Search

Two trials conducted in 1996-97 measured BW and body condition score changes of cows fed different sources of degradable intake protein, including dried poultry waste and soybean meal, while grazing low-quality winter forages. In Trial 1, 60 spring-calving cows (5 yr; 555 kg) were used in an individual supplementation trial. Cows were gathered three times a week, sorted into individual pens, and fed their respective supplement. Cows grazed dormant native Sandhills winter range (common pasture) and were assigned to one of six supplemental treatments: 1) no supplement, 2) urea, 3) 22% dried poultry waste + urea, 4) soybean meal, 5) 22% dried poultry waste + soybean meal, or 6) 44% dried poultry waste. All supplements were based on wheat middlings and soybean hulls and were formulated to contain 44% CP. Thirty-six cows were selected randomly (six per treatment) for a 5-d measurement of forage intake from December 16 through December 20, 1996. Cows receiving supplements gained more weight (P < 0.001) and maintained greater body condition (P < 0.001) than unsupplemented cows. Cows receiving urea gained less (P < 0.10) than cows receiving a source of natural protein, but body condition remained similar. No differences were found in daily forage or total organic matter intake (P > 0.10). In Trial 2, cows grazed corn residues. Forty-eight spring-calving cows were group-fed supplements in one of six 4-ha paddocks. Cows received supplements containing either soybean meal or dried poultry waste that were the same as the soybean meal and 44% dried poultry waste supplements fed in Trial 1; gains were not different (P > 0.10). Under the economic conditions that existed at the time of these experiments, the supplement containing dried poultry waste resulted in a savings of $.04 per cow per day and a total savings of $3.20 per cow over an 80-d period. Feeding a supplement containing dried poultry waste resulted in performance similar to that when feeding a more conventional supplement containing soybean meal. Key Words: Beef Cows, Soyabean Oilmeal, Wastes

Cellulose casings are used to contain and form meat and poultry emulsions during the smoking and cooking process. Casings then are stripped from the cooked product and traditionally disposed of in landfills. Because of the bulk of the spent cellulose casings (SCC), rapid composting technology may be used to reduce bulkiness. The following SCC were evaluated in vitro and in vivo: fibrous ground (FG), fibrous composted (FC), NOJAX[R] ground (NG), and NOJAX[R] composted (NC). In vitro digestibility was determined by incubating SCC with mixed ruminal bacteria for 0, 6, 12, 24, 36, 48, and 72 h. In vivo data were collected using four ruminally cannulated Holstein steers in a 4 x 4 Latin square design. Diets consisted of a 50:50 ratio of alfalfa hay-wheat middlings with 5% corn-steep liquor. Diets contained no SCC (CON) or 25% (DM basis) of the FC, FG, or NC SCC substrate. Casings were high in structural carbohydrate and salt content but low in CP, ether extract, and lignin concentrations. In vitro OM digestibility at 24 h was highest (P [less than] .05) for FC and lowest (P [less than] .05) for NG; FG and NC were intermediate. Composting tended to reduce fiber content and increase digestion. In vivo intakes and digestibilities were not adversely affected by inclusion of SCC in the diet. Thus, SCC have the ability to partially replace more traditional forages, such as alfalfa hay and wheat middlings, in high-fiber diets for growing beef cattle. Limitations in the use of SCC as a partial replacement of traditional feedstuffs will likely be because of high salt concentrations in the casings resulting from product brine chilling. Key Words: Cellulosic Fibers, Chemical Composition, In Vitro, Composting, Digestibility, Cattle

Crab waste and wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) straw mixtures, ensiled with different additives, were evaluated in metabolism and palatability trials. Crab waste and straw were mixed in proportions of 1:1, wet basis, with 20% water and different additives, and ensiled in 210-L metal drums double-lined with polyethylene bags. Thirty crossbred wethers (40 kg initial BW) were fed a 1) basal diet consisting of 75% orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata L.) hay and 25% concentrate, 2) ensiled crab waste-wheat straw, with 16% (vol/wt) added glacial acetic acid, 3) crab waste-wheat straw ensiled with 20% dry molasses, 4) crab waste-wheat straw ensiled with 20% dry molasses and a microbial inoculant, and 5) ensiled wheat straw supplemented with urea. Apparent digestibility of DM and CP was lower (P < .05) for acetic acid-treated silages than for silages containing molasses. Nitrogen retention was higher (P < .05) for molasses-inoculant-treated silage than for the molasses-treated silage (5.4 vs 3.9 g/d). Ruminal [NH.sub.3] N and blood urea N were higher (P < .05) for lambs fed the molasses-treated silages than for those receiving the acetic acid-treated crab waste mixture. Among the wethers fed crab waste silages, intake was lower (P < .01) for wethers receiving the aceticacid-treated silage than for those fed the molasses-treated mixtures. Treatment of crab waste-straw mixtures with molasses produced a palatable silage that was efficiently utilized by wethers.

Twenty female and castrated male crossbred meat goats (113 [+ or -] 7 d of age) were fed one of two diets to determine if poultry litter can be used as a suitable protein source in diets for meat goats. Animals were fed either a control, commercial diet (75% commercial diet, 25% alfalfa pellets), or a poultry litter-based diet (40% poultry litter, 35% corn and 25 % alfalfa pellets) with 3 pens/treatment and 10 goats/treatment. Animals that had been exposed to creep feed while nursing were weaned and placed in an indoor facility with 8 X 8 pens and slatted concrete floors and allowed ad libitum access to feed, water and minerals. The goats were allowed a 14-d adjustment period in which they were gradually introduced to the treatment diet such that at the end of the adjustment period, goats were receiving 100% of the treatment diet and no digestive problems were observed. Goats were weighed weekly and feed consumption determined biweekly for the eight-week trial. Total gain for goats on the control diet (20.1 [+ or -] 3.26 kg) was greater (P < 0.05) than for those receiving the poultry litter-based diet (6.2 [+ or -] 1.52 kg). Feed efficiency (gain/feed) for the control group (0.12 [+ or -] 0.04) was not different from animals receiving the poultry litter-based diet (0.07 [+ or -] 04). In summary, goats fed a commercial goat diet gained faster but had a similar feed efficiency when compared to goats fed the poultry litter-based diet. However, it was observed that goats were sorting the poultry litter-based diet, so further studies are needed using a pelleted diet to minimize sorting. Also, it is important to note that near the end of the study, two animals receiving the poultry litter-based diet died of urinary calculi. Key Words: Meat goat, Poultry litter, Feed intake