Biofuel feedstock and blended coproducts compared with deoiled corn distillers grains in feedlot diets: Effects on cattle growth performance, apparent total tract nutrient digestibility, and carcass characteristics 1
Crossbred steers (British x Continental; n = 192; initial BW 391 ± 28 kg) were used to evaluate the effects of feeding ethanol coproducts on feedlot cattle growth performance, apparent nutrient digestibility, and carcass characteristics. Steers were blocked by initial BW and assigned randomly to 1 o...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of animal science 2016-01, Vol.94 (1), p.227 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 227 |
container_title | Journal of animal science |
container_volume | 94 |
creator | Opheim, T L Campanili, P R B Lemos, B J M Ovinge, L A Baggerman, J O McCuistion, K C Galyean, M L Sarturi, J O Trojan, S J |
description | Crossbred steers (British x Continental; n = 192; initial BW 391 ± 28 kg) were used to evaluate the effects of feeding ethanol coproducts on feedlot cattle growth performance, apparent nutrient digestibility, and carcass characteristics. Steers were blocked by initial BW and assigned randomly to 1 of 6 dietary treatments within block. Treatments (replicated in 8 pens with 4 steers/pen) included 1) control, steam-flaked corn-based diet (CTL), 2) corn dried distillers grains with solubles (DGS; DRY-C), 3) deoiled corn dried DGS (DRY-CLF), 4) blended 50/50 corn/sorghum dried DGS (DRY-C/S), 5) sorghum dried DGS (DRY-S), and 6) sorghum wet DGS (WET-S). Inclusion of DGS was 25% (DM basis). The DGS diets were isonitrogenous, CTL was formulated for 13.5% CP, and all diets were balanced for ether extract. Final shrunk BW, ADG, and DMI did not differ among CTL and DGS treatments (P ≥ 0.19). Overall G:F did not differ from CTL for DRY-C, DRY-CLF, or WET-S (P ≥ 0.12); however, G:F was 9.6% less for DRY-S compared with CTL (P < 0.01) and tended (P = 0.09) to be less for DRY-C/S than CTL. For grain source, ADG and G:F were less for DRY-S vs. DRY-C (P < 0.05), but blending DRY-C/S tended (P = 0.07) to increase ADG and increased (P = 0.05) carcass-adjusted G:F vs. DRY-S. For WET-S, final BW and ADG were greater (P < 0.05), and G:F tended (P = 0.06) to be greater than for DRY-S. There was no difference in ADG, DMI, or G:F of steers fed DRY-C vs. DRY-CLF (P ≥ 0.35). Apparent DM and OM digestibility did not differ for CTL, DRY-C, DRY-CLF, and WET-S (P ≥ 0.30) but were lower for DRY-C/S and DRY-S (P < 0.05). Nutrient digestibility was lower for DRY-S vs. DRY-C (P < 0.01), but apparent digestibility of OM, DM, NDF, ADF, CP, ether extract, and starch were increased (P < 0.01) for DRY-C/S vs. DRY-S. Although starch digestibility did not differ between DRY-S and WET-S (P = 0.18), digestibility of other measured nutrients was greater for WET-S vs. DRY-S (P < 0.01). Ether extract digestibility was greater for DRY-CLF vs. DRY-C (P < 0.05). Carcass weight, dressing percent, and marbling score did not differ between CTL and DGS diets (P ≥ 0.23). For DRY-S, HCW was lower than for DRY-C (P = 0.02); however, compared with DRY-S, HCW tended to be greater for DRY-C/S (P = 0.10) and WET-S (P = 0.07). At a moderately high (25% DM) inclusion, blending C/S or feeding WET-S resulted in cattle growth performance and carcass characteristics similar to those of CTL and corn-based coproducts. |
doi_str_mv | 10.2527/jas2015-9580 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1778396420</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>4009957601</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_journals_17783964203</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNj01OwzAQhS0EEuVnxwFGYtuA7eAmZQkq4gDsK9eetA6uHeyJKm7KcXAiDsBqRvM-vfeGsTvBH6SSzWOvs-RCVWvV8jO2EEqqqhar-pwtOJeialshL9lVzj3nQqq1WrCfFxe7ET10iDZTNJ-gg4Wdx2DRgolDinY0lMt6HHQqt5OjA1iMzs9ACmBdJuc9pgz7pF3I4MJs6CMVESk_w6brcLKJAYwm8ljQeCpOA6YupqMOBpeghykjEFAk7YGSNgRhpOSmo3V7LEk75x19L-eiRiejc2l30BOLaapiMogbdtFpn_H2b16z-7fNx-t7VR76GovNto9jCkXaiqZp6_XqSfL6f9QvT4Z4yw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1778396420</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Biofuel feedstock and blended coproducts compared with deoiled corn distillers grains in feedlot diets: Effects on cattle growth performance, apparent total tract nutrient digestibility, and carcass characteristics 1</title><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><creator>Opheim, T L ; Campanili, P R B ; Lemos, B J M ; Ovinge, L A ; Baggerman, J O ; McCuistion, K C ; Galyean, M L ; Sarturi, J O ; Trojan, S J</creator><creatorcontrib>Opheim, T L ; Campanili, P R B ; Lemos, B J M ; Ovinge, L A ; Baggerman, J O ; McCuistion, K C ; Galyean, M L ; Sarturi, J O ; Trojan, S J</creatorcontrib><description><![CDATA[Crossbred steers (British x Continental; n = 192; initial BW 391 ± 28 kg) were used to evaluate the effects of feeding ethanol coproducts on feedlot cattle growth performance, apparent nutrient digestibility, and carcass characteristics. Steers were blocked by initial BW and assigned randomly to 1 of 6 dietary treatments within block. Treatments (replicated in 8 pens with 4 steers/pen) included 1) control, steam-flaked corn-based diet (CTL), 2) corn dried distillers grains with solubles (DGS; DRY-C), 3) deoiled corn dried DGS (DRY-CLF), 4) blended 50/50 corn/sorghum dried DGS (DRY-C/S), 5) sorghum dried DGS (DRY-S), and 6) sorghum wet DGS (WET-S). Inclusion of DGS was 25% (DM basis). The DGS diets were isonitrogenous, CTL was formulated for 13.5% CP, and all diets were balanced for ether extract. Final shrunk BW, ADG, and DMI did not differ among CTL and DGS treatments (P ≥ 0.19). Overall G:F did not differ from CTL for DRY-C, DRY-CLF, or WET-S (P ≥ 0.12); however, G:F was 9.6% less for DRY-S compared with CTL (P < 0.01) and tended (P = 0.09) to be less for DRY-C/S than CTL. For grain source, ADG and G:F were less for DRY-S vs. DRY-C (P < 0.05), but blending DRY-C/S tended (P = 0.07) to increase ADG and increased (P = 0.05) carcass-adjusted G:F vs. DRY-S. For WET-S, final BW and ADG were greater (P < 0.05), and G:F tended (P = 0.06) to be greater than for DRY-S. There was no difference in ADG, DMI, or G:F of steers fed DRY-C vs. DRY-CLF (P ≥ 0.35). Apparent DM and OM digestibility did not differ for CTL, DRY-C, DRY-CLF, and WET-S (P ≥ 0.30) but were lower for DRY-C/S and DRY-S (P < 0.05). Nutrient digestibility was lower for DRY-S vs. DRY-C (P < 0.01), but apparent digestibility of OM, DM, NDF, ADF, CP, ether extract, and starch were increased (P < 0.01) for DRY-C/S vs. DRY-S. Although starch digestibility did not differ between DRY-S and WET-S (P = 0.18), digestibility of other measured nutrients was greater for WET-S vs. DRY-S (P < 0.01). Ether extract digestibility was greater for DRY-CLF vs. DRY-C (P < 0.05). Carcass weight, dressing percent, and marbling score did not differ between CTL and DGS diets (P ≥ 0.23). For DRY-S, HCW was lower than for DRY-C (P = 0.02); however, compared with DRY-S, HCW tended to be greater for DRY-C/S (P = 0.10) and WET-S (P = 0.07). At a moderately high (25% DM) inclusion, blending C/S or feeding WET-S resulted in cattle growth performance and carcass characteristics similar to those of CTL and corn-based coproducts.]]></description><identifier>ISSN: 0021-8812</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1525-3163</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2527/jas2015-9580</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Champaign: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Cattle ; Diet ; Ethanol ; Grain ; Nutrition ; Physical growth</subject><ispartof>Journal of animal science, 2016-01, Vol.94 (1), p.227</ispartof><rights>Copyright American Society of Animal Science Jan 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Opheim, T L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Campanili, P R B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lemos, B J M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ovinge, L A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baggerman, J O</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McCuistion, K C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Galyean, M L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sarturi, J O</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Trojan, S J</creatorcontrib><title>Biofuel feedstock and blended coproducts compared with deoiled corn distillers grains in feedlot diets: Effects on cattle growth performance, apparent total tract nutrient digestibility, and carcass characteristics 1</title><title>Journal of animal science</title><description><![CDATA[Crossbred steers (British x Continental; n = 192; initial BW 391 ± 28 kg) were used to evaluate the effects of feeding ethanol coproducts on feedlot cattle growth performance, apparent nutrient digestibility, and carcass characteristics. Steers were blocked by initial BW and assigned randomly to 1 of 6 dietary treatments within block. Treatments (replicated in 8 pens with 4 steers/pen) included 1) control, steam-flaked corn-based diet (CTL), 2) corn dried distillers grains with solubles (DGS; DRY-C), 3) deoiled corn dried DGS (DRY-CLF), 4) blended 50/50 corn/sorghum dried DGS (DRY-C/S), 5) sorghum dried DGS (DRY-S), and 6) sorghum wet DGS (WET-S). Inclusion of DGS was 25% (DM basis). The DGS diets were isonitrogenous, CTL was formulated for 13.5% CP, and all diets were balanced for ether extract. Final shrunk BW, ADG, and DMI did not differ among CTL and DGS treatments (P ≥ 0.19). Overall G:F did not differ from CTL for DRY-C, DRY-CLF, or WET-S (P ≥ 0.12); however, G:F was 9.6% less for DRY-S compared with CTL (P < 0.01) and tended (P = 0.09) to be less for DRY-C/S than CTL. For grain source, ADG and G:F were less for DRY-S vs. DRY-C (P < 0.05), but blending DRY-C/S tended (P = 0.07) to increase ADG and increased (P = 0.05) carcass-adjusted G:F vs. DRY-S. For WET-S, final BW and ADG were greater (P < 0.05), and G:F tended (P = 0.06) to be greater than for DRY-S. There was no difference in ADG, DMI, or G:F of steers fed DRY-C vs. DRY-CLF (P ≥ 0.35). Apparent DM and OM digestibility did not differ for CTL, DRY-C, DRY-CLF, and WET-S (P ≥ 0.30) but were lower for DRY-C/S and DRY-S (P < 0.05). Nutrient digestibility was lower for DRY-S vs. DRY-C (P < 0.01), but apparent digestibility of OM, DM, NDF, ADF, CP, ether extract, and starch were increased (P < 0.01) for DRY-C/S vs. DRY-S. Although starch digestibility did not differ between DRY-S and WET-S (P = 0.18), digestibility of other measured nutrients was greater for WET-S vs. DRY-S (P < 0.01). Ether extract digestibility was greater for DRY-CLF vs. DRY-C (P < 0.05). Carcass weight, dressing percent, and marbling score did not differ between CTL and DGS diets (P ≥ 0.23). For DRY-S, HCW was lower than for DRY-C (P = 0.02); however, compared with DRY-S, HCW tended to be greater for DRY-C/S (P = 0.10) and WET-S (P = 0.07). At a moderately high (25% DM) inclusion, blending C/S or feeding WET-S resulted in cattle growth performance and carcass characteristics similar to those of CTL and corn-based coproducts.]]></description><subject>Cattle</subject><subject>Diet</subject><subject>Ethanol</subject><subject>Grain</subject><subject>Nutrition</subject><subject>Physical growth</subject><issn>0021-8812</issn><issn>1525-3163</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqNj01OwzAQhS0EEuVnxwFGYtuA7eAmZQkq4gDsK9eetA6uHeyJKm7KcXAiDsBqRvM-vfeGsTvBH6SSzWOvs-RCVWvV8jO2EEqqqhar-pwtOJeialshL9lVzj3nQqq1WrCfFxe7ET10iDZTNJ-gg4Wdx2DRgolDinY0lMt6HHQqt5OjA1iMzs9ACmBdJuc9pgz7pF3I4MJs6CMVESk_w6brcLKJAYwm8ljQeCpOA6YupqMOBpeghykjEFAk7YGSNgRhpOSmo3V7LEk75x19L-eiRiejc2l30BOLaapiMogbdtFpn_H2b16z-7fNx-t7VR76GovNto9jCkXaiqZp6_XqSfL6f9QvT4Z4yw</recordid><startdate>20160101</startdate><enddate>20160101</enddate><creator>Opheim, T L</creator><creator>Campanili, P R B</creator><creator>Lemos, B J M</creator><creator>Ovinge, L A</creator><creator>Baggerman, J O</creator><creator>McCuistion, K C</creator><creator>Galyean, M L</creator><creator>Sarturi, J O</creator><creator>Trojan, S J</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RQ</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>U9A</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160101</creationdate><title>Biofuel feedstock and blended coproducts compared with deoiled corn distillers grains in feedlot diets: Effects on cattle growth performance, apparent total tract nutrient digestibility, and carcass characteristics 1</title><author>Opheim, T L ; Campanili, P R B ; Lemos, B J M ; Ovinge, L A ; Baggerman, J O ; McCuistion, K C ; Galyean, M L ; Sarturi, J O ; Trojan, S J</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_17783964203</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Cattle</topic><topic>Diet</topic><topic>Ethanol</topic><topic>Grain</topic><topic>Nutrition</topic><topic>Physical growth</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Opheim, T L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Campanili, P R B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lemos, B J M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ovinge, L A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baggerman, J O</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McCuistion, K C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Galyean, M L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sarturi, J O</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Trojan, S J</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Career & Technical Education Database</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Journal of animal science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Opheim, T L</au><au>Campanili, P R B</au><au>Lemos, B J M</au><au>Ovinge, L A</au><au>Baggerman, J O</au><au>McCuistion, K C</au><au>Galyean, M L</au><au>Sarturi, J O</au><au>Trojan, S J</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Biofuel feedstock and blended coproducts compared with deoiled corn distillers grains in feedlot diets: Effects on cattle growth performance, apparent total tract nutrient digestibility, and carcass characteristics 1</atitle><jtitle>Journal of animal science</jtitle><date>2016-01-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>94</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>227</spage><pages>227-</pages><issn>0021-8812</issn><eissn>1525-3163</eissn><abstract><![CDATA[Crossbred steers (British x Continental; n = 192; initial BW 391 ± 28 kg) were used to evaluate the effects of feeding ethanol coproducts on feedlot cattle growth performance, apparent nutrient digestibility, and carcass characteristics. Steers were blocked by initial BW and assigned randomly to 1 of 6 dietary treatments within block. Treatments (replicated in 8 pens with 4 steers/pen) included 1) control, steam-flaked corn-based diet (CTL), 2) corn dried distillers grains with solubles (DGS; DRY-C), 3) deoiled corn dried DGS (DRY-CLF), 4) blended 50/50 corn/sorghum dried DGS (DRY-C/S), 5) sorghum dried DGS (DRY-S), and 6) sorghum wet DGS (WET-S). Inclusion of DGS was 25% (DM basis). The DGS diets were isonitrogenous, CTL was formulated for 13.5% CP, and all diets were balanced for ether extract. Final shrunk BW, ADG, and DMI did not differ among CTL and DGS treatments (P ≥ 0.19). Overall G:F did not differ from CTL for DRY-C, DRY-CLF, or WET-S (P ≥ 0.12); however, G:F was 9.6% less for DRY-S compared with CTL (P < 0.01) and tended (P = 0.09) to be less for DRY-C/S than CTL. For grain source, ADG and G:F were less for DRY-S vs. DRY-C (P < 0.05), but blending DRY-C/S tended (P = 0.07) to increase ADG and increased (P = 0.05) carcass-adjusted G:F vs. DRY-S. For WET-S, final BW and ADG were greater (P < 0.05), and G:F tended (P = 0.06) to be greater than for DRY-S. There was no difference in ADG, DMI, or G:F of steers fed DRY-C vs. DRY-CLF (P ≥ 0.35). Apparent DM and OM digestibility did not differ for CTL, DRY-C, DRY-CLF, and WET-S (P ≥ 0.30) but were lower for DRY-C/S and DRY-S (P < 0.05). Nutrient digestibility was lower for DRY-S vs. DRY-C (P < 0.01), but apparent digestibility of OM, DM, NDF, ADF, CP, ether extract, and starch were increased (P < 0.01) for DRY-C/S vs. DRY-S. Although starch digestibility did not differ between DRY-S and WET-S (P = 0.18), digestibility of other measured nutrients was greater for WET-S vs. DRY-S (P < 0.01). Ether extract digestibility was greater for DRY-CLF vs. DRY-C (P < 0.05). Carcass weight, dressing percent, and marbling score did not differ between CTL and DGS diets (P ≥ 0.23). For DRY-S, HCW was lower than for DRY-C (P = 0.02); however, compared with DRY-S, HCW tended to be greater for DRY-C/S (P = 0.10) and WET-S (P = 0.07). At a moderately high (25% DM) inclusion, blending C/S or feeding WET-S resulted in cattle growth performance and carcass characteristics similar to those of CTL and corn-based coproducts.]]></abstract><cop>Champaign</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><doi>10.2527/jas2015-9580</doi></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0021-8812 |
ispartof | Journal of animal science, 2016-01, Vol.94 (1), p.227 |
issn | 0021-8812 1525-3163 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1778396420 |
source | Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current) |
subjects | Cattle Diet Ethanol Grain Nutrition Physical growth |
title | Biofuel feedstock and blended coproducts compared with deoiled corn distillers grains in feedlot diets: Effects on cattle growth performance, apparent total tract nutrient digestibility, and carcass characteristics 1 |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-23T13%3A15%3A51IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Biofuel%20feedstock%20and%20blended%20coproducts%20compared%20with%20deoiled%20corn%20distillers%20grains%20in%20feedlot%20diets:%20Effects%20on%20cattle%20growth%20performance,%20apparent%20total%20tract%20nutrient%20digestibility,%20and%20carcass%20characteristics%201&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20animal%20science&rft.au=Opheim,%20T%20L&rft.date=2016-01-01&rft.volume=94&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=227&rft.pages=227-&rft.issn=0021-8812&rft.eissn=1525-3163&rft_id=info:doi/10.2527/jas2015-9580&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E4009957601%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1778396420&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |