弗吉尼亚野草、一年生黑麦草和小麦对断奶肉牛放牧和禁闭喂养的比较

J.A. Parish PAS
{"title":"弗吉尼亚野草、一年生黑麦草和小麦对断奶肉牛放牧和禁闭喂养的比较","authors":"J.A. Parish PAS","doi":"10.15232/pas.2018-01740","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Virginia wildrye (<em>Elymus virginicus</em><span> L.; VWR) was compared with Marshall annual ryegrass (</span><span><em>Lolium multiflorum</em></span>; ARG) and EK102 wheat (<em>Triticum aestivum</em><span>; 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 (</span><em>P</em><span><span> = 0.87), NDF treated with amylase and </span>sodium sulfite (</span><em>P</em> = 0.83), and ADF (<em>P</em> = 0.17) were comparable among species. No CP concentration differences (<em>P</em> = 0.12) were observed in 2015; however, CP concentration of VWR (10.1 ± 0.5) was greater (<em>P</em> = 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 (<em>P</em> &lt; 0.05) than that of VWR (111.2 ± 5.4) or WHT (117.7 ± 5.4). At d 28 (<em>P</em> = 0.08) and d 56 (<em>P</em> = 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; <em>P</em> &lt; 0.01) or VWR (1.26<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->0.05 kg/steer per day; <em>P</em> = 0.03). Penned steers had comparable (<em>P</em> = 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 (<em>P</em> &lt; 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.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":22841,"journal":{"name":"The Professional Animal Scientist","volume":"34 4","pages":"Pages 356-363"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.15232/pas.2018-01740","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Virginia wildrye, annual ryegrass, and wheat for weaned beef steers grazing and confinement feeding\",\"authors\":\"J.A. Parish PAS\",\"doi\":\"10.15232/pas.2018-01740\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Virginia wildrye (<em>Elymus virginicus</em><span> L.; VWR) was compared with Marshall annual ryegrass (</span><span><em>Lolium multiflorum</em></span>; ARG) and EK102 wheat (<em>Triticum aestivum</em><span>; 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 (</span><em>P</em><span><span> = 0.87), NDF treated with amylase and </span>sodium sulfite (</span><em>P</em> = 0.83), and ADF (<em>P</em> = 0.17) were comparable among species. No CP concentration differences (<em>P</em> = 0.12) were observed in 2015; however, CP concentration of VWR (10.1 ± 0.5) was greater (<em>P</em> = 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 (<em>P</em> &lt; 0.05) than that of VWR (111.2 ± 5.4) or WHT (117.7 ± 5.4). At d 28 (<em>P</em> = 0.08) and d 56 (<em>P</em> = 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; <em>P</em> &lt; 0.01) or VWR (1.26<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->0.05 kg/steer per day; <em>P</em> = 0.03). Penned steers had comparable (<em>P</em> = 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 (<em>P</em> &lt; 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.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22841,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Professional Animal Scientist\",\"volume\":\"34 4\",\"pages\":\"Pages 356-363\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.15232/pas.2018-01740\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Professional Animal Scientist\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1080744618301128\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Professional Animal Scientist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1080744618301128","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

维吉尼亚野草;将VWR与Marshall一年生黑麦草(Lolium multiflorum;小麦(Triticum aestium;WHT)作为牧场,ARG作为坐月子饲养。在2年的春季连续放养4头英国杂交阉牛(初始体重为233±28.5 kg),评价其ADG和饲料营养价值。饲料TDN (P = 0.87)、淀粉酶和亚硫酸钠处理的NDF (P = 0.83)和ADF (P = 0.17)在种间具有可比性。2015年两组间无CP浓度差异(P = 0.12);2016年VWR组CP浓度(10.1±0.5)高于WHT组(8.7±0.5)(P = 0.01)。第0 d时,ARG相对饲料价值浓度(133.8±5.4)较大(P <VWR组(111.2±5.4)和WHT组(117.7±5.4)差异无统计学意义(0.05)。在第28天(P = 0.08)和第56天(P = 0.56),不同种属之间的相对饲料价值无显著差异。ARG组的平均日增重(1.40±0.05 kg/头/ d)大于WHT组(1.20±0.05 kg/头/ d);P & lt;0.01)或体重比(1.26±0.05公斤/头/天);P = 0.03)。2015年,肉牛青贮ARG的日DMI(7.99±0.14 kg/d)和VWR(7.88±0.14 kg/d)相当(P = 0.90),但更高(P <2016年VWR日DMI(7.42±0.14 kg/d)高于ARG(6.19±0.14 kg/d)。在此基础上,还需要进一步研究牧草的持久性和放牧的经济性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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 (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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信