Bypass supplementation of grazing pregnant beef cows
by Jess Lee Miner
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in
Animal Science
Montana State University
© Copyright by Jess Lee Miner (1986)
Abstract:
The objective was to determine if supplementing additional rumen-bypass protein vs only an oil-seed
meal could reduce prepart urn weight loss. Other objectives were to determine the effects of
supplement (S) on forage digestibility, ad libitum intake and blood metabolite concentrations. During
two winters (trials 1 and 2) approximately 60 prepartum beef cows were grazed on native foothills
range. Cows were randomly allotted to five S groups and supplemented on alternate days in early
afternoon with either (g/d): none (control) 570 soybean meal (SOY); 450 soybean meal and 230 blood
meal (SOY+BM); 140 soybean meal, 16 urea and 450 corn gluten meal (SOY+COM) or 570 soybean
meal and 210 animal fat (SOY+FAT). Palpable condition scores and body weights were determined at
trial initiation (mid-December) and ending (early March). Each month (sampling period) neutral
detergent fiber (NDF) fermentation rate of grazed forage was measured via nylon bags. Cobalt EDTA
and Cr mordant were used to measure ruminal fluid and particulate mass and dilution rate. At the
intervals nylon bags were removed, blood samples were obtained and ruminal ammonia and pH were
measured with a meter. Serum was analyzed for concentration of glucose, albumin, total protein, urea
nitrogen, total bilirubin, creatinine, cholesterol and amino acids. Cows in control gained the least
(P<.01) body weight in both trials 1 (-1.9 kg) and 2 (-46.4 kg). Additional bypass protein increased
(P=.06) weight gain of SOY+BM (-1.8 kg) and SOY+CGM (-15.0 kg) compared to SOY (-20.1 kg) in
trial 2. Except for cholesterol blood metabolites were not affected by S but the interaction with period
was often significant. For example, during cold temperatures and snow cover bilirubin was elevated
most in control and least in SOY+BM. Fermentation rate was increased (P<.01) by supplementation in
trial 1. It was higher (P=.07) for SOY+BM (2.6%/h) and S0Y+.CGM (2.8%/h) than for SOY (2.3%/h).
Fermentation rate was not influenced by S in trial 2 but the same trends were observed. Ruminal pH
was lower (P=.03) for SOY than control in trial 1 and lower for SOY+BM and SOY+OGM than for
SOY in trials 1 (P=.01) and 2 (P=.09). Ruminal ammonia was lowest (P=.03) in control but not
different between other S groups. Fluid dilution rate was lower and volume higher for SOY+BM and
SOY+CGM than SOY in both trials 1 (P<.06) and 2 (P<.14). Particulate dilution rate followed the
same trend (P=.03). Bypass protein additions to rumert-degradable protein supplement can reduce
prepartum weight loss of grazing cows. In addition, bypass protein can enhance NDF fermentation and
increase ruminal retention time. Cows supplemented with SOY plus bypass protein were least affected
by changes in environment as indicated by blood metabolites. BYPASS SUPPLEMENTATION OF
GRAZING PREGNANT BEEF COWS
by
Jess
Lee
Miner
A th e sis submitted in p a r tia l fu lfillm en t
of th e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r the d eg r ee
of
Master
of
Science
in
Animal
Science
MONTANA STATE UNI VERSI TY
Bozeman, Mont ana
November
1986
IAIN LIB.
//3 7 f
/»1 6 ^ 2
■op.
ii
APPROVAL
of
a thesis
submitted
Jess
Miner
Lee
by
This
t h e s i s h a s b e e n r e a d by e a c h me mb e r o f t h e t h e s i s
committee
a n d h a s b e e n f o u n d t o be
satisfactory
regarding
content,
English usage,
format,
citations,
bibliographic
style,
and c o n s i s t e n c y ,
and i s r e a d y f o r s u b m i s s i o n to the
College of Graduate S tu d ie s .
Dsc- K IcTBb
Date
Chairperson,
Committee
Approved f o r
ei
Date
^
\ v ,
Major
Department
I
Head,
Approved f o r
Da t e
the
Graduate
the
College
of
Major
Graduate
Graduate
Department
Studies
De a n
iii
STATEMENT OF PERMI SSI ON TO COPY
In
presenting
requirements
University,
to
this
thesis
a
m a ster’s
for
I agree
borrowers
that
under
quotations
from
permission,
provided
is
the
this
degree
Library
rules
thesis
that
partial
accurate
at
Montana
of
the
State
shall
ma k e i t
the
Library.
. Brief
allowable without
special
of
are
fulfillment
acknowledgement
available
of
source
made.
Permission
of
the
in
this
his
thesis
absence,
opinion
of
scholarly
this
ma y
be g r a n t e d
by t h e
either,
for
Director
the
Dextmker
quotation
of
the
use
Any c o p y i n g o r
financial
gain
W lm ir u
/996
from or
by my m a j o r
proposed
permission.
Signature
Dat m
extensive
purposes.
thesis
my w r i t t e n
for
shall
professor,
Libraries
of
reproduction
when,
the m a te r ia l
use
of
not
be a l l o w e d
or
in
in the
is
the m a te ria ls
for
in
without
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The i n v e s t i g a t i o n s
several
scientists,
relatives.
Individuals
herein
represent
instructors,
of
the
graduate
particular
influence
students
significance
are
of
and
Mr.
a n d M r s . R u s s e l l M i n e r f o r s h o w i n g me h o w t o w o r k ; Dr s . M a r k
Petersen,
K ris
Berardihelli
sincerely
Havstad,
M ichael
and R obert B ellow s.
appreciated.
M clnerney,
Their
James
contributions
are
V
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
L I S T OF TABLES............................................................................................................
L I S T OF F I GURE S ................................................................................................
ABSTRACT...................................................................................
vii
x
xi
I NTRODUCTI ON.......................................................
I
LI TERATURE REVI EW......................
3
E f f e c t of P r e p a r t u m N u t r i t i o n on R e p r o d u c t i o n . . . .
N e e d f o r S u p p l e m e n t . . .........................
S u p p l e m e n t E f f e c t o n I n t a k e ..........................................................
A s s e s s i n g E f f i c a c y o f a S u p p l e m e n t ..........................................
C o n v e n t i o n a l m e a s u r e s . . . ..............................
B l o o d m e t a b o l i t e s . ..............................................................................
3
4
5
I8
18
19
MATERIALS AND METHODS........................ .................................................................
25
A n i m a l s . ...............................................................................................................
P a s t u r e ................
T r e a t m e n t s ..................................................................
M e a s u r e m e n t s ............................................... ...................................................
R u m i n a l f l o w k i n e t i c s . . . . , .................................
F e r m e n t a t i o n r a t e ............................................................
R u m i n a l pH a n d a m m o n i a .................................
Cow w e i g h t s , c o n d i t i o n s c o r e s a n d c a l f
b i r t h w e i g h t s . . . .................................................................................
B l o o d m e t a b o l i t e s .............................................................................
S t a t i s t i c a l A n a l y s e s ...........................
25
26
26
29
29
31
32
RESULTS...................................
C l i m a t i c ............................... ............................................................................ .
B l o o d M e t a b o l i t e s . ...................................
T r i a l I ...........................
T r i a l 2 ...........................................................................................................
Cow W e i g h t s , C o n d i t i o n S c o r e s a n d C a l f
B i r t h w e i g h t s ............................................................
T r i a l I ........................
T r i a l 2 . . . . . . ................
R u m i n a l pH a n d A m m o n i a ...........................
T r i a l I ......................................................................................................
T r i a l 2 ..............................
34
34
36
38
38
38
38
45
46
46
49
50
50
53
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS -
Continued
Page
F e r m e n t a t i o n R a t e . . . .................................................................
T r i a l I .........................................
T r i a l 2 . . . . ................................................................................
R u m i n a l F l o w K i n e t i c s . ................
T r i a l I .....................................................................
T r i a l 2 , ........................................................... ........................................ .. .
53
53
53
54
54
54
DI S C US S I ON........................................................................................................................
59
SUMMARY..............................
76
RECOMMENDATIONS...................
78
REFERENCES CI TED.......................................................
88
AP P ENDI CES ..............................................................................................................
A p p e n d ! x A.....................
A p p e n d i x B .......................................................... .........................................
99
100
I 02
vii
L I S T OF TABLES
Table
1.
Page
F o r a g e i n t a k e a s i n f l u e n c e d by p r o t e i n o r e n e r g y
s u p p l e m e n t a t i o n . . . . ............................ ................................... .. ................
2.
Supplement
( k g / d ) ........................................................
27
3.
Equations used to c a l c u la te ruminal n e u tra l d e t e r ­
g e n t f i b e r ( NDF) f e r m e n t a t i o n r a t e , f l u i d a n d
p a r t i c u l a t e v o l u m e a n d d i l u t i o n r a t e a n d NDF
d i g e s t i b i l i t y ( t r i a l s I a n d 2 ) ........................................
33
Least-squares a n a ly sis of variance for precalving
c o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f g l u c o s e ( G L ) , a l b u m i n ( AL),
t o t a l p r o t e i n ( T P ) , u r e a n i t r o g e n ( UN) , t o t a l
b i l i r u b i n ( B I L ) , c r e a t i n i n e ( ORE ) , a n d c h o l e s t e r o l
( CHO; t r i a l I ) .................................................................................................
40
L e a s t - s q u a r e s a n a l y s i s of v aria n c e for precalving
c o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f g l u c o s e ( G L ) , a l b u m i n (AL),
t o t a l p r o t e i n ( T P ) , u r e a n i t r o g e n ( UN) , t o t a l
b i l i r u b i n ( B I L ) , c r e a t i n i n e ( C R E ) , and c h o l e s t e r o l
( CHO ; t r i a l 2 ) .................................... ... ........................................................
41
L e a s t - s q u a r e s means f o r p r e c a l v i n g c o n c e n t r a t i o n s
of g l u c o s e , a l b u mi n , t o t a l p r o t e i n , u r e a n i t r o g e n ,
t o t a l b i l i r u b i n , c r e a t i n i n e a n d c h o l e s t e r o l by
sampling period
( t r i a l I ) ........... ..........................................
42
L e a s t - s q u a r e s means f o r p r e c a l v i n g c o n c e n t r a t i o n s
of g l u c o s e , albu min, t o t a l p r o t e i n , u r e a n i t r o g e n ,
t o t a l b i l i r u b i n , c r e a t i n i n e a n d c h o l e s t e r o l by
s a m p l i n g p e r i o d ( t r i a l 2 ) . . . . . . . . .............. .......................... .
43
L e a s t - s q u a r e s means f o r p r e c a l v i n g c o n c e n t r a t i o n s
of g l u c o s e ( G L ) , a l b u m i n (AL), t o t a l p r o t e i n ( TP ) ,
u r e a n i t r o g e n ( UN) , t o t a l b i l i r u b i n ( B I L ) ,
c r e a t i n i n e ( CRE) a n d c h o l e s t e r o l (CHO) by s a m p l i n g
i n t e r v a l ( t r i a l I ) .............................. .......................................................
43
L e a s t - s q u a r e s means f o r p r e e a l v i n g c o n c e n t r a t i o n s
of g l u c o s e , albumin, t o t a l p r o t e i n , u r ea n i t r o g e n ,
t o t a l b i l i r u b i n , c r e a t i n i n e a n d c h o l e s t e r o l by
s a m p l i n g i n t e r v a l ( t r i a l 2 ) .............................................................
44
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
composition
6
viii
L I S T OF TABLES -
Continued
Table
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
1 6.
17.
18.
19.
Page
L e a s t-s q u a re s a n a l y s i s of v aria n c e fo r c alf
b i r t h w e i g h t a n d cow b o d y w e i g h t a n d c o n d i t i o n
s c o r e c h a n g e ( t r i a l I ) . . . . ....................................... ........................
47
L east-sq u ares a n a ly sis of variance for c a lf
b i r t h w e i g h t a n d cow b o d y w e i g h t a n d c o n d i t i o n
s c o r e c h a n g e ( t r i a l 2 ) . .............. ............................................................
48
L e a s t - s q u a r e s m e a n s f o r c a l f b i r t h w e i g h t a n d cow
body w e i g h t and c o n d i t i o n s c o r e change
( t r i a l s I a n d 2 ) ............................................................................................
49
L e a st-sq u a re s a n a l y s i s of variance for p reca lv in g
r u m i n a l a m mo n i a c o n c e n t r a t i o n a n d pH
( t r i a l s I a n d 2 ) ...................... .............................................................. .. .
51
L e a s t - s q u a r e s m e a n s f o r p r e c a l v i n g r u m i n a l ammoni a
c o n c e n t r a t i o n a n d pH by s a m p l i n g p e r i o d ( P ER;
t r i a l s I a n d 2 ) ............................ .................................................................
52
L e a s t - s q u a r e s m e a n s f o r p r e c a l v i n g r u m i n a l a mmoni a
c o n c e n t r a t i o n a n d pH by s a m p i n g i n t e r v a l
( t r i a l s I a n d 2 ) ............................................................. .............................
52
L e a s t - s q u a r e s a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e fo r p r e c a lv in g
r u m i n a l f l u i d d i l u t i o n r a t e , f l u i d volume and
n e u t r a l d e t e r g e n t f i b e r (MDF) f e r m e n t a t i o n r a t e
( t r i a l I ) ...............................................................................................................
56
L e a s t - s q u a r e s a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e fo r p r e c a lv in g
r um inal f l u i d and p a r t i c u l a t e d i l u t i o n r a t e ,
f l u i d v o l u m e a n d n e u t r a l d e t e r g e n t f i b e r ( NDF)
f e r m e n t a t i o n r a t e ( t r i a l 2 ) .............................................................
57
L e a s t - s q u a r e s means f o r p r e c a l v i n g r u m i n a l f l u i d
and p a r t i c u l a t e d i l u t i o n r a t e s , f l u i d volume and
n e u t r a l d e t e r g e n t f i b e r (MDF) f e r m e n t a t i o n r a t e
( t r i a l s I a n d 2 ) .............. .............................................................. ..
58
L e a s t - s q u a r e s means f o r p r e c a l v i n g r u m i n a l f l u i d
and p a r t i c u l a t e d i l u t i o n r a t e s , f l u i d volume and
n e u t r a l d e t e r g e n t f i b e r ( NDF) f e r m e n t a t i o n r a t e
by s a m p l i n g p e r i o d ( t r i a l s I a n d 2 ) .................................
58
ix
L I S T QF TABLES -
Continued
Table
20.
21.
Page
Me a n s f o r e s o p h a g e a l e x t r u s a c r u d e p r o t e i n , a c i d
d e t e r g e n t f i b e r and a c i d d e t e r g e n t l i g n i n w i t h i n
m o n t h a n d t r i a l ( % ) ................................................................................... .
102
L e a s t - S q u a r e s Me a n s f o r P r e c a l v i n g S e r u m
C o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f Ami no A c i d s ( u m o l e s / m l ;
p e r i o d 2 , t r i a l I ) ..................... .............. .. ............................ ..
103
X
L I S T OF FI GURES
Figure
1.
2.
Page
Crude p r o t e i n c o n t e n t of u n d i g e s t e d s u p p l e m e n t
a s a f f e c t e d by i n s i t u i n c u b a t i o n .............................................
100
Q u a n t i t y of crude p r o t e i n r e m a i n i n g a f t e r i n
s i t u i n c u b a t i o n . . .. . .............................. ................ ...................................
ioi
xi
ABSTRACT
The o b je c tiv e was to determ ine i f supplem enting a d d itio n a l rumen-bypass
p ro te in v s only an o il- s e e d meal could reduce p re p a rt urn w eig h t lo s s . Other
o b j e c t i v e s w ere to d e te rm in e th e e f f e c t s o f su p p lem en t (S) on f o ra g e
d i g e s t i b i l i t y , ad lib itu m in ta k e and blood m e ta b o lite co n cen tratio n s. During
two w in te rs ( t r i a l s I and 2) approxim ately 60 prepartum beef cows were grazed
on n a tiv e f o o t h i l l s range. Cows were randomly a l lo tt e d to f iv e S groups and
su p p le m e n te d on a l t e r n a t e d a y s i n e a r l y a f te r n o o n w i t h e i t h e r (g /d ): none
(co n tro l) 570 soybean m eal (SOY); 450 soybean meal and 230 blood meal (SOY+BM);
140 soybean meal, 16 u rea and 450 corn g lu te n meal (SOY+COM) o r 570 soybean
meal and 210 anim al f a t (SOY+FAT). Palpable co n d itio n sc o re s and body w eig h ts
w ere determ ined a t t r i a l i n i t i a t i o n (mid-December) and ending (e a rly March).
Each month (sam pling perio d ) n e u tra l d e te rg e n t f i b e r (NDF) fe rm e n ta tio n r a te o f
grazed forag e was measured v ia nylon bags. Cobalt EDTA and Cr mordant were
used to measure rum inal f lu i d and p a r tic u la te mass and d ilu tio n r a te . At th e
in t e r v a ls nylon bags w ere rem oved, blood sam ples were o b tained and rum inal
ammonia and pH w e re m easu red w ith a m e te r.
Serum w as a n a ly z e d f o r
c o n c e n tr a ti o n o f g lu c o s e , alb u m in , t o t a l p r o t e i n , u r e a n itr o g e n , t o t a l
b ilir u b in , c re a tin in e , c h o le ste ro l and amino acid s. Cows in co n tro l gained th e
l e a s t (P<.01) body w e ig h t i n b o th t r i a l s I (-1 .9 kg) and 2 (-4 6 .4 kg).
A dditional bypass p ro te in in c re ased (P=.06) w eight g ain of SOY+BM (-1.8 kg) and
SOY+CGM (-1 5 .0 kg) com pared t o SOY (-20.1 kg) i n t r i a l 2.
Except f o r
c h o le ste ro l blood m e ta b o lite s were n o t a ffe c te d by S but th e in te r a c tio n w ith
p erio d was o fte n s ig n if ic a n t. For example, during cold tem p eratu res and snow
cover b il ir u b in was e lev ate d most in co n tro l and l e a s t i n SOY+BM. Ferm entation
r a t e w as i n c r e a s e d (P<.01) by s u p p le m e n ta tio n i n t r i a l I . I t w as h ig h e r
(P=.07) f o r SOY+BM (2.6% /h) and S0Y+.CGM (2.8% /h) th a n f o r SOY (2.3% /h).
F erm entation r a t e was n o t in flu en ced by S i n t r i a l 2 but th e same tren d s were
observed. Ruminal pH was lo w er (P=.03) f o r SOY than co n tro l i n t r i a l I and
low er f o r SOY+BM and SOY+OGM th an fo r SOY i n t r i a l s I (P= .01) and 2 (P=.09).
Ruminal ammonia was lo w est (P=.03) in co n tro l but not d if f e r e n t between o th e r S
groups. F lu id d ilu tio n r a t e was low er and volume h ig h er fo r SOY+BM and SOY+CGM
th a n SOY i n b o th t r i a l s I (P<.06) and 2 (P<.14). P a r t i c u l a t e d i l u t i o n r a t e
follow ed th e same tre n d (P= .03). Bypass p r o te in a d d itio n s to rum en-degradable
p r o t e i n su p p le m e n t can re d u c e p re p a rtu m w e ig h t l o s s o f g r a z in g cows. I n
a d d itio n , bypass p r o te in can enhance NDF fe rm e n ta tio n and in c re a se rum inal
r e te n tio n tim e.
Cows supplem ented w ith SOY p lu s bypass p r o te in were l e a s t
a ffe c te d by changes i n environm ent a s in d ic a te d by blood m e tab o lites.
I
INTRODUCTION
The n u t r i e n t
protein,
concentration
vitam in
and
mineral
declines
with maturity.
dormant
forage
nutrition
Forage
is
be
for
winter
less
or
To
date,
grazing
has
However,
intake
the
been
in
(Siebert
However,
grazing,
it
is
usually
and s u p p le m e n t
those
supplementing
winter
forage.
deficient
it
is
to
also
Hunter,
not
protein
been
in
shown to
1981)
and
the
forage.
affect
forage
grazing
supply
intestine.
in
rate
supplem entation
known w h e t h e r
increased
of
and
Since
nutrients
and
quality
to h a r v e s t .
to
has
cows.
forage
of
feed
beef
standing
objective
m icrobial
value
times
primary
enhanced
growth
the
high
adequate
behavior
I 985).
Responses
digested
at
by g r a z i n g
normally
provide
gestating
prohibitive
crude
the w i n t e r months
of
for
energy,
forage
times
exposed
to h a r v e s t
supplement
( Adams,
during
not
in
However,
often
deficient
does
body w e i g h t
feed.
is
expensive
nutrients
Montana d u r i n g
economically
forage
c o n t e n t ) of
usually
harvested
physically
standing
alone
to m aintain
can
stored
In
(digestible
of
n u tritio n
amino
additional
the
intestine
of
bypass
calves
protein
in
acids
Providing
small
the
effect
the
protein
rumen
which
(rumen-bypass)
ge s t a t i n g
et
beef
common.
occurs
presented
(K lopfenstein
for
are
a l.,
or
to
due
due
the
is
to
to
small
primarily
has increased
I 97 8 ) .
cows h a s
not
The
been
2
established.
if
The
supplementing
objective
additional
oil-seed
meal
loss
thus have
Other
and
on
factors
blood
could reduce
objectives
degradable
were
related
to
to
this
study
rumen-bypass
was
to
protein
determine
vs
only
an
p r e p a r t ur n w e i g h t a n d c o n d i t i o n
a probable
protein with
metabolite
of
impact
determine
or w ith o u t
the
effect
additional
digestibility,
concentrations.
on p o s t p a r t u m
ad
interval.
of
rumen-
bypass
protein
libitum
intake
and
3
LI TERATURE REVIEW
Effect
The
most
failure
of
I 983).
The
im portant
to
time
Clanton
and
Bellows
et
(1981)
did
between
not
on
at
recommendations,
120,
been
energy
but
energy
In
effect
effect
fact,
energy
consumption
and
less
intervals
level
and
in
Short,
1978;
However,
80%
of
seems
NRC
once
than
the
Dunn
et
postpartum
T h ey
a high
when
has
not
also
consumption,
prepartum
al. ,
I 96 9 ) .
lengthened
energy
prepartum
hypothesized
energy
does
interval
found
( I 97 6 )
the
im portant
cows f e d a t
energy
NRC
energy
(1978)
fed
investigators
postpartum
1962;
they
consumption
Postpartum
Vavra
energy
( 1 976)
of
that
energy
al.,
and
prepartura
50- 6 0$
Short
deficient.
I 96 9;
aforementioned
to
increasing
et
of
estrus,
a l .,
Phillips
interval.
it
(W iltbank
was
effect
is
p r e p a r a t urn
et
and
crop
Bellows,
with
Dunn
contrast,
interval.
seems
1 962;
Bellows
increasing
Bellows
postpartum
low
by
correlated
al. ,
the
Thus,
postpartum
this
firs t
in ta k e
met,
shortened
and
I 00
whereas
recommendations.
shorten
parturition
postpartum
cows
is
and
In
an
calf
(Dziuk
1970;
find
net
pregnant
et
I 982).
on R e p r o d u c t i o n
reducing
highly
(W iltbank
al.,
requirement
is
Zimmerman,
consumption
lim ite d
factor
become
interval)
intake
gestating
Prepartum N u tritio n
cows
(postpartum
energy
of
that
level
vs
energy
the
high
4
postpartum
which
in
energy
turn
consumption
increased
Bellow s
and
interval
condition
score
decreases
in
Zimmerman
loss
( I 97 0 )
was
low,
weight
gain
in
and
found
to
that
protein intake
that
the
consumption
cows
et
of
al.
winter
of
the
is
are
postpartum
grazed
supplementation
such
impaired.
is
not
increase
found
no e f f e c t
c o n s u m p tio n was
nutrient
and
(1 9 8 5 )
energy
usually
below
magnitude
Although
readily
interval,
forage
A llison
protein
range
by
supplements
lengthened
protein
should
be
Supplement
( I 97 8 ) a n d
available
recom m endations
dense
lim iting
and
first.
grazing
reproduction
when energy
first
where
did
also
to
Clanton
situations
Th e y
precalving
related
loss.
intake
shortened
in
extent
weight
in
that
decreases
lesser
energy
Me e d f o r
Cordova
to
a
body
a higher
concluded
supplemented
related
found
p r e p a r turn h e i f e r s .
from in c r e a s e d
and
was
milk production
interval.
(1978)
precalving
intake
low
postpartum
Short
postpartum
stim ulated
that
energy-
consumed
their
reduces
the
cost
state
by p r e p a r t u m
NRC
( I 97 6 )
subsequent
and(or)
and
that
can
compared
proteinpreclude
to
a ttra c tiv e n e ss
that
of
5
Supplement
In
a d d itio n
consumption,
as
reviewed
Siebert
and
( Adams,
19 85;
high
A d a ms
energy
protein
Causes fo r
the
digestibility
involved
effect
of
probably
Hunter,
when
are
et
1986).
my
is
not
protein
this
content
is
generally
accepted
these
be
grain
sources
rich
in
digestibility.
are
not
and
directly
discussed.
The
and d i g e s t i b i l i t y
m icrobial
retention
to
and
en e rg y on i n t a k e
rumen
decreased
of
activity
and
s u p p l e m e n t s on i n t a k e
increased
(1985)
supplem ents
intake
w ill
intake
grazing
from
while
and s i n c e
Exceptions
crude
affect
It
forage
clear
n u tr ie n t
Allison
derived
objectives
or
1981).
to
by
of s u p p l e m e n t a l
not
involves
forage
and
enhance
1 985)
and
forage intake
protein
(Allison,
I
(1981)
effect
with
Table
al.,
s p e c if ic
been shown t o a f f e c t
supplements,
depress voluntary
natural
in
Hunter
on I n t a k e
in c re a s in g
supplem ents have
forage
that
to
Effect
time
trend
above
(SieUert
can
8
a c tiv ity
be
to
and
expected
10 % ( M i s o n ,
1985).
Although
ways,
it
intake
Table
appears
in
over
that
half
of h ig h r u m i n a l
cases,
urea
protein
increased
I
can
be
energy
the
summarized
supplements
cases,
degradability
enhanced
intake
intake
in
all
natural
10
4
of
a
4
eases
variety
depressed
protein
increased
in
in
of
forage
supplements
intake
in
cases,
and
reviewed.
11 o f
17
bypass
Table
I
Investieator
Forage
Intake
Animals
Branine
and
G a ly ean,
19 85 /
New M e x i c o
307 kg
steers
B r a n i ne
et a l. ,
1985/
New M e x i c o
332 kg
steers
K a rtchner,
1981/
Montana
mature
beef
cows
mature
beef
cows
as
Influenced
Methods
Y B / I V OMD
by
Ti me
Supplement
Fed
1000
daily
d i r e ct
alternate
days
three
times/wk
Protein
or
Energy
Supplementation
S u p p l ement
P e r Dav
Daily
Forage
Intake
s u mme r b l u e g r a m a
OM b a s i s :
1 3 . 0 ? CF
3 8 . 5 ? ADIN
8 0 . 6 ? NDF
5 3 . 7 ? ADF
1 3 . 8 ? ADL
1 4 . 6 ? As h
No n e
1.63?
BW (OM)
.5
2.53?
BW (OM)
I .35?
BW (OM)
prairie
7.5?
12.9?
64.3?
40.9?
5.3%
9.3%
No n e
2.33?
BW
. 7 2 kg
cottonseed
meal
2. 2 - 7 ?
BW
None
8 4 . 1 g DM/
k g BW?75
Basal
Diet
hay
CF
ADIN
NDF
ADF
ADL
As h
w in te r range
6 . 0 ? CF
5 7 . 2 ? IVDMD
4 7 . 9 ? ADF
5 . 3 ? ADL
w in te r range
8 . 1 % CF
4 9 . 3 ? IVDMD
5 1 . 1 ? ADF
9 . 4 ? ADL
kg c o r n
1.0
.75
kg c o r n
kg
cottonseed
meal
8 0 . 0 g DM/
k g B W yb
1 . 7 0 kg
barley
7 8 . 5 g DM/
k g B W fb
None
6 6 . 2 g DM/
k g BW' 7 5
. 71 kg
soybean
meal
7 6 . 8 g DM/
kg BW'^b
. 66 kg
barley
6 3 . 6 g DM/
k g BW- 75
Table
I
Investieator
go n t i
nue d
Animals
Ad a ms
et al. ,
I 986/
Montana
3-a n d
6- y e a r old beef
cows
Adams,
1985/
Montana
291 k g
steers
Turner
et al.,
I 983/
Montana
3- and
1I - y e a r old
beef
cow S
Methods
Ti me
Supplement
Fed
IVDMD
Cr-0-/
IVuMD
0730
daily
1330
daily
three
times/wk
Basal
Diet
S u p p l ement
P e r Dav
w in ter range
5 2 . 3 % DMD (ADL)
4 8 . 7 % DMD
No ne
Russian wild
ryegrass
6 . 6 % CF
6 2 . 5 % IVDMD
4 7 . 8 % ADF
5 . 1 % ADL
winter
range
Daily
Forage
2.0%
BW
1. 8%
BW
No n e
3.1%
BW
.3
kg c o r n
2.6%
BW
. 3 kg c o r n
2.9%
BW
No n e
1. 1% BW
• 9 I kg
( 15% CP)
1. 2%
BW
.91 kg
( 30% CP)
1. 4%
BW
1.81 kg
( 15% CP)
1. 7% BW
None
1. 2%
. 9 1 kg
( 15% CP)
1. 3% BW
.91 kg
( 30% CP)
1. 2%
1.81 kg
( 15% CP)
1. 3% BW
BW
BW
Table
I
Investisrat or
Gill
and
England,
I 984/
England
Hovell
et a l .,
1986/
E n g l and
co n t i n u e d
Animals
119 kg
Friesian
steers
40 k g
wether
lambs
Methods
direct
direct
Ti me
S u p p l ement
________ ELad________
supplement
mixed w ith
forage
Basal
Diet
ryegrass
s i l age
1 0 . 3 % CP
39.0% C e l l u l o s e
6 . 0% ash
chopped
5. 2 %
59.0%
6 6 . 0%
40.0%
5. 9 %
7.0%
hay
CP
IVOMD
NDF
ADF
ADL
ash
choppe d
9. 6 %
4 9 . 0%
74.0%
41 .0%
7.6%
6 . 0%
h ay
CP
IVOMD
NDF
ADF
ADL
ash
chopped
9. 3 %
39.0%
76.0%
45.0%
8.0%
7. 0 %
hay
CP
IVOMD
NDF
ADF
ADL
ash
Supplement
P e r Da v
Daily
Forage
No n e
1. 9% BW (DM)
50 g f i s h m e a l /
k g s i l a g e DM
2 . 0 % BW (DM)
63 g ground­
n u t m e a l / k g DM
2. 0 %
a l l hays
e q u a l i z ed
to 11. 6%
CP w i t h u r e a
additions
71 g DM/
kg B W '3
BW (DM)
62 g DM/
k g BW' 75
52 g DM/
k g B W 75
Table
I
Investigator
co n t i n u e d
Animals
Methods
Ti me
Supplement
Fed
Basal
Diet
chopped
8 . 6%
28.0%
75.0%
46.0%
9.0%
1 0 . 0%
Rittenhouse
et a l. ,
I 970/
Nebraska
295-620
cattle
kg
C r p O1, /
ADE
daily
Daily
For age
Intake
S u p p l ement
P e r Da v
hay
CF
IVOMD
NDF
ADF
ADL
ash
sandhills
w inter range
5 . 3 % CF
4 2 . 0 % DMD
45 g DM/
kg BW ' b
soybean meal/
corn/corn
s t a r c h mixes
to provide
daily:
a l CE/
B W 75
None
.020
.041
.061
.081
.020
.041
.061
.081
.020
.041
.06 I
.081
8 CF/
kg BW ' b
None
1.16
1.16
1.16
1.16
2.07
2.07
2.07
2.07
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
g/kg
BW7
51
46
49
44
37
47
48
40
50
50
52
44
45
Table
I
Jnvestieator
Mullins
et al. ,
I 983/
Australia
continued
Animals
215 kg
steers
Methods
direct
T i me
S u p p l ement
Fe<1
Basal
Diet
p r a i r i e hay
2 . 5 % CF
daily
Daily
Forage
Intake
S u p p l ement
P e p Dpy
None
I
.0%
BW
18 8 g CP
from u rea
1 8 8 g CP f r o m
u r e a / 2 3 1 g CP
f r o m HCH0 - c o 1 1 o n see d meal
I . 6%
BW
I .9?
BW
I .7%
BW
2 . 0%
2 . 6 %.
2. 9%
I .4%
I . 6%
2 . 6%
2. 5%
2 . 2%
2 .2%
BW
BW
BW
BW
BW
BW
BW
BW
BW
4 3 1 g CP f r o m
u r e a & 2 3 1 g CP
from HCHO-cottonseed meal &
400 g m a i z e
He n n e s s y
et a l.,
1983/
A ustralia
I 42 k g
Heref or d
steers
direct
twice
daily
pasture
hay
CP
4 1 . 0 % IVOMD
8 . 0 % As h
3.9%
cottonseed,
meat &
f i s h meal ;
pelleted
ke/ d
sorghum
gr ai n
ke/ d
None
.6
I .2
None
No n e
.6
.6
I .2
I .2
None
No n e
None
.56
1.12
. 56
1.12
. 56
1.12
Table
I
continued
Investieator
Animals
S r i s k a n d a r a j ah
and K e l l a w a y 1
I 982/
Australia
280 kg
Friesian
heifers
Lee e t a l . ,
I 985/
Australia
S m i t h and
Wa r r e n ,
1986a/
A u s tr a lia
m a ture
397 kg
b e e f cows
32 kg
l a m bs
Methods
direct
direct
direct
T i me
S u p p l ement
Fed
daily
t w i ce
daily
morning
daily
Basal
Diet
Supplement
P e r Dav
Daily
Forage
Intake
ground wheat
straw &
15 g u r e a N/kg s t r a w
4 5 . 0 $ DOM
No n e
1.6$
BW
.5 kg c o t t o n se e d meal
1.7$
BW
ground a l k a l i
t r e a t e d wheat
s t r a w & 15 g
urea-N/kg straw
6 3 . 0 $ DOM
None
2.4$
BW
.5 kg c o t t o n seed meal
2.4$
BW
chopped n a t i v e
hay
1 7 . 5 $ CF
8 . 1 MJ ME / k g
annual pasture
hay
7$ CF
4 3 $ IVDMD
4 0 $ CF
c o t t o n s e e d , meat
& fish meal,
4 3 $ CF
(g/kg BW75) :
None
5.25
10.50
15.75
21.00
1.2$
1.4$
1.8$
2.1$
2.0$
BW
BW
BW
BW
BW
(OM)
(OM)
(OM)
(OM)
(OM)
None
1.2$
BW
27 g CF f r o m :
ro lled lupins
pelleted lupins
s o y b e a n meal
pelleted cotton­
s e e d meal
1.7$
I . 9$
1.8$
2.1$
BW
BW
BW
BW
Table
I
Investigator
S mi t h and
Warren,
I 986b/
Australia
F i s h w i ck
et a l. ,
I 978/
Scotland
continued
Animals
32 kg
lambs
425 kg
b e e f cows
Methods
direct
direct
Ti me
S u p p l ement
f e<J
morning
daily
0730
daily
Basal
Diet
oat
s t u b b l e hay
4 . 1 * CF
4 0 . 0 * IVDMD
3 6 . 0 * CF
oat
straw
2 . 2 * CF
4 5 . 3 * CF
4.7* ash
four times
daily
Hennessy
and
Muri so n ,
I 982/
A ustralia
350 kg
steers
direct
0900
and
I 6 00
daily
daily
No ne
1.2*
BW
2 . 0 MJ ME/
lamb from:
oats
oats & urea
o a t s & IBDU
pelleted cottons e e d meal
whole l u p i n s
1.5*
1.5*
1.6*
I .7*
BW
BW
BW
BW
1.7*
BW
2 . 0 kg b a r l e y
& 60 g u r e a
1.5*
BW
2 . 0 kg b a r l e y
& I 92 g IBDU
1.5*
BW
2.0
1.5*
BW
1.6*
BW
kg b a r l e y
60 g urea
to straw
pasture
4.6*
43.5*
h ay
CF
IVOMD
Daily
Forage
Intake
S u p p l ement
f e r Day
added
None
cottonseed
meal & m o l a s s e s
11-19*
increase
2 6 . 3 kg
I am b s
2 4 . 5 kg
I am bs
d i r e ct
direct
morning
daily
Diet
wa r m s e a s o n
p a s t u r e hay
3 4 . 8 ? DMD
70? o a t h u l l s ,
30? s o l k a f l o e
& 25 g u r e a /
k g DM
3 . 1 ? CF
70? oat h u lls,
30? s o l k a f l o e ,
& 25 g u r e a /
k g DM
3 . 1 ? CF
I . 2 2 kg o f
1 5 ? CF ( n a t u r a l )
I . 6 ? BW
1 . 2 2 kg o f
4 0 ? CF ( n a t u r a l )
I . 2 2 kg of
4 0 ? CF
(coated u re a )
1 . 2 2 kg o f
4 0 ? CF ( u r e a )
BW
O
CH2 O . /
acid
insoluble
ash
Basal
Daily
Forage
%
Kempton
a nd
Leng,
I 97 9 /
Australia
Iactating
428 kg
b e e f cows
Methods
Supplement
P e r Day
CU
Forero
et a l . ,
I 980/
O k l a h o ma
Animals
T i me
Supplement
Fed
r\j
Investigator
continued
BW
O
I
rv>
Table
BW
2 . 4 4 kg o f
2 0 ? CF ( u r e a )
I .9?
No n e
I . 9? BW
-£Z-if.g -BJj-I
25 u r e a
75 HCHO- c a s e i n
75 c a s e i n
25 u r e a &
7 5 HCH 0 - c a s e i n
25 u r e a &
75 c a s e i n
No n e
e / k g DM:
I 50 c a s e i n
100 c a s e i n &
50 HCH 0 - c a s e i n
50 c a s e i n &
I 00 HCH 0 - c a s e i n
I 50 HCH0 - c a s e i n
BW
2.4?
2.5?
2.5?
3.1?
BW
BW
BW
BW
2.4?
BW
2 . 6 ? BW
2 . 8 ? BW
3 . 0 ? BW
3.4?
BW
3.2?
BW
Table
I
Investieator
Kempt on
and
Leng,
I 97 9 /
A u s tr a lia
Orskov
et a l .,
I 973/
Great
Britain
continued
Animals
35 kg
I a mb s
25 kg
I am b s
35 kg
lambs
45 k g
I a mb s
Methods
Ti me
Supplement
Fed
direct
dire ct
Diet
70%
oat hulls
30% solka floe
3 . 1 * CF
5 9 . 0 * OMD
direct
direct
Basal
Supplement
P e r Da v
&
0800 ,
I 200 ,
1600 &
2000
daily
pelleted barley
& urea
13 * CF
0800 ,
I 200 ,
1600 &
2000
daily
pelleted barley
Sc u r e a
13* CF
0800 ,
I 20 0 ,
1600 &
2000
daily
pelleted barley
& urea
13* CF
None
e/kg
25
25
I 50
25
I 50
DM:
urea
urea &
casein
urea &
HCHO-casein
None
Daily
Forage
Intake
I .7*
BW ( 0 M)
2 .7*
2 .7*
BW (0M)
BW (OM)
3 . I*
BW ( 0M)
3.4*
BW
4.0*
3.7*
4.0*
3.4*
BW
BW
BW
BW
None
3.1*
BW
bv
17
34
51
10
3.4*
3.4*
3.5*
3.0*
BW
BW
BW
BW
bv
17
34
51
10
b
g
g
g
g
ottle:
fish protein
fish protein
fish protein
urea
bottle:
g fish protein
g fish protein
g fish protein
g urea
None
2 . 8* BW
bv
17
34
51
10
3 .1*
3.5*
3.1*
2 . 8*
bottle:
g fish protein
g fish protein
g fish protein
g urea
BW
BW
BW
BW
Table
I
Investigator
continued
T i me
Supplement
A n i m a l s ___________ M e t h o d s __________ F e d _____________B a s a l
20 k g
lambs
direct
Daily
Supplement
Forage
D i e t ______________ P e r Dav_____________i n t a k e
barley &
f i s h meal
1 9 . 8 ? CP
Non e
bv b o t t l e :
lactose @
10? of i n t a k e
lactose 6
20? of in t a k e
added to d i e t :
lactose @
10? of i n t a k e
lactose 6
20? of in t a k e
30 kg
I am bs
direct
barley &
f i s h meal
1 9 . 8 ? CP
No n e
bv b o t t l e :
lactose @
10? of i n t a k e
lactose §
20? of in t a k e
added to d i e t :
lactose g
10? of i n t a k e
lactose 6
20? of in t a k e
3.6?
BW
3.4?
BW
3.2?
BW
3.9?
BW
3.7?
BW
3.6?
BW
3.2?
BW
3.1?
BW
3.1?
BW
3.5?
BW
Table
I
continued
Investigator
An i m a l s
40 kg
lambs
Methods
T i me
S u p p l ement
Fed
direct
Basal
Diet
barley &
f i s h meal
1 9 . 8 ? CF
Daily
Forage
Intake
S u p p l ement
P e r Dav
Non e
by b o t t l e :
lactose g
I 0? of i n t a k e
lactose g
20? of i n t a k e
added to d i e t :
lactose g
I 0? of i n t a k e
lactose @
20? of i n t a k e
S t a k e l um,
I 986/
Ir eland
520 kg
d a i ry
cows
compared
daily
pasture
clippings
pre- & p o st­
grazing
16 k g s t a n d i n g
forage/cow
3 3 . 5 ? CF
7 5 . 1 ? IVOMD
2 6 . 8 ? MADF
24 k g s t a n d i n g
f orage/cow
3 7 . 7 ? CF
7 3 . 6 ? IVOMD
2 4 . 3 ? MADF
‘A c r o n y m s :
ADF
ADIN
ADL
BW
CF
CF
Cr2 0DM
DMD
DOM
HCHO
acid d eterg en t f ib e r
= acid detergent fib e r
= acid d eterg en t li g n in
body w e i g h t
crude f i b e r
= crude p r o t e i n
= chromic oxide
= dry m a t t e r
= dry m a t te r d i g e s t i b i l i t y
= d igestible organic matter
= formaldehyde tr e a te d
IBDU
IVDMD
IVOMD
MADF
ME
MJ
NDF
OM
OMD
YB
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
None
3.3
kg
barley
No ne
3.3
kg b a r l e y
d i - u r e i d o i so b u t a n e
i n v i t r o dry m a t te r d i g
in v itr o organic matter
modified acid detergent
m e ta b o liz a b le energy
megajoules
neutral detergent fiber
organic matter
organic matter d ig e s tib
ytterbium
3.3?
BW
2.7?
BW
2.4?
BW
3 . 0?
BW
2.8?
BW
'2.5?
BW
2.3?
BW
3.4?
BW
2.8?
BW
estibility
digestibility
fiber
ility.
17
Forages
protein
than
is
and
of
of
lower
generally
that
voluntary
forage
morning
than
and
when
with
duodenal
high
higher
Thus,
it
a
amounts
appears
Siebert
has
crude
and
major
and
Hunter,
affect
on
Th e y
in
grain
affect
forage
supplement
fed
to
more when a d m i n i s t e r e d
in
the
He
early
an i n t e r f e r e n c e
other
(1965)
with
infusions
(liters/h)
afternoon.
with
time
but
and
casein
periods
did
would
and
voluntary
intake
forage
a high
protein
concentrate
the
of
oat
than
increased
sheep
et
al.
diet
also
sheep
infusions
to
increased
rumen
volume
coupled w ith
in in creased
com patible
(1979)
by
with
response
also
regulation.
chaff
rumen volume
of
starch
to
note
be
Leng
Orskov
with
the
are
intake
more
would r e s u l t
Kempton
results
intake
A larger
intake.
casein.
digestion,
libitum
attribute
rate
of
ad
of
could not
dilution
than
increased
when c a s e i n was i n f u s e d .
a sim ilar
a
may a l s o
activity.
digestibility
treated
I).
1985;
that
fed
to
involved
Moir
urea.
showed
k in etics,
Egan
rate
(Table
m anipulation
response
grazing
potentially
forage
in
depressed intake
the
Rumen
of
consumed
digestibility
(1985)
steers
high
were
(Allison,
behavior
Ad a ms
attributed
of
fiber,
intake.
intake.
the
(low
quality
accepted
Grazing
grazing
quality
digestibility)
those
1981)
higher
with
outflow
increased
increased
the
by f e e d i n g f o r m a l d e h y d e (1973)
obtained
and p r e s e n t a t i o n
abomasum
in
sheep.
sim ilar
of
fish-
Johnson
et
a l . ( 19 82) h o w e v e r ,
steers
to
increase
suggested
level
did not
that
of
with
no
intake
end
increase
the
the
ma ny a n i m a l s
Efficacy
of
objective
amount
of
of
beef
e v a l u a t i o n of
(Bellows
beef
not
applied
easily
by B e l l o w s
difficulty
to
casein.
the
They
already
measurements
score
supplem entation
per
1978)
unit
to
yet
the
( 197 8 ).
are
h ig h
effect
number
For
numbers
desirable
which
Two
and body w e i g h t
requires
of
such
changes of
of
the
animals
reason,
are
to
requires
of
this
is
input.
evaluation
large
performance.
of
performance
supplem ent's
obtaining
reproductive
condition
a
and S h o rt
of
cow
and S h o r t ,
techniques
with
of
by
a Supplement
reproductive
of
alternative
due
produced
mechanisms
the
infusions
occurred
biological
studied
a concentrate
measures
The
However,
of
digestibility.
Assessing
Conventional
intake
abomasal
response
and
find
and
animals,
correlated
measures
are
cows (Dziuk and
\
Bellows,
I 9 83).
condition
score
noted
may
it
measurements
by w h i c h
further
by
A major
is
be
are
that
too
also
nutritional
exploration.
supplem entation
lim itation
by
the
late
to
limited
status
Intake
and
can
time
is
using
measurable
a lte r
in
of
changes
management.
explaining
affected
weight
and
of
forage
is
be
determined
the
in
are
These
mechanisms
allowing
a factor
along
or
for
affected
with
the
associated
effects
of
digestibility
and
digesta
passage
rates.
Blood
metabolites
Amino
acids.
been used to
( Ah me d ,
in
infusion
of
in
in
ge s t a t i n g
al.
its
of
to
that
those
ewes
above
the
(1982)
concentration
of
other
utilized
of th e
amino
protein
ewes.
They
concentration
essential
amino
catabolism
of
greater
Hennessy
et
carriers
also
of
acids
of
at
could
lower
amino a c id s
since
acid
extent
alanine
in
and
with
chain,
decreased.
They
diets
low
al.
m e t h i o n i n e :v a l i n e ,
( 1 9 8 1)
found
glycine zvaline,
th at
fed
protein
the
and
that
occurred
diets.
r a t i o s
glycine :leucine,
to
protein
concluded
fed
low
serum
ketogenie
extent
ewes
protein
glutamine
gluconeo gene s i s
the
rate
that
m u s cl e and s u b s e q u e n t
in
a
found in c re a s e d
that
branched
change
concentration
isocaloric
found
no
that
stated
amino
(1986)
I 986).
steers
caused
the
a greater
content
Jackson,
also
essential
to
Lynch and J a c k s o n
decreased
gestating
a
Ahmed
have
metabolism
infusion
elevated
a lim iting
concentration
to
whereas
of
be
and
showed w i t h
supply
then
protein
amino a c i d
requirement
acid.
of
Lynch
(1982)
essential
concentrations
amino a c i d r e q u i r e m e n t s
status
concentration
amino
could
intake
acid
1 9 84 ;
a n d Ah me d
a lim iting
synthesis.
with
and t h e
( Lynch,
(1981)
be
increasing
plasma
steers
plasma
assumed
amino
determine individual
I 982)
Yo u n g e t
Plasma
of
glycine:
20
branched
acids
chain
were
amino
lower
acids
in
and
e s s e n t i a l :n o n e s s e n t i a l
protein
supplemented
glucose
concentration
than
in
amino
control
steers.
Glucose.
affected
I 983ab)
Plasma
by v a r i a t i o n
nor
was
ewes
(McNiven,
has
been
in
a l. , 1 982;
1984).
dairy
(Russel
and
content
of
Thus
seems
nutritional
with
with
eaten
plasma
globulin
has
of
and
short
postpartum
a l . , 1 977;
Thompson e t
and
with
elk
(Weber
that
situations
due to
positively
gestating
in
ewes
energy
intake
in
protein
ma y
beef
in
cows
and
energy
and
Wolfe,
I 984).
aid
in
evaluating
et
a l . , 19 85).
albumin
is
decreased
et
may
al.
intake
Serum
correlated
with
of
dairy
cows
in
Lynch and
in
synthesis
reflect
crude
found
albumin
level
and J a c k s o n ,
number
lower
(1984)
of
protein.
(Lynch
interval,
concentration
Bull
total
conception rate
speculated
restricted
in
concentration
balance
glucose
and
been
postpartum
addition,
by
not
body f a t n e s s
glucose
with high
energy
1983)
of
with
et
was
status.
1 97 7 W i l s o n
album in
al. , 1985),
1984),
that
intake
conception
al.,
cows (R o w lan d s
forage
concentration
and
plasma
ewes
(Lynch and J a c k s o n ,
degree
correlated
Wright,
Albumin,
protein
intake
with
However,
Wilson et
(McNiven,
it
correlated
positively
interval
ewes
it
in energy
in
liver
restricted
function.
had
et
(1 9 8 3 b )
liver.
that
per
(Rowlands
Jackson
by t h e
protein
1983ab)
services
protein
of
beef
Thus,
In
heifers
lower
serum
21
albumin
concentrations
protein
content.
effect
in
We b e r
elk.
become more
concentrated
concentration
albumin
and
can
either
was
is
Urea
aI . ,
difficult
or
with
to
diets
in
nitrogen
protein
intake
to
since
intake
urea
to
glucose
12
similar
tended
to
total
protein
protein
concentration
without
aI .
knowledge
of
in
also
digestible
would
1 976 ;
more
(Macrae
Petersen
substrates.
result
contribution
of
with
is
et
increased
dependent
al.,
o n DE
1 9 85).
catabolism
DE
of
In
amino
a major
contributor
cycled
through
g l uco neogene s i s
in
pregnant
and L obley,
specifically,
be
(DE)
that
is
and
may
state
et
d e g r a d a tio n of d i e t a r y
absorption,
acids
30% (or
The
synthesis
tissue
(Preston
energy
be r e d u c e d
protein
concentration
( 1 96 5 )
rumen m i c r o b i a l
body
requirem ent
glucogenic
a
albumin
protein
c o n c e n t r a t i o n ma y i n d i c a t e
of
higher
where
crude
nitrogen
more
of
opposing v a ria tio n s
nitrogen
dietary
ammonia
Ami n o
to
total
concentration.
al.,
from
nitrogen.
serum
by t h e
urea
et
nitrogen
ruminal
derived
ma y s u p p l y
from
et
hand,
situations
interpret
lower
microbial
(Kropp
addition
acids
urea
reported
other
Thus,
Serum
i s o n i t r o g e nous
ammonia r e l e a s e d
the
a diet
albumin levels.
Preston
urea
the
Thus
increased
I 9 6 5 ).
higher
in
fed
(1984)
influenced
nitrogen.
increased
Wolfe
on
globulin.
globulin
animals
lowered.
often
and
be
and
Globulin,
concentration
of
than
an
r u m i n a n t s ) of
1986).
protein
indication
or
of
Thus
energy
the
to
the
urea
status
adequacy
22
Bilirubin.
Total
degradation,
concentration
has
in
energy
restricted
1984)
and
in
diets
the
diets
bilirubin
content
If
(Kaneko,
serum
and
correlated,
function.
produce
can
total
bilirubin
heifers.
C reatinine
ge s t a t i n g
energy
with
of
only
Jackson,
increases
elevated
beef
protein
I 9 83a).
due
to
serum
(1983a)
bilirubin
in c o n tra st,
storage.
Serum
dietary
( Lynch
and
restriction
of
a l.,
al.
and
with
is
the
form
of
concentration
of
1984),
Jackson,
advancing
serum
( 1984) w i t h
a cellular
gestating
not
protein
C reatinine
in v e stig a to rs
with
et
restrictio n
et
did
associated
creatinine
(Bull
liv e r
concentration.
by r e s t r i c t i n g
cholesterol.
are
did in c re a s e
of phosphoa r e a t i n e ,
associated
1983a).
in d icate
did Bull
The
hepatocellular
may
Jackson
al.,
U rinary
b iliru b in
and
or
protein
concentrations
ewes as
ewes
fed
et
b iliru b in
of
by
Bull
1983a).
an i n c r e a s e
heifers
gestating
ewes
noted
d e p h o s p h o ry la te d form
been
19 8 2 ;
and
and
energy
protein
either
serum
by L y n c h a n d J a c k s o n ,
concentration
gestating
has
cited
( 1983b),
gestation
fed
Jackson,
changes in
advancing
in
al.,
elevated
Lynch
consumption
term
be
of e r y th r o c y te
increase
pregnant
and
serum
associated
heifers
of
urinary
However,
to
( Thompson e t
1980 a s
and J a c k s o n
short
beef
urine
then
a product
shown
(Lynch
Lynch
energy
been
pregnant
d eficien t
damage
bilirubin,
protein
protein
1983b)
ewes
above
in
and
but
not
(Lynch
and
also
gestation.
noted
These
23
studies
produced
concentration.
serum
Weber
cholesterol
by t h e
amount
The
of
blood
clinically
1978).
preclude
not
than
diet
forage
discussed
in
the
use
as
noted
quality
of
several
above have
nutritional
specific
measures
For e x a m p le ,
animals
The
individual
animal
concentrations
ma y
w ill
of
probably
nutritional
m etabolites
between
regimens.
of
weight
status,
a n i m a l s on
m etabolites
metabolic
change
or
a
deficiency
of
study
in
also
inadequacy
postpartum
n i t r o g e n and low
indicate
While
do i n d i c a t e
groups of
Blood
indication
by
s t a t i s t i c a l l y
interpretations.
different
high urea
caused
of h e a l t h y
animal
as
(Benjamin,
range
indicators
such
been used
dysfunction
although
(I 9 7 8) .
status
increased
as i n d i c a t e d
concentration
normal
single
cholesterol
eaten.
of m e t a b o l i c
consistent
more
interval.
green
Benjamin
nutritional
do
vs hig h
serum
c o m p a ris o n to mean f l u c t u a t i o n
perfectly
provide
dry vs
by
their
different
also
(1984)
m a n ip u la tio n ,
in
relative
Wolfe
low
were w i t h i n
measurement
in
flu ctu atio n s
reported
variation
with
diagnosis
The
significant,
and
fluctuations
m etabolites
for
n u tritio n a l
as
similar
glucose
glucogenic
substrate.
The
objective
th is
supplem enting
additional
oil-seed
meal
could reduce
loss
thus have
Other
and
objectives
rumen-bypass
to
to
determ ine
protein
vs
only
if
an
p r e p a r t ur n w e i g h t a n d c o n d i t i o n
a probable
were
was
impact
determine
on p o s t p a r t u m
the
effect
interval.
of
rumen-
degradable
protein
on
related
factors
blood
metabolite
with
to
or w i t h o u t
additional
digestibility,
concentrations.
ad
bypass p r o te i n
libitum
intake
and
25
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Animals
Two
Ranch,
1 9 84
tria ls
Norris,
and
15,
1985
tria l
pregnant
n=55;
trial
ranch
breeding
2,
old
to
average
of
with
rumen
dates
various
combinations
Initial
mean
and
5.4,
and
The
cause
condition
random
either
of
trial
yr-old
for
to
March
Bluff
2
was
1986.
crossbred
cows,
selected
w ithin
half
the
were
effect.
n=20;
one month
of
prior
Angus,
et
and
a l .,
condition
1971),
2 were
breeding
apparent
For
grazed
tria ls
6
mo
native
and
score
proceeding
pasture
Expected
were f i t t e d
were
T a r e n t a i se.
(1=thinnest
to
I w e r e 491
kg
trial
was
3-yr-
Genotypes
and(or)
in
that
15 e a c h y e a r .
n=23)
use.
dates.
Cows u s e d i n
bull.
5 2 0 kg and 4.5
between
not
for
I,
that
2,
Hereford
(trial
restrictio n
March
to
each
from
Angus
trial
For
age
except
approximately
I,
tria l
was
different
1 5,
initiated
within
of h e r d
bull
Research
December
6,
same Angus
a
variation
cows
Trial
randomly
the
weight
Bellows
score
year
supplement.
body
Red
was i n i t i a t e d
1.985.
cows,
(trial
cannulas
I 0 =f a t t e s t ;
6-
the
I w ere b r e d t o Angus b u l l s .
bred
fraction
I
the f i r s t
bred to
calving
at
concluded
I 50
be i n
were
A random
I,
n=6I ) were
date
cows
March
3-
herd
2 were
Trial
and
Cows u s e d i n t r i a l
tria l
conducted
Montana.
concluded
December
the
were
respectively.
body
weight
attributed
and
to
in itiatio n
and had
no a c c e s s
a
of
to
26
Pasture
During each
range
pasture
slopes
and
Elevation
annual
with
at
the
grasses
study
Service
in
and
included
good
idahoensis)
carrying
and
steep
site
from
and
350
with
woody
basin
was
1.2 h a
per
1,900
m and
A I960
Soil
pasture
as a s i l t y
c o m p o s e d o f 6 5%
Dominant
(Agropyron
Idaho
(Elymus
moderate
outcrops.
to
mm.
species.
comata),
wildrye
1,400
the
to
rock
Vegetation
w heatgrass
(Stipa
and
t o 406
described
condition
capacity
slopes
a 324 ha n a t i v e
slight
ranged from
survey
bluebunoh
grazed
north-facing,
was
35% f o r b s
needleandthread
SCS,
of
precipitation
site
cows f r e e l y
long,
areas
Conservation
range
trial,
spicatum ),
fescue
(Festuca
cinereus).
animal
unit
grasses
Estimated
month
( US DA-
allotted
within
I 976).
Treatments
Prior
age
to
S OY,
to
five
groups
satisfied
to
the
forage
received
the
protein.
have
before
randomly
( S)
can
(table
T h e SOY g r o u p
equivalent
that
designated
SO Y + FAT
only.
an a n i m a l
intestine
were
treatments
Previous
suggested
small
cows
SO Y + CO M a n d
range
degradable
trial
supplement
SO Y+B M,
received
1986)
each
of
studies
ruminal
response
kg/d
protein
be a n t i c i p a t e d .
Control
and a l l
.2
the
control,
2).
(Petersen
to
as
of
and
needs
protein
other
S
rumen
Clanton,
must
be
presented
Therefore,
these
27
supplements
criteria.
protein
to
Th e
S OY+ BM
to
due
the
that
Blood meal
and
S OY+ CGM
protein
determine
was
formulated
to
a
fifth
if
a response
protein
Table 2.
or
to
a specific
expected
determ ine
the
to
small
the
SOY+FAT
bypass
fat
and
to
meet
meal
the
animal
were added
Cramer
was
or
In
order
was a d d ed
(1969)
showed
incomplete.
designed
energy
effect.
Supplement Composition3 (k g /d ).
In g re d ie n t
SOY
soybean meal
.57
.24
.05
SOY+BM
soybean meal
blood meal
to ta l
.45
.23
.68
.20
.20
.40
.04
.16
.20
.16
.04
.20
.34
.14
.48
SOY+CGM
soybean meal
corn g lu te n meal
u rea
to ta l
.14
.45
.016
.61
.06
.29
.05
.40
.01
.19
.10
.37
.20
.05
.10
.05
.20
soybean meal
animal f a t
to t a l
.57
.21
.78
.24
.05
.20
^r
C\J
Crude P ro tein
Rumen
T o tal
Bvoass degradable
Amount
fed
.05
.43
.41
.84
S
TDN
Control
SOY+FAT
to
supplements
fat
in the rumen i s
protein
ruminal
response
protein
supplem ent
a bypass
experimental
intestine.
effect,
M iller
animal
between
was
energy
supplement.
the
differentiate
meet
and c o r n g l u t e n
reaching
d e g ra d a tio n of
Therefore,
to
SOY s u p p l e m e n t
needs.
additional
to
were
.43
.47
S upplem ents i n t r i a l I were a lso balanced to provide d a ily 9.5 g
phosphorus, 23.6 g potassium and 18,000 in te r n a tio n a l u n its vitam in A.
Supplements i n both t r i a l s contained 50 g d rie d m olasses and 4.5 g
M olasses B ooster (Feed F lavours, i n c .) .
to
28
Supplements
phosphorus,
2
cows w ere
mixture
trial
potassium
supplements
during
in
did
trial
In
At
had
A (Table
free
access
tria ls
ground
corn)
for
2)
to
sources
whereas
of
of
trial
trial
2 all
IU o f v i t a m i n
A and
a loose
iodized
salt
p h o s p h a t e a n d 3.0% p o t a s s i u m
all
supplements
p r o v i d e d 35 g / d o f a c h r o m i c o x i d e
finely
added
in itiatio n
20,000,000
30% d i c a l c i u m
both
contained
the
im w i t h
containing
chloride.
also
and v i t a m i n
not.
injected
the
I
additionally
p r e m i x ( 2 5% C r 2 Og a n d 75%
determination
of
fecal
output
( Du n n ,
1986).
With
to
have
the
an
e x c e p tio n of
equal
either
in
due
an a c t i o n
It
to
was
not
degradable
to
similar.
treatments
otherw ise,
via
Thus
equivalant
protein.
SOY w a s
ruminal
not
postruminal
to
It
was
ammonia
with
amounts
decided
would
not
be
avenue.
SOY i s o n i t r o g e n o u s
maintaining
if
Any r e s p o n s e ,
was e x p e c t e d
s o me
no n i s o n i t r 0 g e n o u s
results
were designed
function.
form ulate
natural
being
of
or
supplement
S0Y+CGM w h i l e
interpretation
or
of
possible
supplements
were
on r u m e n
rumen k i n e t i c s
S0Y+BM a n d
rumen
effect
control,
of
that
confound
concentrations
isonitrogenous
with
SOY+BM
SOY+CGM.
On a l t e r n a t e
of h o r s e s
and
1 3 0 0.
The
others
except
were
days a l l
supplemented
control
reluctant
were
to
cows w ere g a t h e r e d w i t h
at
approxim ately
cows w ere h a n d l e d i n th e
same manner as
not
individually
the aid
offered
consume
supplement.
their
prescribed
Some
animals
supplement.
29
Thus,
top
if
dressing
still
and
after
the
refused
each
by
In
supplement
trial.
supplement
a
cow
rumen
would
have
W ithin
14
with
four
one
consumption
ingredients
no
effect
the
a llo tte d
a
by
cow
treatment
to
another
s u c h s w i t c h e s w e r e made i n
cow i n
cannula.
d of
other
orginally
addition,
via
to e n tic e
s h e w a s move d t o a n o t h e r
Approximately
trial.
problems
attem pts
supplement,
replaced
treatm ent.
were
six daily
SOY+CGM r e c e i v e d
It
was
assumed
that
on
the
results
of
onset
of
each
trial,
her
these
either
all
cows
consuming supplements.
Measurements
Ruminal
flow k i n e t i c s
During
precalving)
from
the
three
in
sampling
each
trial,
reticulum
for
volume and d i l u t i o n
rate
Cobalt
chromium
d ilu tio n
rate
particulate
Co a n d
ruminal
ruminal
were
and
as
used
samples
pH,
fluid
Cr c o n c e n t r a t i o n s
marker
was
c o w s 2 wk b e f o r e
as
and
were
and
3=1
wk
obtained
particulate
in
the
for
rumen
al.
forage
obtained
from
used
the
fluid
markers
(1980).
for
rumen
At a p p r o x i m a t e l y
and
were
Resulting
each marker,
the
of
a nd.
estim ating
of
8 . 3 a n d 3. 0% i n
range
each period.
( Co EDTA)
These
by U d e n e t
were
acid
markers
respectively.
described
The
2=4;
measurements.
volume
m atter,
respectively.
mordant
(1=9;
Ethylenediam inetetraacetic
modant
synthesized
periods
at
chromium
least
1. 100,
six
a time
30
which
coincided
with
consumed
forage
uppermost
portion
Doses of
was
0800
in
with
10,
tria l
were
1200
obtained near
25,
35,
5,
10 , 20,
96
h sampling
markers
48,
problems
associated
Digests
fluid
centrifugation
paper
Co
via
dried
at
screen.
with
1000
Duplicate
of
ground
retention
to
(1971).
in
the
2.
W illiams
et
1971).
and
>10 urn.
aI .
samples
( I 96 2 )
The
Th e 15 h
pasture.
frozen.
min
m ill
I and
trials.
After
filtra tio n
were
( AA)
m atter
through
and
matter
Analysis
Particulate
a Wiley
5,
logistical
spectrophotom etry
I g particulate
( P e r k i n - E l mer ,
15
at
2 because
I.
in
immediatedly
absorption
by P e r k i n - E l m e r
6 5 C and
due
both
tria l
trial
cows
x g for
(100
trial
tria l
at
and mixed
was s e p a r a t e d from p a r t i c u l a t e
particle
atomic
procedure
chromium
at
2
in
in
72 h i n
same i n
were
orifice
dosing
tria l
dosed
samples
dosing in
accessing
was t h e
samples
through
the
time
ruminal
described
with
the
CoEDTA
ferm entation
elim inated
after
20 g o f
Digesta
m icrobial
in
freshly
from
Cows w e r e
2.
75 h p o s t
elim inated
Supplementation
cannula
m o rd an t and
a n d 96 h p o s t
was
1986),
sac.
tria l
detectable
was
rumen
cannula.
cease
interval
not
( Du n n ,
the r e ti c u lo - o m a s a l
72,
interval
was
in
30 , 48 a n d
were
thawing,
dorsal
rumen
I ml o f 5% H g C l t o
15,
via
chromium
via
I and
I,
by
the
100 g of
adm inistered
activity
removed
of
were
ml )
grazing
for
as
was
a 1.0
mm
prepared
by
analyzed
for
31
Digesta
composited
samples of
samples
and
used
obtained
to
a
range
of
3$.
calculated
w ith
and
were
in
below
varied
Fermentation
( 1982).
prior
to each
on
least
plugs
were
Wiley
and
rates
and
in
the
first
dosing
post
concentration
3.
excluded
from
of
sampling
inadequate
were
Marker
sample
later
within
volumes
table
of
Thus,
were
Eight
duplicated
equations
rate
of
four
both
times
mixing
the
from
bag.
( Goerning
Va n
and
three
were
Soest,
were
After
collection
frozen,
was
analyses.
as
in
situ
described
composites
by
obtained
fistulated
an o v e r n i g h t
cows
fast,
fitted
to
allowed
to
graze
for
h.
freeze
dried
and
ground
mixed,
was r e t a i n e d
1970).
B ags
n y l o n m e s h f a b r i c * " o f 4 4 um p o r e s i z e .
s N i t e x 44 F a b r i c ( # H D 3 - 4 4 ) ,
K a n s a s C i t y , MO 6 4 1 0 8 .
fiber
harnesses
mm s c r e e n ,
A sample
bags
esophageally
were
a 2.0
nylon
days.
and
which
in
detergent
samples
separate
through
in each nylon
neutral
incubation
p e r io d from
samples
m ill
dilution
Incubated
cows
Collected
standards.
were
c o n c e n tra tio n were a s p ir a t e d
AA o p e r a t i o n
values
removed
fistulated
Cr
dosing
rate
was m easured v i a
at
in itia l
the
the
Ferm entation
Orskov
of
considerably.
assumed and t h e s e
Co a n d
and low
Ruminal
concentrations
trials
make
unknown h i g h
during each 3 h period
before
H.
R.
were
.5
in
a
a n d 3.0 g p l a c e d
for
NDF a n a l y s i s
constructed
from
F in ish ed bags were
W illiams
M ill
Supply,
32
double
zig-zag
stitched
2
surface
area.
cm
of
were also
via
tygon tubing,
In
to
bath
trial
I
plug
eight
intervals
trial
2 six
sampling
Upon
removal
washed
in
a
times
tub
was
a n a ly sis in
of
described
bags
in
clear.
groups
by
AlI
o f 12,
each of t h e
In
each being removed a t
markers
im m ediately
time
bags
suspended
markers.
removed
were
until
then
(Robinson,
of i n c u b a t i o n
in
frozen
the
trial
2.
and
later
rinse
water
subjected
d r ie d and weighed.
rate
subtraction
were
rate
dilution
of
swivels.
sample
dilution
for
(blanks)
composed
bag was rem oved a t
for
were
groups
NDF d i s a p p e a r a n c e
involved
containing
and one
sample
stringer
and f i s h i n g
were incubated,
all
by h a n d
chain,
no
a n d h a d 533
suspended in the rumen
circular
bags
thread
containing
cm
described
bags
polyester
Al I b a g s w e r e
a 75
i n t h e ru m en a t 0800
time
Bags
incubated.
attachm ent
with
to
NDF
Calculations
et a l .,
1 9 86 ; T a b l e 3 )
and a n a l y s i s
effect
on
blanks.
Ruminal
In
were
p
H and
both
0,
5 , 1 0,
samples
ruminal
with
(Anonymous,
obtained
the f i r s t
2
tria ls
measured
electrode
were
ammoni a
from
20 , 3 0 ,
43»
portable
I 984).
near
day of ea c h
were
a
ammonia
the
concentration
meter
Ruminal
fluid
reticulo-omasal
6 7 and 9 1 h a f t e r
sampling
obtained
at
and
0,
1 0,
ion-specific
samples
orifice
( 50
ml )
at
-5,
supplem entation
period in
5,
a n d pH
tria l
2. 0,
30,
on
I.
In t r i a l
48
and
75
h
33
T a b l e 3.
E q u a t i o n s Used t o C a l o u c l a t e Ruminal N e u t r a l
D e t e r g e n t F i b e r ( NDF) F e r m e n t a t i o n R a t e , F l u i d a n d
P a r t i c u l a t e V o l u m e a n d D i l u t i o n R a t e a n d NDF D i g e s t i b i l i t y
( T r i a l s I and 2 ) .
A
initial
B
forage
C
percent
D
n y l o n bag + s ampl e w e i g h t
a n d NDF a n a l y s i s
E
Correction
bags
F
1-[(A+BC-D-E)/BC]
nylon
bag w e i g h t
sample w eig h t
NDF o f
sample
for
loss
after
of weight
= residual
in
incubation
blank
NDF
F= G- HI + J
G
fermentable
H
rate
I
duration
J
unfermentable
NDF
of l o s s
of
of
fermentable
NDF
incubation
NDF
K=-LM+N
K
nlog of
L
dilution
M
time
N
n l o g of m ark er
dosing
O
rumen volume
marker
concentration
rate
span between
dosing
and sampling
concentration
at
time
O = P/eN
P
quantity
of mark er
in
initial
dose
of
34
post
supplementation.
both
trials.
period
I
of
I
since
for
day
et
the
same
1971)
body w e i g h t s
were
recorded
sex,
birth
Blood
at
the
dates
by
m eter
had
not
trial
2 due
to
not
measured
in
yet
in
been
instrument
period
I of
and
calf
birthweiehts
(I = thinnest
two t e c h n i c i a n s
12 h o f
start
feed
and
also
10 = f a t t e s t ;
and two
and f i n i s h
were
to
water
of
consecutive
deprivation
each t r i a l .
Calf
recorded.
metabolites
periods
trial
blood
jugular
vein
(trial
base
the
of
ta il
sampled
easily
thought
that
tail
samples
cows p e r
in
were
I)
from
any
a
or
the
effect
from
2).
treatm ent
-5,
during each
0,
period.
animals
I,
would
I
rumen
In t r i a l
5 , 1 0, 20 , 3 0 , 4 3 , 6 7
and
the
near
nine
the
were
it
be m i n i m i z e d
tria l
four
either
vein
tria l
animals
In
of
or
in
would
chute.
from
most
vein
since
each
wk p r e c a l v i n g )
obtained
Although
stress
from
a n d 3=1
an a r t e r y
jugular
of
squeeze
2=4
were
technique
obtained
obtained
(1=9,
samples
(trial
bleeding
restrained
were
score
and w e i g h t s
each
the
same i n
reasons.
scores
after
During th re e
in
pH w a s
condition
al.,
the
determined in
Cow W e i e h t s r c o n d i t i o n
Bellows
the
tr ia l
Ruminal
Palpable
was
determined
malfunction.
trial
time
Ammonia c o n c e n t r a t i o n was n o t
a c q u i r e d and was not
either
Supplementation
was
with
not
be
blood
cannulated
I samples
91 h post
35
supplementation.
and
48
h
post
cannulated
and
cows
samples
were
( tr ia l
I)
2)
per
I)
or
Other
one
WJ) a n d
one
containing
was
in
vacutainer
in
2
into
test
samples
allowed
were
and
serum
for
glucose
analyzed
for
concentration
bilirubin
(BIL),
(CHO)
total
Tarry town,
tria l
at
10,
In
both
tria ls
NY) . *
of
at
12
treated
2;
and
to
( GL)
( TP)
No s e r u m
urea
(CRE),
20,
30,
10 m l
syringe
x
or
vacutainer
fluoride
with
and
30
minutes.
mm p o l y s t y r e n e
im m ediately
for
frozen.
while
nitrogen
albumin
( T e c h n i con
was o b t a i n e d
( AL) ,
4
(trial
frozen.
h
then
Plasma
was
serum
was
( UN) ,
total
cholesterol
Instruments
Corp.,
during period
I.
^ A n a l y s e s c o n d u c t e d by M a r s h L a b o r a t o r y ,
U n i v e r s i t y , Bozeman.
an
anticoagulant
g for
concentration
of
I)
coagulate
and
rumen
two
plastic
(trial
500
5,
0
Be c t o n - D i c k e r s o n ,
sodium
x 75
tubes
creatinine
protein
non
decanted
analyzed
and
bled
containers
polypropylene
sampled
were
a syringe
two
were
four
( tr ia l
in
( N=61)
addition,
a
centrifuged
decanted
centrifuged
cows
In
mg/ml
Samples
im mediately
Plasma
all
treatm ent
obtained;
anticoagulant.
were
2
supplem entation.
or
Rutherford,
trial
supplem entation.
75 h a f t e r
(trial
In
Montana S t a t e
I of
36
Statistical
Buminal
ammonia
to re p re s e n t
43
the
In t r i a l
while
30 h i n t e r v a l
using
as
(1971).
sampling
the
plot
period,
square.
w ithin
S
markers
sim ilarly
(Tables
change
and
16 a n d
calf
supplement
were
3-,
variance
separated
contrasts.
5,
17).
67
h intervals.
via
and
and
with
Standard
5-
cow
and
tp
10
age.
by G i l l
of
single
degree
errors
were
of
o f S AS
and H a f s
S X period
interaction
with
the
the
error
mean s q u a r e
13).
were
and
of
for
also
and
condition
analyzed
Main
score.
Ag e
freedom
by
via
effects
included
classes
Supplement
pooled
cow
were analyzed
Regressions
age.
mean
M easurem ents
11).
condition
6-yr
analysis
procedure
Cow b o d y w e i g h t
(Tables
h intervals.
metabolites
and
birthw eight
body w e i g h t
4-,
4,
I the
blood
tested
with
tria l
91 h intervals
a n d NDF f e r m e n t a t i o n r a t e
included
included
were
pooled
0 and 48 h i n t e r v a l s
pH a n d
interval,
tested
(Tables
of
cow
20 a n d
design as described
was
analysis
in itia l
and
models
concentration,
were
In
30 a n d 75
linear
interaction
involving
score
43
-5,
represents
sampling
Supplement
nested
cycle.
represents
general
ammonia
and S X i n t e r v a l
pH d a t a
were analyzed w ith i n t r i a l
a split
For
and
represents.
0 h intervals
measures
variance
represents
20 h in t e r v a l
the
( 19 84)
interval
2 the
All
concentration
a 48 h s u p p l e m e n t a t i o n
h sampling
while
Analyses
means
orthogonal
averaging
the
37
standard
error
error
term.
of
each
subclass
mean
using
the
appropriate
38
RESULTS
Climatio
The
period
(-4.2
mean
2
C)
of
trial
or
period
temperature
whereas
the
was
other
two
than in
(1.1
in
during
N 0 AA ,
period
either
each
period
The
in
the
I
ambient
day d u r i n g p e r i o d
relatively
cover
during
constant
pasture
2
in
was
2.
daily
sampling
C; p e r i o d
trial
lower
I 9 8 5).
remained
Snow
was
3 = 9.2
2 except
t e m p e r a t u r e was war mer
periods
(period
I = -2.3
C ; N OAA,
1 986 ).
Snow c o v e r
during
the
sampling
C;
periods.
Metabolites
I
Plasma
(Table
4)
( P <. 0 I ) .
I.
C;
conditions
Blood
Trial
C) t h a n
declining with
I during
2 = 2. 1
greater
3
tem perature
2 t h e mean m e d i a n
tria l
period
(-6.5
periods.
during
In t r i a l
daily
I
also
climatic
greatest
was
median
by S b u t
Al I
However,
in period
but
concentration
the
S X period
S groups had lo w e r
glucose
( T a b l e 6)
for
was n o t
interaction
was
affected
important
( P < . 0 I ) GL i n p e r i o d
SOY+BM i n
period
3 was
the
2 than
s ame
as
I whereas in a l l other S groups i t rem ained lower.
Neither
b y S,
glucose
AL n o r
both
TP c o n c e n t r a t i o n
were
(Table
4).
Albumin
period
3 t h a n 2.
affected
was
However,
.62
(Table
by t h e
mg/dl
AL w a s
6)
were
S X period
lower
sim ilar
for
affected
interaction
control
between
in
periods
39
for
all
other
control
other
S groups.
a n d SOY+CGM w a s l o w e r
S groups.
Urea
vs
(Table
was
In
S groups
lower
4)
immediately
except
Creatinine
main
interaction
was
in
period
(P<.01;
(95.3
for
Table
5
mg/dl)
SOY
and
10
Total
h
and
(113.6
control
were
all
S.
mg/dl)
period
3 for
SOY.
affected
than
vs
2 for
8.02
mg/dl)
s l i g h t Iy
higher
In
(Table
6)
was
in
period
2 for
concentration
when
was
S groups.
period
The
higher
S X period
3 CRE w a s
higher
SOY+CGM.
was
(142.3
because
SOY+BM.
than
No o t h e r
6)
was
concentration
mg/dl)
except
interaction
8) .
(Table
S 0 Y+ F AT
6)
supplem entation
except
( PC. 01) r e s u l t e d
S groups
not
detected.
Cholesterol
or
was
than
other
S groups
SOY+CGM ( 9 0 . 2
interaction
all
than
concentration
period
for
S X period
3
(Table
(Table
significant.
by
the
bilirubin
after
supplementation
2 for
4)
not
was
only
3 BI L w a s l o w e r
effects
Cholesterol
6)
S X period
concentration
significant
than
the
SOY+CGM.
( P= . 0 5 ; T a b l e 4 ) f o r
3 for
SOY+BM ( 9 . 9 9
but
lower
period
period
concentration
period
before
in
not
for
;
by S b u t
( P <. 0 3 )
in
(P < . 0 1 ) by
higher
8.55 m g / d l )
b iliru b in
significant.
all
vs
3 but
(Table
m g / d l ),
S0Y+FAT.
Total
affected
UW w a s
concentration
period
TP w a s h i g h e r
4.43
a n d SOY+CGM ( 1 0 . 9 9
SOY a n d
in
was i n f l u e n c e d
Serum
(10.88
protein
concentration
4) b u t
interaction.
control
Serum
nitrogen
by S ( T a b l e
for
Total
lower
affected
for
SOY+BM
( PC. 01)
mg/dl).
CHO w a s
than
The
S X
lower
in
Table 4.
L e a st-S q u a re s A n aly sis of Variance fo r P re c a lv in g C o n c e n tra tio n s of
G l u c o s e ( GL) ,
A l b u m i n ( AL) ,
T o t a l P r o t e i n (TP), Urea N i t r o g e n , T o t a l B i l i r u b i n
( B I L ) , C r e a t i n i n e ( CRE) a n d C h o l e s t e r o l ( CHO; T r i a l I ) .
TI
Mean
square
GL
ltean
square
P
__ a
Maan
square
4
I
593.0
829.4
.34
.21
1.933
6.930
.66
.16
1.279
.847
.96
.76
120.30
1.26
.54
.93
.0352
.0457
.67
.39
1.0959
2.6210
.15
.05
24,207.6
7,938.6
<.01
.03
I
I
26.0
703.7
.46
.25
.132
.380
.84
.73
.095
.351
.92
.84
277.19
14.06
.19
.76
.0583
.0177
.34
.59
.5408
.0018
.33
• 95
12,658.1
621.0
<.01
.51
I
816.3
.22
.000
.99
3.739
.52
358.47
.14
.0283
.50
.4916
.35
87,033.5
<.01
15
487.2
<.01
3.176
<.01
8.447
<.01
147.60
<.01
.0587
<.01
.7643
<.01
1356.9
<.01
Sampling p erio d (PER)
2
9,528.7
<.01
.745
<.01
.145
.40
496 . 77
<.01
.1516
<.01
1.3068
<.01
373.3
.01
Sampling i n t e r v a l (I )
5
161.7
<.01
.025
.95
.083
.85
18.35
.13
.0438
<.01
.0410
.08
47.8
.56
S X PER
8
145.1
<.01
1.297
<.01
2.468
<.01
66.58
<.01
.0332
<.01
.0918
<.01
961.0
<.01
20
30.1
.85
.015
1.00
.199
.50
6.05
.93
.0040
.92
.0178
.64
45.8
•77
399
44.8
Item
Supplement (S )b
C ontrol vs o th e r s
SOY v s SOY+BM,
SOY+CGM
SOY+BM v s S0Y+0GM
S0Y+FAT v s SOY+BM,
SOY+CGM
Cow(S)
SX I
E rror
d f3
.109
P
.205
P
__ Sin
Mean
square
10.68
P
Bn
Ptean
square
.0067
P
CRE
Ptean
square
.0206
CHO
P
Pfean
square
P
60.9
aDegrees o f freedom o f cow(S) fo r AL, TP, UN, BIL, CRE and CHO was 13; d eg rees o f freedom of e rr o r f o r AL was 237 and f o r TP, UN, BIL, CRE and
CHO was 234; degrees o f freedom f o r PER was I f o r a l l m e ta b o lite s ex cep t GL.
Ian square f o r cow (S) used a s e r r o r term fo r supplement and le a s t- s q u a r e s means se p a ra te d by orthogonal c o n tra s ts .
Table 5.
L e a st-S q u a re s A n aly sis of Variance fo r P re c a l v in g C o n c e n tra tio n s
G l u c o s e ( CL) , A l b u m i n ( AL) , T o t a l P r o t e i n ( T P ) , U r e a N i t r o g e n ( UN) , T o t a l
B i l i r u b i n ( B I L ) , C r e a t i n i n e ( CRE) a n d C h o l e s t e r o l ( CH0 ; T r i a l 2 ) .
Item
S upplm ent (S )a
C ontrol vs o th e rs
SOY v s SOY+BM,
SOY+CGM
SOY+BM v s SOY+CGM
SOY+FAT v s SOY+BM,
SOY+CGM
df
GL
Msan
square P
AL
Mean
square
P
-■ TP
Mean
square
P
UH
Mean
square
P
_ BH,
Mean
square
CRR
P
Mean
square
P
of
CHO
Mean
square
P
i)
I
49.5
169.4
46
.08
.442
.603
.88
.53
.547
0.003
.79
.96
162.61
491.81
<.01
<.01
.0295
.0009
.32
.85
.0703
.0017
.93
.94
5 ,8 5 0 .3
139.2
<.01
.72
I
I
1 .1
4 .3
.89
.78
.059
.219
.84
.70
1.907
.034
.41
.87
121.85
.42
.02
.89
.0490
.0803
.16
.08
.1947
.0848
.44
.61
638.7
1,753.5
.45
.21
I
33.4
.43
1.016
.41
.524
.53
83.48
.05
.0100
.53
.0940
.59
21,711.8
<.01
60
53.5
<.01
1.496
<.01
1.307
<.01
21.65
<.01
.0247
<.01
.3234
<.01
Sampling p erio d (PER)
2
1 ,036.0
<.01
20.819
<.01
28.032
<.01
125.34
<.01
.5693
<.01
1.0848
<.01
Sampling i n t e r v a l (I )
4
129.4
<.01
.170
<.01
.137
.32
146.60
<.01
.0061
.79
.1260
<•01
76.8
.20
S X PER
8
21.5
.04
.019
.89
.129
.35
11.46
<.01
.0407
<.01
.0236
.12
1 ,569.7
<.01
16
20.6
.01
.014
.99
.066
.91
10.48
<.01
.0142
.44
.0091
.86
39.2
.72
568
10.5
Cow(S)
SX I
E rror
.042
.116
3.61
.0140
.2914
Mean square fo r cow(S) used a s e r r o r term f o r supplem ent and le a s t- s q u a r e s means se p a ra te d by orthogonal c o n tra sts .
1,084.5
6,450.9
51.1
<.01
<.01
U2
Table 6.
L e a s t - S q u a r e s Me a n s f o r P r e c a l v i n g C o n c e n t r a t i o n s
of Glucose, Albumin, Total P r o t e i n , Urea N itr o g e n , Total
B i l i r u b i n , C r e a t i n i n e a n d C h o l e s t e r o l by S a m p l i n g P e r i o d
(T rial I).
M etab o lite
G lucose,
m g/dl
Sampling
p e rio d
I
2
3
C ontrol
60.9
45.6
54.1
SOY
66.8
49.0
60.0
Suoolement
S0Y+BM SOY+CGM
62.4
48.6
63.0
62.2
41.5
57.1
S0Y+FAT
66.3
52.6
60.3
SEa
1.32
SEb
4.31
Albumin,
g /d l
2
3
2.70
2.08
2.76
2 .7 2
2 .8 8
2.86
2.72
2.76
2.75
2.86
.065
.349
T o tal P ro te in ,
g /d l
2
3
8.09
7.64
7 .5 3
7.99
7.69
7.83
8.16
7.60
7.40
7 .5 9
.089
.572
U rea N itro g en ,
mg/dl
2
3
4.43
10.88
5.53
7 .0 9
8.02
9.99
8.55
10.99
5.61
6.81
.644
2.393
T o ta l B ilir u b in ,
mg/dl
2
3
.177
.076
.147
.092
.081
.042
.072
.106
.142
.065
.0161
.048
C re a tin in e ,
mg/dl
2
3
1.819
1.945
1 .624
1.905
1.569
1.696
1.608
1.640
1 .445
1.576
.0283
1.683
C h o le ste ro l,
mg/dl
2
3
101.6
91.8
116.2
111.0
96.7
94.0
92.9
87.6
136.7
147.9
1.54
7.25
aPooled sta n d a rd e r r o r of It he I e a s t-s q u a re s means c a lc u la te d u sin g e r r o r mean square a s e r r o r
term.
"Pooled sta n d a rd e r r o r o f th e I e a s t-s q u a re s means c al cu e la te d u sin g mean sq u are f o r cow (S) <is
e r r o r term.
43
Table 7.
L e a s t - S q u a r e s Me a n s f o r P r e e a l v i n g C o n c e n t r a t i o n s
of G lu co s e, Albumin, T o t a l P r o t e i n , Urea N i t r o g e n , To t al
B i l i r u b i n , C r e a t i n i n e a n d C h o l e s t e r o l by S a m p l i n g P e r i o d
( T r i a l 2).
Sampling
p erio d
M etab o lite
G lucose,
m g/dl
I
2
3
Albumin,
g /d l
C ontrol
SOY
57.5
52.4
52.0
58.7
55.0
54.5
Suunlement
S0Y+BM
S0Y+0GM
58.8
55.7
53.5
58.3
56.4
54.9
S0Y+FAT
59.6
57.6
55.9
SEa
SEb
.71
1.60
I
2
3
4.20
3.61
3.67
4.30
3.78
3 .7 8
4.31
3.79
3.79
4.20
3.66
3.69
4.55
3.94
3.97
.045
.266
T otal
P ro te in ,
g /d l
I
2
3
7.21
6.60
6.46
7.36
6 .7 9
6.63
7.09
6.73
6 .4 9
7.14
6.67
6.37
7.00
6.46
6.25
.071
.248
Urea
n itro g e n ,
m g/dl
I
2
3
6.28
6.66
8.22
9.97
10.59
11.02
11.89
13.02
13.09
11.03
12.58
13.91
10.20
9.83
10.98
.425
T otal
B il ir u b i n ,
mg/dl
I
2
3
.335
.353
.434
.384
.334
.460
.319
.308
.323
.391
.323
.446
.344
.304
.480
.0257
.0341
C re a tin in e ,
mg/dl
I
2
3
1.769
1.868
1.906
1.818
1.912
1.916
1.693
1.769
1.829
1.743
1.856
1 .907
I .791
1.856
1.978
.0262
.1236
C h o le s te ro l,
m g/dl
103.2
96.6
81.0
I
2
3
97.0
93.0
81.3
92.8
94.2
85.6
87.9
81.6
72.1
114.2
127.3
124.5
1.01
7.16
1.55
a
j _i.__ ,
aPooled sta n d a rd e r r o r of th e I e a s t-s q u a re s means c a lc u la te d u sin g e r r o r mean square a s e r r o r
term.
^Pooled sta n d a rd e r r o r of th e le a s t- s q u a r e s means c a lc u la te d u sin g mean sq u are fo r cow(S) a s
e r r o r term .
Table 8.
L e a s t - S q u a r e s Me a n s f o r P r e c a l v i n g C o n c e n t r a t i o n s
o f G l u c o s e ( G L ) , Al bumi n (AL) , T o t a l P r o t e i n ( T P ) , Ur e a
N i t r o g e n ( U N ) , T o t a l B i l i r u b i n ( B I L ) , C r e a t i n i n e ( CRE)
a n d C h o l e s t e r o l (CHO) by S a m p l i n g I n t e r v a l ( T r i a l I ) .
Sam pling I n t e r v a l ,
hours Dost sim nlfim entation
0
5
10
20
30
44
SEa
CL,
mu/dl
55.2
54.6
59.0
57.5
56.1
57.9
.87
AL,
p /d l
2 .7 2
2.75
2.72
2.68
2 .6 9
2.70
.051
TP,
e /d l
7 .8 2
7 .7 8
7.74
7 .6 9
7.71
7 .7 5
.068
a Pooled sta n d a rd e r r o r o f th e le a s t- s q u a r e s means.
UN,
mg/dl
7.1
7 .7
6 .9
8.4
8.5
8.2
.50
BIL,
mg/dl
.1169
.0625
.0725
.0886
.1219
.1381
.0127
CfiE,
mPZdl
1.649
1.718
1.698
1.672
1 .707
1.651
.0222
CH0,
mg/dl
108.7
108.7
106.8
108.2
106.1
107.3
1 .21
44
Tabl e 9.
L e a s t - S q u a r e s Me a n s f o r P r e c a l v i n g C o n c e n t r a t i o n s
of G lu co s e, Albumin, T o t a l P r o t e i n , Urea N i t r o g e n , To t al
B i l i r u b i n , C r e a t i n i n e a n d C h o l e s t e r o l by S a m p l i n g I n t e r v a l
( T r ia l 2).
M etabolite
G lucose,
mg/dl
Albumin,
g /d l
T o tal
P ro te in ,
g /d l
Urea
n itro g e n ,
mg/dl
T o ta l
B ilir u b in ,
m g/dl
C re a tin in e ,
m g/dl
C h o le s te ro l,
mg/dl
Sampling I n t e r v a l
h o u rs p o s tsu p p lem en tatio n
O
5
10
20
30
C ontrol
SOY
53.1
51.0
5 5 .8
53.6
53.0
53.3
55.9
60.2
51.9
56.1
SuddI ement
SOX+BM
S0Y+CGM
56.1
56.1
57.7
55.7
56.7
53.6
57.1
56.9
56.9
55.6
S0Y+FAT
51.6
57.3
60.1
59.1
57.2
SEa
SEb
.927
2.095
0
5
10
20
30
3.75
3.88
3.83
3.79
3.87
3.93
3.95
1.00
3.90
3.98
3.92
3.93
3.96
3.99
1.02
3.80
3.85
3.88
3.81
3.92
1.07
1.11
1.17
1.17
1.22
.059
.319
0
5
10
20
30
6.65
6.92
6.78
6.71
6.71
6 .9 0
7 .0 5
6.89
6.89
6.90
6.73
6.82
6.83
6.71
6.77
6.71
6.66
6.81
6.65
6.71
6.16
6.53
6.61
6 .6 1
6 .61
.097
.326
0
5
10
20
30
6.79
7.55
6.71
7.01
7 .1 9
9.08
9.60
10.11
11.55
11.98
10.81
11.70
11.19
11.52
15.09
10.18
12.39
11.93
13.27
11.15
8.50
9.39
10.21
12.17
11.12
.513
1.329
0
5
10
20
30
.100
.358
.392
.376
.311
.381
.112
.355
.378
.107
.331
.325
.336
.213
.313
.350
.101
.121
.376
.380
.369
.386
.362
.103
.361
.0338
.0119
0
5
10
20
30
1.891
1.931
1.796
1.798
1.816
1.913
1 .958
1.831
1.877
1.827
1.761
1.800
1.722
1.788
1.752
1.851
1 .891
1.823
1.813
1.801
1.893
1.927
1.890
1.860
1.806
.0311
.1621
0
5
10
20
30
91.8
91.3
93.5
95.3
93.1
89.8
90.5
91.0
91.9
89.0
81.2
80.8
80.3
82.0
78.1
91.6
90.0
92.1
90.1
89.9
121.8
117.9
119.1
127.2
123.5
2.01
9.103
a Pooled sta n d a rd e r r o r of th e le a s t- s q u a r e s means c a lc u la te d u sin g e r r o r mean square a s e r r o r
term.
“Pooled sta n d a rd e r r o r o f th e le a s t- s q u a r e s means c a lc u la te d u sin g mean sq u are f o r cow(S) a s
e r r o r term .
45
Trial
2
Plasma
( P = .0 8;
glucose
Table
5) f o r
concentration
S groups.
SOY+BM,
the
lower
lower
period
AL n o r
was
S groups.
period
lower
7)
Glucose
2 than
than
in
lower
I
for
period
all
2 for
TP ( T a b l e
in
7)
was a f f e c t e d
interaction.
period
2 and
was
3
also
Both
than
in
lower
(Table
AL a n d
period
( P <.0 I )
5)
by
TP
I.
in
S
were
Total
period
3
2.
lower
nitrogen
concentration
( P <.0 I ; T a b l e
UN w a s h i g h e r
higher
higher
( P =, 0 8;
than
5)
period
I for
In
SOY a n d
period
I for
SOY+FAT.
3 than
was
Concentration
Each
(Table
for
affected
period
2
In
S groups
was
S
for
group
SOY
had
I .
than
SOY+CGM.
all
control
SOY+BM a n d SOY+CGM t h a n
S OY+ BM
concentration
for
S groups.
concentration
for
interaction.
( T a b l e 7)
other
for
period
bilirubin
period
in
than
(P<.01) for
UN i n
Table
bilirubin
5)
( P= . 0 5 )
( P < . 0 9)
Total
than
other
in
3 GL w a s
concentration
Urea
and
than
( P < . 0 1)
S X period
(P<.01)
protein
of
control
(Table
.SOY+CGM a n d SOY+FAT o n l y .
by
than
was
In
Neither
nor
concentration
BI L
7)
was
S OY+ C GM.
( P <. 0 I )
was
period
except
by
higher
lower
Total
the
than
S
X
in
3 BIL was h i g h e r
SOY+BM a n d SOY+CGM.
I n p e r i o d 3 B I L w a s l o w e r f o r SOY+BM t h a n a n y o t h e r S g r o u p .
Creatinine
(Table
2)
by
concentration
S or
the
(Table
S X period
7)
was
not
interaction.
affected
Creatinine
46
concentration
higher
was
(P<. 0 I ) in
period
Supplem ent
concentration
higher
CHO w a s
higher
I
Cow W e i g h t s .
Trial
2
than
I
and
for
all
Condition
3
and
was
SOY+CGM.
( P < . 0 I ) CH 0.
The
Period
2
SOY a n d SOY+BM b u t
GHO w a s
S groups
Scores
cholesterol
concentration
control,
period
5)
SOY+BM a n d
affected
I for
In
2 for
Table
lower
except
Calf
than
in
SOY+FAT.
Birthweishts
I
Cow
Table
body
TO)
(P<.01)
were
period
or
period
Cholesterol
also
SOY+FAT.
period
( P <.0 I ;
SOY+FAT t h a n
than
in
3 t h a n 2.
7).
interaction
for
either
for
lower
( P<.01)
affected
(Table
( P<. 01 )
S X period
higher
weight
by
S.
than
group,
body
Cow
( P= . 0 2;
more
(P <.01)
SOY+CGM l o s t
was not
cow
weight
condition
Table
10)
score
(P<.05)
condition
score
weight
was
affected
-1.9
kg
which
S groups.
nor
was
less
differences
Neither
in itial
(P<.01;
cow
condition
age
score
change.
score
change
Control
S
(Table
lost
but i n i t i a l
score
.0026
was
Cows
than
weight
in
SOY.
-.35
which was
SOY+BM
( P=.03)
on i n i t i a l
affected
Cow a g e
The r e g r e s s i o n
change
and
12)
1.46 u n i t s ,
groups.
( P = . 0 5) w e r e .
were
12)
significant
( P=..0,3) c o n d i t i o n
condition
condition
No
other
other
significant
of
the
b y S.
than
less
gained
S groups.
among
in itial
affected
(Table
Control
other
detected
change
and
group
and i n i t i a l
coefficients
body
respectively.
weight
and
T a b l e 10.
L e a st-S q u a re s A nalysis of Variance fo r Calf B irthw eight
a n d P r e c a l v i n g Cow Bo d y W e i g h t a n d C o n d i t i o n S c o r e C h a n g e ( T r i a l I ) .
Item
C alf b irth w eieh t
Mean
square
P
df
Body
weight change
Mean
P
square
df
Condition
score change
Mean
df
square
P
4
I
42.85
1.18
.80
.88
4
I
15,394
56,212
<.01
<.01
4
I
1.4193
3.6081 <.01
I
I
5.18
54.50
.75
.31
I
I
2,793
1,013
.29
.52
I
I
1.0929
0.0000
.03
.99
I
14.96
.59
I
4,095
.20
I
.2887
.43
Ccw age
2
59.57
.32
2
2,828
.32
2
.0151
• 97
I n i t i a l cow weight
I
712.32
<.01
I
777
.57
I
2.2512
on
O
CXJ
O
Supplement^
Control vs o th e rs
SOY v s SOY+BM
SOY+CGM
SOY+BM v s SOY + CGM
SOY+FAT vs SOY+BM
SOY+CGM
I n i t i a l co n d itio n score
I
45.82
.35
I
4,320
.19
I
I .8070
.05
45
51.33
45
2,390
47
.4583
E rror
^ L east-squares means sep arated by orthogonal c o n tra s ts .
Table 11.
Precalving
L e a s t - S q u a r e s A n a l y s i s of Varia nce f o r C alf B i r t h w e i g h t
Cow Bo d y W e i g h t a n d C o n d i t i o n S c o r e C h a n g e ( T r i a l 2 ) .
Item
C alf b irth w eieh t
Mean
df
square
P
Body
weight change
Ifean
df
square
P
and
Condition
score change
Mean
df
square
P
Supplement3
Control v s o th e rs
SOY v s SOY+BM
SOY+CGM
SOY+BM v s SOY+CGM
SOY+FAT vs SOY+BM
SOY+CGM
4
I
19.29
29.27
.88
.51
4
I
14,486
50,086
<.01
<.01
4
I
.4123
.6129
.03
.04
I
I
.44
15.28
.94
.63
I
I
5,445
4,595
.06
.08
I
I
.9150
.2403
.01
.19
I
24.43
.55
I
99
.80
I
.0172
.73
Ccw age
2
273.83
.02
2
1,387
.40
2
.0202
.86
I n i t i a l cow weight
I
14.10
.65
I
1,226
.37
I
.9128
.01
I n i t i a l co n d itio n score
I
1.01
.90
I
1,084
.40
I
49
66.49
50
1,477
Error
aL e a st-squares means sep arated by orthogonal c o n tra sts.
44
6.7967 <.01
.1375
49
T a b l e 1 2 . L e a s t - S q u a r e s Me a n s f o r C a l f B i r t h w e i g h t a n d
P r e c a l v i n g Cow Bo d y W e i g h t a n d C o n d i t i o n S c o r e C h a n g e
( T r i a l s I and 2).
Calf
b irth w eig h t, kg
Body weight
change, kg
Conditio n
sco re change
Control
SOY
S0Y+BM
S0Y+CGM
S0Y+FAT
SEc
38.4
38.1
39.2
37.7
39.1
1.03
-1 .9
31.7
38.2
44.4
30.7
7.04
-1 .4 6
-1 .1 8
-.7 6
-.7 6
-.5 6
.212
C ontrol
SOY
SOYfBM
SOY+CGM
S0Y+FAT
SE
37.8
38.7
38.4
39.2
38.0
1.14
-46.4
-20.1
—I #8
-15.0
-10.1
5.37
-.9 5
-.9 3
-.4 6
—.69
-.6 3
.122
T ria l
Supplement
Ia
2b
aJanuary 15 to March I , 1985.
bDecember 15, 1985 to Mardi 6 , 1986.
cPooled stan d ard e rro r of th e le a s t- s q u a r e s means.
Calf
by
S,
birthweight
cow
regression
body
age
group
or
coefficient
weight
Trial
(Table
was
1 2)
was n o t
in itia l
( P C. 0 1 ) o f
affected
condition
birthweight
(Table
10)
score.
The
on i n i t i a l
cow
.0 4 6 4 .
2
Cow
Table
(PC.01)
which
body
11)
by
than
was
weight
S.
S O Y+ CG M ( - 1 5 . 0
( P= . 0 8 )
weight
Control
other
less
change
than
gained
S groups.
( P=.06)
kg).
(Table
than
Cows
cows i n
in
12)
was
-46.4
kg
Cows
cows
in
in
affected
which
S OY+ BM t e n d e d
S0Y+CGM.
was
SOY g a i n e d
S0Y+BM
Neither
cow
less
-20.1
(-1.8
to
(PC. 01;
kg)
lose
age
kg
and
less
group,
50
initial
cow w e i g h t
influenced
Cow
(P=.03)
than
S.
score
Control
other
( P= . 0 1 )
lost
than
cows
significant.'
The
condition
change
were
.0021 9
Calf
by
change
. 95
S groups.
score
and
score
units
in
significantly
12)
which
was
was
Cow
more
age
group
c o efficien ts
on i n i t i a l
affected
(P=.04)
SOY+BM a n d SOY+CGM l o s t
SOY.
regression
-.73
(Table
Cows i n
weight
and
was
not
( P = .0 I )
condition
of
score
respectively.
birthweight
(Table
1 2)
was
not
affected
(Table
11)
S group.
Ruminal
Trial
(6.7
p
H and
Ammoni a
I
Ruminal
mg/dl)
other
ammonia
was
S groups.
3 than 2 for
Ruminal
S.
condition
change.
condition
by
for
less
weight
nor i n i t i a l
Control
groups.
low er
1.7
control,
4.9
pH ( 6 . 8 5 9 )
was
pH w a s
higher
mg/dl
SOY+BM a n d
14)
than
(Table
lower
concentration
pH ( T a b l e
( P= . 0 I )
( 6 . 626).
to
Ammoni a
M e a n pH f o r
Ruminal
concentration
was
affected
higher
SOY
( PC. 01)
for
(P=.03)
was
higher
control
than
in
for
period
S0Y+FAT.
(PC. 0 1 ;
(P=.03)
SOY+BM ( 6 . 4 4 2 )
for
14)
for
13)
or
S0Y+FAT
period
by
other
a n d SOY+CGM ( 6 . 4 4 3 )
( 6 . 7 53 )
during
than
Table
S
was
( 6.77 8).
3 (6.845)
than
2
T a b l e 13 .
L e a s t - S q u a r e s A n a l y s i s of
Ammoni a C o n c e n t r a t i o n a n d pH ( T r i a l s
Variance for
I and 2 ) .
T ria l I
Ammonia
Mean
square
P
Mean
square
P
4
I
113.81
278.71
.09
.03
I .6029
1.9715
I
I
104.30
102.18
.15
.16
I
43.00
13
Sampling p erio d (PER)
Precalving
Ruminal
T ria l 2
p
H
DH
df
Mean
square
P
<.01
.03
4
I
.4343
.1753
.19
.41
2.4507
0.0000
.01
.99
I
I
.7939
.2421
.09
.34
.35
3.4514
<.01
I
1.2611
.04
45.30
<.01
.2953
<.01
16
.2479
<.01
I
104.72
.02
.1580
<.01
I
.3410
<.01
Sampling in te r v a l (I)
5
151.04
<.01
.4596
<.01
4
.7586
<.01
S X PER
4
63.07
.01
.0779
<.01
4
.1717
<.01
20
19.00
.52
.0291
.31
16
.0118
.77
199
19.83
227
.0316
Item
Supplement(S)a
Control v s o th e rs
SOY v s SOY+BM
SOY+OGM
SOY+BM v s S0Y+0GM
SOY+FAT v s SOY+BM
SOY+CGM
Cow(S)
SX I
E rrcr
df
.0210
aPiean square fo r cow(S) used a s e r r o r term fo r supplement and le a s t-s q u a re s means separated
by orthogonal c o n tra sts.
52
T a b l e 1 4 . L e a s t - S q u a r e s Me a n s f o r P r e c a l v i n g R u m i n a l
C o n c e n t r a t i o n a n d pH by S a m p l i n g P e r i o d ( P ER; T r i a l s
_________________ Supplement_________________
Control
SOY
SOY+BM SOY+OGM SOY+FAT
Item
PER
T ria l I
Ammonia,
m g/dl
2
3
4.5
8.9
8.7
8.1
2
3
6.859
6.862
6.677
6.830
6.384
6.499
6.482
6.403
6.727
6.829
.0328
.1229
2
3
6.703
6.661
6.646
6.667
6.586
6.322
6.613
6.514
6.731
6.738
.0376
.1051
pH
’i a l 2
pH
12.3
10.7
7.9
10.6
8.1
10.3
SEa
Ammoni a
I and 2 ) .
.96
SEb
1.45
a Pooled stan d ard e rro r of th e I e a s t-s q u a re s means c a lc u la te d u sin g e r r o r mean
square a s e r r o r term.
bPooled stan d ard e r r o r of th e I e a s t-sq u a re s means c a lc u la te d u sin g mean square
fo r cow(S) a s e r r o r term.
T a b l e 1 5 . L e a s t - S q u a r e s Me a n s f o r P r e c a l v i n g R u m i n a l Ammoni a
C o n c e n t r a t i o n a n d pH by S a m p l i n g I n t e r v a l ( T r i a l s I a n d 2 ) .
T r ia l 2
T r ia l I
Sampling In te rv a l
(hours post-supplem entation)
0
5
10
20
30
43
SEa
Ammonia,
mg/dl
7.5
10.5
6.1
12.1
8.5
9.4
.73
pH
6.825
6.519
6.566
6.681
6.612
6.728
.0242
aPooled stan d ard e r r o r of the I e a st-s q u a re s means.
pH
6.765
6.429
6.566
6.679
6.652
.0270
53
Trial
2
Ruminal
13)
for
pH ( T a b l e
SOY+BM
(6.657).
14) t e n d e d
(6.454)
Ruminal
pH
and
was
to
SOY+CGM
lower
only
for
resulted
because
( P = . 0 9; T a b l e
than
for
for
SOY
SOY+BM
and
A significant
pH w a s l o w e r
in
S X period
period
3 than 2
SOY+BM a n d SOY+CGM.
Fermentation
Trail
(6.564)
( P = . 0 4)
SOY+CGM t h a n f o r SOY+FAT ( 6 . 7 3 5 ) .
interaction
be l o w e r
Rate
I
Ruminal
16,18)
NDF f e r m e n t a t i o n
for
control
Fermentation
was f a s t e r
rate
period
Trial
(1 . 8 5 5 5 / h )
for
rate
(Table
I ( P= . 0 4 ) o r
was
than
SOY+BM ( 2 . 6 2 % / h )
( P= . 0 7 ) t h a n f o r
fermentation
rate
for
was
and
faster
( P <. 01;
other
SOY ( 2 . 2 5 ? / h ) .
19)
period
slower
S
Table
groups.
SOY+CGM ( 2 . 8 4 % / h )
During period
than
during
3
either
2 ( P= . 0 7 ) .
2
Ruminal
affected
NDF
(P=,20;
(P= .0 8)
for
three
periods
ferm entation
Table
SOY+CGM
fermentation.
17)
(4.9%/hr)
had
by
rate
(Table
18)
S
but
tended
than
for
SOY+BM ( 4 . 3 % / h ) .
d i f f e r e n t
( P <. 0 I )
to
was
r a t e s
be
not
faster
of
All
NDF
54
Ruminal
Trial
Flow K i n e t i c s
I
Ruminal
(Table
16)
either
fluid
for
SOY
dilution
than
either
( P= .0 9;
was a l s o
period
2 or
fluid
Table
16)
groups.
Fluid
than
SOY
for
( P <.0 I ) i n
Trial
not
(Table
was
SOY+CGM ( 6 . 7 % / h )
or
SOY+FAT
slower
3
18)
than
(10.9%/h;
(P <. 01)
(Table
slower
19).
for
P=.07).
during
period
The
X period
S
I
significant.
volume
for
( P =.. 0 5 )
(Table
control
volume
period
and
P =. 06)
rate
was
Ruminal
rate
SOY+BM ( 8 . 4 % / h )
(11.4%/h;
Fluid
interaction
dilution
was
18)
(38.9
liters)
greater
Fluid
for
volume
I than in e i th e r
tended
to
be
than
greater
for
other
S
SOY+BM a n d SOY+CGM
(Table
period
.19)
was
higher
2 o r 3.
2
Ruminal
(PC .01)
for
SOY+FAT
faster
fluid
SOY+BM ( 6 . 9 % / h )
(11.8%/h).
(PC .01) i n
D ilution
slower
dilution
(P=.03;
(2.75%/h)
than
(Table
19)
period
I or 3.
Fluid
period
rate
and
16)
I than in
for
( P C . 03)
rate
either
particles
was
for
period
than
for
19)
was
2 o r 3.
(Table
Particulate
period
slower
(Table
SOY+BM ( 2 . 3 3 % / h )
SOY ( 3 . 4 8 % / h ) .
was f a s t e r
18)
SOY+CGM ( 7 . 2 % / h )
dilution
of r u m i n a l
Table
for
r a te (Table
18)
and
SOY+CGM
dilution
2 than
for
was
rate
either
55
Fluid
volume
(41.3
liters)
(20.7
liters).
and
(Table
18)
was
greater
( P <. 0 I )
SO Y+ CGM ( 4 2 . 1
liters)
than
for
for
SOY+BM
SO Y+FAT
T a b l e 16.
L e a st-S q u a re s A nalysis of Variance fo r
D i l u t i o n R a t e , F l u i d V o l u me a n d N e u t r a l D e t e r g e n t
Rate ( T r i a l I ).
P r e c a l v i n g Ruminal F l u i d
F i b e r ( NDF) F e r m e n t a t i o n
F luid
d ilu tio n r a te
Mean
square
P
df
F lu id volume
Mean
df
square
P
NDF ferm entation
r a te
Mean
df
square
P
4
I
.4145
.2039
.19
.35
4
I
I ,229.1
I ,423.4
.04
.09
4
I
.01310
.03606
.04
<.01
I
I
.9536
.1422
.06
.43
I
I
1,986.3
15.5
.05
.85
I
I
.01207
.00264
.07
.37
I
.8815
.07
I
2,043.9
.05
I
.00350
.30
12
.2162
.04
12
431.6
.05
15
.00308
.60
Sampling p erio d (PER)
2
.7180
<.01
2
2,878.7
<.01
2
.00944
.09
S X PER
8
.0834
.53
8
372.9
.11
8
.00407
.37
Error
24
.0920
24
196.5
25
.00353
Item
Supplement(S)^
Control v s o th e rs
SOY v s SOY+BM
SOY+CGM
SOY+BM v s S0Y+0GM
SOY+FAT vs SOY+BM
S0Y+0GM
Cow( S)
aIfean square fo r cow(S) used a s e r r o r term fo r supplement and le a s t- ■squares means separated by
orthogonal c o n tra sts.
Ta bl e 17.
L e a s t - S q u a r e s A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e f o r P r e c a l v i n g Ruminal F l u i d
P a r t i c u l a t e D i l u t i o n R a t e , F l u i d V o l u me a n d N e u t r a l D e t e r g e n t F i b e r ( NDF)
F e r m e n t a t i o n Rate ( T r i a l 2 ) .
Ita n
F lu id
d ilu tio n r a te
Mean
P
square
df
P a rtic u la te
d ilu tio n r a te
Mean
square P
df
F lu id volume
Mean
df
square P
and
NDF ferm en tatio n
r a te
Mean
df
square P
4
I
.382
.006
.03
.82
4
I
.02535
.00235
.25
.71
4
I
834.6
270.5
.04
.33
4
I
.01539
.00608
.20
.39
I
I
.286
.006
.13
.82
I
I
.09243
.01067
.03
.43
I
I
648.6
3.9
.14
.90
I
I
.02138
.02739
.11
.08
I
1.503
<.01
I
.02575
.23
I 2,900.1
<.01
I
.00109
.71
18
.109
.14
18
.01660
.25
18
265.8
.48
18
.00774
.08
Sampling p erio d (PER)
2
.412
<.01
2
.05800
.02
2
577.6
.13
2
.27561 <.01
S X PER
8
.109
.18
8
.00818
.74
8
188.8
.68
8
.00583
E rrcr
31
.070
31
.01270
31
265.6
31
.00434
Supplement(S)3
Control vs o th e rs
SOY v s SOY+BM
SOY+COM
SOY+BM v s S0Y+0GM
SOYfFAT v s SOY+BM
SOY+OGM
Cow( S)
aMsan square fo r cow(S) used a s e rro r term fo r supplement and I e a s t-sq u a re s means separated by orthogonal
c o n tra s ts .
.26
Ta bl e 18.
L e a s t - S q u a r e s Me a n s f o r P r e c a l v i n g R u m i n a l F l u i d a n d
P a r t i c u l a t e D i l u t i o n R a t e s , F l u i d Vo l u me a n d N e u t r a l D e t e r g e n t
F i b e r ( NDF) F e r m e n t a t i o n R a t e ( T r i a l s I a n d 2 ) .
C ontrol
SOY
Sunnlement
SOY+BM
SOY+OGM
T ria l I
F lu id d i l u t i o n r a t e , % / h
F lu id volume, l i t e r s
NDF fe rm e n ta tio n r a t e , ? /h
7 .7
3 8 .9
1.85
11.4
15.7
2.25
8.4
34.4
2 .6 2
6 .7
32.7
2.84
10.9
17.1
2.51
1.47
6.55
.180
T r ia l 2
F lu id d i l u t i o n r a t e , %/h
P a r tic u la te d il u ti o n r a t e , %/h
F lu id volume, l i t e r s
NDF fe rm e n ta tio n r a t e , %/h
9 .0
3 .1 4
27.6
4.14
8.7
3.48
33.8
4.16
6.9
2.33
41.3
4.28
7 .2
2.75
42.1
4.95
11.8
3.17
20.7
4.48
1.01
.395
5.00
.270
Item
SOY+FAT
SEa
8 Pooled sta n d a rd e r r o r o f th e I e a s t-s q u a r e s means.
vn
OO
T a b l e 19.
L e a s t - S q u a r e s Me a n s f o r P r e c a l v i n g R u m i n a l F l u i d a n d
P a r t i c u l a t e D i l u t i o n R a t e s , F l u i d V o l u me a n d N e u t r a l D e t e r g e n t
F i b e r ( NDF) F e r m e n t a t i o n R a t e by S a m p l i n g P e r i o d ( T r i a l s I a n d 2) .
Item
I
P eriod
2
3
SEa
T ria l I
F lu id d i l u t i o n r a t e , %/h
F lu id volume, l i t e r s
NDF fe rm e n ta tio n r a t e , %/h
6 .6 5
42.9
2 .2 5
10.49
18.9
2.30
9.94
21.5
2.69
.743
3.43
.146
T r ia l 2
F lu id d i l u t i o n r a t e , %/h
P a r tic u la te d il u ti o n r a t e , %/h
F lu id volume, l i t e r s
NDF fe rm e n ta tio n r a t e , %/h
10.40
2 .7 5
27.0
4.42
7.99
3.60
37.5
3.17
7.74
2.56
34.8
5.61
.618
.263
3.81
.154
a Pooled sta n d a rd e r r o r of th e I e a s t-s q u a r e s means.
59
DI SCUSSI ON
During
(1 9 8 6 ) .
tria l
He
used
His r e s u l t s
it
should
during
days
involved
al.,
same
animals
that
between
sampling
all
fecal
collection
once.
Daily
my
of
cows
of
.54,
chromic
(n=55)
20
organic
his
cows
matter
.68,
(four
.86,
.59
SOY+FAT
standard
error
.04.
Dunn ( 1 9 8 6 )
in
I
of
was i n c r e a s e d
to
control.
supplement
and
that
to
forage
However,
It
fecal
was
digestibility
Fermentation
and h i g h e r
for
we
lack
forage
trial
the
dilution
2 had p r o p o r ti o n a l
the
retention
was n o t
same
differences
was
times for
of
true
in
fluid
and
between
trial
I
insignificant
SOY
S
groups.
across
than
SOY ( T a b l e
time
18).
data
in
treatm ents.
forage
SOY+BM a n d SOY+CGM w e r e e q u a l
S
control
particles
then
intake
contribution
sim ilar
retention
SOY,
a n d SOY+FAT
across
for
body
pooled
forage
the
similar
of
The
relatively
higher
ruminal
rates
replicated
SOY+BM,
that
et
total
control,
that
SOY+BM a n d SOY+CGM t h a n f o r
Although
I,
was
for
i n SOY,
was
made
technique
a percent
found
was
were
(Raleigh
respectively.
probably
rate
as
.79
assumed
output
digestibility
groups.
assume
( P<. 05)
However,
The
S group)
ouput
and
was
my d a t a .
study.
by c o n c u r r e n t
per
and
by - D u n n
this
dilution
adjusted
fecal
for
periods.
oxide
SOY+CGM,
compared
estim ated
measurements
SOY+BM,
trial
was
described
recognized
of
was
output
been used to i n t e r p r e t
measurement
I960)
weight
fecal
the
have
be
I
to
for
trial
If
we
ruminal
that
of
60
control.
Th e r e s i d e n c e
r a tio n a le
may
Consequently,
was most
than
for
higher
forage
control.
if
and
of
brought
It
forth
intestine
appears
that
reported
intake
by
and
not
protein
et
was
SOY+BM
significantly
This r e s u l t
effect
a l . , I 97 3 ) .
response
on i n t a k e
to
Egan and
improved
protein
is
of
the
Moir
protein
presented
to enhanced fo rag e
of
for
by E g a n a n d M o i r ( 1 96 5)
increased
supplements
co n tro l.
27 % g r e a t e r
digestibility.
( Orskov
the
for
f o r SOY+BM a n d S OY+ CG M
probably
bypass
diet
diet
status
than
same
SOY.
was
intake
different
forage
attributed
small
than f o r
Forage
(1965)
le s s
digestibility
th e rumen
a barley
SOY a n d SOY+FAT by t h e
num erically
we a s s u m e
protein
for
been
higher
output
consistent with
a low
have
probably
Fe c a l
time
to
the
digestibility.
present
study
had
both
supplement
was
effects.
The
soybean
expected
to
Indeed,
this
meal
enhance
fraction
fermentation
was th e
effect
of
each
rate
compared
observed in t r i a l
to
I.
SOY+BM a n d SOY+ CGM g r o u p s h a d h i g h e r f e r m e n t a t i o n
SOY i n
rate
and
both
was
was
tria ls
also
than
that
of
slow
ruminal
( P= . 0 7 )
num erically
different
degradation
I
rate
of
than
blood
higher
for
of
2 ( P=. I I ).
for
and
Lipid
protein
However,
rates
corn
S OY+ CG M.
gluten
coating
has
( Van S o e s t ,
than
Fermentation
S 0 Y+ F AT t h a n
SOY+BM a n d
meal
soybean meal.
degradation
and
control.
meal
for
SOY
Ruminal
is
less
been used to
19 8 2 ) .
Thus
61
ruminal
later
ammonia
concentration
sampling in te r v a ls
post
SOY+ CGM a n d SOY+FAT t h a n f o r
interval
interaction
ammonia
concentration
in
the
It
rumen
(1982)
can
could
ma y
nor
states
be
that
to
11
enhanced
mg/dl.
substrates
forage
straw
of
in
than the
that
this
An
effect
rate
could
lim iting
barley
it
were
rate
until
Our
was
whole
ruminal
sim ilar
was
it
barley
ammonia
ranged
from
the
optimum
that
for
was
only
to
the fa c to r
4
different
2 mg/dl
that
the
for
the
barley
m a y be t h a t
higher
to
Orskov
Considering
above,
was not
recycling
of
different
more
higher
rate.
values
states
is
ruminal
numerically
nitrogen
straw.
described
SOY,
at
S X sampling
significantly
concentration
concentration
even
SOY+BM a n d
which enhanced
rate.
alternative,
of
ammonia
study
barley
SOY+CGM t h a n f o r
also
optimum
higher
Neither
NDF f e r m e n t a t i o n
mg/dl.
he
the
both
that
addition
23.5
ruminal
ammonia
fermentation
SOY b u t
fermentation
urea
soda-treated
diet
ruminal
by
However,
and
caustic
situ
exceeds
concentration
for
in
However,
s e r u m UN w e r e
enhanced
been
significant.
be h y p o t h e s i z e d
have
concentration
the
not
have
s u p p l e m e n t a t i o n f o r SOY+BM,
SOY.
SOY+BM a n d SOY+CGM t h a n i n
higher.
if
was
might
SOY+BM,
more
SOY+CGM a n d
involve
increased
microbial
d ig e s tib ility
d ig e s tib ility
and
w ith
likely,
SOY+FAT o n f i b e r
availability
activity.
of
explanation
Mir
et
barley
straw
additions
of
al.
of
valine,
the
fermentation
other
( 1986)
from
of
34.8
nutrients
increased
to
leucine
63.1%
and
62
isoleucine.
effect
Clark
with
and
additions
Petersen
of
methionine,
Blood meal
and c o r n g l u t e n m e a l ,
the
when f e d
rumen,
in
have
supplied
certain
than
soybean
meal
carbon
alone.
rate
period
and
of
ferm entation
SOY+FAT a s f o r
numerous
have
fiber
in
shown
the
the
diet
meal
in
may
in
greater
quantity
more
likely,
SOY+BM,
nutrients
improving
cows
fat
ration.
The
probably
bacteria
calcium
content
Calcium
is
presumed
detergent
was
to
included
free,
over
a
fermentation
fiber
at
of
the
diet
thus
rumen
and
high
Conrad
for
with
(1978).
ferm entation
the
did
rate
not
of
a high
grain
of
on d i g e s t i b i l i t y
acids
(Palmquist
form ation
bacteria
that
of
dairy
20%
by
of
increasing
et
is
inhibiting
al.,
soaps
relatively
the
19 86).
which
(Palmquist
the
and
in
6 and
fatty
1 0%
nonsignificant
digestibility
fat
of
depress
(Palmquist
found
minimized
hypothesize
as
consistent
components
authors
be
to
not
usually
effect
the
is
was
depress
long-chain
in
I
When a d d e d a t
can
involved
can
to
and
nontoxic
One
fat
these
depressing
due
tria l
Palmquist
dietary
fact,
acid
by
fat
other
In
in
19 8 6 ).
thus
in
However,
less,
of
1 978).
when
dietary
or
increases
rate
cited
rumen.
d igestibility
rumen
SOY,
cysteine.
soybean
su p p lie d .these
SOY+BM a n d SOY+CGM,
experiments
These
Conrad,
even
or
degraded slowly
with
skeletons
Or
than
arginine
a sim ilar
digestibility.
That
of
time
observed
although
com bination
SOY+CGM a n d SOY+FAT ma y h a v e
longer
(1985)
et
are
al.,
higher
63
calcium
content
prevent
a depressing
involving
(1966)
fat
of
that
digestibility
was
diet
lipid
this
is
cause
production
In
ma y
of
that
tria l
were
not
different
NDF.
More l i k e l y
incubation
incubated
tr ia l
tim es
for
2.
The
data
trial
of
2
of
in
rate
in
stated
of
that
by
ration
i n S OY+ FAT,
was n o t
these
elevated
ration,
component
bacteria.
depressed.
SOY+BM a n d
rates
forage
SOY+CGM m a y
groups.
volatile
appeared
between
96 h i n
attem pts
Ruminal
fatty
acid
two
used
to
the
to
difference
yet
NDF c o n t e n t
in
situ
and r a n g e d
trials.
I,
to
but
be n e a r l y
the
was due to
tria l
substrate.
I better
in
tria ls
difference
of
quality,
used
between the
simply
complete
attack
On e e x p l a n a t i o n
equation
the
tra il
was
of
samples
the
up t o
disappearance
fraction
I.
extrusa
the
Hungate
1 982).
difference's
esophageal
of
pH o f
2 NDF f e r m e n t a t i o n
of
involve
enzymatic
rate
periods
a
to
studies
rations.
He f u r t h e r
fermentation
( Va n S o e s t ,
trial
fat.
lower rum inal
during
to
Most
t h a n when one
a part
fermentation
of
pH d e c r e a s e s
why
would help
fat.
grain
added
more
reduced
grains
dietary
was
added
was only
probably
be t h e
twice
feed
fat
Increased
fat
the
of
to
been w ith
depressed
of
Since animal
have
when
contained
coating
compared
effect
feeding
stated
the
forages
technique
from
6 2 - 6 5%
differences
Nylon bags
only
describe
rate
of
for
an
Although
this
equation f i t
loglinear.
others
In
NDF
undigestible
evaluated,
other
were
up t o 72 h i n
account
than
in
words,
the
data
the
of
incubation
64
times
were
not
long
und ig e stib le
residue.
undigestibile
predict
same
Thus,
numerically
The
control
on
fraction
the
model.
may h a v e
been
However,
this
in
fails
also
does
either
trial
in co n sisten cies
dilution
rate,
rate
al.
of
( I 97 3 )
reasoning
this
serum
herbage
for
and
the
and
Egan
have
For
intake
and
of
Moir
Barry
et
to
by
to
these
particulate
fluid
Many
dilution
endogenous
food in tak e
Baile
et
al.,
be i n v o l v e d
in
the
observed
and
and
by
by
dilution
(1982)
could
infusing
were
dilution
Due
1980;
in
rate
rates
fluid
voluntary
al.
to
I 9 82).
dilution
that
( I 96 5 )
intake
the
increases
SOY+CGM.
ma y
for
(Van S o e s t ,
lower
intake
concentration
increased,
rate
(Morley,
these
loglinear
soybean meal
fermentation
the
no
compared
of
increased
affect
influenced
example,
som atostatin
effect
if
an
2.
SOY
involved.
rumen k i n e t i c s
Some
in
similarly
be
shown to
1986).
trial
p ro b ab ility
must
been
in
SOY+BM a n d
enhanced volu n tary
ma y
study.
explain
mechanism
consequently
responses
not
the
2 since
ranked
another
1 9 86 ; F o r b e s ,
trial
simple
osm olality
explain
of
used should
explanation
dilution
by S g r o u p
compounds have
and
in
a
rate
by t h e
fluid
equation
as
rates
Fluid
to
the
apparent
caused
rate.
control
It
no
description
th e o re tic a lly ,
rate
dilution
increased
o f SOY o v e r
then
fermentation
fluid
to
rates
is
higher
for
However,
ferm entation
higher
response
to a l lo w
existed
there
ferm entation
equal.
enough
be
Orskov
the
et
same
rates
in
showed
that
reduced,
and
casein
into
the
abomasum
of
endocrine
regulation
are
not
growing
completely
affected
the
In
associated
elevated
reduce
rate
due
The
are
a n d ma y
dosing.
of
The
however,
are
in
be
probably
solution in
the
cause
dilution
reported
all
of
describes
th e rumen and not
increased
fluid
be
explained
by t h e
rate.
and
and p e r i o d s
Galyean
(19 85)
been e n c o u n te re d
the
time
across
should
physical
dilution
of
to
the
to
reduce
dilution
d ifferen ces
context
By t h a t
not
ma y h a v e
One
should
treatments
concentration
valid.
SOY.
increased
by B r a n i n e
Error
was
dilution rate
in
influx
governs
rate
This a s s o c ia tio n
that
cannot
in
they
rumen i n an e f f o r t
mechanism
volumes
that
study.
fluid
to
of
kinetics
probable
osm olality
instance
cobalt
is
volume.
the
the
re la tiv e
this
fluid
effects
digestive
the h y p o th e sis
be a c c u r a t e .
extrapolation
volume
fluid
it
this
osmolality
than values
not
in
and
This w a te r
this
that
actual
lower
would
in
but
water
Thus,
rate
c o mmo n t h e o r y
of
1982).
volume.
intake
increased
an i n f l u x
osmolality
dilution
with
to
interactive
increased
decreased
( Va n S o e s t ,
fluid
rates
SOY g r o u p ,
with
hypothesis
feed
understood
seems i n c o n s i s t e n t
was
of
dilution
the
The
lambs.
initial
treatm ents,
realize
content
volume
of
in
by
that
fluid
of
aqueous
the
general
definition.
The SOY s u p p l e m e n t
weight
change
On t h e
other
compared
hand,
had a p o s i t i v e
to
control
influence
(Table
1 2)
in
on cow b o d y
both
SOY+BM a n d SOY+CGM h a d a n a d d i t i v e
trials.
effect
66
on v f e i g h t c h a n g e o n l y i n t r i a l
2
whereas
response
have
most
to
gained
similar
19 8 1 ;
The
previously
effect
of
in
am bient
(unpublished
different
data)
between
of
available
to
this
two
19 85 ;
forage
was
noted
of
NO AA,
and
during
available
i n NDF c o n t e n t
of
in
and
stray
beyond
lim ited
a
used for
one
forage
of
during
quality
most
might
in
trial
area.
This
often
be
expected
initial
of
2 more t h a n
years
were
Th e p o s s i b i l i t y
precluded
were
not
area
be
by
cows
in
the
were
allowed
included
the
areas
to
some
quality
trial
was nea r
used
due
season
least
Fistulated
collections
forage
growing
betwen
been
extrusa.
of
possibly
the
extrusa.
not
indicate
However,
of
a
2 for longer
at
shifted
have
not
Beverlin
did
2,
trials
parts
supplementation,
the
K.
tria l
differences
ma y
obtaining
overnight
thus
and
tem perature
grazing.
esophageal
differences
S.
preceeding
have
No
used
probably
The q u a n t i t y
both
for
may
fasted
Thus,
In
I.
finding
was
the
tria l
facility
years
Phillips
Observation
be l e s s
latter
in
was
daily
I.
the
procedure
1981;
by s n o w i n
trial
1986).
in
study
mean
to
selection
forage
effect
D ifferential
regimens in d if f e r e n t
years.
in
appeared
always
available
the
than
precipitation
( NO AA,
grazing
I.
tem perature.
found
the
time
also
lower
tria l
(Kartchner,
t h a t more f o r a g e was covere d
periods
in
S t a n t o n e t a l . , I 983).
year
function
weight
Cows l o s t w e i g h t i n t r i a l
supplemental
been r e p o r t e d
Vavra,
2.
salt
the
to
the
box and
pasture.
constantly
low
67
and
not
necessarily
experimental
diet
animals.
se le c tiv ity
personal
the
in
in nylon
each
of
of
rate
forage
the
year
three
effect
can
since
early
in
and
quality
body
each
which
bypass
incubated
trial
and used
in
the in t e r a c t i o n
possible
trial
I 974).
extrusa
change.
in
of
indicate
At a n y
potentiated
protein
quality
to
Thus,
a
the
Cochran,
aI . ,
used
the
remains
weight
( R.
et
be
of
may i n f l u e n c e
influences
not
either
diets
c a ttle
sampling periods.
deficiency
a
2
cause
for
rate,
the
response
was
absent
to
in
I.
Given
above,
the
Petersen
protein
protein
synthesis
et
Orskov
al.
rates
indicate
deficient
in
was
s im ila r.
concentration
rumen
would
not
turn,
be
equations
used
of
gestatin g
that
true
was above
described
by K r o p p e t a l
be
Since,
intake
measured
cows
metabolically
The s a m e w o u l d . b e
matter
c a n be e s t i m a t e d
In
can
requirem ent
organic
synthesis
(1985).
(1982)
estim ations
been
digestible
microbial
protein
I.
beef
(Lesperence
situ
o n cow
supplem enting
and
in
the
fasting
Selectivity
quality
quantity
n u trien t
tria l
grazing
bags was o b t a i n e d
forage
the
of
c o lle c te d
Ferm entation
of
In a d d itio n ,
communication).
sam ple
changes
representative
if
in
in
calculate
beef
the
forage
t r i a l
to
a
protein
enhance
metabolic
These
may h a v e
in
trial
between t r i a l s
ru m in al
a d d itio n of
and
NRC ( 1 9 8 4 )
cows.
intake
I
(1976)
SOY g r o u p
available
5 mg/dl,
expected
to
of
by u s i n g
am monia
nitrogen to
m icrobial
the
yield
68
( Sat te r
rumen
to
and
the
I 97 4 ) .
protein
should
bypass
rumen
degradable
ma y i n c r e a s e
in
Sly t e r ,
pool
enhanced,
available
since
unfermented
substrate
A lleviation
the
amino
amino
acids
acids
of
of
increase
efficiency
from
Several
a
acetate
tricarboxylic
the
Another
animal
serum
possible
requirement
amino
acid
composited across
( M.
K.
Branched
in
required
Petersen
chain
SOY+BM a n d
(1986),
groups.
concentrations
amino
J.
L.
acid
Compared
of
reduced
to
lysine
are
amino
in
passage
of
1982).
substituted
amino
acids
SOY
if
for
acid
ma y
also
(Macrae
and
precursors
of
for
oxidation
of
(Stryer,
protein
1981).
involves
acids.
In
was
to
the
trial
I,
on s a m p l e s
sampling period
Lynch
2
data).
highest
catabolism
SOY+BM w a s
be
unpublished
according
muscle
also
known
within
M iner,
control,
to
were measured
concentration
SOY+CGM w h i c h ,
ma y
to
be e x p e c t e d
Ami n o
cycle
sampling in t e r v a l
and
contributes
m eeting
bypass
essential
protein
utilization
acids
of
available
yield
interm ediate
effect
for
may. i n d i c a t e
concentration
in
acid
protein
protein
acetate
amino
bypass
would
by NRC ( 1 9 8 4 ) .
of
compared
( Va n S o e s t ,
loss
bypass
of
related
rumen
origin
oxaloacetate,
in
the
is
hypothesis,
loss
protein
Microbial
weight
tissue
described
1986).
of
body
requirements
Lobley,
bypassed
bacteria
out
derived
of
the
the
our
weight
Consumption
protein.
washout
was
of m e t a b o l i c a l l y
Obviously,
of
as
alleviate
protein.
the quantity
two ways.
Thus,
(P=.07)
and J a c k s o n
in
these
and
S OY+ F A T ,
nearly
doubled
S
the
while
69
it
was
reduced
Ahmed
(1982)
amino
acid
example,
which
in
was
low
not
lim iting
from
in
of
feeding
corn
rich
I 982).
of
essential
lysine.
lim iting
relatively
SOY+FAT
The
For
since
gluten
its
meal.
in methionine
Lysine
Lipids
have
soybean
ferm entation
it
was
animal
of
than
usage
eoncentraton
amount
thicker
reasoning
a lim iting
been
by
the
probably
was
elevated
was
when
was f ed.
SOY+CGM.
the
is
lysine
change
degradation.
been
affected
blood meal
SOY+BM a n d
the
(Anonymous,
since
Weight
supplied
have
protein
lysine
lysine-rich
may
not
meal
but
increased
According to
increased
methionine
Corn g l u t e n
has
SOY+CGM.
SOY+CGM ma y h a v e
concentration
sources
in
been
interm ediate
fat
S OY+ FAT m a y
meal
that
used
to
although
would
in
have
escaped
protect
the l i p i d
been
between
in
have
rumen
protein
coating used
this
study
( Va n
Soe s t , 1 9 82 ).
Th e
and
probability
SOY+FAT
portion
of
than
the
observed
2.
lower
t h a n SOY y e t
support
lim iting
amino
forage
to
acid
body w e i g h t
the
intake
was h i g h e r
accounts
differences
intake
of
in
for
a
i n SOY+BM
significant
weight
SOY+CGM w a s
change
that
in
num erically
cha nge was n u m e r i c a l l y
hypothesis
the
supply
higher
of
a
was i n c r e a s e d .
Condition score lo ss
S groups
but
appeared
same
SOY
in
as
forage
SOY p r o b a b l y
tria l
lends
That
that
tria l
was
similar
2.
greater
to
for
SOY i n
Condition
control
trial
score
I
is
than
other
and was
probably
the
a
measure
of
SOY h a d
a more
in
external
SOY w a s
was
positive
similar
d iffe re n t
condition
than
fatness
then
to
for
subcutaneous
weight
thus
loss
fat
control
weight
must
loss
Therefore
than
of
indicated
change,
control.
SOY
the
and
have
of
been
fat
weight
loss
lo st
less
tissues
other
SOY
body
although
external
since
and
from
that
greater
for
control
t h a n SOY.
The
have
demand
been
the
control.
to
body
weight
quantity
necessarily
since
derived
compared
oxidation,
the
the
increased
dietary
supply
of
the
supply
I 9 86 ) .
conceivable
strictly
of
acetate
of
that
to
the
pool
acetate
is
small
would
to
replace
As d e s c r i b e d
acids
the
increased
contribution
oxidation
amino
compared
probably
of o x a l o a c e t a t e
would
glucogenic
fat
o r i g i n ma y m e r e l y
catabolism.
in
SOY c o u l d l o s e
body
glucose
may
catabolism.
presented
dietary
concentration
efficiency
be
of
wh y
of
supplementation
plasma
where
is
amount
increased
protein
pool
would e x p l a i n
An
body
not
protein
the
protein
of
m obilization
ma y
body
to
similar
by i n c r e a s i n g
It
of
m icrobial
glucose
to
lipolysis
of
accompany
from
situations
a
tissue
substrates
m o b i l i z a t i o n and l i p o l y s i s
Soybean meal
intestine.
pool
of
contribute
and
glucogenic
protein
This reaso n in g
control.
or
regulation
significantly
the
of
increased fa t
substrates.
to
cause
the
Certainly,
less
glucose
The r e g u l a t i o n
related
not
for
that
lim iting
available
(Macrae
additional
be
the
above i n
rate
can
not
for
increased
and
amino
Lobley,
acids
71
supplied
of
by SOY+BM a n d SOY+CGM c o u l d i n c r e a s e
metabolism
reduce
that
the
the
than
(turnover
quantity
priority
the
The
lipogenesis
has
in
fatty
in
Forage
this
not
exhibit
change
period
be
is
but
compared
1982).
to
ma y
score
at
intake
On t h e
other
not
have
I
to
the
period
I
greater
for
soybean
meal
1970).
In
and
high
explain
change.
in
than
The
trial
as
score
supply
some
SOY h a d
of
problem
I,
SOY b u t
has
been
reduced
Snow
of
the
with
SOY+CGM d i d
did
lose
higher
less
intake
condition
score
addition,
concentrations
been
covered
absent
associated
heifers
as
ambient
shown
a result
mu c h
during
with
digestibility,
unsupplemented
supplement
glucose
ma y h a v e
2 but was n e a r l y
availability
to
the
and
ruminants
condition
hand
lower
during
cover
acetate
control.
conditions.
Snow
greater
lipolysis
for
a different
environmental
3.
is
of
thus
assumes
The l o w
also
least
forage
trial
period
of
defined
and
theory
efficiency
attributed
that,
did
2 compared
fat
catabolism
regulation
been as w ell
condition
score.
During
increased
body
This
protein
differences
higher
control
reducing
of
efficiency
SOY+FAT s u p p l e m e n t .
explanation
condition
than
ma y
the
in
mobilized.
endocrine
intake
differences
fat
( Van S o e s t ,
SOY+FAT
acids
oxidation)
for
not
nonruminants
loss
of
priority
metabolism.
for
of
and
the
the
periods
the
tem perature
I and
forage
effect
being
heifers
Rittenhouse
was
less
the
forage
reduced
than for
by
of
of
in
fed
et
a
al.,
during
72
period
(1.1
2 (-6.5
C) .
C) t h a n
Glucose
dram atically
in
turnover
sheep
being o x id a tio n
the
either
during
supply
g l y c o g e n o Iy s i s
and
1986).
plasma
However,
during
(Sasaki
Weekes,
the
combined
The
plasm a
of
probably
all
cover
concentration
by
with
period
I ma y i n v o l v e
gestation.
The
gravid
uterus
major
part
glucogenic
Ford,
in
of
the
substrates
1980).
During
control
than
concentration
2.
for
glucose
the
linear
al.
(1984).
in
This
and
Glucose
and
the
GL w i t h
However,
not
all
cases
reflect
SOY+ BM t o
restore
cold.
3
to
stress
of
gestation
and
gestation
and
and
was l o w e r
period
I
to
requirement
consistent
observed
not
an
Glucose
fetal
did
for
indicating
from
is
advancing
Ferrel
s u b s tra te .
increasing
level
glucose
197.7;
declined
a
accounts
of
probably
concentration
control
been shown
concentration
substrate
Weekes,
may
Scott,
groups;
and
has
but
u tiliz a tio n
S groups
glucogenic
in
late
in c re a se d
results
the
g lu co g en ic
all
decline
SOY+FAT.
S
to
period
2 glucose
ma y r e f l e c t
p erio d 2 to 3 for
and
trial
of
in
(Prior
other
in s u f f ic ie n c y
period
cows
and
(Sasaki
except
consistent
a
therm ogenesis
most
and
S groups
increased
use
due
our
3
the
concentration
Thus,
snow
are
period
cold exposure;
muscles for
1986).
of
glucose
acute
glucose
C) o r
oxidation
cold exposure in
effect
failure
I (-4.2
gluconeogenesis,
to in c re a s e
and
and
by s k e l e t a l
in c re a se d
period
with
by B u l l
decline
et
from
o r SOY b u t d i d f o r SOY+BM, SOY+CGM
concentrations
in
the
la tter
were
73
s t i l l
not
indicate
low er
that
control
than
for
a minimum
a n d SOY.
control
or
SOY.
This
c o n c e n t r a t i o n was r e a c h e d
Regulation
of
glucose
earlier
concentration
b e e f cow ma y be s u c h t h a t o n l y i n e x t r e m e s i t u a t i o n s
fall
below
50
Serum
urea
in
both
tria l
fetus.
It
demand
for
also
higher
protein
by
that
higher
in
to
the
m etabolites
significant
the
by t h e
additional
liver
hypothesis
has
a
in
normal
with
tria l
major
range
advancing
I were
and(or)
that
the
effect
gestation
et
differences
between
S groups
intake
Lynch
did
and
priority
Jackson
between
on
S
al.
were
trial
was
It
that
excessive
than
albumin
protein
and
was
is
found
sim ilar
utilized
to
is
not
since
V ariation
supplied
production.
2
concentration
( I 9 83 a b ) .
groups
in
(1984).
albumin
and i n
by B e n j a m i n
by L y n c h a n d J a c k s o n ( I 9 83 a b ) .
ma y i n d i c a t e
not
increase
below,
reported
of B ull
imposed
SOY+CGM w a s
was
was n o t
results
intake
our r e s u l t s
response
deaminated
support
the
decline
no
variation
higher
lends
above
protein
reported
does i t
i n SOY+BM a n d SOY+CGM t h a n
indicates
concentrations
with
wh y
the
of m e ta b o li s m .
2 were
consistent
clear
were
glucogenic
The
the
probably
absorbed
Albumin
(1978).
although
This
aspects
tria l
concentration
g ro u p s and h i g h e r
I.
acids
other
nitrogen
trials
amino
in
in
mg/dl.
supplemented
SOY i n
could
as
in
the
However,
by SOY+BM a n d
for
a need of
74
Total
bilirubin
concentration
2 when mos t
cows l o s t
body w e i g h t
cows
weight.
In both
gained
w ithin
the
normal
Concentration
tria ls
increased
which
is
Bull
et
( 1984).
prepartum
al.
BIL
T h i s ma y i n d i c a t e
to
cope
with
in
BIL
may
than
that
the
demands
indicate
Jackson,
I 983ab).
period
3
of
stress
in
The h i g h e r
I
of
the
2 is
(I 97 8) .
advancing
gestation
in
with
also
results
found
in
protein
other
in
restriction.
advancing
reported
by B u l l
seems
indicate
to
et
a s s o c ia te d
w ith
environmental
stress
high
BIL
Bull
to
during
hypothesis
function
concerning
al.
in
trial
period
a greater
during
both
et
In
advancing gestatio n .
liver
was
be h i g h e r
intake.
SOY+BM h a d
creatinine
by
Bull
2
3.
ability
Elevations
(Lynch
period
and
2 than
environmental
concentration
al.
that
et
is
cholesterol
lipid
diet
al.
also
(1984).
CRE i s
more
period
(1984)
control
to
with
the
protein
increased
w ith
results
response
in
trial
sensitive
to
factors
g e s ta tio n
than
to
I
the
2.
concentration
SOY+FAT.
in
c o n siste n t with
consistent
This
advancing
of
I is
concentration
which
Serum
of
of
S groups
BI L w a s h i g h e r
Creatinine
gestation
concentration
supported.
serum
reported
I when m o s t
Benjam in
compared to o th e r S groups in t r i a l
response
trial
by
impaired
Since
trial
period
cows
trial
in
reported
restricted
lower
than in
higher
the
with
( 1984)
mu c h
tria ls
consistent
heifers
S OY+ BM h a d
range
was
was
Increased
elevated
lipid
by
intake
the
has
75
previously
been
1985).
With
decline
in
beef
discrepancy
to
advancing
dairy
heifers
advancing
shown
is
( Blum
et
al.,
unclear.
gestation
CHO
gestation
cows
(Bull
elevate
in
et
CHO h a s
a l.,
this
The
general,
study
been
1 983)
1984).
In
(Tal aver a
and
and
to
reason
CHO
the
et
a l .,
shown
to
rise
in
for
this
declined
with
significance
is
unclear.
In
during
signs
general
trial
of
precalving.
placental
losing
in
that
In
weight
body
blood
I when most
stress
em phasized
the
cows
gained
unsupplemented
body
both
would
weight.
m etabolites
weight
trials
reveal
the
that
showed
that
even
body w e i g h t
there
were
animals.
change
was
subtraction
most
cows
It
should
be
determ ined
of
were
fetal
and
actually
76
SUMMARY
In
conclusion,
grazing
beef
cows
ferm entation
rate,
Addition
of
forage
fermentation
fluid
dilution
compared
situation
blood
trial
bypass
and
stim ulated
ferm entation
urea
glucogenic
the
Under
in
and
are
supplements
these
in
a
reduce
did
were
improved
in
did
supported
often
more
affected
rate.
not
calf
the
in
in
fat
reduce
score
WDF
loss.
status
Glucose
hypothesis
than
in
that
supply.
birthweight.
.5 k g of
be m o r e t h a n e n o u g h
rate
ruminal
SOY+ CGM.
demand
to
not
Animal
nutritional
SOY+BM a n d
gain
change
meal
in
by 18.3
weight
condition
in
ruminal
loss
increased
It
circumstances
some y e a r s w i l l
sources
intake.
improvement
substrates
gluten
dilution
did
data
enhanced
weight
fluid
indicated
nitrogen
body
corn
protein
forage
metabolites
of
in
in
change.
animals
weight
were
WDF
increases
declines
reduced
cows
weight
did improve f e r m e n ta tio n
decreased
rate
SOY a n d f u r t h e r
but
and
winter
improved
further
experimental
benefit
addition
Both
I.
of
no
intake
also
Wone
was
body
meal
volume
Wh e n
pregnant,
unexpected
blood meal
forage
volume
and
rumen
SOY.
and
soybean
When a l l
state
fluid
Blood
and
The
intake
to
of
significantly
caused
rate.
there
meal.
stimulate
forage
but
to
SOY
meal
rate
a weight lo ss
kg
with
blood
intake
supplem entation
soybean meal
supplement
per
day
to prevent
77
body
weight
meal
in
loss.
Th e a d d i t i o n
some y e a r s w i l l
improve
of
bypass
protein
body w e i g h t
to
change.
soybean
78
RECOMMENDATIONS
In h in d s ig h t,
could
have
yielded
been
which
aid
In order
supplement
is
roaming
cows
intake
by
intake
output
total
of
that
the
fecal
to
be
inform ation
treatment
of
measuring
we a r e
ample
have
provided
the
output
could
precision.
room
of
from
nutrients
intake
forced
and
effects.
nutrients
contribution
Thus
research
and
contribution
usually
the
collection
adjusting
to
of
free
estimate
d ig e s tib ility .
for
improvement
in
collection
bags.
spent
pace
accurately
in
is
considered
the
one
be
certain
cannot
fecal
output
indicated
often
became
than
other
cows.
often
dosed chromic
chromic
bags
turn,
is
by
measures
effort
of
This
estim ated
observations
considerable
This,
bags
that
overestim ated
dilution.
output
is
be
recovery
fecal
fecal
Field
slower
bags
in
to
oxide
fecal
The p r o b l e m
collection
with
assumed
chromic
incomplete
situation.
a much
their
to
dilution.
natural
with
due
for
is
by
Total
standard
fitted
have
impossible.
measured
oxide
could
D irectly
appears
techniques
accuracy
the
thesis
estimation.
oxide.
at
is
there
apparently
that
known.
m easuring
Fecal
when
vital
this
more
interpretation
evaluate
is
that
Several
w ith
in
to
it
forage
However,
obvious
measurements
would
from
is
better.
re s u lts
A dditional
it
bruised
Some
trying
resulted
to
in
that
in
a
cows
and w a l k e d
cows
get
feces
fitted
rid
of
being
79
lost
from
the
bag.
It
to
some
degree
depressed
Measurement
downward.
should
this
measured
to
that
total
Vogel
in
et
of
of
bags
of H ereford
intake
intake
could
with
bags.
be b i a s e d
bags
and p e d o m e t e r s )
the
and
herd.
was
in
fact
99
to
10 6% o f
also
with
was
collection
chromic oxide
steers.
intake
could also
cows i n
of
that
f itte d
recorders
( 1 985 ) r e c o v e r e d
the feces
supplement
in
cows
fitted
other
recovery
collection
al.
cows
the
probable
in
(vibration
Mor e c o m p l e t e
if
also
depressed
Behavior
be
compared
of
is
ma y be p o s s i b l e
total
collection.
dosed
chromium
Overestim ation
of a c t u a l
account
for
incomplete
marker
recovery.
We h a d
excretion.
last
at
obtained
factor
with
Thus
chromium
one
to
the
time
from
the
during
my
cows
period
sample
grab
bags
be
declined
output
would
the
collection
with
could
in
be
firs t
and
period
was
samples
the
was
were
correction
biased.
and
chromium
If
chromium
below
the
biased
upward
determine
the
two
even
factor.
curve in
the
of
obtaining
Since
recommendation
span
variation
a given
cows f i t t e d
this
excretion
to
between
for
other
correction
diurnal
hours.
then fecal
estim ate
desirable
span
three
first
of
sample
le a st
average
the
time
grab
applied
excretion
day
estim ate
The
fecal
often
no
bias
grab
all
is
the
field.
in fecal
sampling.
cows
at
to
This
output
It
precisely
would en ab le
estim ation
would
the
fecal
of
due t o
course
same
time.
be
It
80
would a l s o
be
betweeen the
from
the
bags
desirable
two
to
compare e s t i m a t e s
techniques
could
be
in
a situation
completely
experimental
diet
of
where
elim inated.
should
be
fecal
For
sim ilar
to
output
spillage
this
trial
that
in
the
rate
and
field.
Since
we h a v e
shown
digesta retention
time
the
of
assum ption
treatment
in
vitro
groups
that
can
measurements
ferm entation
be i n f l u e n c e d
equal
cannot
both
forage
be
d ig e s tib ility
valid.
reflect
The
On e a l t e r n a t i v e s
digestibility
be
harvested
vitro
range
such
forage.
digestibility
adjustment
as
could
those
in
then
this
groups.
It
supplement
in
vitro
derived
above.
digestibility
ruminal
could
Extent
bags
of
used
through
be
difficu lt
retention
ruminal
were
to
the
digestion
be
of
time
was
rumen
sufficiently
r e t i cul o-om asal
small
be
they
o rifice
the
in
The
effect
factors
of
then
could
to
of
could
be
measuring
If
mean
nylon
bags
measured.
and
of
supplement
mean r e t e n t i o n
thus
to
unable
digestion.
known
for
would
still
method
situ
is
measurements
between
adjustment
use
field
obtained.
apply
accurate
the
which
compared
in v itr o
to
with
of e s t i m a t i n g
factor
digestibility
although
in
could
across
digestibility
This method i s
A more
incubated
the
in
method
adjustment
be a p p l i e d
may i n v o l v e
forage
be
an
in
measure
value
study.
differences
wou ld
directly
This
and
determine
as
to
accuracy
digestibility
also questionable.
would
by s u p p l e m e n t a t i o n ,
be
time.
If
the
passed
subsequently
81
collected
Loss
in
of w eig h t
This
method
represents
has
the
been
feces
assumes
digestion
accepted
equal
to
marking
This
that
at
Either
alternative
of
tract
bag.
digestibility.
from
bags.
the
This
bags
assumption
regarding
ruminal
fermentation.
postruminal
passage
of
This
the
to
collection
loss
the
measuring
like
a total
total
of
digesta.
by c o m p a r i s o n
estim ate
of
w eight
least
that
and
technique,
that
outside
of
digesta
validated
use
would r e p r e s e n t
Another assum ption i s
be
by
in
the
determined
rate
yield
than
for
technique
digestibility
to
d ig e s tib ility
be
passage
vitro
direct
promises
could
bags would
a
face
by
each.
should
be
measurement.
more
accurate
value
in
v itro
estimates.
S u p p lem en tatio n
fe rm e n ta tio n
ra te
supplem entation
mechanism
increasing
either
an
at
w ith
com pared
least
involved
in
forage
increased
or
more
rate
could
degradation
effect
supply
of
metabolism
may
the
due
in
This
to
mechanism(s)
either
an
soybean
I.
a more
It
of
involved.
trial
meal
economical
way
seems
of
likely
could
the
or
more
I
would
could
provide
of
that
nitrogen
On t h e
factors
only
of
urea recy c lin g
increased
these
enhanced
Knowledge
supply
nutrients.
which
type
even
p ro tein
be i n v o l v e d .
m icrobial
trial
independently.
to
be
other
to
digestibility.
through
the
to
trial
could lead
rumen m i c r o o r g a n i s m s
of
bypass
for
or a slow
o th e r hand,
consistent
suggest
be
a
applied
insight
as
82
Although
supplements
we
measured
we
did
Interpretation
of
bypass
protein
metabolism
cannulas
necessitate
as
determine
is
ever
digestion
total
performance
trial
to
not
ruminal
tract
depends
digested.
utilizing
determ ine
site
of
partly
on
I
of
bacterial
criticism
of
this
our
whether
suggest
or abom asa l
digestion.
assessment
of
digestibility.
Again
duodenal
rate
a
and i l e a l
This
and n o n p r o t e i n
would
nitrogen
well.
A major
pertaining
to
treatments
were
terminated
provided
luxurious
then
reproductive
possibility
exists
have
affected.
been
correlated
to
that
body
condition.
It
different
tissue
condition
true
determinant
than
more
of
would
be
correlated
could
be
affected
a
early
to
or
may
in
experiments
where
protein
postpartum
interval
and a l l
condition
have
as
been
we
have
li m it in g
sp ecific
or
energy
measured.
measured
a form
This
but
condition
n u tr ie n t.
n u trien ts
intake
were
it
could
highly
fatness
estrus.
However,
The
w eight from
Suppose
score
of
data
cows w e r e
conception
than ex tern al
postcalving
of
treatm ent.
control.
independently
supply
not
lack
N utritio n al
c o w s i n SOY l o s t
specific
with
the
postcalving
condition
those
first
Mar ch
n u tritio n a l
that
s p e c if ic
p re fe re n tia lly
in
days
weight
is
performance.
This
appears
body
su p p ly in g
research
is
is
a
of
the
factor
suppose
it
score
by
We
did
compared
to
varied
and
distinctly
83
possible
could
that
excessive
mask any
Even
such
without
should
no l o n g e r
required
research
However,
due
.5
necessary
mechanisms
big
say
a
through
to
The
most
o p i n i o n was
control.
the
realistic
forage
grass,
source
is
due
to
most
but
for
economical
fine
bottom
result
of
this
output
ma y
to
also
study
ignoring
line.
We c a n
cannot
expect
to
be
postrum inal
reported
it
ma y
sufficiently
etc.
than
appears
an e n d o crin e
research
in
o f SOY+BM c o m p a r e d
Supplementation
also
operation
testing.
nutrients
It
conceive.
supplement
economical
crop r e s i d u e s
of
to
c a n we j u s t i f y
the
response
could
supplement.
response
be
lengthened
producers
is
is
The c o s t
station
is
It
how
to
tell
meal
to
previously
intake
that
expensive
th is
potential.
can't
mu c h m o r e
comes
intriguing
been
cows
some
feeding
forage.
of
but
product
of
experiment
the increased feca l
has
period
nutritional
supplemental
conception.
should
believe
due
¥e
a window
Since
addition
of
ag
that
when i t
do
postpartum
elevated
soybean
saying
supplement
appears
for
I
growth
be
lack
of
u n til
picture
producers
if
or
kg/d
p r e p a r t urn w i t h o u t
the
until
spring
probably
philosophy
that
the
argument
experim entation.
example
be
to
interval
the
involves
above
be m a i n t a i n e d
would
postpartum
during
effect.
the
treatment
of
feeding
any
will
seems
not
be
presently
likely
mechanism.
that
to
protein
to
offer
necessary
increased.
always
my
It
be a l e s s
known f o r m
the
intake
84
In
situ
in
tria l
I.
to
72 h.
I
fermentation
Significant
suggest
be i n c u b a t e d
100
in
trial
ferm entation
that
past
rates
at
h.
least
The
time
not
to
firs t
10 h o f
calculate
incubation
a lag
t o be c o n s t a n t
of
bag
be
placed
time.
day
samples
that
during
though
this
w o u l d be n e c e s s a r y
is
preventing
of
fermentation
not
important.
interruption
Esophageal
Thus
of
be
the
fact
problem
with
our
was not
always
by
collections
preferred
that
only
the
contained
representative
would
only
it
sample
expose
periods
fistual
to
appeared
should
fermentation
during
of
are
that
bag t o
same
intended
consumed
to have f i s t u l a t e d
are
fistulated.
collections
was
that
same a s t h e
pasture
be r e m o v e d .
effect if
the
they
the
the
Emphasis
be e a s i e r t o d e t e r m i n e a p e r i o d
a forage
example
three
would
40 t o 50 h o f i n c u b a t i o n t h e t i m i n g
probably
all
bags
frequently
It
for
these
more
rate
up
bags
It
For
bags
in
be i m p o r t a n t .
bag r e m o v a l .
would a lso
than
bags
Since
the f i r s t
removal
on
remove
higher
occurred at least
of
the rumen would not
practical
were
two f o r a g e
a r e removed from
be
2
all
forage.
to
provide
by t h e h e r d .
animals
differ
The
biggest
of
sampling
area where
the herd
location
grazed.
Measurement
precision
since
undetectable
dosed w i t h
of
Cr
particulate
concentration
48 h a f t e r
100 g o f
dilution rate
of
ruminal
was l i m i t e d i n
digesta
d o sin g and so m etim es
mordant.
I
suggest
became
earlier.
a larger
dose.
We
85
Precision
lim ited
this
of
by t h e
was
the
apparent
CoEDTA s h o u l d
unstable
marker
standards.
sample
This
Measurement
discarded
the
such
distillation
measurement
of
and
causing
a
fluid
has
serious
trial
could re v e a l
due
to
to
regulator
on
adjustm ents
should
are
be o b t a i n e d
of
fecal
Cr a n a l y s i s .
For
method
using
of
the
obtaining
specific
lim itations
ion
since
we
2.
I suggest
verification
to
a
one
proven
Ruminal
be ma d e f r e q u e n t l y
response
due
construction
macro-kjeldahl.
It
solution
time.
comparison
should
If
for
ammonia
for
C o E D T A.
d ifficu lt
pressure
convenient
lab
was
problem.
fiber
to
of
aqueous
frequent
also
ruminal
by
supplementation.
not
the
line
or
decrease
as w ith
that
Th e
replaced
data
technique
an
b y AA w a s m a d e m o r e
obviously
all
with
alleviate
a more
of
measurement
equilibration
dosing
would apply
w a te r would
electrode
to
rate
ad m in istratio n
preparation
purified
of
be
Samples
to
slow
pressure.
should
necessary.
prior
help
line
dilution
then
analysis
air
tank
fluid
problem,
Marker
the
of
that
as
ammonia i s one
between
a supplement
nitrogen
such
times
of
is
is
or
availability
for
rumen m icroorganism s.
If
times
all
per
the
experimental
period i t
individual
cows
variation
ignored
if
all
probably would
several
diurnal
cows
in
times
were
bled
two
be u n n e c c e s s a r y
per
m etabolite
animals
were
day.
It
at
to
three
sample
appears
concentrations
sampled
or
the
that
could
same
be
time
86
( Lindsay,
I 97 8 ) .
sampling
I
also
immediately
suggest
of
warm
snow
to
cold
cover.
metabolite
future
stress
and
in
The
Concentrations
concentrations
as
an
(Rowlands,
than
of
indicator
of
of
glucogenic
Russel,
plasma fre e
1 97 8 ) .
fatty
ma y h e l p
delineate
the
preventing
a
by
be
two
such
be
ma y
be
that
sampled
and p r e s e n c e
m aintain
at
blood
more r e l a t e d
calving
of
prepartum
This
appears
could
nutrition
to
be
be
than
true
precalving
protein
be
indication
could
than
those
This
SOY.
better
than
the
when
of any
for
adequacy
similar
of
Russel,
of
body
Fluid
volume
Great
fatty
acids
influenced
1 978).
weight
Co ws i n SOY+BM g a i n e d
However,
together,
between tr e a tm e n ts
significance
of
energy
deficiency.
readily
the
th e use
general
on f r e e
is
of
(Lindsay,
interpreted
effect
1 978;
glucose
I suggest
energy
metabolite
(Lindsay,
be q u e s t i o n e d .
in
a
an i n d i c a t o r
sampling
F l u i d volume was not
data
as
type
excitement
Therefore
ma y
metabolites,
necessary."
animal
study.
1 978).
concentrations.
substrate
acids
These
would
to
With h e s i t a t i o n ,
status.
in
Field,
by-
1 978).
adequacy
care
and
absence
stress
m etabolites
precalving.
maximized
should
cows
mean
of adequacy
be
designed
Cows
of
during
Beta-hydroxybutyrate
1 978;
are
and i n t h e
ability
fertility
better indicators
studies
periods
can
(Coggins
ensured.
concentrations
subsequent
albumin
differences
pre-feeding
that
environm ental
during
Group
in
in
this
change
more w e i g h t
SOY+BM w a s
87
significantly
more
than
option
the
the
one
greater.
day
prior
It
to
w o u l d be t o r e w e i g h
last
time
that
may
be
im portant
recording
the
body
cows one or
supplements
are
fed.
to
weights.
fast
cows
Another
two weeks a f t e r
88
REFERENCES
CI TED
89
REFERENCES CI TED
A d a m s , D. C.
1985.
E f f e c t of t i m e of s u p p l e m e n t a t i o n
performance,
f o r a g e i n t a k e and g r a z i n g b e h a v io r
y e a r l i n g beef s t e e r s grazing Russian w ild ry eg rass
the f a ll .
J . A n i m. S c i . 6 1: 1 0 3 7 .
on
of
in
A d a m s , D. C. , T. C. N e l s e n , W. L. R e y n o l d s a n d B. W. K n a p p .
1986.
W in te r g r a z i n g a c t i v i t y and f o r a g e i n t a k e of
r a n g e cows i n t h e n o r t h e r n g r e a t p l a i n s .
J . Ani m. S c i .
62:1240.
Ahmed,
B. M. 1 9 8 2 .
cattle.
P h . D.
East Lansing.
Plasma amino a c id s t u d i e s in grow ing
D issertation.
M ichigan S t a t e Univ.,
Allison,
C. D. 1 9 8 5 .
range ruminants:
Anonymous.
model
1 984.
95-12.
F a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g f o r a g e i n t a k e by
a review.
J. Range Ma n a g e , 3 8 : 3 0 5 .
Instructional
Orion Research
m a n u a l , ammonia
Inc.
Cambridge,
electrode
MA.
Anonymous.
1982.
U nite d S t a t e s - C a n a d i a n T a b l e s of Feed
Composition.
T h i r d R e v i s e d Ed .
N a t i o n a l Academy
Press, Washington.
B a i l e , C. A. , C. L. M c L a u g h l i n a n d M. A. De 1 1 a - F e r a.
1 9 86 .
Role of c h o l e c y s t o k i n i n and o p io d p e p t i d e s in c o n t r o l
of food i n t a k e .
P h y s i o l . Rev. 6 6 : 1 7 2 .
B a r r y , T. N . , T . R. M a n l e y , C. R e d e k o p p , S. R. D a v i s , R. J .
Fairclough
a n d K. R.
Lapwood.
1982.
Protein
m e t a b o l i s m i n g r o w i n g l a m b s g i v e n f r e s h r y e g r a s s (Loium
p e r e n n e ) - c l o v e r ( T r i f o l i u m r e p e n s ) p a s t u r e a d l i b 2.
en d o c rin e changes, g lucose p ro d u c tio n , and t h e i r r e ­
l a t i o n s h i p to p r o t e i n d e p o s i t i o n and th e p a r t i t i o n of
absorbed n u trien ts.
B r i t . J. N u t r . 4 7 : 3 1 9 .
Bellow s,
R.
A.
a n d R.
E.
Short.
1 97 8 .
Effects
of
precalving
feed level
on b i r t h
w eight,
calving
d i f f i c u l t y and s u b s e q u e n t f e r t i l i t y .
J. Anim. S c i .
46:1522.
B e l l o w s , R. A. , R. E. S h o r t , D. C. A n d e r s o n , B. W. K n a p p a n d
0. F. P a h n i s h .
1971.
Cause and e f f e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p s
asso ciated with
calving d iffic u lty
and c a l f b i r t h
weight.
J. An i m. S c i .
33:407.
90
Bellows,
R. A. , R. E. S h o r t a n d G. V. R i c h a r d s o n .
1 9 82.
E f f e c t s o f s i r e , a g e o f dam a n d g e s t a t i o n f e e d l e v e l o n
d y s t o c i a and p o s t p a r t u m r e p r o d u c t i o n .
J . A n i m. S c i .
55:18.
Benjamin,
M.
Pathology
Bl um,
M.
(3rd
I 97 8 .
Outline
of V e t e r i n a r y
Clinical
Ed. ) I o w a S t a t e Uni v. P r e s s ,
Ames.
J . W. , P. K u n z a n d H. L e u e n b e r g e r .
1983.
Thyroid
hormones,
blood pla sm a m e t a b o l i t e s and h a e m a t o l o g i ca l
p a r a m e t e r s i n r e l a t i o n s h i p t o m i l k y i e l d i n d a i r y cows.
Anim. P r o d . 3 6 : 9 3 .
B r a n i n e , M. E. a n d M.
supplemental grain
and rumen f e r m e n t a
grama ran g elan d .
Sci. 36:290.
L. G a l y e a n .
1985.
Influence
of
on f o r a g e i n t a k e , r a t e of p a s s a g e
t i o n i n s t e e r s g r a z i n g summer blue
P r o c . , W e s t . S e c . Am e r . So c. A n i m .
B r a n i n e , M. E . , M. L. G a l y e a n , D. M. H a l l f o r d , W. C. H o e f l e r
a n d M. A. G a s c o i g n e .
1985.
I n f l u e n c e of c o t t o n s e e d
m e a l s u p p l e m e n t a t i o n on v o l u n t a r y
intake,
in s i t u
d i g e s t i o n and blood i n s u l i n and grow th hormone in beef
s t e e r s f e d p r a i r i e hay.
P r o c . , W e s t . S e c . Am e r . So c.
Anim. S c i . 3 6 : 4 3 6 .
Bull,
R. C. , D. 0. E v e r s o n , D. P. O l s o n , L. F . W o o d a r d a n d
L. C. A n d e r s o n .
1984.
Blood m e t a b o l i t e l e v e l s in
pregnant beef h e i f e r s r e s t r i c t e d prepartum in p r o t e i n
a n d / o r e n e r g y . P r o c . , W e s t . S e c . Am e r . So c. A n i m . S c i .
35:234.
C l a n t o n , D. C. a n d D. R. Z i m m e r m a n .
1 970.
S y m p o s i u m on
p a s t u r e m e t h o d s f o r maxi mum p r o d u c t i o n i n b e e f c a t t l e :
p r o t e i n and en e r g y r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r f e m a l e beef c a t t l e .
J. An i m. S c i .
3 0:1 22.
C l a r k , C. K. a n d M. K. P e t e r s e n . 1 9 8 5 .
I n f l u e n c e of animo
acid
or b ra n c h
chain organic
acids
on i n v i t r o
f e r m e n t a t i o n of w in te r range forage.
P r o c . , We s t . S e c .
A m e r . So c. A n i m . S c i .
3 6:310.
C o g g i n s , C. R. E. a n d A. C. F i e l d .
1 97 8.
Changes in plasm a
c o n c e n t r a t i o n s of g l u c o s e , f r e e f a t t y a c i d s , k e t o n e
b o d i e s , t h y r o x i n e and i n s u l i n o f l a c t a t i n g b e e f cows i n
r e l a t i o n to tim e of f e e d i n g and e n e rg y s t a t u s .
In:
Th e u s e o f B l o o d M e t a b o l i t e s i n A n i m a l P r o d u c t i o n .
The
B r i t i s h S o c i e t y of Animal P r o d u c t i o n .
M i l t o n Keynes,
pp 4 1 - 4 7 .
91
Cordova,
F . J . , J . D. W a l l a c e a n d ft. D.
F o r a g e i n t a k e by g r a z i n g l i v e s t o c k :
R a n g e Ma n a g e .
31:430.
Pieper.
1 97 8.
a review.
J.
Du n n ,
R. W. 1 9 8 6 .
P h y s i o l o g i c a l and b e h a v i o r a l r e s p o n s e s o f
cows
on
M ontana
fo o th ill
range
to
w inter
and .
supplem ent.
M. S. T h e s i s .
Montana S t a t e Dniv.,
Boz e ma n .
Du n n ,
T. G . ,
J.
E. I n g a l l s ,
D. R. Z i m m e r m a n a n d J . N.
Wi l t b a n k .
I 969«
Reproductive performance of 2 -y e a ro l d H e r e f o r d a n d A n g u s h e i f e r s a s i n f l u e n c e d by p r e and p o s t - p a r t u m e ner gy i n t a k e .
J. An i m. S c i .
2 9:719,
Dziuk,
P.
J. a n d
R. A. B e l l o w s ,
r e p r o d u c t i o n of beef c a t t l e ,
Sci.
57(suppl. 2):355.
Egan,
1 983 .
Management of
sheep and p igs.
J. A n i m.
A. R. a n d R. J . M o i r .
1965.
N u t r i t i o n a l s t a t u s and
i n t a k a e r e g u l a t i o n i n s h e e p I.
e f f e c t s of d u o d en ally
i n f u s e d s i n g l e d o ses of c a s e i n , u rea, and p r o p i o n a t e
u p o n v o l u n t a r y i n t a k e o f a l o w - p r o t e i n r o u g h a g e by
sheep.
A u s t r , J. A g r . Res. 16 : 4 3 7 .
F e r r e l , C. L. a n d
S. P. F o r d .
1 9 80.
s e c r e t i o n and n u t r i e n t u p ta k e
uterus.
J. An i m. S c i . 5 0 : 1 1 , 1 3 .
Blood
of t h e
flow, s te ro id
g ra v id bovine
Fishwick,
G. , J .
J. P a r k i n s ,
R. G.
H e m i n g w a y a n d N. S.
R i t c h i e . 1978.
A c o m p a r i s o n of t h e v o l u n t a r y i n t a k e
a n d d i g e s t i b i l i t y by b e e f c o w s o f d i e t s b a s e d o n o a t
s t r a w and s u p p l e m e n t e d w i t h d i f f e r e n t f o r m s of n o n ­
protein nitrogen,
An i m, P r o d . 2 6 : 1 35.
F o r b e s , J. M. 1 9 86.
The e f f e c t s o f s e x h o r m o n e s , p r e g n a n c y ,
and l a c t a t i o n on d i g e s t i o n ,
metabolism,
and v o l u n a t r y
food intake.
In:
L, P. M i l l i g a n , W. L.
G r o v u m a n d A.
Dobson (Ed.) C o n t r o l of D i g e s t i o n and M e t a b o l i s m i n
R u m i n a n t s , pp. 4 2 0 - 4 3 5 .
P r e n t i c e -H a ll Englewood
Cliffs.
F o r e r o , 0 . , F. N. O w e n s a n d K. S. L u s b y .
1 9 80.
Evaluation
of s l o w - r e l e a s e u r e a f o r w i n t e r s u p p l e m e n t a t i o n of
l a c t a t i n g r a n g e cows.
J. An i m. S c i . 5 0 : 5 3 2 ,
Gill,
J . L. a n d H. D. H a f s .
measurements of animals.
1971.
A n a l y s i s of r e p e a t e d
J . Ani m. S c i .
33:331*
92
Gill,
M. a n d P. E n g l a n d .
1984.
E f f e c t of d e g r a d a b i l i t y of
p r o t e i n s u p p l e m e n t s on v o l u n t a r y i n t a k e and n i t r o g e n
r e t e n t i o n in young c a t t l e fed g ra s s s i l a g e .
A n i m.
Prod. 39:31.
Goering,
H. K.
analysis.
a n d P. J . V a n
ARS, USDA Ag r .
Soest.
1 97 0.
H a n d b o o k 379.
H e n n e s s y , D. W. a n d R. D. Mu r i s o n.
1 9 82.
and m o l a s s e s as s o u r c e s of p r o t e i n
c a t t l e o f f e r e d low q u a l i t y hay from
n o r t h c o a s t o f New S o u t h M a l e s .
Au
Ag r . An i m. H u s b a n d r y .
22:140.
Forage
fiber
C o tto n se e d meal
and energy f o r
p a s t u r e s of the
s t r a l i a n J. Ex p .
Hennessy,
D. W., R. J . W i l l i a m s o n ,
R. F. L o w e a n d D. R.
Baigent.
1981.
The r o l e o f p r o t e i n s u p p l e m e n t s i n
n u t r i t i o n of young g r a z i n g c a t t l e and t h e i r s u b s e q u e n t
productivity.
J.
A g r . S c i . ( Cam b . )
96 : 2 0 5 .
Hennessy,
D. W. , P. J . W i l l i a m s o n ,
J . V. N o l a n ,
T. J .
K e m p t o n a n d R. A. L e n g .
I 983.
The r o l e s o f e n e r g y - o r
p r o t e i n - r i c h s u p p le m e n ts in the s u b t r o p i c s fo r young
c a t t l e consuming b a s a l d i e t s t h a t a r e low i n d i g e s t i b l e
energy and p r o t e i n .
J . A g r . S c i . ( Cam b . ) . 1 0 0 : 6 5 7 .
Ho v e l I , F. D. DeB. , J . W. W. N g a m b i , W. P. B a r b e r a n d D. J .
Kyle.
1 9 86.
T h e v o l u n t a r y i n t a k e o f h a y by s h e e p i n
r e l a t i o n to i t s d e g r a d a b i l i t y in th e rumen as measured
in nylon bags.
Anim. P r o d . 4 2 : 1 1 1 .
H u n g a t e , R. E. 1 9 6 6 .
The R u me n a n d i t s
P r e s s I n c . , New Y o r k .
Microbes.
Academic
J o h n s o n , A . B. , F. N. O w e n s a n d K. L. M i z w i c k i . 1 9 8 2 . A b n o r m a l
p r o t e i n i n f u s i o n s fo r grow ing s t e e r s fed corn g r a in
rations.
J. Ani m. S c i . 5 4 : 1 8 9 .
Kart chner,
R. J .
1981.
E f f e c t s of p r o t e i n and e n e r g y
s u p p l e m e n t a t i o n o f c o w s g r a z i n g n a t i v e r a n g e f o r a g e on
i n t a k e and d i g e s t i b i l i t y .
J. An i m. S c i .
51:432.
K e m p t o n , T. J . a n d R. A. L e n g .
1 97 9.
P r o te i n n u t r i t i o n of
growing lambs:
I.
r e s p o n s e s in g ro w th and rumen
f u n c tio n to supplem entation of a l o w - p r o t e i n - c e l l u lo s i c
d ie t w ith e i t h e r urea,
c a s e i n or . f o r m a l d e h y d e - t r e a t e d
casein.
B r i t . J. N u t r .
42:289.
K lopfenstein,
T. J . ,
N. M e r c h e n a n d J . W a l l e r .
1 97 8 .
S l o w l y d e g r a d e d p r o t e i n may c u t c o s t s .
In:
Nebraska
Beef C a t t l e Report,
p. 1 I .
93
K r o p p , J . R. , R. R. J o h n s o n , J . R. M a l e s a n d F. N. O w e n s .
I 976.
M ic ro b ia l p r o t e i n s y n t h e s i s w ith low q u a l i t y
roughage r a t i o n s ,
i s o n i t r o g e n o u s s u b s t i t u t i o n of urea
fo r soybean meal.
J. An i m. S e i ,
45:837.
Lee,
G. J . , D. W. H e n n e s s y , P. J . W i l l i a m s o n , J . V. N o l a n ,
T. J . K e m p t o n a n d R. A. L e n g .
I 9 85.
Responses to
p r o t e i n m e a l s u p p l e m e n t s by l a c t a t i n g b e e f c a t t l e g i v e n
a l o w - q u a l i t y p a s tu r e hay.
A u s t r a l i a n J. Agr. Res.
36:729.
L e s p e r e n c e , A. L . , D. C. C l a n t o n ,
A. B. N e l s o n a n d C. B.
Theurer.
1974.
Factors
affectin g
the
Apparent
Composition of F i s t u l a Samples.
W e s t e r n R e g i o n a l Re s .
P u b . No. Tl 8.
U n i v . o f N e v a d a , Reno.
L i n d s a y , D. B.
1978.
The e f f e c t o f f e e d i n g p a t t e r n a n d
s a m p l i n g p r o c e d u r e on b l o o d p a r a m e t e r s .
In:
The Use
of Blood M e t a b o l i t e s i n Animal P r o d u c ti o n .
The B r i t i s h
S o c i e t y of Animal P r o d u c t i o n , M ilto n Keynes.
pp 9 9 120.
L y n c h , G. B.
1984.
N u t r i t i o n a l r e q u i r e m e n t s of ewes w ith
high p ro d u ctio n supplem ents in n u t r i t i o n
of young
g r a z i n g c a t t l e and t h e i r s u b s e q u e n t p r o d u c t i v i t y .
J.
A g r . S c i . ( Cam b . )
96:205.
L y n c h , G. P. a n d C. J a c k s o n , J r . I 9 8 3 a .
Metabolic responses
of
ewes to
different
protein
intakes
during la te
ge s t a t i o n .
Ca n . j . A n i m. S c i . 6 3: 5 9 5 .
L y n c h , G. P. a n d C. J a c k s o n ,
J r . I 9 83b.
A method f or
a s s e s s i n g th e n u t r i t i o n a l s t a t u s of g e s t a t i n g ewes.
Can. J. A n i m. S c i . 6 3 : 6 03,
L y n c h , G. P. a n d C. J a c k s o n , J r . 1 9 86 .
Serum am ino a c i d s a s
i n d i c a t o r s of p r o t e i n s t a t u s i n g e s t a t i n g ewes.
Growth
4 9 : 306 .
M a c r a e , J . C, a n d G. E.
energy and p r o te i n
a n d A. D o b s o n ( Ed . )
in Ruminants.
pp.
Cliffs.
Lobley.
1 986.
I n t e r a c t i o n s between
I n : L. P. M i l l i g a n , W. L. G r o v urn
C o n tro l of D i g e s t i o n and M etabolism
367-385.
P r e n ti c e - H a ll , Englewood
.
McNiven,
M, A.
1984.
E f f e c t o f body f a t n e s s on
m e t a b o l i t e s and i n s u l i n i n s e n s i t i v i t y i n a d u l t
Can. J. Ani m. S c i . 6 4 : 1 0 4 9 .
blood
sheep.
94
M iller,
L. G. a n d D. A. C r a m e r . 1 96 9 .
M etabolism
n a t u r a l l y o c c u r r i n g a n d C1 - l a b e l e d t r i g l y c e r i d e s
sheep.
J . A n i m. S c i .
2 9:738.
Mir,
of
in
P. S,., Z. M i r a n d J . A. R o b e r t s o n .
1 9 86.
E ffect of
b r a n c h e d - c h a in
am ino
a c id s
or
f a t t y
a c id
s u p p l e m e n t a t i o n on i n v i t r o d i g e s t i b i l i t y of b a r l e y
s t r a w or a l f a l f a hay.
C a n . J . A n i m. S c i .
66:151.
M o r l e y , J. E. 1 9 8 0 .
The n e u r o e n d o c r i n e c o n t r o l o f a p p e t i t e :
th e r o l e of the endogenous o p i a t i e s , c h o l e c y s t o k i n i n ,
trh,
g a m m a - a m i n o - b u t y r i c - a c i d and the
diazepam
receptor.
L ife S cie n ces 27:355.
M ullins,
T. J . ,
J . A. L i n d s a y ,
T. J . K e m p t o n a n d M. A.
Toleman.
1 983.
The e f f e c t o f t h r e e d i f f e r e n t n i t r o g e n
b a s e d s u p p l e m e n t s on t h e u t i l i z a t i o n of t r o p i c a l f o r a g e
d i e t s by Z e b u c r o s s b r e d s t e e r s .
An i m. P r o d . A u s t r a l i a .
15:487.
NCAA.
1985. . C l i m a t o l o g i c a l
Data - Montana,
National
Oceanic and A tm o s p h e ric A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ,
N ational
E n v i r o n m e n t a l S a t e l l i t e Data and I n f o r m a t i o n S e r v i c e ,
Ashville,
N C.
NOAA.
I 9 86 .
C lim atological
Data - Montana,
National
Oceanic and A tm o s p h e ric A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ,
N ational
E n v i r o n m e n t a l S a t e l l i t e Data and I n f o r m a t i o n S e r v i c e ,
Ashville,
N C.
NRC.
1 976.
N u t r i e n t R e q u i r e m e n t s o f D o m e s t i c A n i m a l s , No.
4. N u t r i e n t R e q u i r e m e n t s o f B e e f C a t t l e .
F if th Revised
Ed. N a t i o n a l A c a d e m y o f S c i e n c e s - N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h
C o u n c i l , W a s h i n g t o n , DC.
NRC.
1 984.
N u t r i e n t R e q u i r e m e n t s o f D o m e s t i c A n i m a l s , No.
6. N u t r i e n t R e q u i r e m e n t s o f B e e f C a t t l e .
Sixth Revised
Ed. N a t i o n a l A c a d e m y o f S c i e n c e s - N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h
C o u n c i l , W a s h i n g t o n , DC.
Orskov,
E.
R.
1982.
Protein N utrition
A c a d e m i c P r e s s I n c . , New Yo r k .
in
Ruminants.
O r s k o v , E. R. , C. F r a s e r a n d R. P i r i e .
1973.
The e f f e c t o f
b y p a s s i n g the rumen w i t h s u p p l e m e n t s of p r o t e i n and
e n e r g y o n i n t a k e o f c o n c e n t r a t e s by s h e e p . B r i t . J .
N u t r . 3 0:36 1.
95
P a l m q u i s t , Dv L. a n d B. R. C o n r a d .
1 97 8.
High f a t r a t i o n s
f o r d a i r y cows.
e f f e c t s on f e e d i n t a k e , m i l k and f a t
production,
and p l a s m a m e t a b o l i t e s .
J. D a i r y S c i .
6 1 :890.
P a l m q u i s t , D. L . , T. C. J e n k i n s a n d A. E. J o y n e r , J r .
1 986 .
E f f e c t of d i e t a r y f a t an d c l a c i u m s o u r c e on i n s o l u b l e
soap f o r m a t i o n i n t h e rumen.
J. D a i r y S c i . 6 9: 1 0 2 0 .
Perkin-Elm er.
absorption
CT.
P e t e r s e n , M. K. ,
(in press).
1971.
A nalytical
methods fo r atom ic
spectrophotometry.
P e r k i n - Elmer.
Norwalk,
a n d D. C. C l a n t o n .
1 9 86 .
Petersen,
M. K . , D. C. C l a n t o n a n d
I n f l u e n c e of p r o t e i n d e g r a d a b i l i t y
on a b o m a s a l n i t r o g e n f l o w ,
ni
nutrient digestibility.
J . An i m.
J.
Range
Manage,
R. B r i t t o n .
1 985 .
in range supplements
t r o g e n b a la n c e and
Sci.
60:1324.
P h illip s,
R.
L.
a n d M. V a v r a .
1981.
The e f f e c t
of
p r e c a l v i n g e n e r g y l e v e l s o n cow p e r f o r m a n c e .
Proc.,
W e s t . S e c . Am e r , So c. A n i m , S c i .
32:117.
P r e s t o n , R. L. , D. D. S c h n a k e n b e r g a n d W. H. P f a n d e r .
1 965.
P ro te in u t i l i z a t i o n in ru m inants I. blood urea nitro g en
a s a f f e c t e d by p r o t e i n i n t a k e .
J. N u t r .
86:281.
Prior,
R.
L.
and
R.
A.
Scott.
1 977 .
Ontogeny
g lu c o n eo g en es i s in the bovine f e t u s :
influence
m a te r n a l d i e t a r y energy.
Dev. B i o l . 5 8 : 3 8 4 .
of
of
R a l e i g h , R. J . , R. J . K a r t c h n e r a n d L. R. R i t t e n h o u . s e . I 9 80 .
Chromic oxide i n range n u t r i t i o n s t u d i e s .
Oregon S t a t e
U n i v . A g r . E x p . S t a t i o n B u l l . 6 41.
R i t t e n h o u s e , L. R. , D. C. C l a n t o n a n d C. L. S t r e e t e r .
1970.
I n t a k e a n d d i g e s t i b i l i t y o f w i n t e r - r a n g e f o r a g e by
c a ttle
w ith
and w i t h o u t
supplem ents.
J.
Anim.
S c i . 31:1215.
Robinson,
P. H . ,
J.
G. F a d e l
and S. T am m in g a.
1 986 .
E v a l u a t i o n of m a t h e m a t i c a l models to d e s c r i b e n e u t r a l
d e t e r g e n t r e s id u e in te rm s of i t s s u s c e p t i b i l i t y to
d e g r a d a tio n in the rumen.
Anim. F e e d S c i .
Tech.
15:249-
96
R o w l a n d s , G. J .
1978.
Changes in c o n c e n t r a t i o n s of serum
a lb u m in in d a i r y cows a t c a l v i n g and t h e i r p o s s i b l e
s i g n i f i c a n c e in r e l a t i o n to m ilk y i e l d and f e r t i l i t y
during la c ta tio n .
In:
Th e Us e o f B l o o d M e t a b o l i t e s i n
Animal
Production.
The B r i t i s h S o c i e t y
of Animal
P r o d u c t i o n , M i l t o n Keynes.
pp 5 9 - 7 0 .
Rowlands,
G. J . ,
¥ . L i t t l e a n d B. A. K i t c h e n h a m .
1 977.
R e l a t i o n s h i p s between blood c o m p o s i t i o n and f e r t i l i t y
i n d a i r y cows - a f i e l d s tu d y .
J. D a i r y Res . 4 4 : 1 ,
R u s s e l , A. J . F .
1978.
The u s e o f m e a s u r e m e n t s o f e n e r g y
status
in pregnant ewes.
In:
The Use of B lo o d
M e t a b o l i t e s i n Animal P r o d u c t i o n .
The B r i t i s h S o c i e t y
o f A n i m a l P r o d u c t i o n , M i l t o n K e y n e s , pp 3 1 - 3 9 .
R u s s e l , A. J . F. a n d I . A. W r i g h t .
1 983.
The u s e o f b l o o d
m e t a b o l i t e s in the d e t e r m i n a t i o n of energy s t a t u s in
beef
cows.
An i m. P r o d .
37:335.
S a t t e r , L. D. a n d L. L. S l y t e r .
1 974.
E f f e c t of ammonia
c o n c e n t r a t i o n on r u me n m i c r o b i a l p r o t e i n p r o d u c t i o n i n
vitro.
B r i t . J. N u t r . 3 2 : 1 99.
S AS.
1 984.
SAS U s e r ’ s G u i d e :
I n c . C a r y , N. C.
S tatistics.
S AS I n s t i t u t e ,
S a s a k i , Y a n d T. E. C. We e k e s . 1 9 8 6 .
Metabolic responses to
cold.
In:
L, P. M i l l i g a n , W. I . G r o v u m a n d A. D o b s o n
( Ed . ) C o n t r o l o f D i g e s t i o n a n d M e t a b o l i s m i n R u m i n a n t s ,
pp. 3 2 6 - 3 4 3 .
P r e n t i c e - H a l l , Englewood C l i f f s .
S ieber t,
B. D. a n d R. A, H u n t e r .
1981. S u p p l e m e n t a r y
f e e d i n g of g r a z i n g a n i m a l s .
In:
J . B. H a c k e r ( E d . )
N u t r i t i o n a l L i m i t s to Animal P r o d u c t i o n from P a s t u r e s ,
pp. 4 0 9 - 4 2 6 .
Commonwealth A g r i c u l t u r a l B ureaux,
Farnham Royal.
Smith,
G. H.
a n d B. W a r r e n .
1 9 8 6 a.
S upplem entation to
improve the p r o d u c ti o n of y e a r l i n g s t e e r s g ra z i n g poor
q u a l i t y f o r a g e : I. t h e e f f e c t s o f f o r a g e t y p e and a
cottonseed supplement.
A u s t r , J. Exp. A g r . 2 6 : 1 .
Smith,
G. H.
a n d B. W a r r e n .
1,986b.
Supplem entation to
improve the p r o d u c ti o n of y e a r l i n g s t e e r s g r a z i n g poor
q u a l i t y forage.:
2. t h e e f f e c t s o f o a t s , s u p p l e m e n t a r y
n i t r o g e n , l u p i n s and c o t t o n s e e d meal.
A u s t r . J. Exp.
Agr. 2 6 : 7 .
97
Spencer,
G.
S.
G.
1 9 86 .
Im m une-neutralization
of
s o m a t o s t a t i n and i t s
effect
on a n i m a l
production.
D o m e s t i c An i m. E n d o c r i n o l .
3:5.
S r i s k a n d a r a j a h , N. a n d R. C. K e l l aw a y .
1 982.
U tilization
of low q u a l i t y r o u g h a g e s :
e f f e c t s of a l k a l i tr e a tm e n t
o f w h e a t s t r a w o n i n t a k e by a n d g r o w t h r a t e o f c a t t l e ,
w i t h and w i t h o u t a s u p p l e m e n t of c o t t o n - s e e d meal.
J.
A g r . S c i . ( Cam b . ) . 9 9 : 2 4 1 .
S t a k e l u m , G.
1986.
Herbage i n t a k e of g r a z i n g d a i r y cows:
I.
e f f e c t of autumn s u p p l e m e n t a t i o n w i t h c o n c e n t r a t e s
a n d h e r b a g e a l l o w a n c e on h e r b a g e i n t a k e .
I r i s h J . Agr .
Res. 25:31.
Stanton,
T.
L,.
F.
N.
Formaldehyde-treated
w inter range grass.
S t r y e r , L. 19 81.
New Yo r k .
Owens
a n d K.
S.
Lus by.
1983.
soybean meal f o r ru m in a n ts g r a z in g
J. Anim. S c i .
56:6.
Biochemistry.
W.
H,
Freeman and
C o mp a n y ,
Talavera,
F.,
C.
S.
P a r k a n d G. L.
W illiam s.
1985.
R e l a t i o n s h i p s among d i e t a r y l i p i d
intake,
serum
c h o l e s t e r o l and o v a r i a n f u n c t i o n i n H o l s t e i n h e i f e r s .
J. A n i m . S c i .
6 0:1 0 4 5 .
T h o m p s o n , J . K. , P.
a n d R. W a r r e n .
H a m p t o n , C. J e s s i m a n , D.
1 9 82.
A n i m . P r o d . 3 6 : 5 46
C. M a c D o n a l d
(Abstr.)
T u r n e r , M. , 0. 0. T h o m a s , E. A y e r s a n d K. M. H a v s t a d .
1 983 .
Protein
and
energy
supplem entation
on
w inter
rangelands.
In:
A n i ma l and Range R e s e a r c h H i g h l i g h t s ,
M ontana S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y R e s e a r c h R e p o r t 213, 1983.
Mo n t a n a S t a t e U n i v . , Bozeman,
Ud e n ,
P.,
P.
E.
Colucci
and
P.
J.
Van S o e s t .
1980.
I n v e s t i g a t i o n o f ch r o mi u m, c e r i u m and c o b a l t a s m a r k e r s
i n d i g e s t s r a t e of p a s s a g e s t u d i e s .
J. S c i . Food Agr.
40:337 .
United
States
Department
of
A griculture
( USDA) - S o i l
C o n s e r v a t i o n S e r v i c e ( S CS).
1 976.
Climax v e g e ta tio n
of Montana:
b a s e d on s o i l s and c l i m a t e .
USDA-SCS,
B o z e m a n , MT.
Va n
Soest,
P.
Ruminant.
J.
pp.
1 9 82.
221-225.
N utritional
E co lo g y of th e
0 & B Books I n c , , C o r v a l l i s .
98
V o g e l , G. J . , J . Z o r r i l I a - Ri o s , G. W. H o r n , R. W. McNew a n d
K. B. P o l i n g .
1985.
C om parison of e x t e r n a l m a rk e r s
fo r e s t i m a t i n g f e c a l o u tp u t of c a t t l e g ra z in g wheat
pasture.
Animal S cie n ce Research Report.
Oklahoma
S t a t e U n i v . a n d USDA. R e s . R e p . MP - I 1 7 .
p p 1 5 5 - 1 6 0.
W e b e r , B. J . a n d M. L. W o l f e .
1 984.
Physiologic response
of e l k to d i f f e r e n c e s i n w i n t e r ra n g e q u a l i t y ,
J.
W i l d l . Manage.
48:248.
W illiams,
C. H. , D. J . D a v i d a n d 0. I t s m a a ,
1 962.
The
d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f c h r o m i c o x i d e i n f a e c e s s a m p l e s by
atomic
absorption
spectophotometry.
J.
Agr.
Sci.
5 9 : 3 8 1 .
W i l s o n , G. F . , D. D. S. M a c k e n z i e a n d C.
Blood m e t a b o l i t e s and i n f e r t i l i t y i n
New Z e a l a n d S o c . An i m. P r o d .
45:17»
W i l t b a n k , J . N. ,
a n d . R.
M.
reproductiv
Anim. S c i .
W. H o l m e s .
d a i r y cows.
1 985.
P r o c.
W. W. R o w d e n , J . E. I n g a l l s , K. E. G r e g o r y
Koch.
1 962.
E f f e c t of en erg y l e v e l
on
e phenomena of m a t u r e H e r e f o r d cows.
J.
21:219»
Young,
A, W. , G. T, S c h e l l i n g ,
R, E. T u c k e r a n d G. E.
M itchell, Jr.
1981.
P lasm a amino a c i d r e s p o n s e to
abom asal i n f u s i o n s of amino a c i d s i n sheep.
J. Anim.
Sci.
52:1421.
APPENDI CES
I OO
APPENDI X A
SOY+CGM
SOY+BM
SOY+FAT
L e n g th o f
in c u b a tio n
F ig u re I .
C rude p r o t e i n
in s itu in c u b a tio n .
(hours)
c o n te n t of u n d ig e ste d
su p p lem en t as a f f e c t e d
by
101
SOY+CGM
SOY+BM
SOY+FAT
In c u b a tio n
F i g u r e 2.
tim e
(hours)
Q u a n ti ty o f c r u d e p r o t e i n re m a in in g a f t e r i n s i t u i n c u b a t i o n .
I 02
APPENDI X B
Table 20.
Meansa f o r E s o p h a g e a l E x t r u s a Crude P r o t e i n , Aeid
D e t e r g e n t F i b e r a n d A c i d D e t e r g e n t L i g n i n w i t h i n Mo n t h a n d
Trial ($).
Trial
Item
2
Crude P r o t e i n
De c e m b e r
J anuary
February
m e a n +. SE*3
7.27
7.6 1
6.35
4.51
4.62
4.56
Acid D e t e r g e n t
De c e m b e r
January
Fe b r u a r y
m e a n ± SE
Fiber
Acid D e t e r g e n t
De c e m b e r
January
Fe b r u a r y
m e a n + SE
Lignin
43.08
43.24
43.20
2.94
3.98
3.72
+ .10
+ I . 87
±
.36
.24
40.00
41 . 7 6
41 . 7 8
41.10
+
3.40
4.14
3.39
3.77 ±
a Me a n s w i t h i n m o n t h a n d t r i a l r e p r e s e n t t wo t o t h r e e
c o l l e c t i o n s o f t wo t o t h r e e c o w s p e r c o l l e c t i o n .
b Mean o f a l l s a m p l e s w i t h i n t r i a l + s t a n d a r d e r r o r o f
t h e mean.
.63
I9
Table 21.
L e a s t - S q u a r e s Means f o r P r e e a l v i n g Se r u m
C o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f Amino A c i d s ( u m o l e s / m l : P e r i o d 2 . T r i a l I ) .
SuDDlement
Item
Control
SOY S0Y+BM
SOY+ CGM S0Y+FAT
SEs
A l a n i ne
.24
. 21
. 26
.04
.17
.23
Valine
.21
.I8
.28
.20
.22
.02*
G l u t a m i ne
.23
.27
.29
.32
.28
.06
Glutamate
.08
.II
.I2
. I4
.I2
.03
Tryptophan
.040
. 034
.036
.037
.046
.005
Glycine
. 56
.47
.43
.44
.50
.07
Serine
.12
.12
. I5
. 16
. 14
.03
T y r o s i ne
. 0 57
.056
.064
. 071
.065
.005
Isoleucine
.12
.14
.I2
.13
.13
. 01
Histidine
.040
.040
.057
.048
.049
.005
L y s i ne
.080
. 070
. 108
.058
.088
.008*
Leucine
. I5
.17
.22
.24
.17
.02*
Arginine
. 21
.14
. 16
.15
.15
.03
Methionine
.031
.034
.027
.035
.030
.003
I .72
I .88
zr
on
Urea
3.25
2.28
.53
.046
.046
.063
.042
.015
.042
T a u r i ne
.049
Aspartate
Cy s t i n e
Nonessential
amino a c i d s
I .23
I .29
Essential
.98
amino a c i d s
1.08
Branch-chain
amino a c i d s
.48
.49
G l ucoge n i c
I .90
amino a c i d s
I . 71
Ketogenic
.48
.50
amino a c i d s
a Pooled s t a n d a r d e r r o r of the
* S u p p l ement e f f e c t ( P < . 0 5 ) .
.043
. 067
.041
.008
Phosphoserine
. 039
none0
I .23
I .39
I .34
.16
I .25
1.13
I .08
.09
.63
.58
.52
.05
1.89
I .94
1.91
.23
.5 1
.58
.58
l e a s t - s q u a re s means.
.04
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES
3
7 6 2
1 0 0 1 2 3
O6