Comparison of Virginia wildrye, annual ryegrass, and wheat for weaned beef steers grazing and confinement feeding
Virginia wildrye (Elymus virginicus L.; VWR) was compared with Marshall annual ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum; ARG) and EK102 wheat (Triticum aestivum; WHT) as pasture and with ARG for confinement feeding. Replicated (n = 3) 2.17-ha pastures were continuously stocked with 4 British crossbred steers (i...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | The Professional animal scientist 2018-08, Vol.34 (4), p.356-363 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 363 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 356 |
| container_title | The Professional animal scientist |
| container_volume | 34 |
| creator | Parish, J.A. |
| description | Virginia wildrye (Elymus virginicus L.; VWR) was compared with Marshall annual ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum; ARG) and EK102 wheat (Triticum aestivum; WHT) as pasture and with ARG for confinement feeding. Replicated (n = 3) 2.17-ha pastures were continuously stocked with 4 British crossbred steers (initial BW = 233 ± 28.5 kg) per pasture during spring in 2 yr to evaluate ADG and forage nutritive value. Forage TDN (P = 0.87), NDF treated with amylase and sodium sulfite (P = 0.83), and ADF (P = 0.17) were comparable among species. No CP concentration differences (P = 0.12) were observed in 2015; however, CP concentration of VWR (10.1 ± 0.5) was greater (P = 0.01) than that of WHT (8.7 ± 0.5) in 2016. At d 0, ARG relative feed value concentration (133.8 ± 5.4) was greater (P < 0.05) than that of VWR (111.2 ± 5.4) or WHT (117.7 ± 5.4). At d 28 (P = 0.08) and d 56 (P = 0.56), relative feed value was not different among species. Steer ADG was greater on ARG (1.40±0.05 kg/steer per day) than on WHT (1.20±0.05 kg/steer per day; P < 0.01) or VWR (1.26±0.05 kg/steer per day; P = 0.03). Penned steers had comparable (P = 0.90) daily DMI of ensiled ARG (7.99±0.14 kg/d) and VWR (7.88±0.14 kg/d) in 2015 but more (P < 0.0001) daily DMI of VWR (7.42±0.14 kg/d) than of ARG (6.19±0.14 kg/d) in 2016. Further research is needed to explore forage persistence and economics of VWR for grazing. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.15232/pas.2018-01740 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_reports_2099055753</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1080744618301128</els_id><sourcerecordid>2099055753</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2610-e05f7a29dfa13a6f0e99be8a01fe7fac39b29d9a8416cd55c5faade8f08495ae3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kc1P3DAQxSPUSmwpZ65WTz0QGNtxEh-rFf2QkLhAxc2adcaLq6ydtbOs6F9fs8upEqcZvfm9kWZeVV1wuOJKSHE9Yb4SwPsaeNfASbUosqol7x8_lB56qLumaU-rTzn_ARBc6G5RbZdxM2HyOQYWHfvt09oHj2zvxyG90CXDEHY4stKvE-b8Kgxs_0Q4MxcT2xMGGtiKyLE8E6XMCvfXh_UBtDE4H2hDoeBEQ9E_Vx8djpnO3-pZ9fD95n75s769-_Fr-e22tqLlUBMo16HQg0MusXVAWq-oR-COOodW6lUZauwb3tpBKasc4kC9g77RCkmeVV-Oe6cUtzvKs0k0xTRnI0BrUKpTskBf_4M2Plsax3JV3BVUyE6B7GVb0OsjalPMOZEzU_IbTC-GgzkkYEoC5jUBc0igOPTRQeXMZ0_JZOsp2PKGRHY2Q_Tvev8B9eWOPw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2237503836</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of Virginia wildrye, annual ryegrass, and wheat for weaned beef steers grazing and confinement feeding</title><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Parish, J.A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Parish, J.A.</creatorcontrib><description>Virginia wildrye (Elymus virginicus L.; VWR) was compared with Marshall annual ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum; ARG) and EK102 wheat (Triticum aestivum; WHT) as pasture and with ARG for confinement feeding. Replicated (n = 3) 2.17-ha pastures were continuously stocked with 4 British crossbred steers (initial BW = 233 ± 28.5 kg) per pasture during spring in 2 yr to evaluate ADG and forage nutritive value. Forage TDN (P = 0.87), NDF treated with amylase and sodium sulfite (P = 0.83), and ADF (P = 0.17) were comparable among species. No CP concentration differences (P = 0.12) were observed in 2015; however, CP concentration of VWR (10.1 ± 0.5) was greater (P = 0.01) than that of WHT (8.7 ± 0.5) in 2016. At d 0, ARG relative feed value concentration (133.8 ± 5.4) was greater (P < 0.05) than that of VWR (111.2 ± 5.4) or WHT (117.7 ± 5.4). At d 28 (P = 0.08) and d 56 (P = 0.56), relative feed value was not different among species. Steer ADG was greater on ARG (1.40±0.05 kg/steer per day) than on WHT (1.20±0.05 kg/steer per day; P < 0.01) or VWR (1.26±0.05 kg/steer per day; P = 0.03). Penned steers had comparable (P = 0.90) daily DMI of ensiled ARG (7.99±0.14 kg/d) and VWR (7.88±0.14 kg/d) in 2015 but more (P < 0.0001) daily DMI of VWR (7.42±0.14 kg/d) than of ARG (6.19±0.14 kg/d) in 2016. Further research is needed to explore forage persistence and economics of VWR for grazing.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1080-7446</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1525-318X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.15232/pas.2018-01740</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Champaign: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>amylases ; annual ryegrass ; Beef ; beef cattle ; Confinement ; crossbreds ; economics ; Elymus submuticus ; Elymus virginicus ; Feeding ; Feeds ; Grasses ; Grazing ; Livestock ; Lolium multiflorum ; native grass ; Nutritive value ; Pasture ; Sodium ; Sodium sulfite ; spring ; steers ; Sulfite ; Triticum aestivum ; Virginia ; Wheat ; wildrye</subject><ispartof>The Professional animal scientist, 2018-08, Vol.34 (4), p.356-363</ispartof><rights>2018 American Registry of Professional Animal Scientists</rights><rights>Copyright American Registry of Professional Animal Scientists Aug 2018</rights><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2610-e05f7a29dfa13a6f0e99be8a01fe7fac39b29d9a8416cd55c5faade8f08495ae3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Parish, J.A.</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of Virginia wildrye, annual ryegrass, and wheat for weaned beef steers grazing and confinement feeding</title><title>The Professional animal scientist</title><description>Virginia wildrye (Elymus virginicus L.; VWR) was compared with Marshall annual ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum; ARG) and EK102 wheat (Triticum aestivum; WHT) as pasture and with ARG for confinement feeding. Replicated (n = 3) 2.17-ha pastures were continuously stocked with 4 British crossbred steers (initial BW = 233 ± 28.5 kg) per pasture during spring in 2 yr to evaluate ADG and forage nutritive value. Forage TDN (P = 0.87), NDF treated with amylase and sodium sulfite (P = 0.83), and ADF (P = 0.17) were comparable among species. No CP concentration differences (P = 0.12) were observed in 2015; however, CP concentration of VWR (10.1 ± 0.5) was greater (P = 0.01) than that of WHT (8.7 ± 0.5) in 2016. At d 0, ARG relative feed value concentration (133.8 ± 5.4) was greater (P < 0.05) than that of VWR (111.2 ± 5.4) or WHT (117.7 ± 5.4). At d 28 (P = 0.08) and d 56 (P = 0.56), relative feed value was not different among species. Steer ADG was greater on ARG (1.40±0.05 kg/steer per day) than on WHT (1.20±0.05 kg/steer per day; P < 0.01) or VWR (1.26±0.05 kg/steer per day; P = 0.03). Penned steers had comparable (P = 0.90) daily DMI of ensiled ARG (7.99±0.14 kg/d) and VWR (7.88±0.14 kg/d) in 2015 but more (P < 0.0001) daily DMI of VWR (7.42±0.14 kg/d) than of ARG (6.19±0.14 kg/d) in 2016. Further research is needed to explore forage persistence and economics of VWR for grazing.</description><subject>amylases</subject><subject>annual ryegrass</subject><subject>Beef</subject><subject>beef cattle</subject><subject>Confinement</subject><subject>crossbreds</subject><subject>economics</subject><subject>Elymus submuticus</subject><subject>Elymus virginicus</subject><subject>Feeding</subject><subject>Feeds</subject><subject>Grasses</subject><subject>Grazing</subject><subject>Livestock</subject><subject>Lolium multiflorum</subject><subject>native grass</subject><subject>Nutritive value</subject><subject>Pasture</subject><subject>Sodium</subject><subject>Sodium sulfite</subject><subject>spring</subject><subject>steers</subject><subject>Sulfite</subject><subject>Triticum aestivum</subject><subject>Virginia</subject><subject>Wheat</subject><subject>wildrye</subject><issn>1080-7446</issn><issn>1525-318X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kc1P3DAQxSPUSmwpZ65WTz0QGNtxEh-rFf2QkLhAxc2adcaLq6ydtbOs6F9fs8upEqcZvfm9kWZeVV1wuOJKSHE9Yb4SwPsaeNfASbUosqol7x8_lB56qLumaU-rTzn_ARBc6G5RbZdxM2HyOQYWHfvt09oHj2zvxyG90CXDEHY4stKvE-b8Kgxs_0Q4MxcT2xMGGtiKyLE8E6XMCvfXh_UBtDE4H2hDoeBEQ9E_Vx8djpnO3-pZ9fD95n75s769-_Fr-e22tqLlUBMo16HQg0MusXVAWq-oR-COOodW6lUZauwb3tpBKasc4kC9g77RCkmeVV-Oe6cUtzvKs0k0xTRnI0BrUKpTskBf_4M2Plsax3JV3BVUyE6B7GVb0OsjalPMOZEzU_IbTC-GgzkkYEoC5jUBc0igOPTRQeXMZ0_JZOsp2PKGRHY2Q_Tvev8B9eWOPw</recordid><startdate>201808</startdate><enddate>201808</enddate><creator>Parish, J.A.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>American Registry of Professional Animal Scientists</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7S9</scope><scope>L.6</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>SOI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201808</creationdate><title>Comparison of Virginia wildrye, annual ryegrass, and wheat for weaned beef steers grazing and confinement feeding</title><author>Parish, J.A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2610-e05f7a29dfa13a6f0e99be8a01fe7fac39b29d9a8416cd55c5faade8f08495ae3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>amylases</topic><topic>annual ryegrass</topic><topic>Beef</topic><topic>beef cattle</topic><topic>Confinement</topic><topic>crossbreds</topic><topic>economics</topic><topic>Elymus submuticus</topic><topic>Elymus virginicus</topic><topic>Feeding</topic><topic>Feeds</topic><topic>Grasses</topic><topic>Grazing</topic><topic>Livestock</topic><topic>Lolium multiflorum</topic><topic>native grass</topic><topic>Nutritive value</topic><topic>Pasture</topic><topic>Sodium</topic><topic>Sodium sulfite</topic><topic>spring</topic><topic>steers</topic><topic>Sulfite</topic><topic>Triticum aestivum</topic><topic>Virginia</topic><topic>Wheat</topic><topic>wildrye</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Parish, J.A.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>AGRICOLA</collection><collection>AGRICOLA - Academic</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>The Professional animal scientist</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Parish, J.A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of Virginia wildrye, annual ryegrass, and wheat for weaned beef steers grazing and confinement feeding</atitle><jtitle>The Professional animal scientist</jtitle><date>2018-08</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>34</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>356</spage><epage>363</epage><pages>356-363</pages><issn>1080-7446</issn><eissn>1525-318X</eissn><abstract>Virginia wildrye (Elymus virginicus L.; VWR) was compared with Marshall annual ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum; ARG) and EK102 wheat (Triticum aestivum; WHT) as pasture and with ARG for confinement feeding. Replicated (n = 3) 2.17-ha pastures were continuously stocked with 4 British crossbred steers (initial BW = 233 ± 28.5 kg) per pasture during spring in 2 yr to evaluate ADG and forage nutritive value. Forage TDN (P = 0.87), NDF treated with amylase and sodium sulfite (P = 0.83), and ADF (P = 0.17) were comparable among species. No CP concentration differences (P = 0.12) were observed in 2015; however, CP concentration of VWR (10.1 ± 0.5) was greater (P = 0.01) than that of WHT (8.7 ± 0.5) in 2016. At d 0, ARG relative feed value concentration (133.8 ± 5.4) was greater (P < 0.05) than that of VWR (111.2 ± 5.4) or WHT (117.7 ± 5.4). At d 28 (P = 0.08) and d 56 (P = 0.56), relative feed value was not different among species. Steer ADG was greater on ARG (1.40±0.05 kg/steer per day) than on WHT (1.20±0.05 kg/steer per day; P < 0.01) or VWR (1.26±0.05 kg/steer per day; P = 0.03). Penned steers had comparable (P = 0.90) daily DMI of ensiled ARG (7.99±0.14 kg/d) and VWR (7.88±0.14 kg/d) in 2015 but more (P < 0.0001) daily DMI of VWR (7.42±0.14 kg/d) than of ARG (6.19±0.14 kg/d) in 2016. Further research is needed to explore forage persistence and economics of VWR for grazing.</abstract><cop>Champaign</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><doi>10.15232/pas.2018-01740</doi><tpages>8</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1080-7446 |
| ispartof | The Professional animal scientist, 2018-08, Vol.34 (4), p.356-363 |
| issn | 1080-7446 1525-318X |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_reports_2099055753 |
| source | Alma/SFX Local Collection |
| subjects | amylases annual ryegrass Beef beef cattle Confinement crossbreds economics Elymus submuticus Elymus virginicus Feeding Feeds Grasses Grazing Livestock Lolium multiflorum native grass Nutritive value Pasture Sodium Sodium sulfite spring steers Sulfite Triticum aestivum Virginia Wheat wildrye |
| title | Comparison of Virginia wildrye, annual ryegrass, and wheat for weaned beef steers grazing and confinement feeding |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-23T07%3A28%3A34IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20Virginia%20wildrye,%20annual%20ryegrass,%20and%20wheat%20for%20weaned%20beef%20steers%20grazing%20and%20confinement%20feeding&rft.jtitle=The%20Professional%20animal%20scientist&rft.au=Parish,%20J.A.&rft.date=2018-08&rft.volume=34&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=356&rft.epage=363&rft.pages=356-363&rft.issn=1080-7446&rft.eissn=1525-318X&rft_id=info:doi/10.15232/pas.2018-01740&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2099055753%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2237503836&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S1080744618301128&rfr_iscdi=true |