Effect of harvest method and ammoniation on apparent digestibility and intake of baled corn residue in lambs

The objective of this study was to assess the effect of three different harvest methods and ammonia treatment on the in vivo digestibility of baled corn residue. Nine wether lambs (49.2 ± 0.5 kg BW) were used in a 9 x 6 Latin Square design with a 3 x 2 factorial treatment structure; 3 harvest method...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of animal science 2016-10, Vol.94, p.690-691
Hauptverfasser: Conway, A C, King, T M, Jolly-Breithaupt, M L, MacDonald, J C, Klopfenstein, T J, Drewnoski, M E
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 691
container_issue
container_start_page 690
container_title Journal of animal science
container_volume 94
creator Conway, A C
King, T M
Jolly-Breithaupt, M L
MacDonald, J C
Klopfenstein, T J
Drewnoski, M E
description The objective of this study was to assess the effect of three different harvest methods and ammonia treatment on the in vivo digestibility of baled corn residue. Nine wether lambs (49.2 ± 0.5 kg BW) were used in a 9 x 6 Latin Square design with a 3 x 2 factorial treatment structure; 3 harvest methods [conventional rake and bale (COV), New Holland Cornrower with 8 rows (high-stem; HS) or 2 rows (low-stem; LS) of corn stalks chopped into the windrow containing leaf, husk and upper stem] and ammoniation at 3% of DM of the resulting baled residue. Diets consisted of 64.2% corn residue, 29.8% Sweet Bran, 3.3% smooth-bromegrass hay, and 2.8% mineral mix (DM basis). Periods were 21 d (14 d adaptation and 7 d total fecal collection). Lambs were fed ad-libitum (110% of the previous day's DMI) during d 1 to 12 and reduced to 95% of ad-libitum intake for d 13 to 21. Treatment diets were fed over 6 periods, with the non-residue proportion of the diet (Sweet Bran, smooth-bromegrass hay, and mineral mix) fed alone in an additional period to determine the digestibility of the residue by difference. There was a harvest method by ammoniation interaction for ad-libitum DMI (d 7 to 12). Intake of non-ammoniated residue diets did not differ (P ≥ 0.92) among harvest methods, however, ammoniation increased (P ≤ 0.05) intake with LS having the greatest increase, COV being intermediate and HS having the least increase. There was no harvest method by ammoniation interaction for DM or OM digestibility. Digestibility of DM (DMD) differed between harvest methods, with LS being greater than COV (P = 0.01) and tending (P = 0.10) to be greater than HS. Ammoniation increased DMD of the residues by 25% (10.2% units). Digestibility of OM (OMD) tended to be affected by harvest method with LS tending (P = 0.06) to be greater than COV. Ammoniation improved OMD of all harvest methods, resulting in a 22% (10.1% units) increase. Utilizing alternative harvesting technologies and ammoniation can improve the feeding value of baled corn residue.
doi_str_mv 10.2527/jam2016-1424
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2046723114</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2046723114</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_journals_20467231143</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNjMtOwzAQRa0KpIbHrh8wEutQzyROyxoV8QHsq0njUAc_UttB4u8xiA9Auld3cY6uEBuUj6Rot53YkcSuxpbalahQkaob7JorUUlJWO_3SGtxk9IkJZJ6UpWwh3HUpwxhhDPHT50yOJ3PYQD2pc4Fbzib4KGE55mj9hkG815M0xtr8tevaXzmD_1z07PVA5xC9BB1MsOiCwTLrk934npkm_T9396Kh5fD2_NrPcdwWcrjcQpL9AUdSbbdjhrEtvmf9Q1CY08g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2046723114</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Effect of harvest method and ammoniation on apparent digestibility and intake of baled corn residue in lambs</title><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><creator>Conway, A C ; King, T M ; Jolly-Breithaupt, M L ; MacDonald, J C ; Klopfenstein, T J ; Drewnoski, M E</creator><creatorcontrib>Conway, A C ; King, T M ; Jolly-Breithaupt, M L ; MacDonald, J C ; Klopfenstein, T J ; Drewnoski, M E</creatorcontrib><description>The objective of this study was to assess the effect of three different harvest methods and ammonia treatment on the in vivo digestibility of baled corn residue. Nine wether lambs (49.2 ± 0.5 kg BW) were used in a 9 x 6 Latin Square design with a 3 x 2 factorial treatment structure; 3 harvest methods [conventional rake and bale (COV), New Holland Cornrower with 8 rows (high-stem; HS) or 2 rows (low-stem; LS) of corn stalks chopped into the windrow containing leaf, husk and upper stem] and ammoniation at 3% of DM of the resulting baled residue. Diets consisted of 64.2% corn residue, 29.8% Sweet Bran, 3.3% smooth-bromegrass hay, and 2.8% mineral mix (DM basis). Periods were 21 d (14 d adaptation and 7 d total fecal collection). Lambs were fed ad-libitum (110% of the previous day's DMI) during d 1 to 12 and reduced to 95% of ad-libitum intake for d 13 to 21. Treatment diets were fed over 6 periods, with the non-residue proportion of the diet (Sweet Bran, smooth-bromegrass hay, and mineral mix) fed alone in an additional period to determine the digestibility of the residue by difference. There was a harvest method by ammoniation interaction for ad-libitum DMI (d 7 to 12). Intake of non-ammoniated residue diets did not differ (P ≥ 0.92) among harvest methods, however, ammoniation increased (P ≤ 0.05) intake with LS having the greatest increase, COV being intermediate and HS having the least increase. There was no harvest method by ammoniation interaction for DM or OM digestibility. Digestibility of DM (DMD) differed between harvest methods, with LS being greater than COV (P = 0.01) and tending (P = 0.10) to be greater than HS. Ammoniation increased DMD of the residues by 25% (10.2% units). Digestibility of OM (OMD) tended to be affected by harvest method with LS tending (P = 0.06) to be greater than COV. Ammoniation improved OMD of all harvest methods, resulting in a 22% (10.1% units) increase. Utilizing alternative harvesting technologies and ammoniation can improve the feeding value of baled corn residue.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0021-8812</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1525-3163</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2527/jam2016-1424</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Champaign: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Ammonia ; Ammoniation ; Animal sciences ; Bromus secalinus ; Corn ; Diet ; Digestibility ; Harvest ; Harvesting ; Hay ; In vivo methods and tests</subject><ispartof>Journal of animal science, 2016-10, Vol.94, p.690-691</ispartof><rights>Copyright Oxford University Press, UK Oct 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>Conway, A C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>King, T M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jolly-Breithaupt, M L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MacDonald, J C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Klopfenstein, T J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Drewnoski, M E</creatorcontrib><title>Effect of harvest method and ammoniation on apparent digestibility and intake of baled corn residue in lambs</title><title>Journal of animal science</title><description>The objective of this study was to assess the effect of three different harvest methods and ammonia treatment on the in vivo digestibility of baled corn residue. Nine wether lambs (49.2 ± 0.5 kg BW) were used in a 9 x 6 Latin Square design with a 3 x 2 factorial treatment structure; 3 harvest methods [conventional rake and bale (COV), New Holland Cornrower with 8 rows (high-stem; HS) or 2 rows (low-stem; LS) of corn stalks chopped into the windrow containing leaf, husk and upper stem] and ammoniation at 3% of DM of the resulting baled residue. Diets consisted of 64.2% corn residue, 29.8% Sweet Bran, 3.3% smooth-bromegrass hay, and 2.8% mineral mix (DM basis). Periods were 21 d (14 d adaptation and 7 d total fecal collection). Lambs were fed ad-libitum (110% of the previous day's DMI) during d 1 to 12 and reduced to 95% of ad-libitum intake for d 13 to 21. Treatment diets were fed over 6 periods, with the non-residue proportion of the diet (Sweet Bran, smooth-bromegrass hay, and mineral mix) fed alone in an additional period to determine the digestibility of the residue by difference. There was a harvest method by ammoniation interaction for ad-libitum DMI (d 7 to 12). Intake of non-ammoniated residue diets did not differ (P ≥ 0.92) among harvest methods, however, ammoniation increased (P ≤ 0.05) intake with LS having the greatest increase, COV being intermediate and HS having the least increase. There was no harvest method by ammoniation interaction for DM or OM digestibility. Digestibility of DM (DMD) differed between harvest methods, with LS being greater than COV (P = 0.01) and tending (P = 0.10) to be greater than HS. Ammoniation increased DMD of the residues by 25% (10.2% units). Digestibility of OM (OMD) tended to be affected by harvest method with LS tending (P = 0.06) to be greater than COV. Ammoniation improved OMD of all harvest methods, resulting in a 22% (10.1% units) increase. Utilizing alternative harvesting technologies and ammoniation can improve the feeding value of baled corn residue.</description><subject>Ammonia</subject><subject>Ammoniation</subject><subject>Animal sciences</subject><subject>Bromus secalinus</subject><subject>Corn</subject><subject>Diet</subject><subject>Digestibility</subject><subject>Harvest</subject><subject>Harvesting</subject><subject>Hay</subject><subject>In vivo methods and tests</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>eNqNjMtOwzAQRa0KpIbHrh8wEutQzyROyxoV8QHsq0njUAc_UttB4u8xiA9Auld3cY6uEBuUj6Rot53YkcSuxpbalahQkaob7JorUUlJWO_3SGtxk9IkJZJ6UpWwh3HUpwxhhDPHT50yOJ3PYQD2pc4Fbzib4KGE55mj9hkG815M0xtr8tevaXzmD_1z07PVA5xC9BB1MsOiCwTLrk934npkm_T9396Kh5fD2_NrPcdwWcrjcQpL9AUdSbbdjhrEtvmf9Q1CY08g</recordid><startdate>20161001</startdate><enddate>20161001</enddate><creator>Conway, A C</creator><creator>King, T M</creator><creator>Jolly-Breithaupt, M L</creator><creator>MacDonald, J C</creator><creator>Klopfenstein, T J</creator><creator>Drewnoski, M E</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>20161001</creationdate><title>Effect of harvest method and ammoniation on apparent digestibility and intake of baled corn residue in lambs</title><author>Conway, A C ; King, T M ; Jolly-Breithaupt, M L ; MacDonald, J C ; Klopfenstein, T J ; Drewnoski, M E</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_20467231143</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Ammonia</topic><topic>Ammoniation</topic><topic>Animal sciences</topic><topic>Bromus secalinus</topic><topic>Corn</topic><topic>Diet</topic><topic>Digestibility</topic><topic>Harvest</topic><topic>Harvesting</topic><topic>Hay</topic><topic>In vivo methods and tests</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Conway, A C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>King, T M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jolly-Breithaupt, M L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MacDonald, J C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Klopfenstein, T J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Drewnoski, M E</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Career &amp; Technical Education Database</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; 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 &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; 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 &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; 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>Conway, A C</au><au>King, T M</au><au>Jolly-Breithaupt, M L</au><au>MacDonald, J C</au><au>Klopfenstein, T J</au><au>Drewnoski, M E</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Effect of harvest method and ammoniation on apparent digestibility and intake of baled corn residue in lambs</atitle><jtitle>Journal of animal science</jtitle><date>2016-10-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>94</volume><spage>690</spage><epage>691</epage><pages>690-691</pages><issn>0021-8812</issn><eissn>1525-3163</eissn><abstract>The objective of this study was to assess the effect of three different harvest methods and ammonia treatment on the in vivo digestibility of baled corn residue. Nine wether lambs (49.2 ± 0.5 kg BW) were used in a 9 x 6 Latin Square design with a 3 x 2 factorial treatment structure; 3 harvest methods [conventional rake and bale (COV), New Holland Cornrower with 8 rows (high-stem; HS) or 2 rows (low-stem; LS) of corn stalks chopped into the windrow containing leaf, husk and upper stem] and ammoniation at 3% of DM of the resulting baled residue. Diets consisted of 64.2% corn residue, 29.8% Sweet Bran, 3.3% smooth-bromegrass hay, and 2.8% mineral mix (DM basis). Periods were 21 d (14 d adaptation and 7 d total fecal collection). Lambs were fed ad-libitum (110% of the previous day's DMI) during d 1 to 12 and reduced to 95% of ad-libitum intake for d 13 to 21. Treatment diets were fed over 6 periods, with the non-residue proportion of the diet (Sweet Bran, smooth-bromegrass hay, and mineral mix) fed alone in an additional period to determine the digestibility of the residue by difference. There was a harvest method by ammoniation interaction for ad-libitum DMI (d 7 to 12). Intake of non-ammoniated residue diets did not differ (P ≥ 0.92) among harvest methods, however, ammoniation increased (P ≤ 0.05) intake with LS having the greatest increase, COV being intermediate and HS having the least increase. There was no harvest method by ammoniation interaction for DM or OM digestibility. Digestibility of DM (DMD) differed between harvest methods, with LS being greater than COV (P = 0.01) and tending (P = 0.10) to be greater than HS. Ammoniation increased DMD of the residues by 25% (10.2% units). Digestibility of OM (OMD) tended to be affected by harvest method with LS tending (P = 0.06) to be greater than COV. Ammoniation improved OMD of all harvest methods, resulting in a 22% (10.1% units) increase. Utilizing alternative harvesting technologies and ammoniation can improve the feeding value of baled corn residue.</abstract><cop>Champaign</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><doi>10.2527/jam2016-1424</doi></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0021-8812
ispartof Journal of animal science, 2016-10, Vol.94, p.690-691
issn 0021-8812
1525-3163
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2046723114
source Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)
subjects Ammonia
Ammoniation
Animal sciences
Bromus secalinus
Corn
Diet
Digestibility
Harvest
Harvesting
Hay
In vivo methods and tests
title Effect of harvest method and ammoniation on apparent digestibility and intake of baled corn residue in lambs
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T06%3A32%3A47IST&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=Effect%20of%20harvest%20method%20and%20ammoniation%20on%20apparent%20digestibility%20and%20intake%20of%20baled%20corn%20residue%20in%20lambs&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20animal%20science&rft.au=Conway,%20A%20C&rft.date=2016-10-01&rft.volume=94&rft.spage=690&rft.epage=691&rft.pages=690-691&rft.issn=0021-8812&rft.eissn=1525-3163&rft_id=info:doi/10.2527/jam2016-1424&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E2046723114%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2046723114&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true