by the Macro Kjeldahl method for
bags with remaining supplement and for the blanks to account
for microbial N attachment. Residual NDF was determined for
hay samples by a micro method as described by Waldern
(1971).
Rate and lag time of digestion was calculated using
log transformations and linear regression as described by
Mertens and Loften, (1980).
On d 22 of each period a ruminal profile was performed.
Rumen fluid samples were collected at 0, 3, 6, 9, and 12 h
post-supplemental feeding.
Rumen fluid samples were
transported to the laboratory where pH was determined using
a combination electrode.
Fluid was frozen at -20° C
following treatment with 25% metaphosphoric acid and .1N HC1
in a 1:1 dilution for VFA and NH3 analysis respectively.
Ruminal VFA concentrations were determined by gas
chromatography using a fused silica capillary column3 in a
gas chromatography
Ruminal NH3 concentration was analyzed
by quantitative enzymatic determinations using a narrow-
3Alltech Associates, Inc., Deerfield, IL.
45890 Series II gas chromatograph.
Hewlett Packard
Company, Analytical group, San Fernando, CA.
sSigma Diagnostics.
St. Louis, MO.
38
bandwidth UV spectrophotometer.°
On d 23 ruminal contents were evacuated at 0 (prefeeding) and 5 h post-supplemental feeding to measure
digesta kinetics.
Ruminal contents were weighed, mixed,
sub-sampled, and immediately replaced in the steers.
Sub-
sampled ruminal contents were subsequently dried at 50° C
for 72 h to determine DM percentage and DM fill.
Ruminal
evacuation samples were ground to pass a 1 mm screen and
saved for analysis of indigestible ADF (IADF) as described
by Berger et al.,
(1979) and Ellis et al., (1984).
IADF was
measured as an internal marker to determine passage rate and
flow rate.
Statistical analysis:
Data pertaining to intake,
digestibility, and in situ rate and extent of digestion were
analyzed as a latin square design with effects for
treatment, using the general linear model procedure of
Statistical analysis systems (SAS, 1985).
model were steer, period, and treatment.
Terms in the
Digesta fill
variables and fermentation characteristics were analyzed as
a latin square design, split plot in time with respect to
sampling times.
Terms in the model were steer, period,
treatment, steer x period x treatment, time, and treatment x
time.
Dependent variables which displayed a treatment x
time interaction were analyzed within time periods, and are
°Model UV 160 Shimadzu corp., Kyoto, Japan.
39
presented graphically.
Differences among treatments for all
variables above were noted by predetermined contrasts for 1)
Control vs supplemented treatments,
SBM+BAR, and
Exp. 2:
2) WSB and ESB vs
3) WSB vs ESB.
Performance study.
Forty British X Exotic weaned
steer calves (avg BW, 250 kg) were utilized in a 112 d
performance trial comparing the use of different forms of
soybean supplements on low quality mature grass hay (CP =
6.5%).
Steers were stratified by weight and within stratum
allotted randomly to two replications of four treatments.
Treatments consisted of 1) Control, no supplement; 2) 1.5
kganima14d4 of whole soybeans (WSB); 3) 1.36 kganima144,d4
of extruded soybeans (ESB); and 4) 1.48 kganima14d4 of a
mixture of 62% soybean meal and 38% rolled barley grain
(SBM+BAR).
Supplements were formulated to be isonitrogenous
and supply approximately .43 kganima14d4 of CP.
Approximately 71% of the CP requirement (NRC, 1984)
supplied by the supplements.
was
Steers were fed a basal diet
of ground hay which consisted primarily of native cool
season mature grass hay produced in the Willamette valley of
Western Oregon (table 1).
A two to one mixture of trace
mineralized salt and dicalcium phosphate was offered free
choice for the entire trial. A 10 d adaptation period was
used to allow the steers to adjust to the diets prior to the
initiation of the experiment.
Steers were weighed at 28 d intervals during the trial
40
to determine average daily gain and feed efficiency.
Weights, for two consecutive days, were recorded and
averaged at the beginning and ending of the trial.
On the
second weigh day at the beginning of the trial, steers were
injected with 5 ml of Ivermectin7 for parasite control.
Steers were housed in semi-enclosed pens and fed both
supplement and hay in large wooden bunks.
Each day at 1600,
orts from previous feedings were pushed to the rear of the
bunks and supplement was offered.
Steers were allowed
approximately 15 min to consume the supplement.
Ground hay
was subsequently weighed, recorded, and offered ad libitum
post supplemental feeding.
Hay orts were removed from the bunks once weekly,
weighed, recorded, and sub-sampled.
A 100 g sample of the
ort sub-sample was then dried at 100° C for 24 h for DM
determination.
Basal hay and supplements were also sub-
sampled at 100 g weekly.
These samples were dried at 55° C
for 48 h for DM determination and then composited across
each period of the trial.
Dry matter values of the basal
hay, orts and supplement were used to determine total and
forage DMI.
Composited samples were ground to pass through
a 1 mm screen and saved for laboratory analysis. Dry matter,
ash, and CP were determined by standard procedures (AOAC,
1984).
Acid detergent fiber and NDF was determined as
7MSDAGVET Division of Merck & Co., Inc., Rathway, NJ.
41
described by Goering and Van Soest (1970) but modified by a
micro method as described by Waldern (1971).
Statistical Analysis.
All data pertaining to Intake, gain
and feed efficiency were analyzed as a completely randomized
design with effects for treatment, using the general linear
model procedure of Statistical Analysis Systems (SAS, 1985).
The experimental unit was each pen of animals.
Contrast
statements were pre determined for 1) Control vs
supplemented treatments, 2) WSB and ESB vs SBM+BAR, and 3)
WSB vs ESB.
42
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Experiment 1:
Digestion study.
Supplemental protein did
not affect forage DMI, however steers supplemented with WSB
had a higher forage DMI than steers on ESB (P <.10).
Other
research has not reported differences in forage DMI when
comparing WSB and ESB (Block et al., 1981; Van Dijk et al.,
1983: Stern et al., 1985).
supplementation (P <.10).
Total DMI was increased by
The increase may have been an
additive effect, but voluntary intake of feed can be
influenced by N in the diet (Van Soest, 1982).
Apparent DM digestibility was increased by protein
supplementation (P <.10).
Within soybean supplements,
soybean protein source had no effect on DM or NDF
digestibility (P >.10).
This is in agreement with previous
research (McCormick et al., 1983; Stern et al., 1985).
Other researchers have reported a decrease in DM
digestibility when raw soybeans were compared to soybean
meal supplements and have concluded that the fat content was
the cause (Palmquist and Conrad, 1971; Erickson and Barton,
1987).
Since NDF digestibility was not affected by
treatment, it may support the theory that adequate fiber
content in the diet may reduce the negative impact of fat on
fiber digestibility (Erickson and Barton, 1987).
In this study NDF digestibility was lower than DM
digestibility, which disagrees with other studies
supplementing very low quality roughage with protein
43
(DelCurto et al., 1990c).
It does however support other
studies using different soybean protein supplements
(McCormick et al., 1983; Erickson and Barton, 1987) with
higher quality roughage such as corn silage.
Forage quality
and fiber content is likely to be more important in this
situation.
The NDF content in this study was apparently not
high enough to exhibit a higher digestibility than that of
DM.
With feeding very high fiber diets, microflora
populations may be more efficient at digesting fiber than if
the content was lower.
A treatment X time interaction was noted for ruminal DM
fill estimated by ruminal evacuations (P < .10).
No
differences in DM fill were observed at 0 h post
supplementation (PS) but at 5 h PS, supplemented treatments
had a greater DM fill by nearly 50% (P <.10).
This agrees
with DelCurto et al. (1990c), who also observed increases in
DM fill due to protein supplementation.
Full fat soybeans
also had a greater DM fill when compared to SBM+BAR (P
<.10).
This is because forage intake was the greatest for
steers consuming WSB.
An increase in IADF intake was also
reflected by this for steers consuming WSB.
Protein
supplementation did not influence IADF fill or passage rate
(percentage per h); (P <.10), but WSB vs ESB had a greater
IADF flow (grams per h)
(P <.05).
The IADF flow rate is a
ratio between IADF intake and time, where IADF passage rate
is the percentage of IADF fill leaving the rumen per unit of
44
time.
This may explain why steers supplemented with WSB had
a greater IADF flow rate but exhibited no differences in
IADF passage rate.
Fermentation characteristics:
supplementation (P <.10).
Ruminal pH was reduced by
This is explained due to an
increase in total VFA concentration on supplemented
treatments (P <.10).
Individual molar proportions of
acetate were decreased by supplementation (P <.10).
The
ratio of acetate to propionate was not affected (P >.10) but
numerically the ratio did decrease slightly due to
supplementation.
Isobutyrate and isovalerate proportions
were increased by supplementation (P <.10).
Butyrate,
although not showing a treatment X time interaction,
affected by supplement source.
was
Butyrate molar proportion
was higher on SBM+BAR (P <.05) than when compared to WSB and
ESB.
This is in agreement with Keele et al. (1989), who
reported decreased proportions of butyrate when ESB were fed
to non-lactating cows.
The researchers concluded that
ruminal protozoa numbers may have been decreased by an
increased intake of long chain fatty acids in the ESB.
contrast to the above, Annexstad et al.
In
(1987) actually
found an increase in butyrate production when high levels of
ESB were fed in dairy concentrate rations.
Valerate was the only VFA to exhibit a treatment X time
interaction (P <.10; Fig. 1).
Valerate was higher at all
collection times for supplemented treatments (P <.05).
45
SBM+BAR increased valerate production when compared to WSB
and ESB at 3, h post feeding (P <.05).
This is in partial
agreement with Larson and Schultz (1970), who found
increasing proportions of isovaleric and valeric acids when
soybean meal coated with soybean oil was compared against
whole soybeans.
This could however, negate the theory of
long chain fatty acids causing a reduction in VFA
production.
Other studies comparing different soybean
supplements have failed to report differences in ruminal VFA
production (Van Dijk et al.,1983; Stern et al. 1985; Perry
and Macleod, 1968).
Ruminal ammonia exhibited a treatment X time
interaction (P <.10; Fig 2).
Protein supplementation
increased ruminal ammonia levels at all sampling times (P
<.05).
Ammonia production peaked at 3 h post
supplementation for all supplement treatments, with SBM+BAR
having a higher ammonia release at 3 h than full fat
soybeans (P <.05).
Ammonia levels during h 6 to 12 remained
similar among supplemented treatments.
ESB had a more
uniform release of ammonia throughout the 12 h period.
WSB
were also more uniform in ammonia release than was SBM+BAR.
Other studies have reported slower ammonia release in ESB
when compared to soybean meal (Cleale et al., 1985) and in
WSB compared to soybean meal (Davis and Stallcup, 1967;
Erickson and Barton, 1987).
These data suggest that WSB are
less degradable than soybean meal if fed in the physically
46
whole state.
In this study, the physical form of the
soybean supplement due to processing may have been more
important in affecting ammonia production than was the lipid
fraction of the supplement.
Davenport et al.
(1987),
reported similar ammonia release values for ground raw
soybeans as soybean meal.
In situ dacron bag experiment:
Rate (%/h) and lag time (h)
of supplement DM disappearance was not different (P >.10;
Table 5).
Extent of supplement DM disappearance was 17.7%
greater for WSB than ESB (P <.10) and tended to be higher
for WSB than SBM+BAR (P =.14).
WSB for this experiment were
ground < 2 mm in diameter, which allowed more surface area
for microbial attachment, thus enhancing DM disappearance.
Rate, lag time, and extent of CP disappearance did not
differ among treatments (P >.10).
Numerically, SBM+BAR
tended to exhibit nearly a twofold increase in rate of CP
disappearance than did WSB and ESB (P =.16).
This suggests
that the lipid component may have aided in slowing the rate
of CP disappearance.
Whole soybeans tended to have a higher
extent of CP disappearance than ESB (P =.13).
agreement with Stern et al.
This is in
(1985) who reported that ground
raw soybeans exhibited a higher extent of CP degradation
than did processed soybeans.
Processing methods of the
supplements are most likely the reason for differences in
this study.
Extruded soybeans undergo considerable heating
during processing, and this could explain why they were
47
lowest in rate and extent of CP disappearance.
The high
extent of CP disappearance in WSB supports research reported
by Illg and Stern (1990), who reported a CP disappearance of
near 90% in WSB.
This may be because the WSB were ground
for in situ analysis.
Crude protein disappearance of whole
oil seeds by in situ or in vitro methods may be an
overestimate because of normal procedures used to prepare
samples, such as grinding.
Feeding the whole or unground
seeds may slow the release of nutrients during rumen
fermentation (Earleywine, 1989).
When the whole seeds are
ground for the respective analysis, then this factor is
removed.
It has been suggested that the best analysis may
be to estimate a normal level of mastication and process
seeds used for analysis accordingly (Earleywine, 1989).
Lag time of forage DM and NDF disappearance was
increased by supplementation (P <.10), while rate of NDF
disappearance tended to decrease (P =.10) due to
supplementation.
No differences in extent of forage DM or
NDF disappearance were found among any treatments suggesting
that supplement source had no effect on ruminal
digestibility of the forage component.
This was also found
true for total tract digestibility.
Experiment 2:
Performance study.
Forage DMI was similar
among treatments, however, WSB and ESB exhibited a trend to
lower forage DMI compared to SBM+BAR (P =.11) (Table 6.).
This agrees with previous research that reported depressed
48
DMI when full fat soybeans are fed in comparison to soybean
meal supplements (Palmquist and Conrad, 1971; Erickson and
Barton, 1987; Mader, 1988).
Differences
in forage DMI
between WSB and ESB were not found which agrees with
previous research (Block et al., 1981; Van Dijk et al.,
1983; Stern et al., 1985).
The slight decrease in forage
DMI may have been due to the increased caloric density from
the lipid portion of the full fat soybeans (Davenport et
al., 1987).
The lipid portion in the full fat soybean
treatments was estimated to be less than 4% of the daily
DMI.
Levels of fat above 5% have been associated with
reduced performance in ruminants (Shirley, 1986).
Since steers consuming the control diet did not have
depressed forage DMI, it may suggest that the animals were
only marginally deficient in N intake (Table 7.).
It was
observed that Control steers consumed more forage during the
first 4 weeks of the experiment than did steers on WSB or
ESB treatments.
During the second half of the trial,
control steers began to consume less forage as the trial
progressed.
This suggests that deleterious effects caused
by lack of protein in the control treatment took a period of
time to be exerted.
Steers on this experiment were
apparently not in a negative protein balance during the
first 4 weeks of the trial. Other research that reports no
influence in intake due to protein supplementation has
suggested that protein may not have been a limiting factor
49
in the diets (Rittenhouse et al., 1970; Kartchner, 1980).
Protein supplementation increased average daily gain by
more than twofold (P <.05) and feed efficiency by nearly
twofold (P <.05; table 6.).
Average daily gains were not
influenced by source of soybean protein (P >.10), but steers
on ESB tended to exhibit better feed efficiency over steers
on WSB (P =.10).
The more efficient gains by ESB may
reflect a lower amount of degradable crude protein.
ESB are
less degradable in CP content than are WSB and soybean meal
(Stern et al.,1985) and this should translate into better
performance (Davenport et al., 1990).
The data above support the practice of substituting
full fat soybeans for soybean meal supplements when it is
economical. (McCormick, 1983; Van Dijk et al., 1983; Mader
1988).
It also suggests that full fat soybeans can be
incorporated into growing diets for cattle consuming low
quality roughage.
50
IMPLICATIONS
Full fat soybeans, fed at the above levels, may be used
with little if any deleterious effects on performance and
digestibility.
In this study, the oil component of the
rations did not exceed 4% of the total daily DMI.
Levels of
fat above this may exert negative effects on performance and
digestibility in ruminants.
This study indicates that full
fat soybeans can be effectively utilized in growing cattle
diets consisting of low quality roughage when economic
conditions allow.
It also supports numerous reports of
increased animal performance, forage digestibility, and
utilization due to protein supplementation.
FIGURE 1. INFLUENCE OF SOYBEAN PROTEIN SOURCE ON
RUMINAL VALERATE CONCENTRATIONS (Exp. 1)
Treatment
---WSB
-HESB
'SBM+BAR
'CONTROL
R
0.6.,_______,-1.---0.50
3
...........-.."".-.--.-"-----.-..
6
9
12
hours post-supplementation
Control vs supplemented treatments differ (P <.05); all
Full fat soybeans vs SBM+BAR differ (P < .05);
hours.
hour 3.
FIGURE 2. INFLUENCE OF SOYBEAN PROTEIN SOURCE ON
RUMINAL AMMONIA CONCENTRATIONS (Exp. 1)
25
Ts 20
0)
Treatment
E15
WSB
0 10
ESB
E
trz
-*SBM+BAR
5
0
CONTROL
3
6
9
12
hours post-supplementation
Control vs supplemented treatments differ (P <.05); all
hours. Full fat soybeans vs SBM+BAR differ (P <.05);
hour 3. WSB vs ESB differ (P <.05); hour 0.
N
53
TABLE 1. CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF GROUND MATURE GRASS HAY AND
TREATMENT SUPPLEMENTS' (Exp. 1)
Item
Ground hay
WSB
ESB
SBM+BAR
DM
93.55
95.57
95.86
94.07
ASH
7.84
5.63
5.56
5.79
OM
92.17
94.38
94.44
94.21
CP
6.56
35.44
36.22
36.08
NDF
68.17
25.92
17.62
19.46
ADF
40.57
19.42
10.83
8.18
IADFb
12.97
2.12
2.21
1.88
'All values are reported on a percentage of dry matter.
bIndigestible ADF.
54
TABLE 2. INFLUENCE OF SUPPLEMENTAL WHOLE SOYBEANS (WSB),
EXTRUDED SOYBEANS (ESB), AND SOYBEAN MEAL-I-BARLEY (SBM+BAR)
ON DM INTAKE AND APPARENT DIGESTIBILITY' (Exp. 1)
Item
CONTROL
WSB
ESB
SBM+BAR
SE
Forageb
1.58
1.65
1.31
1.45
.106
Totalb'`
1.58
2.14
1.77
1.93
.106
DMD%`
53.96
57.87
59.16
60.57
1.28
NDFD%
50.62
52.09
47.62
49.99
1.21
DMI, %BW
Total tract
Digestibility
aDMD = DM digestibility; NDFD = NDF digestibility.
bWSB vs ESB treatments differ (P <.10).
`Control vs supplemented treatments differ (P <.10).
55
TABLE 3. INFLUENCE OF SUPPLEMENTAL WHOLE SOYBEANS (WSB),
EXTRUDED SOYBEANS (ESB), AND SOYBEAN MEAL+BARLEY (SBM+BAR)
ON RUMINAL KINETICS' (Exp. 1)
Item
CONTROL
WSB
ESB
SBM+BAR
SE
0 h PS
1.41
1.61
1.40
1.31
.145
5 h PSb'c
1.82
2.42
2.08
1.94
.130
Ruminal IADF
.563
.628
.502
.563
.017
1.14
1.26
1.12
1.13
.061
0 h PS
2.78
2.36
2.47
2.24
.288
5 h PS
2.16
1.94
2.02
1.98
.211
23.40
26.12
20.88
23.40
.689
Ruminal DM fill,
%BW
Intake, kg4
Ruminal IADF fill,
kg
Ruminal IADF
passage, %/h
Ruminal IADF flow
g/hd
'Indigestible acid detergent fiber (IADF) was used to
describe an indigestible fiber component of the diet.
Ruminal DM fill, IADF fill, and IADF passage values were
obtained from rumen evacuations 0 and 5 h post
supplementation (PS).
bControl vs supplemented treatments differ (P < .10).
cFull fat soybeans vs SBM+BAR treatments differ
(P<.10).
dWSB vs ESB treatments differ (P < .05).
56
TABLE 4. INFLUENCE OF SUPPLEMENTAL WHOLE
SOYBEANS(WSB),EXTRUDED SOYBEANS (ESB), AND SOYBEAN
MEAL+BARLEY (SBM+BAR)ON RUMEN pH AND VFA CONCENTRATION'
(Exp. 1)
Item
CONTROL
WSB
ESB
SBM+BAR
SE
pie
6.59
6.23
6.37
6.39
.081
Total VFA mMb
96.56
108.92
109.56
108.78
3.35
Acetate M%b
71.25
70.12
68.83
67.98
.654
Propionate M%
17.67
17.63
18.98
18.25
.714
Isobutyrate M%b
.533
.797
.686
.839
.055
Butyrate M%c
9.49
9.37
9.78
10.86
.256
Isovalerate M%b
.488
1.23
.896
1.14
.128
A:P ratio
4.08
3.99
3.67
3.75
.182
'Data presented above did not display a treatment x
time interaction (P > .10) and were averaged across time
periods.
bControl vs supplemented treatments differ (P < .10).
`Full fat soybeans vs SBM+BAR differ (P < .05).
57
TABLE 5. IN SITU DEGRADATION OF TREATMENT SUPPLEMENTS AND
INFLUENCE OF SUPPLEMENT SOURCE ON IN SITU DEGRADATION OF
GROUND MATURE GRASS HAY (Exp. 1)
Item
CONTROL
WSB
ESB
SBM+BAR
SE
3.96
3.87
4.08
3.67
3.96
3.08
.194
.283
3.76
4.20
2.50
3.89
3.41
7.52
.884
1.52
97.85
97.09
83.12
79.44
85.93
88.28
4.22
5.97
CONTROL
WSB
ESB
SBM+BAR
SE
3.73
3.30
3.93
3.58
3.94
3.62
3.83
3.53
.064
.105
1.30
2.00
1.11
1.66
1.11
1.62
1.19
1.70
.097
.154
64.68
62.57
60.82
61.01
61.53
61.01
63.33
62.28
1.77
1.52
Supplement
Disappearance
Lag time, h
DM
CP'
Rate of
digestion, %/h
DM
CP'
24 h extent of
digestion, %
DMb
CP'
Forage
Disappearance
due to
supplement
Lag time, h
DMd
NDFd
Rate of
digestion, %/h
DM
NDF'
96 h extent of
digestion, %
DM
NDF
'Full fat soybeans vs SBM+BAR exhibit a trend for
differences (P >.10 <.16).
bWSB vs ESB differ (P <.10).
`WSB vs ESB exhibit a trend for differences (P =.1277).
dControl vs supplemented treatments differ (P <.10).
`Control vs supplemented treatments differ (P =.10).
58
TABLE 6. INFLUENCE OF WHOLE SOYBEANS (WSB), EXTRUDED
SOYBEANS (EBB), AND SOYBEAN MEAL+BARLEY (SBM+BAR) ON DM
INTAKE AND PERFORMANCE OF WEANED BEEF STEERS' (Exp. 2)
Item
CONTROL
WSB
ESB
SBM+BAR
SE
Forage"
6.10
6.12
6.24
6.66
.42
Total"`
6.10
7.45
7.54
7.95
.42
ADGc
.40
.99
1.09
1.13
.13
F/Gc.d
14.65
7.55
6.89
7.04
.22
DMI, kg.
d-1
Performance
'ADG = Average daily gain; F/G = Feed/Gain ratio.
"Full fat soybeans vs SBM+BAR exhibit a trend for
decreased DM intake by full fat soybeans (P =.11).
cControl vs supplemented treatments differ (P <.05).
dWSB vs ESB differ (P =.10).
59
TABLE 7. CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF FEEDSTUFFS2 (Exp. 2)
Item
Ground Hay
WSB
ESB
SBM+BAR
DM
93.08
92.86
95.12
91.03
CP
6.53
35.45
36.86
36.77
ASH
7.22
4.63
5.10
5.06
ADF
41.39
17.35
10.03
7.37
NDF
67.04
23.25
16.33
18.69
'All values are reported on a percentage of dry matter.
60
LITERATURE CITED
Abdelgadir, I.E.O., J.L. Morril, J.A. Stutts, M.B. Morril,
D.E. Johnson and K.C. Behnke. 1984. Effect of
processing temperature on utilization of whole soybeans
by calves. J. Dairy Sci. 67:2554.
Annexstad, R.J., M.D. Stern, D.E.
W.P. Hansen. 1987. Extruded
meal as supplemental protein
dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci.
Otterby, J.G. Linn and
soybeans and corn gluten
sources for lactating
70:814.
AOAC. 1984. Official Methods of Analysis (14th Ed.).
Association of Official Analytical Chemists,
Washington, DC.
Berger,
T. Klopfenstein, and R. Britton. 1979.
Effect of
sodium hydroxide on efficiency of rumen digestion. J.
Anim. Sci. 49:1317.
Block, E., L.D. Muller, L.C. Griel jr. and D.L. Garwood.
1981.
Brown mid rib-3 corn silage and heat treated
extruded soybeans for early lactating dairy cows. J.
Dairy Sci. 64:1813.
Brown, W.H., J.W. Stull and G.H. Scott. 1962. Fatty acid
composition of milk. I. Effect of roughage and dietary
fat.
J. Dairy Sci. 45:191.
Byers, F.M. and G.T. Schelling. 1988. Lipids in ruminant
nutrition. In:
D.C. Church (Ed.). The Ruminant Animal.
pp 298-312. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Chalupa, W. 1975.
Rumen bypass and protection of proteins
and amino acids.
J. Dairy Sci. 58:1198.
Cheeke, P.R. and C.R. Shull. 1985. Natural Toxicants in
Feeds and Poisonous Plants. pp 235-237. Avi Pub. Co.
Inc., Westport, CT.
Clanton, D.C. and D.R. Zimmerman. 1970.
Symposium on
pasture methods for maximum production in beef cattle:
Protein and energy requirements for female beef cattle.
J. Anim. Sci. 30:122.
Clanton, D.C. 1982.
Crude protein in range supplements. In:
F.N. Owens (Ed.).
Protein requirements for cattle:
Symposium.
Oklahoma State Univ. MP 109:228.
61
Cleale, R., T. Klopfenstein, J. Merril, M. Nelson and W.
Stroup. 1985.
Heat treated soybean products for
growing beef cattle.
1985 Nebraska Beef Cattle Rep.,
pp 55-57. Univ. of Nebraska, Lincoln.
Crenshaw, M.A. and D.M. Danielson. 1985. Raw soybeans for
gestating swine.
J. Anim. Sci. 60:163.
Davendra, C. and D. Lewis. 1974. The interaction between
dietary lipids and fibre in the sheep. Anim. Prod.
19:67.
Davenport, G.M., J.A. Boling, N. Gay and L.D. Bunting. 1987.
Effect of soybean lipid on growth and ruminal nitrogen
metabolism in cattle fed soybean meal or ground whole
soybeans.
J. Anim. Sci. 65:1680.
Davenport, G.M., J.A. Boling and N. Gay. 1990. Performance
and plasma amino acids of growing calves fed corn
silage supplemented with ground soybeans, fish meal and
rumen protected lysine. J. Anim. Sci. 68:3773.
Davis, G.V. and O.T. Stallcup. 1967. Effect of soybean
meal, raw soybeans, corn gluten feed, and urea on the
concentration of rumen fluid components at intervals
after feeding. J. Dairy Sci. 50:1638.
DelCurto, T., R.C. Cochran, D.L. Harmon, A.A. Beharka, K.A.
Jacques, G. Towne and E.S. Vanzant. 1990a.
Supplementation of dormant tallgrass-prairie forage:
I. Influence of varying supplemental protein and (or)
energy levels on forage utilization characteristics of
beef steers in confinement. J. Anim. Sci. 68:515.
DelCurto, T., R.C. Cochran, L.R. Corah, A.A. Beharka, E.S.
Vanzant and D.E. Johnson. 1990b. Supplementation of
dormant tallgrass-prairie forage: II. Performance of
forage utilization characteristics in grazing beef
cattle receiving supplements of different protein
concentrations. J. Anim. Sci. 68:532.
DelCurto, T., R.C. Cochran, T.G. Nagaraja, L.R. Corah, A.A.
Beharka and E.S. Vanzant. 1990c. Comparison of soybean
meal/sorghum grain, alfalfa hay and dehydrated alfalfa
pellets as supplemental protein sources for beef cattle
consuming dormant tallgrass-prairie forage. J. Anim.
Sci. 68:2901.
Earleywine, T.J. 1989. Raw soybeans in dairy rations. Proc.
1989 Annual and Semiannual meetings of the American
Feed Industry Council. pp 41, 42. Kansas City, MO and
San Antonio, TX.
62
Edwards, R.L., G.C. Skelley Jr., J.T. Gillingham, S.L. Moore
and W.C. Godley. 1969. Vitamin A, corn silage and raw
soybeans for finishing steers in drylot. J. Anim. Sci.
29:940.
Ellis, W.C., E.M. Bailey and C.A. Taylor. 1984. A silicone
esophageal cannula; Its surgical installation and use
in research with grazing cattle, sheep, or goats. J.
Anim. Sci. 59:204.
Erickson, P.S. and B.A. Barton. 1987. Whole soybeans for
market lambs. J. Anim. Sci. 64:1249.
Fahey, G.C. Jr. and L.L. Berger. 1988. Carbohydrate
nutrition of ruminants. In: D.C. Church (Ed.) The
Ruminant Animal. pp 269-297. Prentice Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Glenn, B.P., D.G. Ely and J.A. Boling. 1977. Nitrogen
metabolism in lambs fed lipid coated protein.
J. Anim.
Sci. 46:871.
Goering, H.K. and P.J. Van Soest. 1970.
Forage Fiber
Analyses (apparatus, reagents, procedures, and some
applications). Agric. Handbook 379. USDA, ARS,
Washington, D.C.
Grovum, W.L. 1988. Appetite, palatability and control of
feed intake. In: D.C. Church (Ed.) The Ruminant Animal.
pp 202-216. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Gunter, S.A., M.B. Judkins, L.J. Krysl, R.K. Barton and J.T.
Broesder. 1990. Ruminal and forage intake response to
time of cottonseed meal supplementation.
Proc. West.
Sect. Am. Soc. of Anim. Sci. 41:253.
Henderson, C. 1973.
The effects of fatty acids on pure
cultures of rumen bacteria. J. Agri. Sci. (camb.)
81:107.
Hibberd, C.A. and S.K. Martin. 1990.
Substitution of corn
gluten meal for soybean meal in range supplements on
intake and utilization of low quality native grass hay.
Anim. Sci. Res. Rep. MP-129. Oklahoma Agric. Exp.
Sta., Stillwater.
Illg, D.J. and M.d. Stern. 1990. Full fat soybeans: Energy
and protein for ruminants. Proc. of the 51st Ann.
Minnesota Nutr. Conf., Sept. 18, 19 1990. pp 43-55.
Bloomington.
63
Jenkins, T.C. and D.L. Palmquist. 1982. Effect of added fat
and calcium soaps on rumen and total digestibility in
dairy rations.
J. Dairy Sci. 67:978.
Johnson, R.R. 1976.
Influence of carbohydrate solubility on
non-protein nitrogen utilization in the ruminant.
Oklahoma Agric. res. station, Stillwater.
Kakade, M.L., R.D. Thompson, W.E. Engelstad, G.C. Behrens,
R.D. Yoder and F.M. Crane. 1976. Failure of soybean
trypsin inhibitor to exert deleterious effects in
calves. J. Dairy Sci. 59:1484.
Kartchner, R.J. 1980.
Effects of protein and energy
supplementation of cows grazing native winter range
forage on intake and digestibility.
J. Anim. Sci.
51:432.
Keele, J.W., R.E. Roffler and K.Z. Beyers. 1989.
Ruminal
metabolism in nonlactating cows fed whole cottonseed or
extruded soybeans.
J. Anim. Sci. 67:1612.
Larson, A. and L.H. Schultz. 1970. Effects of soybeans
compared to soybean oil meal in the ration of dairy
cows.
J. Dairy Sci. 53:1233.
Lee, G.L., D.W. Hennessy, P.J. Williamson, J.V. Nolan, T.J.
Kempton and R.A. Leng. 1985.
Response to protein meal
supplements by lactating beef cattle given a lowquality pasture hay. Aust. J. of Agric. Res. 36:729.
Liener, I.E. and M.L. Kakade. 1980. Protease inhibitors.
In:
I.E. Liener (Ed.) Toxic Constituents of Plant
Foodstuffs. pp 7-71. Academic Press, New York, NY.
Mader, T. 1988. Utilization of raw soybeans and whole
shelled corn in corn silage based diets.
1988 Nebraska
Beef Cattle Rep., pp 33, 34. Univ. of Nebraska,
Lincoln.
McAllan, A.B. and E.S. Griffith. 1987. The effects of
different sources of nitrogen supplementation on the
digestion of fibre components in the rumen of steers.
Anim. Feed Sci. and Tech. 17:65.
McCormick, M.E., M.E. McCullough, L.R. Sisk and E.E. Worley.
1983.
Soybeans:
A protein supplement for growing
calves.
Univ. of Georgia Coll. of Agri. Exp. Sta.,
Res. Rep., no. 439.
64
Merchen, N.R. 1988.
Digestion, absorption, and excretion in
ruminants. In:
D.C. (Ed.) The Ruminant Animal. pp
172-201.
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Mertens, D.R. and J.R. Loften. 1980. The effect of starch
on forage fiber digestion kinetics in vitro. J. Dairy
Sci. 63:1437.
Mielke, C.D. and D.J. Schingoethe. 1981. Heat-treated
soybeans for lactating cows. J. Dairy Sci. 64:1579.
Moore, J.H. and W.W. Christie. 1984. Digestion, absorption
and transport of fats in ruminant animal. In: J.
Wiseman (Ed.) Fats in Animal Nutrition. pp 123-147.
Butterworths Pub. Co., London.
Morrison, F.B. 1956.
Feeds and Feeding. A handbook for the
student and stockman. (21st Ed.). Morrison Pub. Co.,
Ithaca, NY.
Noble, R.C. 1984.
Essential fatty acids in the ruminant.
In:
J. Wiseman (Ed.) Fats in Animal Nutrition pp 185200.
Butterworths Pub. Co., London.
NRC. 1984. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle (6th Ed.).
National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Oirskov, E.R. 1982.
84.
Protein Nutrition in Ruminants. pp 41Academic Press, New York, NY.
Owens, F.N. and A.L. Goetsch. 1988. Ruminal fermentation.
In:
D.C. Church (Ed.) The Ruminant Animal pp 145-171.
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Palmquist, D.L. and H.R. Conrad. 1971. High levels of raw
soybeans for dairy cows. J. Anim. Sci. 33(Suppl.
1):295 (Abstr.).
Palmquist, D.L. and T.C. Jenkins. 1980.
Review.
J. Dairy Sci. 63:1.
Fats in Lactation:
Palmquist, D.L. and T.C. Jenkins. 1982.
Calcium soaps as a
fat supplement in dairy cattle feeding. Proc., XII
World Congr. Dis. Cattle., pp 477-481.
Perry, F.G. and G.K. Macleod. 1968. Effects of feeding raw
soybeans on rumen metabolism and milk composition of
dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 52:1233.
65
Peterson, 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.
Rittenhouse, L.R., D.C. Clanton and C.L. Streeter. 1970.
Intake and digestibility of winter-range forage by
cattle with and without supplements. J. Anim. Sci.
31:1215.
Sanson, D.W. and D.C. Clanton. 1989. Intake and
digestibility of low quality meadow hay by cattle
receiving various levels of whole shelled corn. J.
Anim. Sci. 67:2854.
SAS. 1985.
SAS User's Guide:
Cary, NC.
Statistics. SAS Inst., Inc.,
Satter, L.D. and L.L. Slyter. 1974.
Effect of ammonia
concentration on rumen microbial protein production in
vitro.
Brit. J. of Nutr. 32:199.
Shaw, J.C. and W.L. Ensor. 1959.
Effect of feeding cod
liver oil and unsaturated fatty acids on rumen volatile
fatty acids and milk fat content.
J. Dairy Sci.
42:1238.
Shirley, R.L. 1986.
Nitrogen and Energy Nutrition of
Ruminants. Academic Press Inc., Orlando, FL.
Sniffen, C.J. and P.H. Robinson. 1987. Symposium: Protein
and fiber digestion, passage and utilization in
lactating cows.
J. Dairy Sci. 70:425.
Snyder, H.E. and T.W. Kwon. 1987. Soybean Utilization.
Nostrand Reinhold Co., Inc., New York, NY.
Van
Sonntag, N.O.V. 1979. Morphology and composition. In: H.E.
Snyder and T.W. Kwon (Ed.) Soybean Utilization. p 34.
Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., Inc. New York, NY.
Stern, M.D., K.A. Santos and L.D. Satter. 1985.
Protein
degradation in rumen and amino acid absorption in small
intestine of lactating dairy cattle fed heat-treated
whole soybeans. J. Dairy Sci. 68:45.
Van Dijk, H.J., G.D. O'Dell, P.R. Perry and L.W. Grimes.
1983.
Extruded versus raw ground soybeans for dairy
cows in early lactation. J. Dairy Sci. 66:2521.
Van Soest, P.J. 1982. Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant.
O&B books Inc., Corvallis, OR.
66
Waldern, D.E. 1971.
A rapid micro-digestion procedure for
neutral and acid detergent fiber. Can. J. Anim. Sci.
51:67.
Weston, R.H. and J.P. Hogan. 1968. Factors limiting the
intake of feed by sheep. IV: The intake and digestion
of mature ryegrass. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 19:567.
Zinn, R.A. and F.N. Owens. 1983.
in steers:
Predictability.
Site of protein digestion
J. Anim. Sci. 56:707.
APPENDIX
67
TABLE A.1
INFLUENCE OF SUPPLEMENTAL SOYBEAN SOURCE ON INTAKE AND
DIGESTIBILITY. (Exp.1)
STEER
PER
48
83
97
138
1
1
48
83
97
138
2
2
4
2
2
2
3
48
83
97
138
3
3
3
3
4
48
83
97
138
4
1
1
3
4
4
4
TRTb
1
2
3
4
1
1
2
2
3
4
1
DM FECAL
OUTPUT
FDMI
(lbs/d)
TDMI
(lbsid)
(lbs/d)
9.28
7.21
9.32
5.40
12.31
10.07
12.24
5.40
5.47
4.38
4.73
2.67
55.03
56.44
61.18
49.73
49.09
43.21
52.58
47.81
9.59
10.25
9.31
4.65
9.59
13.27
12.16
7.55
4.31
5.47
4.92
2.70
54.77
58.66
59.13
62.93
52.06
49.79
47.87
48.81
9.78
11.35
10.55
0.00
12.69
11.35
13.55
0.00
5.16
5.11
5.46
0.00
59.13
54.95
59.71
0.00
48.92
48.43
49.70
0.00
10.12
12.59
12.34
10.71
12.96
15.50
12.34
13.71
4.91
6.36
5.36
5.74
61.96
58.86
56.39
58.07
54.75
49.66
54.18
51.77
DMD%
TDMI = Forage DMI, TDMI = Total DMI.
/Treatment 1 = WSB; 2 = ESB; 3 = SBM+BAR; 4 = CONTROL
NDFD%
68
TABLE A.2
INFLUENCE OF SUPPLEMENTAL SOYBEAN SOURCE ON RUMINAL KINETICS
(Exp. 1)
DM FILL
STEER PER
TRTa
097
083
138
048
1
1
1
3
2
4
1
1
1
1
1
097
083
138
048
1
1
1
1
3
2
097
083
138
048
2
2
2
2
2
097
083
138
048
2
2
TIMEb
IADF
IADF
FILL INTAKE
IADF
PASSAGE
IADF
FLOW
(LBS)
(LBS)
(LBS)
(%/HR)
(a/hr)
1
9.06
7.30
2.67
7.43
2.28
1.42
0.58
1.72
1.24
1.00
0.68
1.25
2.27
2.94
4.91
3.04
23.51
18.99
12.90
23.68
2
2
2
2
11.68
8.98
5.47
12.55
2.43
1.76
0.90
2.43
1.24
1.00
0.68
1.25
2.13
2.38
3.14
2.15
23.51
18.99
12.90
23.68
1
1
1
3
1
4
1
9.22
9.72
4.17
9.04
2.47
2.63
1.08
2.19
1.27
1.39
0.67
1.22
2.14
2.20
2.58
2.32
24.04
26.29
12.58
23.00
2
2
2
1
3
2
4
2
13.05
15.16
8.35
11.26
2.26
2.72
1.51
2.45
1.27
1.39
0.67
1.22
2.34
2.13
1.84
2.07
24.04
26.29
12.58
23.00
097
083
138
048
3
1
1
3
3
4
1
2
1
3
3
1
11.56
12.17
6.86
9.30
2.84
2.91
2.21
2.85
1.44
1.50
0.00
1.35
2.12
2.14
0.00
1.97
27.32
28.28
0.00
25.50
097
083
138
048
3
1
3
4
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
16.14
14.50
12.24
12.60
3.54
3.53
2.12
2.82
1.44
1.50
0.00
1.35
1.70
1.76
0.00
1.99
27.32
28.28
0.00
25.50
097
083
138
048
4
4
4
4
4
1
3
1
1
2
1
1
11.67
10.15
11.07
10.89
3.72
3.31
2.88
3.14
1.56
1.69
1.44
1.35
1.74
2.13
2.08
1.80
29.42
32.03
27.20
25.63
097
083
138
048
4
4
4
2
2
4
4
1
2
13.70
15.19
15.96
16.76
3.86
3.60
3.39
4.31
1.56
1.69
1.44
1.35
1.68
1.96
1.77
1.31
29.42
32.03
27.20
25.63
4
1
3
2
2
2
2
'Treatment 1 = WSB; 2 = ESB; 3 = SBM+BAR; 4 = CONTROL
bTiMe corresponds to evacuations at 0 h post supplementation =
time 1; and 5 h post supplementation = time 2.
69
TABLE A.3
INFLUENCE OF SUPPLEMENTAL SOYBEAN SOURCE ON RUMINAL VFA
CONCENTRATIONS (Exp. 1)
mM concentration
Steer
097
097
097
097
097
083
083
083
083
083
138
138
138
138
138
048
048
048
048
048
097
097
097
097
097
083
083
083
083
083
138
138
138
138
138
048
048
048
048
048
097
097
097
Per Trta
1
1
3
3
1
3
1
1
3
3
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
4
1
4
1
4
1
1
1
1
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
3
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
4
4
2
1
4
4
4
3
1
3
1
3
1
Time
ACE
67.547
84.039
6
91.936
9
66.549
12
77.540
0
66.104
3
78.113
6
87.879
9
77.047
12
68.064
0
56.151
3
65.319
6
51.876
9
53.599
12
50.683
0
68.345
3
67.349
6
69.445
9
58.571
12
59.814
0
53.474
3
90.914
6
73.643
9
85.470
12
74.117
0
78.499
3
67.208
6
78.937
9
68.511
12
82.388
0
60.216
3
70.662
6
69.993
9
79.604
12
72.488
0
64.753
3
73.360
6
71.847
9
75.540
12
69.128
0
72.835
3
86.103
6
84.386
0
3
PRO
IBU
BUT
IVA
VAL
15.639
20.113
22.958
16.889
18.779
15.299
21.006
23.992
22.675
19.086
15.332
20.088
15.047
16.095
15.044
14.996
16.586
16.116
15.377
14.789
13.747
25.422
20.254
23.941
21.249
19.727
18.316
20.618
18.836
24.190
14.962
20.500
22.611
24.756
21.261
12.809
16.782
17.301
18.127
15.368
18.325
22.051
21.747
0.852
0.926
1.167
0.862
0.906
0.713
0.645
0.811
0.933
1.088
0.575
0.475
0.359
0.341
0.396
1.136
1.137
1.248
0.814
0.745
0.792
0.834
0.612
0.755
0.543
1.132
0.850
0.823
0.585
0.772
1.314
0.935
0.900
0.896
0.718
0.591
0.591
0.454
0.461
0.441
0.804
0.948
0.835
10.829
14.648
15.706
12.144
13.350
7.521
11.224
13.601
11.674
9.455
6.838
8.152
6.10
6.549
6.226
6.987
6.686
7.561
6.571
6.756
8.127
13.572
10.975
12.809
11.102
10.697
8.710
10.476
9.384
11.742
6.892
10.279
11.615
12.814
11.281
7.075
8.750
9.104
9.976
8.890
10.827
13.711
12.755
0.940
1.257
1.705
1.036
1.039
1.088
0.985
1.316
1.603
1.811
0.491
0.344
0.240
0.307
0.260
1.779
1.916
2.138
1.287
1.163
0.917
1.039
0.639
0.636
0.461
1.871
1.380
1.523
1.052
1.217
1.882
1.482
1.471
1.261
1.069
0.635
0.525
0.422
0.344
0.371
1.051
1.301
1.162
0.676
1.154
1.386
0.852
0.899
0.664
0.952
1.237
1.172
1.123
0.471
0.526
0.428
0.422
0.413
0.794
0.925
1.003
0.712
0.767
0.540
0.995
0.757
0.972
0.722
1.012
0.948
1.061
0.898
1.065
0.880
1.342
1.441
1.252
1.075
0.374
0.534
0.556
0.589
0.510
0.891
1.138
1.029
°Treatment 1 = WSB; 2 = ESB; 3 = SBM+BAR; 4 = CONTROL.
bTVFA = Total VFA concentration.
TVFAb
96.483
122.137
134.858
98.302
112.513
91.389
112.925
128.836
115.104
100.627
79.858
94.904
74.052
77.313
73.022
94.037
94.599
97.511
83.332
84.034
77.597
132.776
106.880
124.583
108.194
112.938
97.412
113.438
99.266
121.374
86.146
105.200
108.031
120.583
107.892
86.237
100.497
99.684
105.037
94.708
104.733
125.252
121.914
70
TABLE A.3 (continued) INFLUENCE OF SUPPLEMENTAL SOYBEAN SOURCE ON
RUMINAL VFA CONCENTRATIONS (Exp. 1)
mM concentration
Steer
097
097
083
083
083
083
083
138
138
138
138
138
048
048
048
048
048
097
097
097
097
097
083
083
083
083
083
138
138
138
138
138
048
048
048
048
048
Time
ACE
PRO
IBU
BUT
IVA
VAL
1
9
1
12
0
81.194
86.037
72.851
70.951
85.825
65.570
74.281
60.575
77.406
77.449
69.520
68.662
62.094
72.315
67.895
66.010
66.877
66.538
67.742
79.783
81.124
79.730
76.296
79.311
88.401
79.137
77.760
70.301
87.212
85.973
86.213
86.434
71.654
86.341
81.464
76.209
82.898
20.923
22.345
15.511
17.551
19.856
14.846
17.539
17.973
24.943
26.572
22.970
24.428
14.218
18.198
17.768
17.457
19.058
14.997
17.690
19.778
19.619
19.462
18.733
23.156
25.574
22.738
22.757
15.697
21.759
20.453
19.974
21.328
15.609
20.752
19.394
17.914
19.573
0.793
0.731
0.590
0.537
0.661
0.503
0.538
0.782
0.627
0.551
0.505
0.522
0.787
0.972
0.877
0.924
0.772
0.587
0.520
0.574
0.508
0.537
0.954
0.815
0.841
0.764
0.757
0.639
0.771
0.821
0.770
0.614
0.837
0.784
0.804
0.845
0.782
12.333
12.783
8.980
9.936
12.130
9.230
10.670
7.245
12.013
13.347
11.201
11.091
8.503
11.194
10.500
10.087
11.002
9.625
10.553
12.462
12.021
11.816
10.363
14.175
16.071
13.231
13.274
8.653
12.530
12.526
11.974
13.232
8.367
11.240
10.609
9.554
10.560
1.046
0.792
0.514
0.363
0.457
0.375
0.340
1.001
0.734
0.541
0.582
0.572
1.016
1.548
1.313
1.300
0.907
0.649
0.550
0.532
0.465
0.421
1.171
1.125
1.004
0.911
0.880
0.917
1.107
1.264
1.221
0.819
1.164
1.171
0.942
1.081
0.979
0.998
0.905
0.646
0.599
0.751
0.568
0.606
0.773
1.047
1.158
0.986
0.973
0.520
1.019
0.842
0.730
0.700
0.603
0.741
0.837
0.790
0.763
0.877
1.338
1.354
1.152
1.067
0.659
0.943
1.064
0.915
0.877
0.607
0.917
0.880
0.800
0.885
Per Trt'
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
1
4
1
4
4
4
4
4
1
4
4
1
1
2
2
2
3
6
9
12
0
3
6
9
12
0
3
6
9
12
0
3
6
9
12
0
3
6
9
12
0
3
6
9
12
0
3
6
2
9
2
12
'Treatment 1 = WSB; 2 = ESB; 3 = SBM+BAR; 4 = CONTROL
bTVFA = Total VFA concentration.
TVFAb
117.287
123.593
99.092
99.937
119.680
91.110
103.974
88.349
116.770
119.618
105.764
106.248
87.138
105.246
99.195
96.508
99.316
92.999
97.796
113.966
114.527
112.729
108.394
119.920
133.245
117.933
116.495
96.866
124.322
122.101
121.067
123.304
98.238
121.205
114.093
106.403
115.677
71
TABLE A.4
INFLUENCE OF SUPPLEMENTAL SOYBEAN SOURCE ON RUMINAL pH AND
AMMONIA CONCENTRATION (Exp. 1)
STEER
PER
TRT'
048
048
048
048
048
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
083
083
083
083
083
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
097
097
097
097
097
1
1
3
3
1
1
3
3
00
03
06
09
1
3
12
138
138
138
138
138
1
4
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
00
03
06
09
048
048
048
048
048
2
4
2
4
4
083
083
083
083
083
1
1
1.
1
TIME
00
03
06
09
12
00
03
06
09
12
12
6.89
6.80
6.78
6.80
6.67
193.60
216.48
230.56
129.36
88.00
6.80
6.28
6.03
6.63
6.80
79.20
160.16
192.72
215.60
220.00
6.60
6.21
6.09
6.38
6.40
113.52
254.32
288.64
196.24
146.08
6.95
6.67
6.75
6.87
6.87
44.00
33.44
30.80
33.44
31.68
44.88
33.44
31.68
31.68
31.68
4
00
03
06
09
4
12
6.96
6.80
6.62
5.80
6.59
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
00
03
06
09
12
6.52
6.64
6.21
6.17
5.65
222.64
139.92
109.12
50.16
49.28
097
097
097
097
097
2
2
2
2
6.72
6.35
6.22
5.83
5.94
136.40
203.28
134.64
117.04
88.00
138
138
138
138
138
6.94
6.36
5.97
6.47
6.01
188.40
227.92
148.72
41.36
39.60
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
00
03
06
09
2
2
12
2
3
2
3
3
3
00
03
06
09
3
12
2
2
2
2
°Treatment 1 = WSB; 2 = ESB; 3 = SBM+BAR; 4 =CONTROL.
72
TABLE A.4 (continued) INFLUENCE OF SUPPLEMENTAL SOYBEAN
SOURCE ON RUMINAL pH AND AMMONIA CONCENTRATION (Exp. 1)
STEER
048
048
048
048
048
083
083
083
083
083
PER
TRTs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
3
3
4
4
3
097
097
097
097
097
3
138
138
138
138
138
3
3
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
TIME
6.87
6.73
6.63
6.63
6.21
99.44
242.00
163.68
138.16
89.76
00
03
06
09
6.67
6.59
6.10
6.62
6.42
27.28
26.40
34.32
28.16
27.28
6.21
5.56
5.79
5.81
5.64
125.84
189.20
116.16
130.24
103.84
6.87
6.24
6.11
6.35
6.18
41.36
98.56
64.24
49.28
22.88
6.79
6.39
6.35
6.54
6.03
130.24
196.24
154.00
168.96
160.16
6.61
6.45
5.90
6.14
6.35
106.48
210.32
116.16
70.40
78.32
6.79
6.67
6.20
6.44
6.39
56.32
54.56
30.80
29.92
34.32
6.36
6.13
6.02
6.14
5.77
113.52
183.92
179.52
184.80
121.44
12
00
03
06
09
12
3
00
03
06
09
3
2
12
048
048
048
048
048
4
2
4
4
4
2
2
2
00
03
06
09
4
2
12
083
083
083
083
083
4
3
4
3
4
4
4
3
3
00
03
06
09
3
12
097
097
097
097
097
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
00
03
06
09
4
12
138
138
138
138
138
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
00
03
06
09
4
1
12
°Treatment
1
NHS (ppm)
00
03
06
09
12
2
2
2
2
3
pH
= WSB; 2 = ESB; 3 = SBM+BAR; 4 = CONTROL.
73
TABLE A.5
STEER PER TRT°
097
097
097
097
097
097
083
083
083
083
083
083
048
048
048
048
048
048
097
097
097
097
097
097
083
083
083
083
083
083
138
138
138
138
138
138
097
097
097
097
097
097
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
IN SITU DEGRADATION OF SUPPLEMENTS (Exp. 1)
TIME %DM DIS %CP DIS
24
18
12
09
06
03
24
18
12
09
06
03
24
18
12
09
06
03
24
18
12
09
06
03
24
18
12
09
06
03
24
18
12
09
06
03
24
18
12
09
06
03
88.53
88.53
61.78
71.33
64.17
50.86
84.69
75.26
70.76
62.16
61.02
49.97
100.00
100.00
88.79
79.62
70.11
69.43
83.51
75.26
78.56
59.80
53.10
49.97
91.38
100.00
71.98
77.58
53.29
59.97
65.60
65.60
80.89
78.50
71.33
50.86
100.00
100.00
79.62
69.43
77.58
53.29
92.26
80.66
52.61
56.90
41.58
29.74
77.84
69.22
59.02
51.10
48.27
29.22
101.65
98.42
86.38
78.63
61.46
59.28
85.23
54.20
68.05
40.74
38.12
33.78
92.15
89.90
66.42
82.73
43.42
63.68
64.18
40.00
60.83
66.87
52.80
28.45
97.72
99.56
76.32
68.45
71.04
44.86
LAG TIME
OF DM/h
4 02
LAG TIME
OF CP/h
3.4
%/h
RATE OF
DM DIS
3.07
4.07
%/h
RATE OF
CP DIS
2.57
4.14
5.10
3.97
2.66
4.01
3.65
3.61
3.15
3.99
3.83
3.98
3.76
4.52
3.17
4.12
1.33
3.97
1.46
3.83
3.56
4.55
'Treatment 1 = WSB; 2 = ESB; 3 = SBM+BAR.
6.12
3.66
74
TABLE A.5
(continued)
STEER PER TRT°
138
138
138
138
138
138
048
048
048
048
048
048
083
083
083
083
083
083
138
138
138
138
138
138
048
048
048
048
048
048
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
1
4
2
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
IN SITU DEGRADATION OF SUPPLEMENTS (Exp. 1)
TIME %DM DIS %CP DIS
24
18
12
09
06
03
24
18
12
09
06
03
24
18
12
09
06
03
24
18
12
09
06
03
24
18
12
09
06
03
82.13
70.76
61.02
64.27
61.02
57.12
100.00
68.73
64.17
58.30
37.46
29.44
89.58
90.44
65.60
65.60
68.73
47.88
100.00
100.00
82.75
66.37
53.29
49.05
82.13
78.56
73.20
53.10
58.77
50.52
LAG TIME LAG TIME
OF DM/h
OF CP/h
80.78
4.22
3.90
43.52
48.28
%/h
%/h
43.43
RATE OF
RATE OF
39.02
DM DIS
CP DIS
40.87
1.24
0.79
96.83
3.34
1.92
48.72
48.49
35.28
12.38
5.79
7.26
13.27
99.84
3.97
2.82
94.42
39.29
41.42
35.84
19.53
98.48
98.72
83.70
64.16
53.75
45.13
73.91
66.70
63.08
36.23
39.23
28.31
°Treatment 1 = WSB; 2 = ESB; 3 = SBM+BAR.
3.46
3.73
9.22
3.69
5.07
4.03
5.42
3.53
3.02
5.86
75
TABLE A.6
STEER PER
097
097
097
097
097
097
097
097
083
083
083
083
083
083
083
083
138
138
138
138
138
138
138
138
048
048
048
048
048
048
048
048
097
097
097
097
097
097
097
097
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
INFLUENCE OF SUPPLEMENTAL SOYBEAN SOURCE ON IN SITU
DEGRADATION OF FORAGE SOURCE (Exp. 1)
TBTa
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
3
3
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
4
1
1
1
4
1
4
1
4
1
1
4
4
4
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
TIME
T-96
T-72
T-48
T-36
T-24
T-18
T-12
T-06
T-96
T-72
T-48
T-36
T-24
T-18
T-12
T-06
T-96
T-72
T-48
T-36
T-24
T-18
T-12
T-06
T-96
T-72
T-48
T-36
T-24
T-18
T-12
T-06
T-96
T-72
T-48
T-36
T-24
T-18
T-12
T-06
NDF%
DM%
(DMB) LAG TIME LAG TIME
DISAP
DISAP OF DM/h OF NDF/h
61.39 63.51
3.75
3.47
56.45 57.96
58.27 57.82
49.66 46.65
37.10 32.86
%/h
%/h
34.86 32.87 RATE OF RATE OF
28.46 24.04 DM DIS NDF DIS
22.10 17.04
1.34
1.78
54.96 55.52
3.92
3.79
55.49
55.21
53.01 50.65
49.20 51.44
40.48 36.41
39.30 40.08
28.13 25.80
25.00 20.33
1.18
1.39
63.77 62.15
3.55
3.00
56.00 53.16
48.43 42.09
40.29 35.10
34.24 24.95
26.60 18.07
25.00 15.58
23.16 12.02
1.44
2.28
59.29 61.98
3.88
3.74
54.96 55.71
53.42 52.54
48.24 52.15
45.65 42.76
39.06 37.50
32.14 31.28
23.16 19.11
1.13
1.35
64.75
62.61
3.93
3.45
64.91 60.95
56.81 52.69
51.41 47.29
48.59 39.32
41.70 30.04
38.30 26.17
28.90 14.21
1.07
1.89
'Treatment 1 = WSB; 2 = ESB; 3 = SBM+BAR; 4 = CONTROL.
76
TABLE A.6 (continued) INFLUENCE OF SUPPLEMENTAL SOYBEAN SOURCE ON IN
SITU DEGRADATION OF FORAGE SOURCE (Exp. 1)
DM%
STEER PER
083
083
083
083
083
083
083
083
138
138
138
138
138
138
138
138
048
048
048
048
048
048
048
048
097
097
097
097
097
097
097
097
083
083
083
083
083
083
083
083
TRTa
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
2
4
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
'Treatment
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
TIME
DISAP
T-96
60.50
T-72
62.45
T-48
54.11
T-36
52.60
T-24
46.02
T-18
37.62
T-12
33.16
T-06
24.42
T-96
57.87
T-72
50.92
T-48
49.97
T-36
46.02
T-24
42.07
T-18
39.43
T-12
33.16
T-06
26.27
T-96
62.21
T-72
60.74
T-48
57.87
T-36
48.59
T-24
44.70
T-18
36.10
T-12
32.52
T-06
28.02
T-96
57.25
T-72
57.58
T-48
55.51
T-36
47.17
T-24
44.27
T-18
40.29
T-12
37.57
T-06
29.43
T-96
62.00
T-72
59.29
T-48
54.93
T-36
43.00
T-24
37.82
T-18
31.07
T-12
28.13
T-06
24.00
NDF%
(DMB) LAG TIME LAG TIME
DISAP OF DM/h OF NDF/h
59.37
3.86
3.27
57.69
47.49
47.84
34.92
%/h
%/h
27.62 RATE OF RATE OF
20.63 DM DIS
DM DIS
10.29
1.27
2.22
55.16
3.97
3.55
48.90
47.76
43.68
31.40
28.75
22.13
15.61
0.88
1.63
59.45
3.86
3.39
58.83
52.81
44.75
33.87
26.71
22.28
14.11
1.18
2.01
60.50
4.05
3.84
58.88
56.11
49.88
39.08
37.65
33.27
24.93
0.92
1.22
60.52
3.69
3.44
57.24
50.63
41.35
30.31
27.14
22.29
17.98
1.41
1.77
= WSB; 2 = ESB; 3 = SBM+BAR; 4 = CONTROL.
77
TABLE A.6 (continued) INFLUENCE OF SUPPLEMENTAL SOYBEAN SOURCE ON IN
SITU DEGRADATION OF FORAGE SOURCE (Exp. 1)
STEER PER
138
138
138
138
138
138
138
138
048
048
048
048
048
048
048
048
097
097
097
097
097
097
097
097
083
083
083
083
083
083
083
083
138
138
138
138
138
138
138
138
TRTa
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
°Treatment
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TIME
T-96
T-72
T-48
T-36
T-24
T-18
T-12
T-06
T-96
T-72
T-48
T-36
T-24
T-18
T-12
T-06
T-96
T-72
T-48
T-36
T-24
T-18
T-12
T-06
T-96
T-72
T-48
T-36
T-24
T-18
T-12
T-06
T-96
T-72
T-48
T-36
T-24
T-18
T-12
T-06
NDF%
DM%
(DMB) LAG TIME LAG TIME
DISAP DISAP OF DM/h OF NDF/h
57.58 61.90
3.97
3.73
61.07
62.25
55.95
55.74
50.13
51.69
47.17 42.99
%/h
%/h
37.30 34.75 RATE OF RATE OF
33.72 29.18
DM DIS DM DIS
27.71 22.68
1.14
1.46
66.32 65.31
3.67
3.57
63.85 63.34
58.55 56.44
49.95 51.25
43.00 39.60
36.05 34.37
31.13 27.79
22.15 18.93
1.47
1.67
70.73 68.17
3.87
3.38
68.83
62.97
62.06 54.28
54.55
50.33
54.55 43.03
46.67 34.96
38.02 23.97
28.16 14.00
1.16
1.94
70.00 65.17
3.95
3.55
67.27 60.36
67.77 60.14
59.41 52.27
52.27 38.77
44.30 34.25
41.65 28.95
31.82
17.25
1.07
1.70
66.23
62.19
3.92
3.48
67.27 62.09
62.75
56.13
56.87
50.54
49.26 36.52
38.34 26.57
38.34 24.58
31.82 18.06
1.14
1.87
= WSB; 2 = ESB; 3 = SBM+BAR; 4 = CONTROL.
78
TABLE A.6 (continued) INFLUENCE OF SUPPLEMENTAL SOYBEAN SOURCE ON IN
SITU DEGRADATION OF FORAGE SOURCE (Exp. 1)
STEER PER
048
048
048
048
048
048
048
048
TRTa
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
`Treatment
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
TIME
T-96
T-72
T-48
T-36
T-24
T-18
T-12
T-06
NDF%
DM%
(DMB) LAG TIME LAG TIME
DISAP DISAP OF DM/h OF NDF/h
68.83
64.02
3.92
3.52
63.64 60.01
62.75
56.84
55.85
50.87
49.09 37.55
%/h
%/h
44.24 34.74 RATE OF RATE OF
37.66 24.50
DM DIS DM DIS
31.50 17.57
1.03
1.75
= WSB; 2 = ESB; 3 = SBM+BAR; 4 = CONTROL.
79
TABLE A.7
INFLUENCE OF SUPPLEMENTAL SOYBEAN SOURCE ON FEED INTAKE
(Exp. 2)
WSB
PEN 1
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
1
2
3
4
FORAGE
TOTAL
DMI
DMI
(lbs)
(lbs)
409.74
362.37
380.25
390.48
515.05
465.69
483.12
493.74
1542.84
1957.61
432.24
443.86
444.18
451.70
535.13
547.08
549.89
554.55
1771.98
2186.66
473.77
525.06
500.77
566.99
579.26
631.42
606.34
673.59
2066.60
2490.61
561.14
592.07
539.42
575.65
664.49
698.09
641.83
681.01
2268.28
2685.42
TRIAL AVERAGE
PEN/LBS/D
68.30
PER/HD/D
13.66
83.22
16.64
PERIOD 1
TOTAL--->
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
5
6
7
8
PERIOD 2
TOTAL--->
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
9
10
11
12
PERIOD 3
TOTAL--->
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
13
14
15
16
PERIOD 4
TOTAL--->
ESB
PEN 2
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
1
2
3
4
FORAGE
DMI
TOTAL
(lbs)
(lbs)
DMI
430.51
400.07
419.15
413.29
530.42
498.18
517.20
511.25
1663.02
2057.04
442.19
441.07
471.75
481.58
540.39
539.37
572.01
578.94
1836.58
2230.72
500.44
537.27
526.10
572.97
600.32
641.82
626.66
674.53
2136.78
2543.35
589.17
592.92
556.00
586.56
687.18
703.07
653.20
686.78
2324.67
2730.23
TRIAL AVERAGE
PEN/LBS/D
71.08
PER/HD/D
14.22
85.37
17.07
PERIOD 1
TOTAL--->
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
5
6
7
8
PERIOD 2
TOTAL--->
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
9
10
11
12
PERIOD 3
TOTAL--->
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
13
14
15
16
PERIOD 4
TOTAL--->
80
TABLE A.7
(continued) INFLUENCE OF SUPPLEMENTAL SOYBEAN SOURCE ON FEED
INTAKE (Exp. 2)
SBM+BAR
PEN 3
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
1
2
3
4
FORAGE
DMI
TOTAL
(lbs)
(lbs)
DMI
439.54
421.98
449.80
427.70
540.69
520.47
548.27
513.14
1739.01
2122.57
468.75
481.51
490.70
504.38
567.41
580.64
592.48
602.71
1945.34
2343.25
547.80
588.58
554.80
623.51
649.13
691.68
656.78
726.65
2314.69
2724.25
620.99
650.36
630.28
657.02
719.51
753.74
729.01
758.81
2558.65
2961.07
TRIAL AVERAGE
PEN/LBS/D
76.41
PER/HD/D
15.28
90.64
18.13
PERIOD 1
TOTAL--->
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
5
6
7
8
PERIOD 2
TOTAL--->
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
9
10
11
12
PERIOD 3
TOTAL--->
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
13
14
15
16
PERIOD 4
TOTAL--->
CONTROL
PEN 4
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
1
2
3
4
FORAGE
TOTAL
DMI
DMI
(lbs)
(lbs)
434.63
433.24
436.18
423.23
434.63
433.24
436.18
423.23
1727.28
1727.28
442.15
447.78
472.67
467.42
442.15
447.78
472.67
467.42
1830.02
1830.02
469.10
504.12
495.67
527.22
469.10
504.12
495.67
527.22
1996.11
1996.11
492.09
527.16
503.95
514.24
492.09
527.16
503.95
514.24
2037.44
2037.44
TRIAL AVERAGE
PEN/LBS/D
67.78
PER/HD/D
13.56
67.78
13.56
PERIOD 1
TOTAL--->
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
5
6
7
8
PERIOD 2
TOTAL--->
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
9
10
11
12
PERIOD 3
TOTAL--->
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
13
14
15
16
PERIOD 4
TOTAL--->
81
TABLE A.7
(continued) INFLUENCE OF SUPPLEMENTAL SOYBEAN SOURCE ON FEED
INTAKE (Exp. 2)
ESB
PEN 5
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
1
2
3
4
FORAGE
DMI
TOTAL
(lbs)
(lbs)
DMI
326.76
368.90
403.70
378.70
426.67
467.00
501.75
476.66
1478.06
1872.08
422.59
419.96
440.16
458.86
520.79
518.26
540.43
556.22
1741.56
2135.70
483.67
501.61
484.62
540.87
583.55
602.11
585.18
642.44
2010.77
2413.28
519.52
564.09
532.70
571.37
617.53
674.24
629.90
671.58
2187.69
2593.25
TRIAL AVERAGE
PEN/LBS/D
66.23
PER/HD/D
13.25
80.48
16.10
PERIOD 1
TOTAL--->
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
5
6
7
8
PERIOD 2
TOTAL--->
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
9
10
11
12
PERIOD 3
TOTAL--->
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
13
14
15
16
PERIOD 4
TOTAL--->
SBM+BAR
PEN 6
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
1
2
3
4
FORAGE
TOTAL
DMI
DMI
(lbs)
(lbs)
369.94
387.17
423.23
414.14
471.09
485.66
521.71
499.58
1594.47
1978.03
445.31
446.68
469.32
489.12
543.97
545.81
571.11
587.46
1850.44
2248.35
506.54
530.23
511.10
579.43
607.87
633.33
613.08
682.58
2127.31
2536.87
570.43
610.90
552.61
540.30
668.95
714.28
651.34
642.09
2274.24
2676.66
TRIAL AVERAGE
PEN/LBS/D
70.06
PER/HD/D
14.01
84.28
16.86
PERIOD 1
TOTAL--->
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
5
6
7
8
PERIOD 2
TOTAL--->
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
9
10
11
12
PERIOD 3
TOTAL--->
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
13
14
15
16
PERIOD 4
TOTAL--->
82
TABLE A.7
(continued) INFLUENCE OF SUPPLEMENTAL SOYBEAN SOURCE ON FEED
INTAKE (Exp. 2)
CONTROL
PEN 7
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
1
2
3
4
FORAGE
DMI
TOTAL
(lbsl
(lbsl
DMI
418.47
427.39
441.21
432.48
418.47
427.39
441.21
432.48
1719.55
1719.55
447.45
451.43
460.57
474.30
447.45
451.43
460.57
474.30
1833.76
1833.75
490.05
468.71
482.03
491.64
490.05
468.71
482.03
491.64
1932.43
1932.43
463.88
481.08
497.42
497.00
463.88
481.08
497.42
497.00
1939.37
1939.37
TRIAL AVERAGE
PEN/LBS/D
66.30
PER/HD/D
13.26
66.30
13.26
PERIOD 1
TOTAL--->
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
5
6
7
8
PERIOD 2
TOTAL--->
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
9
10
11
12
PERIOD 3
TOTAL--->
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
13
14
15
16
PERIOD 4
TOTAL--->
WSB
PEN 8
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
1
2
3
4
FORAGE
DMI
TOTAL
DMI
(lbs)
(lbs)
336.51
356.26
390.38
368.86
417.66
459.58
493.24
472.12
1452.01
1842.61
417.57
416.94
429.85
446.47
520.45
520.16
535.57
549.32
1710.83
2125.51
408.98
495.88
482.43
561.04
514.47
600.96
588.00
667.64
1948.35
2371.07
558.19
599.75
551.59
576.14
661.54
705.77
654.01
681.50
2285.68
2702.82
TRIAL AVERAGE
PEN/LBS/D
66.04
PER/HD/D
13.21
80.73
16.15
PERIOD 1
TOTAL--->
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
5
6
7
8
PERIOD 2
TOTAL--->
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
9
10
11
12
PERIOD 3
TOTAL--->
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
WEEK
13
14
15
16
PERIOD 4
TOTAL--->
83
TABLE A.8 INFLUENCE OF SUPPLEMENTAL SOYBEAN SOURCE ON PERFORMANCE"
(Exp. 2)
TREATMENT
PEN 1
WSB
WEIGH DAYS OF TRIAL AND WEIGHT OF STEERS
DAYS---->
STEERS
73
5
104
123
121
PEN WT
AV WT
0
1
28
56
84
111
112
654
684
608
582
554
672
688
624
580
556
718
740
668
618
581
801
816
719
672
640
875
915
833
742
722
933
935
872
799
769
944
956
896
818
778
3082.00
3120.00
620.20
3325.00
665.00
3648.00
729.60
4087 .00
817 .40
4308.00
870.00
4392
>
>
224.00
224.00
8.00
8.00
1.60
323.00
547.00
11.54
9.77
2.31
PEN GAIN FOR PERIOD
CUMULATIVE PEN GAIN
ADG FOR PERIOD
CUMULATIVE ADG
ADG PER ANIMAL
439
986
15
11
.00
.00
.68
.74
3 .14
263.00
1249.00
9.39
11.15
1.88
PEN'S DM FEED CONSUMPTION
FOR PERIOD
> 1957.61 2186.65 2490.61 2685.42
PEN'S CUMULATIVE DM
FEED CONSUMPTION
>
1957.61 4144.26 6634.87 9320.29
AVG DM FEED CONSUMPTION
FOR PERIOD
> 391.5219
437.33 498.122 537.084
AVG CUMULATIVE DM
FEED CONSUMPTION
> 391.5219 828.8519 1326.974 1864.058
FEED/GAIN/PERIOD
CUMULATIVE FEED/GAIN
8.74
8.74
6.77
7.58
'Units for all numerical values are given in lbs.
5.67
6.73
10.21
7.46
84
TABLE A.8 (continued) INFLUENCE OF SUPPLEMENTAL SOYBEAN SOURCE
ON PERFORMANCE' (Exp. 2)
PEN 2
TREATMENT
WEIGH DAYS OF TRIAL AND WEIGHT OF STEERS
DAYS---->
STEERS
55
70
39
107
142
PEN WT
AV WT
ESB
0
1
28
56
84
111
112
698
678
624
580
586
698
688
632
584
590
752
755
687
626
638
827
848
747
697
722
926
930
840
789
801
979
991
898
830
859
981
998
892
850
870
3166.00
3192.00
635.80
PEN GAIN FOR PERIOD
CUMULATIVE PEN GAIN
ADG FOR PERIOD
CUMULATIVE ADG
ADG PER ANIMAL
>
>
>
>
>
3458.00
691.60
279.00
279.00
9.96
9.96
1.99
3841.00
768.20
383.00
662.00
13.68
11.82
2.74
4286.00 4557.00 4591.00
857.20 914.80
445.00
1107.00
15.89
13.18
3.18
288.00
1395.00
10.29
12.46
2.06
PEN'S DM FEED CONSUMPTION
FOR PERIOD
> 2057.04 2230.71
2543.33 2730.23
PEN'S CUMULATIVE DM
FEED CONSUMPTION
> 2057.043 4287.753 6831.083 9561.313
AVG DM FEED CONSUMPTION
FOR PERIOD
> 411.4086
446.142 508.666 546.046
AVG CUMULATIVE DM
FEED CONSUMPTION
> 411.4086 857.5506 1366.217 1912.263
FEED/GAIN/PERIOD
CUMULATIVE FEED/GAIN
>
>
7.37
7.37
5.82
6.48
'Units for all numerical values are given in lbs.
5.72
6.17
9.48
6.85
85
TABLE A.8 (continued) INFLUENCE OF SUPPLEMENTAL SOYBEAN SOURCE
ON PERFORMANCE* (Exp. 2)
PEN 3
TREATMENT
SBM+BAR
WEIGH DAYS OF TRIAL AND WEIGHT OF STEERS
DAYS---->
STEERS
137
12
27
35
163
PEN WT
AV WT
0
1
28
56
84
111
112
806
636
628
566
538
790
640
632
568
548
904
728
713
637
609
986
800
780
693
661
1092
868
887
774
741
1171
940
950
829
806
1169
945
950
833
820
3174.00
3178.00
635.20
PEN GAIN FOR PERIOD
CUMULATIVE PEN GAIN
ADG FOR PERIOD
CUMULATIVE ADG
ADG PER ANIMAL
3591.00
718.20
>
>
>
>
>
415.00
415.00
14.82
14.82
2.96
3920.00
784.00
329.00
744.00
11.75
13.29
2.35
4362.00 4696.00 4717.00
872.40 941.30
442.00
1186.00
15.79
14.12
3.16
344.50
1530.50
12.30
13.67
2.46
PEN'S DM FEED CONSUMPTION
FOR PERIOD
> 2122.57 2343.24
2724.24 2961.07
PEN'S CUMULATIVE DM
FEED CONSUMPTION
> 2122.573 4465.813 7190.053 10151.12
AVG DM FEED CONSUMPTION
FOR PERIOD
> 424.5146 468.648 544.848
592.214
AVG CUMULATIVE DM
FEED CONSUMPTION
> 424.5146 893.1626 1438.011 2030.225
FEED/GAIN/PERIOD
CUMULATIVE FEED/GAIN
>
>
5.11
5.11
7.12
6.00
*Units for all numerical values are given in lbs.
6.16
6.06
8.60
6.63
86
TABLE A.8 (continued) INFLUENCE OF SUPPLEMENTAL SOYBEAN SOURCE
ON PERFORMANCE' (Exp. 2)
PEN 4
TREATMENT CONTROL
WEIGH DAYS OF TRIAL AND WEIGHT OF STEERS
DAYS---->
STEERS
105
3
91
139
47
PEN WT
AV WT
0
1
28
56
84
111
112
666
612
594
572
556
662
602
596
570
560
694
644
635
600
592
704
668
670
617
608
742
692
676
648
644
756
696
704
677
654
768
708
703
691
659
3000.00
2990.00
599.00
PEN GAIN FOR PERIOD
CUMULATIVE PEN GAIN
ADG FOR PERIOD
CUMULATIVE ADG
ADG PER ANIMAL
3165.00
633.00
>
>
>
>
>
170.00
170.00
6.07
6.07
1.21
3267.00
653.40
102.00
272.00
3.64
4.86
0.73
3402.00 3487.00 3529.00
680.40 701.60
135.00
407.00
4.82
4.85
0.96
106.00
513.00
3.79
4.58
0.76
PEN'S DM FEED CONSUMPTION
FOR PERIOD
> 1727.28 1830.02
1996.11 2037.44
PEN'S CUMULATIVE DM
FEED CONSUMPTION
> 1727.281 3557.301 5553.411 7590.851
AVG DM FEED CONSUMPTION
FOR PERIOD
> 345.4562
366.004 399.222 407.488
AVG CUMULATIVE DM
FEED CONSUMPTION
> 345.4562 711.4602 1110.682
1518.17
FEED/GAIN/PERIOD
CUMULATIVE FEED/GAIN
>
>
10.16
10.16
17.94
13.08
'Units for all numerical values are given in lbs.
14.79
13.64
19.22
14.80
87
TABLE A.8 (continued) INFLUENCE OF SUPPLEMENTAL SOYBEAN SOURCE
ON PERFORMANCE' (Exp. 2)
PEN 5
TREATMENT
WEIGH DAYS OF TRIAL AND WEIGHT OF STEERS
DAYS---->
STEERS
95
64
135
102
157
PEN WT
AV WT
ESB
0
1
28
56
84
111
112
660
626
590
586
544
678
650
612
608
570
729
722
647
653
624
811
801
712
702
682
890
892
948
959
832
827
811
946
957
828
834
779
3006.00
3118.00
612.40
PEN GAIN FOR PERIOD
>
CUMULATIVE PEN GAIN
>
ADG FOR PERIOD
>
CUMULATIVE ADG
>
ADG PER ANIMAL
PEN'S DM FEED CONSUMPTION
FOR PERIOD
>
PEN'S CUMULATIVE DM
FEED CONSUMPTION
>
AVG DM FEED CONSUMPTION
FOR PERIOD
>
AVG CUMULATIVE DM
FEED CONSUMPTION
>
FEED/GAIN/PERIOD
CUMULATIVE FEED/GAIN
3375.00
675.00
3708.00
741.60
782
794
745
4103.00
820.60
4377.00 4344.00
872.10
313.00
313.00
11.18
11.18
2.24
333.00
646.00
11.89
11.54
2.38
395.00
1041.00
14.11
12.39
2.82
257.50
1298.50
9.20
11.59
1.84
1872.08
2135.70
2413.28
2593.25
1872.08
4007.78
6421.06
9014.31
374.416
427.14
482.656
518.65
374.416
5.98
5.98
801.556 1284.212 1802.862
6.41
6.20
'Units for all numerical values are given in lbs.
6.11
6.17
10.07
6.94
88
TABLE A.8 (continued) INFLUENCE OF SUPPLEMENTAL SOYBEAN SOURCE
ON PERFORMANCEA (Exp. 2)
PEN 6
TREATMENT
WEIGH DAYS OF TRIAL AND WEIGHT OF STEERS
DAYS---->
STEERS
66
34
120
94
130
PEN WT
AV WT
SBM+BAR
0
1
28
56
84
111
112
654
616
592
604
562
672
628
608
615
572
732
700
677
675
643
799
746
729
736
684
857
825
839
830
774
928
808
893
880
862
930
798
854
866
840
3 028.00
3095.00
612.30
PEN GAIN FOR PERIOD
CUMULATIVE PEN GAIN
ADG FOR PERIOD
CUMULATIVE ADG
ADG PER ANIMAL
3427.00
685.40
>
>
>
>
>
365.50
365.50
13.05
13.05
2.61
3694.00
738.80
267.00
632.50
9.54
11.29
1.91
4125.00
825.00
431.00
1063.50
15.39
12.66
3.08
PEN'S DM FEED CONSUMPTION
FOR PERIOD
>
1978.03 2248.35 2536.86
PEN'S CUMULATIVE DM
FEED CONSUMPTION
>
1978.03 4226.38
6763.24
AVG DM FEED CONSUMPTION
FOR PERIOD
> 395.6059
449.67 507.372
AVG CUMULATIVE DM
FEED CONSUMPTION
> 395.6059 845.2759 1352.648
FEED/GAIN/PERIOD
CUMULATIVE FEED/GAIN
>
>
5.41
5.41
8.42
6.68
5.89
6.36
'Units for all numerical values are given in lbs.
4371.00 4288.00
865.90
204.50
1268.00
7.30
11.32
1.46
2676.66
9439.9
535.332
1887.98
13.09
7.44
89
TABLE A.8 (continued) INFLUENCE OF SUPPLEMENTAL SOYBEAN SOURCE
ON PERFORMANCE° (Exp. 2)
PEN 7
TREATMENT CONTROL
WEIGH DAYS OF TRIAL AND WEIGHT OF STEERS
DAYS---->
STEERS
72
11
109
116
92
PEN WT
AV WT
0
1
28
56
84
111
112
720
636
628
586
546
700
630
615
570
532
738
664
656
621
565
758
680
669
636
585
782
688
698
663
597
812
715
722
686
621
818
703
738
687
618
3116.00
3047.00
616.30
PEN GAIN FOR PERIOD
CUMULATIVE PEN GAIN
ADG FOR PERIOD
CUMULATIVE ADG
ADG PER ANIMAL
3244.00
648.80
>
>
>
>
>
162.50
162.50
5.80
5.80
1.16
3328.00
665.60
84.00
246.50
3.00
4.40
0.60
3428.00
685.60
100.00
346.50
3.57
4.13
0.71
3556.00 3564.00
712.00
132.00
478.50
4.71
4.27
0.94
PEN'S DM FEED CONSUMPTION
FOR PERIOD
> 1719.55
1833.75 1932.43 1939.38
PEN'S CUMULATIVE DM
FEED CONSUMPTION
> 1719.55
3553.3 5485.729 7425.109
AVG DM FEED CONSUMPTION
FOR PERIOD
> 343.9099
366.75 386.486 387.876
AVG CUMULATIVE DM
FEED CONSUMPTION
> 343.9099 710.6599 1097.146 1485.022
FEED/GAIN/PERIOD
CUMULATIVE FEED/GAIN
>
>
10.58
10.58
21.83
14.42
19.32
15.83
'Units for all numerical values are given in lbs.
14.69
15.52
90
TABLE A.8 (continued) INFLUENCE OF SUPPLEMENTAL SOYBEAN SOURCE
ON PERFORMANCE* (Exp. 2)
TREATMENT
PEN 8
WSB
WEIGH DAYS OF TRIAL AND WEIGHT OF STEERS
DAYS---->
STEERS
54
86
50
58
125
PEN WT
AV WT
0
1
28
56
84
111
112
648
638
612
590
576
652
654
625
588
578
712
688
658
658
618
775
734
704
724
683
846
826
778
798
758
869
842
833
882
830
880
861
838
890
805
3064.00
3097.00
616.10
PEN GAIN FOR PERIOD
CUMULATIVE PEN GAIN
ADG FOR PERIOD
CUMULATIVE ADG
ADG PER ANIMAL
3334.00
666.80
3620.00
724.00
4006.00
801.20
4256.00 4274.00
853.00
>
>
>
>
>
253.50
253.50
9.05
9.05
1.81
286.00
539.50
10.21
9.63
2.04
386.00
925.50
13.79
11.02
2.76
259.00
1184.50
9.25
10.58
1.85
PEN'S DM FEED CONSUMPTION
FOR PERIOD
>
PEN'S CUMULATIVE DM
FEED CONSUMPTION
>
1842.61
2125.50
2370.43
2703.82
1842.61
3968.11
6338.54
9042.36
'Units for all numerical values are given in lbs.
91
TABLE A.9 FEED COST, AND COST/UNIT OF GAIN (Exp. 2)
Soybean Meal - $246.00/T
Rolled Barley - $130.00/T
Soybean Meal/Barley - $201.92/T..@ 1.82 tons fed
$367.49
Whole Soybeans
$288.00/T..@ 1.85 tons fed
$532.80
Extruded Soybeans --- $355.00/T..@ 1.66 tons fed
$589.30
Ground Hay
$45.00/T..@ 30.95 tons fed...$1392.75
Total Feed Cost
$2881.54
TREATMENT
ADG
Cost of gain
SBM+BAR
HAY
TOTAL
$367.49
$369.23
$736.72
2.49 lbs
1.13 kg
$.26/lb
$.58/kg
WSB
HAY
TOTAL
$532.80
$339.29
$872.09
2.18 lbs
.99 kg
$.36/lb
$.79/kg
ESB
HAY
TOTAL
$589.30
$345.95
$935.25
2.40 lbs
1.09 kg
$.35/lb
$.77/kg
CONTROL
HAY
$338.18
.88 lbs
.40 kg
$.34/lb
$.75/kg