IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII WM \||\\\\‘\‘i\\\‘i\\\\\\\WM1\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ 3 1293 300081 9338 LI B RAR [Michigan Starts Univcislty— 0‘52; 1 6’ 79,-“ a __l__, . OVERDUE FINES: 25¢ per day per item RETURNING LIBRARY MATERIALS. ' P1ace in book return to remove charge from circulation records EFFECT OF ANHYDROUS AMMONIA TREATED CORN SILAGE ON THE PERFORMANCE OF GROWING AND FINISHING STEERS By Lyie Wayne Lomas A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfiilment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Animal Husbandry 1979 ABSTRACT EFFECT OF ANHYDROUS AMMONIA TREATED CORN SILAGE ON THE PERFORMANCE OF GROWING AND FINISHING STEERS By Lyle Wayne Lamas Two feedlot studies were conducted to determine the effect of cold-flow anhydrous ammonia treated corn silage on the performance of growing and finishing steers. In trial 1, an 8 x 2 factorial design with 8 protein treatments and 2 cattle types was used to determine the effect of anhydrous ammonia treated corn silage and protein supplementa- tion strategy on the performance of growing and finishing steers. Eight Hereford (224 kg) and 8 Charolais crossbred steers (293 kg) were allotted to each of the following treatments: 1) unsupplemented control; 2) 7.80 g anhydrous ammonia (AN) per kg of corn silage dry matter (KGCSDM); 3) 7.80 g AN/KGCSDM plus added soybean meal (SBM) until the steers reached 318 kg equivalent weight; 4) 15.60 g AN/KGCSDM; 5) 15.60 g AN/KGCSDM plus a complete mineral mix added at time of ensiling; 6) 15.60 g AN/KGCSDM plus calcium hydroxide added at 3% of silage DM at time of ensiling; 7) un- treated silage supplemented with SBM at a level which was decreased as the steers became heavier; 8) untreated silage supplemented with a constant level of SBM. All rations contained 33.0 ppm monensin in the ration DM. Cattle were on feed for 230 to 290 days. Since there were no interactions between treatment and cattle type, cattle types were Lyle Nayne Lomas pooled within each treatment. Average daily gain (A06) in kg and feed DM intake/gain (F/G) were: .61 and 10.14, .80 and 8.53, .81 and 8.20, .92 and 7.92, .81 and 8.04, .87 and 7.74, .99 and 7.43, and .98 and 7.12 for treatments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, respectively. ADG (kg) and FIG were .78 and 8.09 and .91 and 8.19 for the Hereford and Charolais steers, respectively. Ammonia treated silage (treatments 4, 5, 6) resulted in a lower ADG (P < .0005), higher F/G (P = .007) and lower average daily dry matter intake (ADDMI) (P = .009) than supple- mentation of untreated silage with SBM (treatments 7, 8). Treatment 7 produced similar performance to treatment 8. There were no significant differences (P > .20) in performance between treatments 2 and 3. No improvement in performance was obtained from adding minerals or calcium hydroxide to AN treated silage at ensiling. In trial 2, a 3 x 3 factorial design with 3 levels of AN treated corn silage and 3 levels of monensin was used to evaluate the performance of 135 Brangus steers (229 kg) fed on a two-phase system. Corn silage was treated at the time of ensiling with 0, 7.90 or 15.70 g AN/KGCSDM. Monensin was included in the ration at either 0, 16.5 or 33.0 ppm of ration DM. All steers were fed corn silage rations during the growing phase until they reached an average weight of 372 kg and then they were switched by pen to a corn + corn silage finishing ration that contained 77% high-moisture corn on a BM basis. Cattle received the same respective silage and monensin treatment during both the growing and finishing phases and were on feed for a total of 260 to 281 days. There were no AN x monensin interactions for overall ADG, ADDMI or F/G. Average daily gain (kg) and FIG for the 0, 7.90, and 15.70 g AN/KGCSDM treatments were: Lyle Wayne Lomas .91 and 7.47, .93 and 7.37, and .99 and 7.02, respectively. Average daily gain (kg) and F/G for the 0, 16.5 and 33.0 ppm monensin treatments were: .95 and 7.38, .98 and 7.12, and .92 and 7.33, respectively. AN treatment of corn silage resulted in a higher ADG (P .102). Appli- cation of 15.70 g AN/KGCSDM resulted in a higher ADG (P .014) and lower F/G (P = .005) than 7.90 g AN/KGCSDM. Monensin resulted in no signifi- cant change (P > .20) in ADG or F/G but decreased ADDMI (P = .087). The intermediate level of monensin (16.5 ppm) resulted in a higher ADG (P = .095) than the recommended level (33.0 ppm). Complete carcass and body composition data, net energy values and silage characterization data were obtained and analyzed for each feedlot study. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author will always be indebted to Drs. D. G. Fox and D. R. Hawkins for their guidance, encouragement, personal concern and assistance while pursuing this graduate program. Appreciation is extended to Drs. J. R. Black and W. T. Magee for their valuable counsel and assistance with statistical analysis. The author is also grateful to Drs. W. G. Bergen, J. T. Huber and H. D. Ritchie for their guidance and counsel in preparation of this manuscript. Special appreciation is expressed to Dr. R. H. Nelson, Chairman of the Animal Husbandry Department, for the excellent staff and research facilities with which the author had the opportunity to work. Sincere thanks are extended to Elaine Fink for laboratory analysis, to Ron Cook and fellow graduate students for assistance in collecting data, and to Mrs. Jan Duszynski and Mrs. Grace Rutherford for their careful typing of this dissertation. Gratitude is expressed to the author's wife, Connie, for her understanding and encouragement throughout the graduate program. Special thanks are also extended to the author's parents for their faith and confidence that have been appreciated very much during the course of this study. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ......................... LIST OF FIGURES ........................ INTRODUCTION .......................... LITERATURE REVIEW ....................... Effect of NPN Treatment of Corn Silage on Feedlot Performance ...................... Effect of NPN Treatment of Corn Silage on Silage Fermentation ...................... Protein Requirements of Finishing Steers ......... Effect of Monensin on Feedlot Performance ........ OBJECTIVES ........................... MATERIALS AND METHODS ..................... Feedlot Studies ..................... Silage Treatments ......... . ......... Silage Analyses ................... Experimental Design and Rations for Trial 1 ..... Experimental Design and Rations for Trial 2 ..... Management Procedures ................ Initial and Intermediate Slaughter Procedures . . . . Final Slaughter and Carcass Evaluation Procedures . . Net Energy Evaluation ................ Economic Analyses .................. Nitrogen Balance ..................... Trial Design ..................... Sample Collection and Preparation .......... Nitrogen and DM Determination . .fi .......... Data Calculation and Statistical Analysis ........ RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ..................... Silage Characterization ................. Trial 1 ....................... Trial 2 ....................... Feedlot Trial 1 ..................... Feedlot Performance ................. Carcass Parameters .................. iii Page viii Page Net Energy Evaluation ................ 81 Economic Analysis .................. 86 Feedlot Trial 2 ..................... 88 Feedlot Performance ................. Carcass Parameters .................. 101 Net Energy Evaluation ................ 106 Economic Analysis .................. 112 Nitrogen Balance ..................... 112 CONCLUSIONS .......................... 117 APPENDIX ............................ 119 LITERATURE CITED ........................ 137 iv Table 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. LIST OF TABLES Performance of Feedlot Cattle Fed Corn Silage Rations With Various Nitrogen Sources ............. Summary of Feedlot Performance of Cattle Fed Corn Silage Rations With Various Nitrogen Sources ...... Comparison of Feedlot Performance of Cattle Fed Corn Silage Rations With Various Sources of Nitrogen . . . . Supplement Composition for Trial 1 (DM Basis) ..... Supplement Composition for Trial 2 (DM Basis) ..... Effect of Treatment on Silage Characteristics (Trial 1) ....................... Effect of Anhydrous Ammonia Treatment on Silage Characteristics (Trial 2) ............... Orthogonal Contrasts for Selected Treatment Comparison of Silage Characteristics (Trial 1) .......... Orthogonal Contrasts for Selected Comparisons of Silage Characteristics (Trial 2) ............ Effect of Source and Level of Supplemental Protein on Performance of Hereford Steers (Trial 1) ........ Effect of Source and Level of Supplemental Protein on Performance of Charolais Crossbred Steers (Trial 1) . . Effect of Source and Level of Supplemental Protein on Performance (Trial 1) ................. Orthogonal Contrasts for Selected Treatment Comparisons of Performance (Trial 1) ................ Effect of Cattle Type on Performance (Trial 1) ..... Effect of Source and Level of Supplemental Protein on Carcass Parameters of Hereford Steers (Trial 1) . . . . Page 13 17 43 46 57 58 59 60 64 65 66 67 75 76 Table Page 16. Effect of Source and Level of Supplemental Protein on Carcass Parameters of Charolais Crossbred Steers (Trial 1) ....................... 77 17. Effect of Source and Level of Supplemental Protein on Carcass Parameters (Trial 1) ...... . ....... 78 18. Orthogonal Contrasts for Selected Treatment Comparisons of Carcass Parameters (Trial 1) ............ 79 19. Effect of Cattle Type on Carcass Parameters (Trial 1) . 82 20. Net Energy Values for Protein Treatments (Trial 1). . . 83 21. Orthogonal Contrasts for Selected Treatment Comparisons of Net Energy Values (Trial 1) ............. 84 22. Economic Analysis of the Protein Treatments Evaluated in Trial 1 ....................... 87 23. Summary of Growing Phase Performance (Trial 2) ..... 89 24. Summary of Finishing Phase Performance (Trial 2). . . . 90 25. Summary of Overall Performance (Trial 2) ........ 91 26. Orthogonal Contrasts for Selected Treatment Comparisons of Growing Phase of Performance (Trial 2) ....... 92 27. Orthogonal Contrasts for Selected Treatment Comparisons ‘ of Finishing Phase Performance (Trial 2) ........ 95 28. Orthogonal Contrasts for Selected Treatment Combina- tions of Overall Performance (Trial 2) ......... 99 29. Summary of Carcass Parameters (Trial 2) ........ 102 30. Effect of Level of Anhydrous Ammonia Treatment of Corn Silage on Carcass Parameters (Trial 2) ......... 103 31. Effect of Level of Monensin on Carcass Parameters (Trial 2) ....................... 104 32. Orthogonal Contrasts for Selected Treatment Comparisons of Carcass Parameters (Trial 2) . . . ......... 105 33. Net Energy Values for Growing Ration (Trial 2) ..... 107 34. Net Energy Values for Finishing Ration (Trial 2). . . . 108 vi Table 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. A.1 A.2 A.3 A.4 A.5 A.6 A.7 A.8 A.9 A.10 A.11 A.12 A.13 Net Energy Values for Entire Feeding Period ...... Orthogonal Contrasts for Selected Treatment Comparisons of Finishing Ration Net Energy Values (Trial 2) . . . . Orthogonal Contrasts for Selected Treatment Comparisons of Net Energy Values for Entire Feeding Period (Trial 2) ....................... Economic Analysis of Treatment Combinations Evaluated in Trial 2 ....................... Effect of Monensin and Level of Anhydrous Ammonia Treatment on Nitrogen Utilization ........... Ration Ingredients ................... Individual Shrunk Weights, Carcass Weights, and Carcass Composition of Initial Slaughter Cattle (Trial 1) . . . Individual Shrunk Weights, Carcass Weights, and Carcass Composition of Initial Slaughter Cattle (Trial 2) . . . Individual Shrunk Weights, Carcass Weights, and Carcass Composition of Intermediate Slaughter Cattle (Trial 2). Individual Performance and Carcass Data (Trial 1) . . . Scanoprobe Estimates of Fat Thickness Over the Twelfth Rib (Trial 1) ................. Calculation of Net Energy Values of Rations Fed to Hereford Steers (Trial 1) ............... Calculation of Net Energy Values of Rations Fed to Charolais Crossbred Steers (Trial 1) .......... Calculation of Net Energy Values of Rations Containing Various Sources and Levels of Supplemental Nitrogen (Trial 1) ....................... Individual Performance and Carcass Data (Trial 2) . . . Calculation of Net Energy Values for Growing Ration (Trial 2) ....................... Calculation of Net Energy Values for Finishing Ration (Trial 2) ....................... Calculation of Net Energy Values for Entire Feeding Period (Trial 2) ..... g ............... vii Page 109 110 111 113 114 119 120 120 121 122 126 128 129 130 131 134 135 136 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Effect of Supplementing Anhydrous Ammonia Treated Corn Silage with SBM Until the Cattle Reached an Equivalent Weight of 318 kg (Cook and Fox, 1977) . . . 7O 2. Effect of Supplementing Anhydrous Ammonia Treated Corn Silage with SBM Until the Cattle Reached an Equivalent Weight of 318 kg (Trial 1) ......... 71 3. Effect of Nitrogen Source on Animal Performance. . . . 73 4. Effect of Anhydrous Ammonia Level on Performance . . . 97 5. Effect of Level of Monensin on Performance ...... 98 viii INTRODUCTION Corn silage is a popular feedstuff for growing and finishing beef cattle in the United States. On suitable land with climatic conditions favorable for corn production, no other feed cr0p grown in the U. S. will equal corn silage in the quantity of beef produced per hectare of crop fed. However, corn silage rations must be adequately supplemented with protein in order to produce satisfactory animal performance. Supplemental protein may be provided in corn silage rations by feeding preformed protein or non-protein nitrogen (NPN) which can be used by the microbial p0pulation in the rumen to synthesize protein. Corn silage is well suited for NPN supplementation since it is low in total protein and high in energy which is necessary for efficient incorporation of NPN into microbial protein. Addition of NPN at the time of ensiling has generally resulted in similar animal gains but a lower feed requirement per unit of gain when compared to supplementing untreated control silage with an isonitrogenous level of NPN at feeding time (Essig, 1968; Ely, 1978). Treatment of corn silage with anhydrous ammonia (AN) at the time of ensiling is one method of adding NPN that lends itself well to mechanization. Henderson gt_al, (1972) treated corn silage at the blower with gaseous AN at the time of ensiling but only recovered slightly more than one-third of the added nitrogen from the silo at feeding time. Nitrogen recovery was improved by the development of a cold-flow condensation chamber which made it possible to apply AN as a stable anhydrous liquid to the fresh corn plant material at the time of ensiling (Lalonde, 1976). In August, 1978, the Food and Drug Administration approved the use of cold-flow AN at the time of ensiling for treatment of corn silage which was to be fed to cattle. Since this is a recent develop- ment, there is a very limited amount of information available concerning treatment of corn silage with AN at the time of ensiling. Research is needed to evaluate this method of NPN supplementation with respect to both animal performance and economic feasibility in order to determine how it compares with other sources of supplemental nitrogen. LITERATURE REVIEW Due to increased costs of preformed protein supplements and potential for future price escalations, attention has been focused on feeding NPN and determining the exact protein requirements for feedlot cattle. Protein requirements predicted by the Michigan (Fox gt_al,, 1977; Bergen gt 31., 1978), Iowa (Burroughs §t_al,, 1974) and N.R.C. (1976) systems differ widely, and thus protein needs of growing and finishing beef cattle are uncertain. Requirements for protein are further confounded by the fact that monensin has a protein-sparing effect and may thereby permit feeding a lower concentration of dietary protein than would otherwise be possible (Dartt, 1978; Perry gt_al,, 1979; Hanson and Kl0pfenstein, 1979). Burroughs gt_al, (1974), Fox gt_al, (1977) and Bergen gt_al, (1978) have outlined constraints for adding NPN to feedlot rations. Bergen gt 31. (1978) noted that the extent of NPN utilization depends on level of dry matter intake, ration energy density, characteristics of basal feed proteins and ruminal fermentation. Recent work (Van Nevel and Demeyer, 1977; Tolbert gt 31,, 1977; Poos §t_al,, 1978) has indicated that monensin may also affect utilization of NPN. Monensin decreases the efficiency of microbial growth and may be of limited value in rations supplemented with NPN. This review relates to these issues and addresses the following t0pics: effect of NPN treatment of corn silage on feedlot performance, effect of NPN treatment of corn silage on silage fermentation, protein requirements of finishing steers, and effect of monensin on feedlot performance. Effect of NPN Treatment of Corn Silage on Feedlot Performance Perhaps no other area of research within the field of ruminant nutrition has received as much attention and yet has been as frequently misinterpreted as NPN treatment of corn silage. Research has been conducted in this area to evaluate the effect of supplementing corn silage with various nitrogen sources on the performance of feedlot cattle. These experiments have been conducted over a diverse range of conditions with age of cattle, length of feeding period, and energy density of the ration varying from one study to another. Wide variation has also existed in previous nutritional treatment of cattle prior to going on experiment. In some studies, feeder cattle were immediately started on experiment upon arrival at the feedlot, while in others they were fed untreated corn silage supplemented with soybean meal for as long as 90 days before going on experiment. Each of these factors will influence animal performance and are of particular importance when comparing NPN to preformed protein as a source of supplemental nitrogen. However, several review articles on NPN treatment of corn silage have completely ignored these factors and pooled performance data by nitrogen treatment across different experiments, made comparisons and drawn conclusions without consideration of any of these variables. A review of literature for feedlot performance of feedlot steers fed corn silage rations supplemented with various forms of nitrogen is presented in tabular form in Table 1. Studies have been categorized according to age of cattle, length of feeding period and whether or not corn was added to the ration. In this review, an effort was made to concentrate on experiments where steers were fed two or more of the nitrogen treatments listed in Table 1, with particular emphasis on studies where ammonia or Pro-Sil treated silage was fed. Feed/gain (F/G) is presented on a 100% dry matter (DM) basis. Measures were taken to reduce the amount of variation between studies listed in Table 1 by categorizing them as previously described, reporting F/G on a 100% DM basis and including data for steers only. However, results of different experiments are often variable and occasionally conflicting. For this reason, extreme care should be taken in evaluating past research and making comparisons between different studies. It is more appropriate to make similar comparisons on a percentage basis within experiments and to compare relative performance between different studies, rather than comparing absolute performance. Differences in design and interpretation of feedlot trials make it difficult to compare absolute performance from different experiments. Average daily gain (ADG) has been calculated on a liveweight basis in some studies, while in others liveweight ADG has been adjusted to a constant dressing percent to reduce variation due to fill (Goodrich and Meiske, 1971; Black and Fox, 1977). Cattle type frequently varies from one experiment to another and will also affect ADG (Crickenberger, 1977; Harpster, 1978). Research has revealed that DM intake of fermented feeds can be underestimated by as much as 10% when DM is determined by oven drying, .u—cosso uaocva;:_~u us_u asap—a no...» moo—.m coo—.m coca tan 2 vote. team a; .u: .uu»\.v: anemone»: u:.uooe a. paces—s nzz awe: __m-ocm no.3 so.) .aqan :Lou a cc —~.u_:_ $0 .0: —_mcosa + nus: .aazm .nnam .oz mane acoEuooLu cumocu_z nousaom cooonuvz n:¢.so> guvz aco'uac coop—m :509 ton opuuau uopvoom mo oucgsuousoau-.— ops.» .33....- 8:88:38 .3: 8..8—82.28 -- -- -- -- -- 88.8 8..8 8..8. 8.88.888. -- -- -- -- -- 88.. 8... 88. 8. .8.8m...888 8 888 888 8 .8..8.. ..8 88 888 --8M8... 888.. -- 8..8 -- 88.8 -- 8.88.8888 -- --8 88.. 888.. -- 8... -- 8... -- 8. .8.88 ...88 8 888 .88 88 ...8.. .888 888 888 -- -- 888.8 -- -- -- 88.8 88.8. 8.88.888. -- -- 8.... -- -- -- 8... 88. 8. .8.88 ...88 8 88. 888 8. ...8.. 888 888 .888 -- -- -- -- -- 88.8 88. 88... 8.88.8888 -- -- -- -- -- ... 88. 88. 8. 88.88....88 8 88. 888 88 .8.8.. ..8 88 888888 -- -- -- -- 88.8 88.. 8..8 88.8. 8.88.8888 -- -- -- -- 88. 88. 88.. 88. nwlnm888 ...88 8 88. 888 .8 .8.8.. ..8 88 888888888 -- -- -- -- 88.. -- 8.. -- 8.88.8888 -- -- -- -- 88. -- 88. -- 8. “8.88 ...88 8 .88 8.8 8 .8.8.. ..8 88 8.888.8 -- -- -- -- 88. -- 88.8 -- 8.88.8888 -- -- -- -- .8. -- 88.. -- 8. .8wmm.m..88 8 88. 88. 88 .8.8.. ..8 88 88:8: -- 8..8 -- -- 88.8 -- -- -- 8.88.8888 -- .8. -- -- 88. -- -- -- 8. .8.88 ...88 8 888 888 8. .88.8.. 888888 888 88888888: -- 8..8 -- -- 88.8 -- .8.8 -- 8.88.8888 -- 88. -- -- 88.. -- 88.. -- 8. .8.88 ...88 8 88. 888 8. .88.8.. 888888 888 888.8888: 88.8 88.8 -- -- 88. -- 8..8 -- 8.88.8888 8.. .8. -- -- 8.. -- ... -- 8. .8888lm..88 . 8 888 888 88 ...8.. ..8 .8 88.88 -- -- 8.8.8 -- 88.8 -- 88.8 88. 8.88.8888 -- -- 88... -- .... -- 8... 88. 88.8m888 ...88 8 8.. 888 8 .8..8.. ..8 88 888.8888: 88.8 88.8 -- -- 8.. -- 88.8 -- 8.88.8888 88. 8.. -- -- 8.. -- ... -- 8. .8rmm.mw.88 8 888 888 8. ...8.. ..8 88 8888 ”888. 88 8888 88. 8888 888-.8888..8 ..8 8888.88 88.: 88:8 888:8 888..8 888:8 82: :88 z 88888 888. 8.. .8: €88.88 8828.88 88.8888 88 .8888.8 8:8 8888 ..8-888 88.; 88.: .8888 8888 8 88 ...».8. 88 .88 ..8.888 + 8888 .8888 .8888 8: 8.88 8885888 5828:. 92.58.83..-— .38... .8.:onun uaocsage<8 -- -- -- -- .8.8 -- 88.8 -- 8.88.8888 -- -- -- -- 88. -- 88. -- 881.8888 ...88 8 8.. 888 8. .8..8.. ..8 .8 888888888 -- -- -- 8..8 88.8 -- 88.8 8..8 8.88.8888 -- -- -- 88.. 88.. -- 88.. ... 88.88.88 ...88 8 88. 888 8 ...8.. ..8 .8 8.88888 -- 88.8 -- 88.8 8... -- -- -- 8.88.888. -- 88.. -- 8... 8... -- -- -- 88.88888 ...88 8 88. 888 88 .8.8.. ..8 88 888888888 . .8088 :8 8888 oo— caga use: .888..8 —.< .888..L88> -- -- -- -- 8..8 88.8 88.8 -- 8.88.8888 i : .. 3 co.— 3.— 3.— i 9. .58... 3.8 8 88 888 8. . -- -- -- -- 8..8 ...8. 88.8 -- 8.88.8888 -- -- -- -- 88.. .8. .8. -- 8. .8.88 ...88 8 88 888 8. -- -- -- -- 8..8 88.8 88.8 -- . 8.88.8888 -- -- -- -- 88. 88. 88. -- 8. .8.88 ...88 8 8. 888 88 -- -- -- -- 88.8. -- 88.8 -- 8.88.8888 -- -- -- -- 88. -- ... -- 8. .8888lm..88 8 88 .88 88 ...8.. ..8 88 88.88 -- -- 888.8 -- -- -- .8.8 -- 8.88.8888 -- -- 8.... -- -- -- 88.. -- 8. .8.88188888 8 88 888 88 .8..8.. ..8 88 888 -- -- -- -- -- 88.8 .8.8 -- 8.88.888. -- -- -- -- -- 8... 88.. -- 8. .8.88 ...88 8 88 888 8. .8.8.. 88.8888 888 888888888 88888 88 8nmm co. 88m» 888. .mum..8 ..< .888..888> -- -- -- -- -- 88.. 88.8 8... 8.88.8888 -- -- -- -- -- 88.. 88.. 88.. 8. .8.88.8..88 88 888 888 8 .8..8.. ..8 88 888 898:8.ucouuuvuou cc 8888 oo. 88:» ago: .cuou 8888< ”88>.8u 88.. 88.... 88...8 888... 888..8 8888 x88 8 88888 888. 8. .8; .888..88 888888888 88.8888 88 .8888.. 8:8 88.8 ..8-888 88.: 8..: .8888 8888 8 88 .8.8.8. 88 .88 ..8-888 + 88.: .8888 .8888 8: 8888 888:88888 888888.: 8888.8888--. 8.88. .8.88-88 832.38 .3853 8388.82.28 -- -- -- -- -- 8..8 88.8 88.8 8.88.8888 -- -- -- -- -- 88.. .8.. 88.. 88 .8.88 ...88 8. 88. ..8 8 ...8.. 888888888 888 88.88888 -- -- -- .8.8 .8.8 -- 8..8 88.8 8.88.8888 -- -- -- 88.. 88.. -- 88.. 88.. 88. ......mm ...88 88 8.. 888 8 ...8.. ..8 88 8.88888 .. ..- .. .... .. 3.. 88.. .. 588.9888 -- -- -- -- -- 88. 88. -- 8. .8888.m..88 88 8.. 888 .. ...8.. ..8 88 88..8 "Wool. ..8 888-um 8. 885 88- .ES 8883 8888.288» -- -- 888.8 88.8 8..8 .8.8 8..8 8..8 8.88.8888 -- -- 88... 88.. .... .8.. 8... 88.. 8. .8.8818..88 8. 8. .88 8. .8.8.. ..8 88 88888 -- -- -- -- -- 88.8 8..8 -- 8.88.8888 -- -- -- -- -- 88.. 88.. -- 88 .8.88 ...88 88 88 888 8. .8.8.. 88.8888 888 88888888; 8.888 ..8 83.8 8.4815 888. 88.88 88.83. .83....88» -- -- -- -- 88.8 -- 88.8 -- 8.88.8888 -- .- -- -- 88.. -- .... -- 88.88.88 ...88 c .2 .nm 8 80—3: ..8 .8 88888.85: -- .... 88..8 88.8 88.. -- 88.8 -- 8.88.8888 -- 88. 8.8. 88.. 88. -- 8... -- 88.8m888 ...88 8 88. 8.8 . .8..8.. ..8 88 88888888: -- -- -- -- 88. -- 88.8 8..8 8.88.8888 -- . -- -- -- 88. -- 88.. ... 88.88888 ...88 8 88. 888 8 .8..8.. ..8 88 88888888: cone—8888-638. .8 8h... 8. :28 832.8 .2 818.9283» 88.8 888..8 888..8 888..8 888... 8888 :88 z 88888 888. 88 .8; .888..88 888888.88 88.8888 88 .8888.8 8:8 8888 ..8-888 88.; 88.8 .8888 8888 8 88 .8.8.8. 88 .8: 38.8.... .8 3.5 .898 .883. oz 883 8.8.53.5 :89.» 8.. vac—acououp 03-... 1C) ...cossa u:¢ua¢ os—u ou~—_m on...“ oou—_u coo—_n cog: sum 2 wave: tum. a; .u: .ugu\.vc oocosouou u:.uoo; a. pagoc.e n2: cog: —.mnoga a».3 a».3 .na:« :scu a ea ...».c_ yo .0: ..mnosg u nos: .ansm .gaam oz mane acasuuosu coaosu.z vase—acounn— ope-h 11. ...—8!. 383%: me. an. I I I I ::22 n-né 82%. U I I I I 238% .—ué I I I I I I I I g 0" NV 0 . F-H‘I I-Infl N I I I I “1' ‘V ('30 N PF- I-I's w-u— 0 FIG "I“ PD a—o.v nu O N O p- I I DID MN I C P. I I I I 88. 0-0 .mo.o .. o_.m .ao. .. N... cm ac 2g 88 P0 u—C Q U I I N cc 0 0-K I I cc 23:; 25:! 0 co co 0 0-K! PI” PI“ I I a: :38 cc o¢ 80-- ”N N PM 0 0 Is 0-. 0—0 0-0 I I 0. so can NOI 0 cc ON GO o. nm— om~ vm— ou— vo— cow o¢~ m- mow mnu mow mnu mow mnN mum mww cup mum o—N nnw mp— «mm cop new @— o— o— o— op =_~a\voou as .cpou »—.~o Ao~a_. mace—ad c'oaxuoou a. hmrmm x_.~o $8: ... 3 £5»... =.uo\uouu £7.an >28 .muo.. ... “a comgouco: cvom\vmou as hmrmm »_.oo ..Napv ..o uo o.guu.¢ c_o0\uoou as .c.om appoo cvouxnoou an .:.au a..oo c.ao\uoou a; .:_om »__ao .vsm—v uu—gu can comgovca: cpumxuomu a; .:.om x__oa Aa~sopv guano: uca comgocco: cwam\vuou a; .c_am xp_oo An-apv cannon can :omgwucuz c—am\uomu £7.an x28 “spun—v .pa uo :omgouco: :.am\uoou 9km; 3:5 .u—nmp. .—~ um camgoucoz :_om\uuou 9. 5% DE. .—~m_v ..a an smug "too; so unuv oo— coca egos mesou uouu< "mo>pou no m- o— cvomxuuou mulch—Wu 3:5 38: ... a... 8:85.. "you; go a nu cop gag» «no. meson vovu< "mu>—au cave oc_uoo» an .agoc—s pvmnOLa oua~.u + cos: on...“ «cuppa coo—_a a... .95 .3nt nos: ca.) .83 tom 2 gu.3 .aaam snag a .nnam oz aegis-us» cooosu.z 3.2 ..8. 9. J: S 3:... mac: .usaxnv: yo .0: oucosouoc toacvucounn— ops-h 12 due to loss of energy containing volatiles (Goodrich and Meiske, 1971; Larsen and Jones, 1973; Fox and Fenderson, 1978). Therefore, the common tendency is to underestimate DM consumption of cattle fed fermented feeds. In recent years, some researchers have made an effort to correct DM intake for volatiles lost during DM determination in an oven. However, other researchers have not recognized this fact and have not made any adjustment to ON intakes of cattle receiving fermented feeds. Many recent studies have fed monensin sodium which has been demonstrated to decrease feed intake, while allowing animals to maintain a similar rate of gain (Thonney, 1977). Therefore, the net effect of monensin is to decrease the amount of feed required per unit of gain. For these reasons, extreme caution must be exercised in comparing absolute performance between different experiments. Comparisons between different treatments are presented in Table 2. Data from Table 1 have been summarized within each of the previously described categories. Weighted averages of performance based on number of cattle are listed in this table and were computed based on only the trials in which both treatments involved in the comparison were included. These data are further summarized with comparisons being made on a percentage basis in Table 3. In interpreting the results of Table 3, the number of trials and trends within each of these trials should also be considered. As the number of trials increases, a greater amount of confidence can be obtained from the results. Comparison 1 emphasized the importance of supplemental nitrogen in rations containing corn silage. The severe depressions in rate of 13 Table 2.--Summary of Feedlot Performance of Cattle Fed Corn Silage Rations With Various Nitrogen Sourcesa Daily gain, kg Feed/gain Calves: All silage; less than l00 days on feed No. of trials l l No supplemental N .54 8.86 Supplemented with soybean meal l.ll 5.74 No. of trials 3 3 Supplemented with soybean meal .78 5.42 Supplemented with urea .68 5.93 No. of trials l l Supplemented with soybean meal l.06 5.96 Pro-Sil treated silage 1.03 5.40 No. of trials 3 3 Supplemented with soybean meal .95 5.30 NH3 treated silage .65 7.59 No. of trials 1 l Pro-Sil treated silage 1.03 5.40 Urea + mineral treated silage .89 6.09 No. of trials 1 l Pro-Sil treated silage l.03 5.40 NH3 treated silage .72 6.80 Calves: All silage; more than 100 days on feed No. of trials 5 5 No supplemental N .46 11.39 Supplemented with soybean meal l.Ol 7.04 No. of trials 3 3 Supplemented with soybean meal .93 7.74 Supplemented with urea .85 8.40 No. of trials 8 8 Supplemented with soybean meal 1.00 6.94 Pro-Sil treated silage .94 6.96 No. of trials 3 3 Supplemented with soybean meal 1.15 6.40 l.09 6.92 NH3 treated silage 14 Table 2--Continued Daily gain, kg Feed/gain Calves: A11 silage; more than 100 days on feed--continued No. of trials 4 4 Pro-Sil treated silage .86 7.44 Urea + mineral treated silage .84 7.47 No. of trials 2 2 Pro-Sil treated silage 1.14 6.16 NH3 treated silage 1.08 7.00 Calves: Added corn; less than 100 days on feed No. of trials l l Supplemented with soybean meal 1.19 5.72 Pro-Sil treated silage 1.17 5.19 No. of trials 1 1 Supplemented with soybean meal 1.19 5.72 NH3 treated silage .98 6.03 No. of trials 1 1 Pro-Sil treated silage 1.17 5.19 Urea + mineral treated silage 1.11 5.74 No. of trials l l Pro-Sil treated silage 1.17 5.19 NH3 treated silage .98 6.03 Calves: Added corn; more than 100 days on feed No. of trials 3 3 No supplemental N .91 7.12 Supplemented with soybean meal 1.23 6.19 No. of trials 3 3 Supplemented with soybean meal 1.28 5.76 Supplemented with urea 1.22 5.99 No. of trials 9 9 Supplemented with soybean meal 1.14 6.30 Pro-Sil treated silage 1.15 6.00 No. of trials 3 3 Supplemented with soybean meal 1.15 6.02 1.13 5.96 NH3 treated silage 15 Table 2--Continued Daily gain, kg Feed/gain Calves: Added corn; more than 100 days on feed--continued No. of trials 4 4 Pro-Sil treated silage 1.11 6.25 Urea + mineral treated silage 1.07 6.52 No. of trials 2 2 Pro-Sil treated silage 1.22 5.45 NH3 treated silage 1.20 5.24 No. of trials 1 1 Urea treated silage 1.17 5.99 Urea + mineral treated silage 1.13 6.41 Yearlings: All silage; less than 100 days on feed No. of trials 4 4 Supplemented with soybean meal 1.01 8.05 Supplemented with urea .96 8.45 No. of trials 4 4 Supplemented with soybean meal .89 8.82 Pro-Sil treated silage .89 8.60 No. of trials 1 1 Supplemented with soybean meal 1.92 3.87 NH3 silage 1.71 3.89 Yearlings: A11 silage; more than 100 days on feed No. of trials 2 2 No supplemental N .71 8.19 Supplemented with soybean meal 1.05 6.98 No. of trials 5 5 Supplemented with soybean meal 1.02 7.23 Pro-Sil treated silage .96 7.15 No. of trials 1 1 Supplemented with soybean meal 1.15 6.62 NH3 treated silage .97 6.74 No. of trials 2 2 Pro-Sil treated silage 1.14 7.17 Urea + mineral treated silage 1.19 6.84 16 Table 2. --Continued Daily gain, kg Feed/gain Yearlings: A11 silage; more than 100 days on feed--continued No. of trials 2 2 Urea treated silage 1.11 6.61 Urea + mineral treated silage 1.19 6.84 Yearlings: Added corn; less than 100 days on feed No. of trials 1 1 No supplemental N 1.03 6.18 Supplemented with soybean meal 1.16 5.76 No. of trials 2 2 Supplemented with soybean meal 1.28 5.97 Supplemented with urea 1.25 6.06 No. of trials 1 1 Supplemented with soybean meal 1.16 5.76 Pro-Sil treated silage 1.17 6.16 No. of trials 1 l Supplemented with soybean meal 1.16 5.76 NH3 treated silage 1.10 6.63 No. of trials 1 l Pro-Sil treated silage 1.17 6.16 NH3 treated silage 1.10 6.63 Yearlings: Added corn; more than 100 days on feed No. of trials 3 3 No supplemental N 1.15 6.85 Supplemented with soybean meal 1.32 6.48 No. of trials 4 4 Supplemented with soybean meal 1.24 6.14 Supplemented with urea 1.17 6.92 No. of trials 9 9 Supplemented with soybean meal 1.05 7.69 Pro-Sil treated silage 1.05 7.68 aBased on data in Table 1. Weighted averages were computed in each comparison utilizing only the trials in which both treatments involved in the comparison were included. 17 .~ o—aah :. ouau co uunoma 5+ m.~—+ nn —pn v.~mn nu m.un m.n+ m.n—n c.mp+ m.—o+ m.vmn m v.em+ e.—mn _ a .=_am\uuou a .=.am »_.aa m_o*cu co .oz om~—_m caucus» _ococ.s + cos: .m> coop—m umuaocu was: a .c_a0\uaaa a .=.~o »_.ao m.o.cu no .02 moo—v“ wouaocu «:2 ... «9.... was...» ..m-o.a a .cwo9\ua~c u .c.ao »_.oo m.o.cu 5o .02 own—v“ cognac» _uco:.e + can: .m> vamp.“ cognac“ pwmnoga a .cvom\ummm a .=_oo »__ao m_ovcu co .0: om~_—m uwuomcu mxz .m» —aue cauaaon zap: :o_uau:wsmpaa=m a .:_mm\vmwm a .c*om >_vao m_~.cu yo .oz emu—wm cognac” ..muoca .m» —oue :ouaxOm guy: covuaucm2o_aa=m u .=_am\amaa a .=_~a s_.ao u_aficu we .02 cos: guvz :owuaucoEo_aqam .m) —~ue coonxom guvz cowuaucmEa—aaam a .cpmm\ueou u .c..a aroma m_o.cu mo .oz page camnxom cu.) =o_u~u:weo—an=m .m> z —aucoso_gaam oz «sue oo—A «mac oo—v axov oopw want oo—v :sou vovu< when OOPA mxou aopv axov co—A axov co—v vac—.m ——< 500 tmuv< aoa——u ——< away—coo» mo>—ou com—Lonsou Do: savanna—z no moccaom u:¢.ga> 59.: m:¢.u~u «on—.m cgou tom o—uuuu yo oucasgomcog uo—uoou so com—cansounn.n «pa.» 18 gain and feed efficiency for unsupplemented rations in these trials are likely a result of the low quantity and poor utilization of corn silage protein. Supplemental nitrogen appears to be more critical for rations containing all silage than for those where corn is added. This is probably due to the fact that the added corn increases the preformed protein content as well as the energy density of the ration. Comparison 1 also demonstrates that calves have a greater need for supplemental protein than yearlings, as would be expected. In Comparison 2, soybean meal (SBM) was superior to urea with respect to feedlot performance under all conditions examined. However, differences in performance between rations supplemented with SBM and urea tended to decrease when corn was added to the ration, the length of the feeding period increased or yearlings were fed rather than calves. Performance of steers fed Pro-Sil treated silage or untreated silage supplemented with SBM is examined in Comparison 3. Cattle fed Pro-Sil treated silage generally required less feed per unit of gain than those cattle fed untreated corn silage supplemented with SBM. When corn was added or the length of the feeding period increased, the difference in ADC decreased. Although yearlings performed better on Pro-Sil than calves relative to SBM, Pro-Sil and SBM were equivalent with respect to A06 for both calves and yearlings fed added corn for a period greater than 100 days. Analysis of Comparison 4 reveals that with respect to animal performance SBM was superior to ammonia as a source of supplemental nitrogen for corn silage rations. Performance data of cattle receiving 19 anhydrous or aqueous ammonia have been pooled, and both are included in the values presented for ammonia treated silage. Few studies have been conducted in which performance of cattle fed aqueous or anhydrous ammonia have been compared. A study by Fox and Cook (1977) revealed that cattle receiving corn silage treated with aqueous ammonia had a slightly higher A00 and a lower F/G than those receiving silage treated with AN. Differences in performance between cattle supplemented with SBM and ammonia tended to decrease as corn was added to the ration or the length of the feeding period increased. Sufficient data are not available on yearling steers fed ammonia treated silage to make valid comparisons between yearlings and calves. However, based on data for other forms of NPN, performance of yearlings would be expected to be superior to that of calves when fed silage treated with ammonia relative to untreated silage supplemented with SBM. Animal performance resulting from feeding Pro-Sil or urea + mineral treated silage is contrasted in Comparison 5. Pro-Sil addition resulted in a higher A06 and a lower F/G than urea + minerals. However, differences in performance were decreased as corn as added to the ration or length of feeding period increased. In two studies with yearlings, it appears that they perform as well or better on silage treated with urea + minerals than on silage treated with Pro-Sil. Performance of steers receiving corn silage treated with Pro-Sil or ammonia at the time of ensiling is contrasted in Comparison 6. Aqueous and anhydrous ammonia data have been pooled as in Comparison 4. Few studies have been conducted in which Pro-Sil and ammonia treatment have 20 been compared. Based on the limited data, Pro-Sil treatment resulted in a higher A06 and a lower F/G than ammonia treatment. These differences in performance decreased in magnitude as the length of the feeding period increased or as corn was added to the ration. Ammonia treatment resulted in a 1.7% lower ADG but a 4.0% lower F/G than Pro-Sil treated silage in a summary of two studies where steer calves received added corn and were fed for a period greater than 100 days. Results comparing animal performance from urea or urea + mineral treated silage in Comparison 7 are variable. However, cattle receiving the urea treated silage required less feed per unit of gain than those cattle that received silage treated with urea + minerals based on the limited data available. Further work is needed to make a valid judgment. Analysis of Table 3 reveals that NPN was more efficiently used when corn was added to the ration, length of feeding period increased or yearlings were fed rather than calves. Rations containing added corn would contain a greater amount of preformed protein and a higher energy density than all silage rations. Fox gt_al, (1977a) and Bergen gt_al, (1978) noted that it was unlikely that cattle started on feed as calves could generate sufficient microbial protein from corn silage treated with NPN to fully meet their protein requirement during the initial part of the feeding period. These scientists recognized that calves have a relatively high protein requirement during the initial phase of the feeding period and that corn silage protein is poorly utilized and is present in low quantity. They concluded that supplementation of NPN treated corn silage with a source of preformed protein such as SBM would be beneficial during the initial part of the feeding period. 21 Fox gt_gl, (1977c) summarized the results of eight starting-on-feed trials in which performance obtained from feeding NPN treated corn silage and untreated corn silage supplemented with SBM were compared. Performance of steer calves (221 kg) was evaluated for a 35-day period commencing at the time the cattle arrived at the feedlot. In all experiments, cattle fed NPN treated silage alone gained slower and had a higher F/G than cattle fed untreated corn silage supplemented with SBM. SBM supplementation of the NPN treated silage significantly improved ADG and F/G to near those levels obtained with untreated silage plus SBM. These results suggest that NPN utilization by calves during periods of stress is poor and reflect the requirement of calves for preformed protein during the initial part of the feeding period. Since these were starting-on-feed trials and the cattle were subsequently used for other experiments, it was impossible to determine the effect of nitrogen treatment on overall performance. Preston §t_gl, (1975a) conducted a starting-on-feed experiment in which steer calves (177 kg) and heifer calves (194 kg) were fed lime- stone treated corn silage supplemented with SBM only, two-thirds SBM and one-third urea, one-third SBM and two-thirds urea or urea only. This study had a duration of 69 and 66 days for the steers and heifers, respectively. Maximum gains were observed by those calves supplemented. with SBM only. However, most of the difference in feedlot performance occurred during the first 27 days of the experiment. After the first 27 days, no consistent effect on the proportion of urea in the ration was noted. These data support the contention that after an initial adjustment period, NPN may be equivalent to preformed protein as a 22 source of supplemental nitrogen for calves fed corn silage rations, depending on initial weight and availability of insoluble nitrogen in the silage. Mowat _thal, (1974) conducted an experiment in which lightweight steer calves (182 kg) were fed NPN treated corn silage or untreated silage supplemented with SBM. During the initial part of the feeding period, those cattle receiving the NPN treated silage gained significantly slower, but after they reached approximately 300 kg gains were equivalent to those obtained from feeding untreated corn silage plus SBM. However, calves that received the NPN treated silage did not fully compensate for the poor performance during the initial phase of the feeding period, and as a result, overall performance was poorer for those cattle receiving NPN treated silage. While calves fed corn silage rations have generally gained faster when fed untreated silage supplemented with SBM rather than corn silage to which NPN has been added, NPN supplementation has resulted in superior performance to feeding no supplemental nitrogen. Preston (1974) reported that lightweight steer calves (174 kg) could effectively utilize urea in corn silage based rations. Steers receiving urea supplementation had a 44% higher A06 and required 25% less feed per unit of gain than those steers that received no supplemental protein. Effect of NPN Treatment of Corn Silage on Silage Fermentation Addition of NPN to corn silage at the time of ensiling results in a higher pH than untreated control silage due to the buffering of fermentation acids by ammonia (Klosterman gt_al., 1963; Cash, 1972; 23 Shirley gt gl., 1972). Since fermentation is prolonged, lactic acid levels are increased in NPN treated corn silage. Addition of a mineral mixture to corn silage at the time of ensiling will also buffer the fermentation process and will further increase lactate production when added to silage being treated with NPN prior to ensiling (Henderson gt_§1,, 1971c; Fox and Cook, 1977). Henderson gt al. (1972) noted that lactic acid, a major end product of silage fermentation, was the most reliable indicator of silage quality. Lactate was found to be utilized more efficiently than soluble carbohydrates in the rumen due to decreased losses of methane in a study by Prigge and Owens (1976). They concluded that poor compaction of the silage decreased lactate production, increased total volatile fatty acids (VFA) and increased energy losses due to heating. Allen and Henderson (1972) added acetic and lactic acid to corn silage rations and found that acetic acid depressed daily DM intake, ADG and increased feed requirement per unit gain. Addition of lactic acid had little effect on ADG, DM consumption or F/G. Allen gt_gl, (1971) added ammonium salts to feedlot rations as the only source of supplemental protein for yearling steers and found ammonium salts of acetate and lactate were equivalent to SBM and superior to urea in promoting gain and decreasing F/G. Although NPN treated corn silages contain more ammonia and NPN (Johnson gt_gl,, 1967; Bergen gt_al,, 1974), they also have more water insoluble nitrogen, which appears related to decreased degradation of true plant protein (Johnson gt al,, 1967; Owens £5 21,, 1970; Cash, 24 1972; Bergen gt_al,, 1974; Huber gt_al,, 1979). However, the utilization of the undegraded corn silage protein or residual N is of questionable value. Very little research has been conducted in which utilization of corn silage undegraded or residual N have been studied. Bergen gt al. (1974) indicated that corn silage residual N had an amino acid pattern similar to that observed for corn kernel protein. It would seem likely that protein that escapes ruminal degradation would pass to the small intestine where further digestion might occur. However, Bergen gt 31. (1974) conducted pepsin-pancreatin digestion studies that revealed that the residual N from corn silage was poorly utilized in the small intestine. In addition to containing more lactate and true protein and having a higher pH value, ammonia treated silage also is higher in acetate (Huber and Santana, 1972; Huber gt_al,, 1973; Core gt_al,, 1974). Ammonia treated silage is also more stable than untreated silage when exposed to air (Britt and Huber, 1973; Huber, 1973; Lalonde gt_al,, 1975; Soper and Owen, 1977). Huber (1973) suggested that ammonia treated silages are more stable than urea treated silages because of partial hydrolysis of urea. Protein Requirements of Finishing Steers The National Research Council (N.R.C., 1976) has made recommenda- tions for the protein levels to be fed to finishing cattle for various weights and compositions of gain. While these standards have generally resulted in satisfactory performance, research efforts have been directed at defining the precise protein requirements for finishing 25 cattle. Increased costs of protein supplements and the potential for future price escalations have mandated that protein requirements for finishing cattle be determined more precisely. The N.R.C. (1976) recommends 10.9 and 10.5% crude protein for steers weighing 350 kg and 400 kg, respectively. However, several researchers have reported that supplemental nitrogen was not necessary during the latter part of the feeding period for 350 to 400 kg steers fed a basal grain ration containing 8.0 to 8.5% crude protein (DM basis). Preston and Cahill (1972, 1973) demonstrated that supplemental protein was not required during the latter part of the feeding period when the cattle were heavier and were receiving a corn-corn silage ration containing 8.5% crude protein (DM basis). Preston gt_gl, (1975b) concluded that steers weighing over 340 kg when started on grain based rations require at least 8.2 to 8.3% crude protein (DM basis) in order to perform as well as steers fed higher levels of protein during this same part of the feeding period. Young gt 11. (1973) fed ground ear corn finishing diets to Angus steers (332 kg) in a 112-day finishing trial. All steers were fed an SBM supplemented diet which contained 11% crude protein (DM basis) during the first 56 days of the study. During the last 56 days of the trial, SBM was removed from the diet of one-half of the steers, yielding a ration that contained 6.98% crude protein (DM basis). ADG and F/G were similar for both groups of steers. Klett gt_al, (1973) conducted a study in which all steers (250 kg) were fed a grain sorghum based ration that contained 11.5% 26 crude protein (DM basis) until they reached a weight of 385 kg. At this point, all supplemental nitrogen was withdrawn from the ration of one-half of the steers, resulting in a crude protein content of 9% (DM basis). The remainder of the cattle continued receiving 11.5% crude protein (DM basis). The authors concluded that supplemental nitrogen could be removed from grain sorghum finishing rations after steers reach a weight of.385 kg without affecting performance or carcass traits. Two finishing studies were conducted by Riley §t_§l, (1975) to determine the effect of removing supplemental protein from the diet on the performance and carcass traits of finishing steers. Supplemental protein was removed from the ration when the steers weighed 340 kg, 385 kg or 430 kg or added protein was fed throughout the duration of the feeding period. Finishing rations contained 11.2% crude protein (DM basis) prior to supplemental protein removal and 9.3 and 8.7% crude protein (DM basis) after removal in trials 1 and 2, respectively. Protein supplementation strategy resulted in no significant differences in performance or carcass traits in either of the two finishing studies. These results led the authors to conclude that British breeds of cattle do not require supplemental protein in high concentrate rations after they reach 430 kg and that withdrawal may occur as early as 340 or 385 kg with minimal effects. Canadian workers (Snoddon §t_al,, 1976) performed a study with yearling Hereford and Hereford-cross steers (338 kg) to determine at what weight supplemental protein could be withdrawn from the ration of 27 steers fed an all corn silage ration without having any detrimental effects on ADG, F/G and carcass quality. Four dietary treatments were evaluated: 1) no supplemental protein; 2) protein supplement withdrawn at 385 kg; 3) protein supplement withdrawn at 430 kg; and 4) protein supplement fed throughout the entire trial. The supplemented ration and basal ration contained 10.6 and 8.5% crude protein (DM basis), respectively. Results of this study indicated that supplemental protein can be withdrawn from a moderate to high corn silage ration at a steer liveweight of approximately 400 kg providing the basal ration contains 8.5 to 9% crude protein (DM basis). These authors also noted that later maturing European breeds may require supplemental protein beyond the weight at which it can be withdrawn from British breeds. This is in agreement with the "equivalent weight" concept of Fox and Black (1977). In a study by Cook and Fox (1977), decreasing the level of SBM supplementation of an all corn silage ration as the cattle became heavier was examined. Hereford and Charolais crossbred steers were fed either a 12.5% crude protein (DM basis) ration throughout the entire feeding period or they were fed a 12.5% crude protein (DM basis) ration until they reached an equivalent weight of 318 kg and then they received a 10.5% crude protein (0M basis) throughout the remainder of the feeding period. No significant differences in performance were noted when the level of protein was decreased from 12.5% to 10.5% when the steers reached an equivalent weight of 318 kg. Young (1978) conducted two finishing trials with Holstein steers to determine the effect of steer weight and corn intake on protein 28 withdrawal from the ration. In both trials, steers were fed a high grain (80% corn and 20% corn silage, DM basis) or a high silage (40% corn and 60% corn silage, DM basis) ration. The crude protein content of the basal and protein supplemented rations were approximately 9.6% and 12.8%, and 8.8% and 12.4% for the high grain and high silage rations, respectively. In experiment 1, removal of supplemental protein when steer calves (253 kg) reached 318, 386 or 454 kg had no effect on ADG, F/G or carcass merit on either ration when compared to steers fed protein continuously. In experiment 2, supplemental protein was with- drawn when daily intake of corn by yearling steers (310 kg) reached 4.5, 5.9 or 7.3 kg. Withdrawal of supplemental protein when daily corn intake reached 4.5, 5.9 or 7.3 kg resulted in no significant differences in ADG, F/G or carcass merit when compared to steers fed protein continuously. These authors concluded that supplemental protein could be removed from the ration of Holstein steers when they reached a weight of 318 kg or when they were consuming 4.5 kg of corn per day. Illinois workers (Peterson gt_al,, 1973) studied the influence of concentration of dietary energy on the protein needs of growing and finishing Angus x Hereford steer calves (210 kg). The four levels of dietary protein evaluated were 9, 11, 13 and 15% on a DM basis. Significantly (P > .05) greater gains were observed by increasing the protein level with higher concentrations of dietary energy. Increased dietary protein levels showed the greatest response during the first 55 days of the experiment. Level of protein had no significant effect on ADG during the remainder of the feeding period. Similar response to 29 supplemental protein was noted by Braman gt_gl, (1973). They conducted a study with Brangus x Hereford-Shorthorn steers (253 kg) to determine the effect of protein concentration on the performance of ruminants fed a high concentrate diet. All concentrate diets composed of high- moisture corn and protein supplement were formulated to provide dietary protein concentrations of approximately 10.8, 13.8, 15.7 and 18.4% on a DM basis. Within each level of dietary protein, urea or SBM was the source of supplemental nitrogen. The greatest response to increased dietary protein concentrations was observed early in the finishing period with little advantage to supplemental protein observed in the later phase. Dietary protein concentration had little apparent effect on carcass parameters. The results of these two studies support the concept that the level of supplemental protein can be decreased as cattle become heavier and their need for protein decreases as a percen- tage of ration DM. Workman et 31, (1979) conducted two studies with Hereford and Hereford-cross steers to determine the effect of protein withdrawal during the finishing phase on feedlot performance. Cattle were fed a whole corn based ration that contained 8.2% and 11.1% and 9.8% and 12.7% crude protein (DM basis) before and after protein supplementation in trials 1 and 2, respectively. In trial 1, all steers (315 kg) received supplemental protein until they reached a weight of 382 kg and then supplemental protein was removed from the ration of one-half of the steers. In trial 2, all steers (224 kg) received supplemental protein until they reached a weight of 342 kg and then supplemental protein was 30 removed from the ration of one-half of the steers. Removal of supplemental protein in trial 1 resulted in no differences in performance. However, removal of protein resulted in a lower ADG and a higher F/G when compared to cattle that received continuous protein supplementation throughout the entire feeding period in trial 2. The differences in performance between the two trials was due to heavier cattle in trial 1 when protein was removed from the ration. Thus, the protein requirement of these cattle was lower on a percentage basis. Cattle in trial 1 also had a higher DM intake and consumed more total protain per day. Byers and Moxon (1979) used Hereford steers (340 kg) to determine the effect of supplemental protein on the performance of finishing steers fed an 80% whole shelled corn and 20% corn silage (OM basis) ration for 112 days. The basal ration contained 9.8% crude protein (DM basis) and 12.1% crude protein (DM basis) after supplementation. Cattle that received supplemental protein gained faster (P < .05) and required less feed per unit of gain than those fed the unsupplemented basal ration. Dartt gt_§l, (1978) utilized Hereford and Angus steers (279 kg) to study the effects of monensin and supplemental protein withdrawal on feedlot performance of finishing steers. The basal ration was com- posed of corn and corn silage and contained 7.4% crude protein (DM basis). Half of the cattle received 200 mg monensin per head daily, while the other half received no monensin. Soybean meal was fed to all cattle at .71 kg per head daily for the first 84 days when cattle reached a weight of approximately 393 kg. At that time, supplemental protein was 31 withdrawn from one-half of the steers receiving the control diet and from one-half of the steers receiving monensin. Removal of supplemental protein from the control diet resulted in a decreased ADG (P < .05). However, removal of protein from the ration containing monensin resulted in no significant decrease in ADG. These authors concluded that monensin had a protein-sparing effect in steers fed a corn silage diet. In the studies reviewed where protein withdrawal had no effect on weight gains, daily crude protein intakes were usually maintained at .70 kg or higher for the unsupplemented rations. N.R.C. (1976) recommendation is .83 kg. Thus, it would appear that supplemental protein can be withdrawn from corn-corn silage finishing rations for cattle over 318 kg equivalent weight provided crude protein intake remains near N.R.C. (1976) recommendations. However, this depends on soluble N and bound protein content of the ration. Withdrawal of supple- mental protein, resulting in basal rations that furnished only .40 to .60 kg of crude protein per day, resulted in significantly lower weight gains. Effect of Monensin on Feedlot Performance Feeding monensin sodium to growing and finishing cattle has been a major area of research during the past five years. Feeding monensin has resulted in a decreased acetate and increased pr0pionate in the rumen, but very little change in total VFA production. Since pr0pionate is used more efficiently as a source of metabolizable energy than acetate, cattle fed monensin should gain more efficiently than cattle not fed monensin (Raun gt_al,, 1976; Hungate, 1966). 32 Data collected from 28 university experiments in which monensin was fed to steers and heifers were summarized by Goodrich et_al, (1976). These experiments involved a total of 3,042 cattle and included both calves and yearlings. Monensin was fed at 5.5, 11.0, 22.0, 27.5, 33.0 or 44.0 ppm of the ration DM. With the exception of cattle receiving 44.0 ppm monensin, daily gains of cattle fed monensin were equal to or greater than gains of cattle not fed monensin. Cattle receiving 44.0 ppm monensin had lower daily gains than those fed the control ration or any other level of monensin. DM intakes declined as the level of monensin in the diet increased, and all levels of monensin resulted in a lower F/G than the control ration. Feed efficiency was improved 6.5, 6.1, 7.4, 10.3, 8.4 or 8.5 percent for cattle fed rations containing 5.5, 11.0, 22.0, 27.5, 33.0 or 44.0 ppm monensin. Maximum reduction in FIG was obtained by feeding 27.5 ppm monensin. Carcass traits were not significantly influenced by monensin. In an effort to determine the effect of monensin on carcass traits, Brown gt_al, (1974) collected data on quality grade and cutability of 1,147 cattle fed various levels of monensin. Analysis of the data revealed that monensin had little or no effect on carcass quality or cutability. Thonney (1977) also concluded that monensin had no consis- tent effect on carcass characteristics. Embry (1976) summarized the results of six experiments in which monensin was fed and analyzed feedlot performance during the growing phase and the finishing phase, separately. Monensin had only a small effect on weight gain during the growing phase. Cattle receiving 33.0 ppm monensin or less gained as much as the control group, while cattle 33 receiving 44.0 ppm monensin gained slightly less than controls. Lowest F/G was obtained by feeding 33.0 ppm monensin. These cattle consumed 9.6% less DM per day and required 9.0% less F/G than the control group. Similar benefits from feeding monensin were noted during the finishing phase with 33.0 ppm resulting in most efficient performance. There appears to be a beneficial additive effect from feeding monensin to cattle implanted with growth stimulants. Woody and Fox (1977) fed heifers 33.0 ppm monensin and noted a 5.8% lower F/G compared to heifers receiving no monensin. However, when heifers were fed 33.0 ppm monensin and also implanted with Synovex-H, they had an 11.5% higher ADG and a 6.5% lower F/G than heifers receiving monensin without a growth stimulant. Burroughs gt a1, (1976) and Embry (1976) also concluded that there was an additive response to monensin and growth promoting implants. Since monensin cannot be mixed in a ration with other feed additives, growth stimulants must be implanted when monensin is fed. Monensin feeding has been shown to initially reduce feed intake by as much as 15 to 30 percent. However, consumption gradually returns to approximately 90% of controls within 30 days (Nissen and Trenkle, 1976). This may be due to adaptation of the animal, adaptation of the rumen microbial population, or both. The increased levels of pr0pionate commonly observed when monensin is fed also suggest an alteration in rumen fermentation. Van Nevel and Demeyer (1977) conducted an jn_yitrg_study with incubations of mixed rumen microorganisms to determine the effect of monensin on the metabolism of carbohydrate or protein substrate. Monensin was found to partially inhibit methanogenesis and to increase 34 pr0pionate production. Microbial growth and efficiency of microbial growth were considerably lowered by the addition of monensin to the incubation. Besides affecting carbohydrate fermentation in the rumen, monensin decreased protein degradation, resulting in lower rumen ammonia levels. Therefore, monensin increased the quantity of protein digested postruminally. This would seem reasonable since cattle fed monensin generally consume less feed, but gain similarly to controls while consuming less protein. Therefore, it seems logical to conclude that monensin has a protein-sparing effect. Tolbert gt al. (1977) used an jg_!jtrg_study to determine the effect of monensin on DM disappearance and proteolytic activity. These workers reported that monensin depressed free ammonia levels when sorghum plus SBM or sorghum plus urea was used as the substrate. Free amino acid levels were decreased when monensin was added to sorghum plus SBM, but were increased when monensin was added to sorghum plus urea. They suggested that monensin inhibits deamination by the rumen microflora. Several experiments have been conducted to determine whether or not monensin has a protein-sparing effect. Hanson and Klopfenstein (1979) utilized two cattle growth trials to evaluate the response to monensin when diets were supplemented with various sources and levels of protein. In trial 1, performance of growing steers (260 kg) fed two sources of supplemental protein (brewers dried grains or urea), two levels of dietary crude protein (10.5% or 12.5%) and two levels of monensin (O or 200 mg/head daily) was evaluated. Monensin resulted in a 16.3% and 8.7% decrease in F/G for the 10.5% and 12.5% protein 35 treatments, respectively. Monensin addition with either level of urea supplementation tended to decrease A06 and increase F/G. The authors speculated that the differing responses in performance between brewers dried grains and urea may have been due to inhibition of microbial protein synthesis by monensin. Monensin resulted in higher concentra- tions of propionate and lower levels of ammonia nitrogen when diets were supplemented with either source of supplemental protein. In trial 2, performance of growing steers (214 kg) fed two levels of dietary protein provided by SBM (11.1% or 13.1%) and two levels of monensin (0 ppm or 33.0 ppm) was evaluated. Monensin resulted in an 8.1% and 3.2% decrease in F/G for the 11.1% and 13.1% protein treatments, respectively. Since the largest response in FIG was observed for the lower protein diets, it was concluded that monensin addition did not increase the need for supplemental protein as a percentage of ration OM for growing and finishing steers. Dartt gt_gl, (1978) investigated the effects of protein with- drawal and monensin on the performance of finishing steers. Dietary protein was more efficiencly utilized when supplemental SBM was removed from steers previously fed monensin compared to controls that did not receive monensin. Perry gt_al, (1979) also suggested that monensin may have a protein-sparing effect in diets borderline to deficient in protein. Poos et al. (1979) evaluated the influence of monensin on diet digestibility, microbial protein synthesis and ruminal bypass of dietary plant protein from grain sorghum diets supplemented with brewers dried grains or urea, using two lamb trials and a steer trial. In the lamb 36 trials, monensin reduced ruminal acetate : pr0pionate ratios, protozoal populations and anmonia levels; conversely, it increased plasma urea. Abomasally cannulated steers were used to evaluate monensin effects on nitrogen fractions entering the small intestine when brewers dried grains or urea was fed as the source of supplemental nitrogen. Monensin addition decreased bacterial nitrogen and increased plant nitrogen flow with both sources of supplemental nitrogen. Monensin addition increased amino acid flow on diets supplemented with brewers dried grains but not on those supplemented with urea. The authors concluded that monensin may spare dietary protein by decreasing ruminal proteolysis and that monensin may reduce urea utilization since flow of bacterial nitrogen was significantly reduced when monensin was added to the diet. In summary, addition of monensin to diets supplemented with preformed protein is more beneficial than addition to diets supplemented with NPN. Monensin appears to decrease the efficiency of microbial growth and thereby reduces microbial protein synthesis resulting in less flow of bacterial nitrogen to the lower gut. OBJECTIVES To determine the impact on performance of feeding corn silage treated with cold-flow anhydrous ammonia vs. untreated corn silage supplemented with soybean meal. To determine the impact on performance of feeding a decreasing level of protein in the ration as steers become heavier vs. a constant percentage of protein throughout the entire feeding period. To determine whether it would be beneficial to supplement corn silage treated with 7.80 g of cold-flow anhydrous ammonia per kg of corn silage dry matter with soybean meal until cattle reach an equivalent weight of 318 kg. To determine the effect of adding a complete mineral mix to fresh corn forage at the time of ensiling on feedlot performance. To determine the effect of calcium hydroxide addition to fresh corn forage at the time of ensiling on cattle performance. To obtain net energy values for corn silage treated with cold-flow anhydrous ammonia at the time of ensiling. To determine the effect of feeding various levels of cold-flow anhydrous ammonia treated corn silage on the performance of cattle fed on a two-phase system. To determine the effect of feeding various levels of monensin sodium on the performance of cattle fed on a two-phase system. To determine if any anhydrous ammonia x monensin interactions exist on the performance of cattle fed on a two-phase system. 37 MATERIALS AND METHODS Feedlot Studies Silage Treatments Corn silage utilized in feedlot trials 1 and 2 was harvested during the third week of September, 1976 and 1977, respectively, and was estimated to have a potential yield of 6.0 bushels of shelled corn per ton of 35% DM silage. Silage was treated with cold-flow anhydrous ammonia (AN) as it passed through the blower and stored in concrete upright silos. Representative samples were taken from each load of fresh corn forage prior to AN treatment and were later analyzed for crude protein (N x 6.25) and dry matter (DM) content. For trial 1, five different silages were made: 1) an untreated control; 2) 7.80 9 AN per kg of corn silage dry matter (KGCSDM); 3) 15.60 g AN/KGCSDM; 4) 15.60 g AN/KGCSDM plus a complete mineral mix that contained 55.15% defluorinated phosphate, 26.47% calcium sulfate and 18.38% trace mineral salt which was added at 1.68% of silage DM at the time of ensiling; 5) 15.60 g AN/KGCSDM plus calcium hydroxide added at 3% of silage DM at the time of ensiling. Two levels of AN were evaluated in this study. The low level (7.80 g AN/KGCSDM) was designed to meet the crude protein (N x 6.25) 38 39 requirement of the cattle after they reached an equivalent weight of 318 kg, while the high level (15.60 g AN/KGCSDM) was formulated to fully meet the crude protein (N x 6.25) requirement of the cattle during the entire feeding period. Since recent research (Klopfenstein, 1978) has shown that alkali treatment improved the digestibility of crop residues, calcium hydroxide was applied to determine if it would increase the digestibility of corn silage and thereby improve feedlot performance. Previous research from this station (Fox and Cook, 1977) has shown that silage treated with an ammonia mineral suspension (Pro-Sil) produced higher A06 and lower F/G than that treated with cold-flow AN. A complete mineral mix was added to AN treated silage to determine the effect of treating silage with the same minerals at ensiling vs. at feeding time. The calcium hydroxide and mineral mix were added to the silage by evenly distributing them over the fresh corn forage prior to unloading into the blower. For feedlot trial 2, three different silages were made: 1) 0 g AN/KGCSDM (untreated control); 2) 7.90 g AN/KGCSDM; 3) 15.70 g AN/KGCSDM. Silage Analyses Silages fed in feedlot trials 1 and 2 were sampled bi-weekly throughout the feeding trial and were analyzed for crude protein (N x 6.25) and DM content. Total N was determined using the Technicon Auto-Kjeldahl System and DM was determined by drying in a 600 C oven for 48 hours. 40 Silages in both trials were also analyzed every 28 days for water soluble nitrogen, water insoluble nitrogen (Bergen gt al,, 1974), lactate, acetate, pr0pionate, butyrate, pH and acid detergent fiber (Van Soest, 1963; Van Soest and Wine, 1967). For analysis, silage samples (40 g) were homogenized in 160 m1 of distilled water and strained through two layers of cheesecloth. The pH was then determined from an aliquot of the liquid extract using a pH meter. The remaining liquid extracted from the homogenate was treated with .1 volume of 50% sulfosalicyclic acid and centrifuged at 15,000 x g_for 10 minutes. The resulting supernatant was analyzed for N by micro-kjeldahl. This value was termed the water soluble nitrogen. Water insoluble nitrogen was determined by difference between total nitrogen and water soluble nitrogen. The supernatant was also analyzed for lactate by the method of Barker and Summerson (1941) and for volatile fatty acids by gas chromatography. Nitrogen recovery values computed for each of the AN treated silages were based on the N content of the silage prior to treatment, the amount of N applied and the amount of N present in the silage upon removal from the silo. The following equations were used to determine the percentage of nitrogen recovered: Nitrogen recovery (%), % total protein at feeding time - % total uncorrected for VFA protein prior to treatment loss during ON (5.12) (lbs. AN added/ton) determination (lbs. of DM/ton of silage at time of ensiling) 41 Nitrogen recovery (%), = (.936) (% total protein at feeding time) - corrected for VFA (% total protein prior to treatment) loss during DM (5.12) (lbs. AN added/ton) determination (Fox (1.068)(lbs. of DM/ton of silage at time and Fenderson, 1978) put in silo) Experimental Design and Rations for Trial 1 In trial 1, an 8 x 2 factorial design with 8 protein treatments and 2 cattle types was used. Protein treatments evaluated were: 1) untreated corn silage with no supplemental protein (unsupplemented control); 7.80 g AN/KGCSDM; 7.80 g AN/KGCSDM plus added SBM until the cattle reached an equivalent weight of 318 kg; 15.60 g AN/KGCSDM; 15.60 g AN/KGCSDM plus a complete mineral mix added at the time of ensiling; 15.60 g AN/KGCSDM plus calcium hydroxide added at the time of ensiling; untreated corn silage supplemented with SBM at a level which was decreased as the steers became heavier (declining soy); untreated corn silage supplemented with a constant level of SBM throughout the entire feeding period (constant soy). Treatments 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8 contained 7.50, 9.49, 12.19, 12.36, 12.50, and 12.57 percent crude protein (DM basis), respectively, throughout the entire feeding period. The protein level in treatments 3 and 7 were decreased as the cattle became heavier, because their protein 42 requirements on a percentage basis were thought to decrease. Cattle receiving treatment 3 were supplemented with SBM to provide 12.14% crude protein (DM basis) until they reached an equivalent weight of 318 kg, at which time SBM was removed from the diet. Cattle on treatment 7 received a 12.64, 11.61, and 10.60 percent crude protein ration (OM basis) until they reached an equivalent weight of 227 kg, when they had an equivalent weight of 227 to 272 kg, and when they had an equivalent weight greater than 318 kg, respectively. All rations contained similar levels of calcium (.60%), phos- phorous (.35-.41%), trace mineral salt (.25%) and vitamins A and D (3307 and 331 I.U./kg of DM, respectively). In addition, monensin was fed at 33.0 ppm of ration DM to all cattle. Supplement composition for trial 1 is listed in Table 4. Sixty-four Hereford (224 kg) and 64 Charolais crossbred steers (293 kg) were fed in trial 1. These calves were purchased in October, 1976, from the Arthur King Ranch in Channing, Texas and were trucked 1,931 km to the MSU Beef Cattle Research Center. After being on a 28-day starting on feed study, all cattle were fed a 13% crude protein ‘ration comprised of untreated corn silage and soybean meal for 7 days. The steers were then allotted by weight groups within each breed to the 8 treatments listed earlier. Eight steers of each cattle type (or a total of 16) were allotted to each treatment. Experimental Design and Rations for Trial 2 In trial 2, a 3 x 3 factorial design (3 levels of AN treated corn silage and 3 levels of monensin sodium) with unbalanced replication 43 .m caa mg c.2aa.> 3H ooo.mu .m con < cwsmpp> 2H ooo.omn .mx can anuom :mmcmcos m ep.mmm .. mm.m~ .. ca.m mm.~ .. aaagamoga aspaOmocoz .. n- -- mm.“ No.¢ .. acoumaEP_ aczoaw oo.oo_ .. .. «N.¢m mm.m~ .. .aas caaasom n- me. mm. mP. mo. oe. ustaca mo cwsaap> .. me. mm. mp. mo. cc. axvsmta < =PEapw> .. em.P em.m am. mm. mw.P axLEmaa om cwmcasaz n- mm.op .. __.m _m.P mm.m ppm. Patacws moat» .. Fo.m_ .. m¢.¢ NN.N ¢_.ep abac_=m Esaapau .. -n n- -n .. mm.m~ apagam05a capacwcoapcao .. N~.N¢ m¢.ea op.ep cm.m oo.me Ne w: .zoppa» Beau .ccou aczocu .............. ------n--- so no & ------n----n--n---n-n-- .o.~m “4.0 Na.m om.mm om._¢ mm.m & .acasa_aa=m to “causes evapoca moaau H> > >H HHH HH H acmwcmamcH .oc acmEm_aa:m Amwmmm zov P mech Low comuwmogsou ucmEmpaaamnn.¢ mpnmp 44 was used to evaluate the effect of supplemental nitrogen and monensin on the performance of growing and finishing cattle fed on a two-phase system. Corn silage fed in this study was treated at the time of ensiling with O, 7.90 or 15.70 g AN/KGCSDM. Monensin was added at 0, 16.5 or 33.0 ppm of ration DM. One hundred thirty-five Brangus steers (229 kg) were fed in trial 2. These calves were purchased in November, 1977, from the Arthur King Ranch in Channing, Texas and were trucked 1,931 km to the MSU Beef Cattle Research Center. After being on a 13% crude protein ration of untreated corn silage and soybean meal for 28 days, the cattle were allotted by weight groups to the following treatment combinations: 1) 0 g AN/KGCSDM with 0 ppm monensin in ration DM; 2) 0 g AN/KGCSDM with 16.5 ppm monensin in ration DM; 3) 0 g AN/KGCSDM with 33.0 ppm monensin in ration DM; 4) 7.90 g AN/KGCSDM with 0 ppm monensin in ration DM; 5) 7.90 g AN/KGCSDM with 16.5 ppm monensin in ration DM; 6) 7.90 g AN/KGCSDM with 33.0 ppm monensin in ration DM; 7) 15.60 g AN/KGCSDM with 0 ppm monensin in ration DM; 8) 15.60 g AN/KGCSDM with 16.5 ppm monensin in ration DM; 9) 15.60 g AN/KGCSDM with 33.0 ppm monensin in ration DM. Treatment combinations 4 through 9 were replicated, while 1 through 3 were not. Nine steers were assigned to each pen. A small amount of urea was added to the AN treated silages to make them approxi- mately equal in crude protein content (N x 6.25) to corn silages treated with 7.80 and 15.60 g AN/KGCSDM in trial 1. 45 All steers were fed corn silage rations during the growing phase until their respective pen had an average weight of approximately 372 kg. At that time, 2 steers were randomly selected from that pen for intermediate slaughter and the remaining 7 were switched to a corn-corn silage finishing ration containing 77% high-moisture whole corn on a DM basis. The finishing ration initially contained 27% high- moisture corn on a DM basis and the amount of corn was increased 5% per day over a 10-day period until it reached 77%. Cattle received the same respective AN and monensin treatments during both the growing and finishing phases. The crude protein levels in the growing and finishing rations were: 8.5 and 10.5, 10.5 and 10.8, and 12.3 and 11.4 for the O, 7.90, and 15.70 g AN/KGCSDM treatments, respectively. All rations contained similar levels of trace mineral salt (.25%) and vitamins A and D (3307 and 331 I.U./kg, respectively). Growing and finishing rations contained .60% and .46% calcium, respectively, and .35% and .36% phosphorous, respectively. Supplement composition for trial 2 is listed in Table 5. Management Procedures Within 12 hours of arrival to the MSU Beef Cattle Research Center, all steers were tattooed, ear-tagged and vaccinated for pasteur- ella, IBR, BVD and P13. All cattle were injected with 2 million I.U. of vitamin A. At the onset of the experiment, cattle in trial 1 were implanted and were reimplanted after being on feed for 111 days with Ralgro. 46 .xwemca no eaam\mo c.5aaw> no 2H coo.mu .x_saca no sacm\< cesauw> co 2H ooo.om 3 .mx con sawuom cwmcmcos m mm.~mpm ma.m~ ma.m~ ea.mN -- -- .. accomms._ ucaogw _m.N _m.N NM.N -- -n .. aewao_ga Ezwmmaaoa mm. mm. am. «e. «a. 44. UXPEBea ma cesaa_> mm. mm. mm. ee. 44. we. axPEata < cwaaa_> em. mm. -- No. we. -- axwemga om cwmcae=m m¢.m me.m me.m mm.m mm.m mm.m a_am _aca=.e aback .. -- .. mp.ep m_.¢F e_.¢F apae_=m s=.a_au -- -- .. -.m~ wN.mN mN.m~ manganese empa=_co=_caa _m.eo No.48 mm.em mm.me om.e¢ e~.m¢ «4 m: .zo_.a» Beau .ccoa e=3028 ............... -------- 2D no & ------------- ------n mm.m mm.m m_.~ ma.e mm.e mN.m & .pcasapaasm co panacea cwauoca mango H> > >_ HHH HH H Seaweacmca .o: ucw5m_ga:m Amwmmm zov N Fave» Low comuwmoneoo acmsmpaazmnn.m mpnm» 47 Steers in trial 2 were intiially implanted with DES and were reimplanted with Synovex-S when they were switched to the finishing ration. Ration ingredients were mixed immediately prior to feeding in a horizontal batch mixer. Complete rations were fed once daily. Daily feed records were maintained and unconsumed feed was removed, weighed and the amount recorded. Sufficient feed was furnished so that bunks were nearly clean before each feeding. Cattle were individually weighed at the beginning of each experiment and every 28 days thereafter until they were terminated from the study. Initial and final weights were taken after 16 hours without feed and water. Intermediate weights were taken after a 16-hour withdrawal from water only. All cattle were group-fed and housed in concrete lots which were partially covered, and bedded with straw. Approximately one-half of the floor space of each pen was covered by a roof. Cattle in each pen had access to an automatic waterer. Initial and Intermediate Slaughter Procedures Initial slaughter calves were selected to be representative of those cattle placed on feed in both trials. Eight steers (four of each cattle type) were slaughtered at the beginning of trial 1 and nine steers were slaughtered at the onset of trial 2 to estimate initial body composition of their respective steer mates placed on experiment. Trial 1 initial slaughter cattle were killed at a commercial packing plant (Walters Packing Plant, Coldwater, Michigan) located 105 km from the MSU Beef Cattle Research Center. Trial 2 initial slaughter cattle were killed at the MSU Meats Lab. Carcass composition of the 48 initial slaughter group was estimated by analysis of the 9-10-11 rib cut from one side of each carcass (Hankins and Howe, 1946). Rib sections were removed and further processed at the MSU Meats Lab. The soft tissue portion of the 9-10-11 rib cut was ground five times through a .47 cm screen, thoroughly mixed, and a subsample (1 kg) was frozen (-20°C) until analyzed for fat, protein (N x 6.25) and moisture. Total N was determined on a 1 g wet sample using a Technicon Auto- Kjeldahl System. After thawing, moisture content was determined by drying approximately 6 to 7 g in a 100°C oven for 24 hours. Ether extractable fat was determined on the oven dried sample by the Goldfisch procedure. The following equations derived by Hankins and Howe (1946) were used to estimate carcass composition from composition of the rib cut: y = .66x + 5.98 where: y = carcass protein (%) and x = rib protein (%). y = .77x + 2.82 where: y = carcass fat (%) and x = rib fat (%). Empty body composition was calculated from carcass composition using the following equations developed by Garrett and Hinman (1969): y = .7772x + 4.456 where: y = empty body protein (%) and x = carcass protein (%). y = .9246x - .647 where: y = empty body fat (%) and x = carcass fat (%). 49 Two steers were randomly selected from each pen in trial 2 for intermediate slaughter at the end of the growing phase. These cattle were killed at the MSU Meats Lab and body composition was determined by the specific gravity technique (Kraybill gt_gl,, 1952). Specific = carcass wt. in air gravity (carcass wt. in air - carcass wt. in water)(correction for water and carcass temp.) Weights were obtained on the chilled carcass in air and in water. A Toledo Pan Balance was mounted over a steel tank that had a diameter of 112 cm and a height of 183 cm. The tank was filled nearly full with water, and crushed ice was added to maintain the temperature of the water at 10°C or lower. The front and rear quarters of the left side of each carcass were individually suspended from the balance and weighed while totally immersed under water. Carcass and water temperatures were obtained periodically. The following equations derived by Garrett and Hinman (1969) were used to estimate carcass composition from carcass density: y = (20.0x - 18.57)(6.25) where: y = carcass protein (%) and x = carcass specific gravity. y = 587.86 - 530.45x where: y = carcass fat (%) and x = carcass specific gravity. Final Slaughter and Carcass Evaluation Procedures In trial 1, Hereford and Charolais crossbred steers were slaughtered at average final shrunk weights of 436 and 523 kg, respectively. 50 In trial 2, cattle were slaughtered at an average final shrunk weight of 486 kg. Steers were withheld from feed and water for 16 hours before final weights were taken, and cattle in trial 1 were scanned over the 12th rib for fat thickness using an Ithaco Ultrasonic Scanprobe. Cattle were trucked 177 km to Dinner Bell Meats in Archbold, Ohio where they were slaughtered. Hot carcass weights were obtained and complete carcass data were collected by a USDA grader after the carcasses had been chilled for a minimum of 24 hours. Following grader evaluation, final body composition of each steer was determined by the specific gravity technique described earlier. Net Energy Evaluation Net energy values were computed for each protein treatment in trial 1 and for each of the treatments in trial 2 using the system developed by Lofgreen and Garrett (1968). Empty body weight and empty body composition were estimated from hot carcass weight and carcass density, respectively, using the following equations developed by Garrett and Hinman (1969): y = 1.362x + 30.26 where: y = empty body weight (kg) and x = hot carcass weight (kg). y = (15.97x - 14.17)(6.25) where: y = empty body protein (%) and x = carcass specific gravity. y = 551.38 - 498.5x where: y = empty body fat (%) and x = carcass specific gravity. 51 Protein and fat were assumed to contain 5686 kcal/kg (Garrett gt_al,, 1959) and 9367 kcal/kg (Blaxter and Rook, 1953), respectively. Net energy calculations were based on N.R.C. (1976) metabolizable energy values and dry matter intakes were not adjusted for loss of volatiles during DM determination. Lofgreen and Garrett (1968) observed that it was possible to indirectly measure heat production (HP) at zero feed intake by deducting energy balance (EB) from metabolizable energy intake (ME), thus HP = ME - EB. These investigators also indicated that over the range from maintenance to gg_libitum feed intake, there was a linear relationship between daily heat production and daily ME intake. By computing HP at gg_libitum intake from the previously described equation and using 77 kcal as HP at zero ME intake, a regression equation describing the linear relation- ship between log(HP) and ME was established. This equation made it possible to determine the ME intake at which energy equilibrium could be achieved. Net energy values for maintenance (NEm) and gain (NEg) were determined using the following equations described by Lofgreen and Garrett (1968): NEm = __ 77 kcal (ME intake required for energy equilibrium) ME of ration .energy balance . . total DM intake - (ME intake requégegffggt$2firgy equ111br1um) NEg 52 Economic Analyses Economic analyses of the treatments fed in trials 1 and 2 were performed using feed ingredient prices that reflect current as well as historical market relationships. Corn silage was priced relative to the value of the corn it contained and was priced to yield equal earnings per hectare of land as grain production (Woody and Black, 1978). Non-feed costs were fixed at $0.33/head/day for all treatments and included interest on investment, housing and labor, and equipment for feeding, but did not include charges for death loss and marketing expenses. Break-even prices for AN and SBM were computed based on performance obtained in trial 1 and were used to determine future profitability of the 15.60 g AN/KGCSDM, declining soy and constant soy treatments. Nitrogen Balance Trial Design A metabolism study was conducted to evaluate the nitrogen status of eight Hereford steers (270 kg) fed the unsupplemented control, 7.80 g AN/KGCSDM or 15.60 g AN/KGCSDM treatments from feedlot trial 1. These treatments were fed with 33.0 ppm monensin or without monensin. Steers were confined to individual stalls (91 x 244 cm) and were elevated approximately 30 cm above the floor on wooden platforms. Platforms were designed to make fecal collection possible without animal interference and a coarse mesh area in the center of the platform facilitated the collection of urine in a pan placed underneath. Steers were fed twice daily at 12-hour intervals and had free access to water. 53 Cattle were adjusted to each ration for 21 days prior to collection. Each collection period had a duration of 8 days, with fecal and urine output measured, recorded and sampled daily. Prior to each collection period, animals were allowed one day of rest before being adjusted to the next treatment for 21 days. Nitrogen balance was expressed as total nitrogen intake - (fecal N + urinary N). Sample Collection and Preparation Total fecal output was collected on large plastic sheets placed directly behind each steer at floor level. Feces were removed each day, weighed, and a 10% subsample secured. Subsamples were composited for each steer at the end of each collection period. The composite samples were thoroughly mixed, and 10% of the composite was frozen for later analysis. Urine was collected in the bottom sections of 208 liter drums in containers that had a capacity of approximately 30 liters. The urine collection pans were of such dimension that they would fit directly under the mesh area of the wooden platforms. Prior to placing the urine collection pans under the platforms, 400 ml of 6N hydrochloric acid was added to prevent escape of ammonia or other nitrogenous compounds from the urine, and the collection pans were covered with wire screening to prevent contamination of the urine by foreign material. Urine was collected daily and the volume per steer was recorded. If the volume was less than 10 liters, urine was diluted to that volume with water. A 10% subsample was secured each day, and at the end of the 8-day collection subsamples were composited for each steer. Composite samples were thoroughly mixed and a 10% aliquot was frozen for later analysis. 54 Ration grab samples were obtained at each feeding as the feed was discharged from a small horizontal mixer. Feed samples were composited for each steer at the end of the collection period, chopped in a Hobart food chopper, and a 1 kg subsample was frozen for later analysis. Nitrogen and DM Determination Total nitrogen content of feed, feces and urine samples were determined on wet samples using the Technicon Auto-Kheldahl System. Dry matter of feed and fecal samples were obtained by drying in a 60°C oven for 48 hours. Data Calculation and Statistical Analysis In feedlot trials 1 and 2, average daily gain was based on an adjusted final liveweight which was calculated by dividing the hot carcass weight of each steer by the mean dressing percentage for that trial (Goodrich and Meiske, 1971). High-moisture corn and corn silage dry matter intakes were adjusted by multiplicative factors of 1.03 and 1.068, respectively, to correct for loss of volatiles during DM determination in a 60°C oven (Fox and Fenderson, 1978). Analysis of variance (Snedecor and Cochran, 1967) was used to examine main effects and interactions for average daily gain (ADG), average daily dry matter intake (ADDMI), relative dry matter intake (RELDMI) which represents 9 of dry matter intake/kg of weight '75, feed efficiency (F/G), net energy values, nitrogen balance and N retained/N intake. Least squares analyses (Snedecor and Cochran, 1967) were used 55 to examine main effects and interactions on carcass quality, yield and body composition parameters. The model included final warm carcass weight as a continuous covariate across all treatments. Least squares analyses were also used to determine the effect of various ammonia and mineral treatments at the time of ensiling on silage characterization. When appropriate, orthogonal contrasts (Snedecor and Cochran, 1967) were designed for comparing selected treatment combinations of primary interest. If P < .20, the level of statistical significance was reported. If this level of statistical significance existed for a given trait in consecutive studies, it would be significant for the pooled data (Gill, 1979; Black and Harpster, 1978). It is not claimed that these values are significant, but rather are candidates for being significant if the results were repeated in a large number of trials. Procedures for pooling data from independent experiments have been described by Black and Harpster (1978). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Silage Characterization Characterizations of the silages fed in trials 1 and 2 are listed in Tables 6 and 7, respectively. Orthogonal contrasts were constructed for the treatment combinations of primary interest to determine whether differences between treatments were statistically significant. These contrasts and their respective results are presented in Tables 8 and 9, respectively. Trial 1 In Table 8, contrast 1 reveals that AN treatment of corn silage resulted in increased crude protein (P < .0005), soluble nitrogen (P = .022), lactate (P = .086), acetate (P = .011), pr0pionate (P = .027), butyrate (P = .004) and pH (P = .013). These results are in agreement with previous research which has shown that compared to untreated silage, those treated with ammonia solutions are higher in lactate and insoluble nitrogen (Cash, 1972; Huber §t_gl,, 1973; Huber, 1975). The higher levels of lactate and volatile fatty acids and higher pH of the AN treated silages suggest that the ammonia buffered and prolonged fermen- tation. Ammonia treatment resulted in no significant difference (P > .20) in acid detergent fiber content. Contrast 2 shows that silage treated with 15.60 g AN/KGCSDM had more crude protein (P < .0005), soluble nitrogen (P < .0005), insoluble nitrogen (P = .014), acetate (P = .037), pr0pionate (P = .016), 56 57 .Amnmpv comgmocmu new xom a .coouoe ago no mango oop\msocm mo ooocooog moo moapo> omospo no.0“ oo.oo -.oa o~.oo .. swoop can oaouaccoo No.mu oo.m~ mm.mu oo.- nn moo, Loo oooomccoocs omopwm ooooocu o_:osEo no mmopo> aco>oooc :omocowz Np.m~ o~.o~ mm.o~ m_.o~ Rm.nm & .Loawc ocomcmooo owo< mm.m ~m.e om.e ep.¢ om.m Ia om.m mp. mo. _o.v Fo.v moacaozm mp. no. go. me. .o. mamacooaoea up.m om.~ mo.~ om.~ em.P amoaooo< NN.¢ mm.o mo.m om.m mm.m aooaooao _m. mu. as. on. em. acomocowc o_nzpomco mF.P ¢~.F NN._ cm. on. acamoaooc aFa=_om m~.~P Fm.~F P¢.N. m~.m mu.“ a .cooooca mango om.mm ep.~m mN.Fm No.Nm mo.¢m & .ocooamc no as?“ pa .aooas sea m e m N P .o: ocmanocp Nazovao + m_aea=wa + zamoo¥\z< zomoo¥\z< _oao=ou saga zomoox\z< zamoo¥\z< m oo.mp a om.“ oaommgoc: m oo.m_ m om.mp ocosuooco omopwm AF —mwgpv mowpmwgouooconu omopwm co “cospomcp no 88:. --.o as"; 58 Table '7.--Effect of Anhydrous Ammonia Treatment on Silage Characteristics (Trial 2) Level of anhydrous ammonia treatment 0 g 7.90 g 15.70 9 Item AN/KGCSDM AN/KGCSDM AN/KGCSDM Dry matter at time of feeding, % 31.27 31.16 30.94 Crude protein, % 8.81 9.82 10.82 Soluble nitrogena .66 .68 .70 Insoluble nitrogena .75 .89 1.03 Lactatea 4.91 7.36 8.04 Acetatea 2.57 3.00 3.41 Propionatea .60 .18 .16 Butyratea .11 .20 .20 pH 4.16 3.94 4.01 Acid detergent fiber, % 27.99 26.51 28.36 Nitrogen recovery values of ammonia treated silage Uncorrected for VFA logs - 87.10 63.60 Corrected for VFA loss - 76.65 58.74 aThese values are reported as grams/100 grams of dry matter. bFox and Fenderson (1978). 59 .o~. x . ..cogo...o ......om....o .0; n m: ..ouuos ago .o mango oo.\mso.o no oougooo. 0.. mo=.o> amoeba .umogucoo oz. :. oo>—o>c. mucoEuoosu use neocoo no. u ops.» c. «gonzo: ocoauoocu «so on ocoomocgoo momogucosoo :. no... as» uc—zop—ou moo..uuo=mo .owo.. ~..m~ ... o..o~ ..oo.. «... ..> N... .mOOO... oo.. ... ... .mcoo... ... ... no. .o.o.. .... ... om.~ ...o.. .... ... a... .m.o.. .a. ... ... .owo.. n... ... .~.. .mz. o..~. ... .m.~. .mz. o..~n ... ...Nn .mz. .o..~ ..s oa.o~ .mz. ~o.¢ ... o... .mooo.v. SON a“, 80 .ooo.. PF. cm, 8. .ooo.. .o.~ ... n..~ .mz. o... ... a... .oa... co. ... ... .mz. o... ... N... .mz. ...N. .m> ...~. .mz. m~.~n .m> w~.—n ...... no... ... o..o~ .o~o.. a... .ms e... .mooo.v. no. ... .o.v ...o.. g. o“’ NO. ...o.. n..~ ... o~.~ .mz. m... ... on.» ...o.. ... ..> on. Amoco.vv -.— .m> ca. Amoco.Vv —v.~p .m> 05.3 .mz. o...n ... .o... .mz. .N... ... .m..~ ...o.. .... ... o... ..oo.. .o.. ... .o.v ..~o.. .o. ... .o. ...o.. om.~ ... .... .ooo.. .... ..> no." .Nwo.. o.. ... «o. .mooo.v. N... ... o0. .mooo.vv sQ... .m> m~.s .mooo.v. ao.~m ..> on... u .Loa—v acousouov uwo< so nouoLAuom aoaoco.oo.o nououoo< nouoouo. acoaogu.= u.no.ouc. acomocu_c o.oo.om a .:_ouo.o ooouu u .oc.ooo. .o S... 2 .332 to 3. Naomi”. + :omuux\z< oo.m. .u> Ac». mpogoc.s + zamuuxxa . .. Swat}... 8... n .... zomoox\m< o co... .ms . .. £33....“ a 8. . N “why 0.. th no u—pm UQuoOLu 2:95... .2. 2: .ogucoo couscous: ... auocucou .ocoooguco scum ... povchv mo.un..ouoosogu coo——m yo com..oosou acoEpooL. oouoo—om so» monocucou .ocoooguLOnn.a o.oo~ 60 Table 9. --Orthogonal Contrasts for Selected Comparisons of Silage Characteristics (Trial 2)a Item Contrast No anhydrous ammonia (0 g AN/KGCSDM) vs. with anhydrous ammonia (7.90 g AN/KGCSDM, 15.70 g AN/KGCSDM) 7.90 g AN/KGCSDM vs. 15.70 g AN/KGCSDM Dry matter at time of feeding, % Crude protein, % Soluble nitrogenb Insoluble nitrogenb Lactateb Acetateb Propionateb Butyrateb pH Acid detergent fiber, % 31. 27 27 vs. 31.05 (NS) .81 vs. 10.32 (.001) .66 vs. .69 (.003) .75 vs. .96 (NS) .91 vs. 7.70 (<.0005) .57 vs. 3.20 (NS) .60 vs. .17 (.005) .11 vs. .20 (.004) .16 vs. 3.98 (NS) .99 vs. 27.44 (NS) 31.16 vs. 30.94 (NS) 9.82 vs. 10.82 (.025) .68 vs. .70 (.074) .89 vs. 1.03 (NS) 7.36 vs. 8.04 (NS) 3.00 vs. 3.41 (NS) .18 vs. .16 (NS) .20 vs. .20 (NS) 3.94 vs. 4.01 (NS) 26.51 vs. 28.36 (.023) aNS = Not statistically different; P > .20. b These values are reported as grams/100 grams of dry matter. 61 butyrate (P < .0005), slightly more acid detergent fiber (P = .196) and a higher pH (P = .028) than silage treated with 7.80 g AN/KGCSDM. There was no significant difference in the level of lactate (P > .20). While 15.60 g AN/KGCSDM appears to have resulted in greater buffering of the fermentation process than 7.80 g AN/KGCSDM as evidenced by the higher pH, lactate production was unchanged. Contrast 3 compares the silage characteristics resulting from treatment with 15.60 g AN/KGCSDM to silage treated with the same level of AN to which a complete mineral mix or calcium hydroxide were added at the time of ensiling. Addition of these materials resulted in more acetate (P = .089), pr0pionate (P = .006) and butyrate (P < .0005). Silages to which the mineral mix or calcium hydroxide were added at the time of ensiling also had slightly more insoluble nitrogen (P = .190). There was no significant difference (P > .20) in the level of crude protein, soluble nitrogen, lactate, pH or acid detergent fiber. Contrast 4 compares the effects on silage characterization of adding a complete mineral mix or calcium hydroxide at the time of ensiling to silage treated with 15.60 g AN/KGCSDM. Silage to which calcium hydroxide had been added contained less soluble nitrogen (P = .028) and lactate (P = .047), but had more insoluble nitrogen (P = .015), acetate (P = .019), pr0pionate (P < .0005), butyrate (P < .0005), acid detergent fiber (P = .080) and a higher pH (P = .001). All silages in trial 1 were very uniform in crude protein and DM composition (6.9% and 33%, respectively) at the time of harvest. 62 Trial 2 Addition of AN resulted in higher levels of crude protein (P = .001), soluble nitrogen (P = .003), lactate (P < .0005) and butyrate (P = .004), but no significant difference (P > .20) in acid detergent fiber (Table 9). These results are in agreement with those obtained for trial 1. However, in trial 1, AN treatment resulted in higher levels of insoluble nitrogen (P = .022), acetate (P = .011), pr0pionate (P = .027) and pH (P = .013), but in trial 2, AN treatment resulted in no significant difference (P > .20) in insoluble nitrogen, acetate or pH and lower levels of pr0pionate (P = .005). Silage treated with 15.70 g AN/KGCSDM contained more crude protein (P = .025), soluble nitrogen (P = .074) and acid detergent fiber (P = .023) than silage treated with 7.90 g AN/KGCSDM. There were no significant differences in the levels of insoluble nitrogen, lactate, acetate, pr0pionate, butyrate or pH. Lactate production was not significantly improved by increasing the level of AN treatment from 7.90 to 15.70 g AN/KGCSDM. Similar results were obtained in trial 1. In comparing the effects of AN treatment on silage character- istics between trials 1 and 2, it is important to note that all silages in trial 1 were very uniform in DM and crude protein composition (33% and 6.9%, respectively) at the time of harvest. In trial 2, all silages were harvested at similar levels of DM content (32%) but varied in crude protein content. Silages treated with 0, 7.80, and 15.60 g AN/KGCSDM contained 8.5, 6.2, and 5.9 percent crude protein, respectively, at the time of ensiling. Therefore, these differences must be considered when 63 interpreting the contrasts in Table 9 and comparing results between trials 1 and 2. Bias in trial 2 was against the AN treated silages and least favored the 15.70 g AN/KGCSDM treatment. Therefore, in instances where this silage treatment was superior, it would be expected to have even greater superiority if all silages contained the same level of crude protein at ensiling. Nitrogen recovery values for AN treated silages are listed in Tables 6 and 7. These values ranged from 58.74% to 76.65% when corrected for loss of volatiles during DM determination (Fox and Fenderson, 1978). Feedlot Trial 1 Feedlot Performance Summaries of the performance obtained from each protein treat- ment for the Hereford and Charolais crossbred steers are reported in Tables 10 and 11, respectively. Since there were no interactions between protein treatment and cattle type, cattle types were pooled within each protein treatment and the pooled data appear in Table 12. The supplement numbers listed in Tables 9, 10 and 11 correspond to those in Table 4. Seven orthogonal contrasts were constructed for the treatment combinations of primary interest to determine whether differences in animal performance were statistically significant. These contrasts and their respective results are presented in Table 13. Examination of contrast 1 reveals that cattle that received supplemental protein had a 44.3% higher ADG (P < .0005), an 11.1% higher ADDMI (P = .001) and required 22.6% less feed per unit of gain (P < .0005). There was no significant difference in RELDMI (P > .20). These results 64 ..Nm.. .... . ...oaong coo—cguoa au.>ocu u.».ooom ago an oo:.scouoo no: no» «nausea w .oo..oa o=.oao. a.» .9 ..oc..so. ago to. on. was . .cuso.aa=m ac. axon ... on... a.» to. on. no: ... ocaeu.aa=mu omom. .u: monogoo co: a .u3 pug?» ..mso. .comgooco. woo xouv coso 9 .oo o c. =o.uoc.sgouoo to u:..:o no..u-—o> uo «no. so. ouomcooaoo ou moo.. mo couoo. a an oo..o.u.=s ago: moxooc. to coo..o ccou u "apneLow no.2op—op oz» mc—m: on.om .o oooucouuoo o=.mmogv acoumcou o o» ooumonoo ago: .mu: .oc.uu ..o».: to. one. ozoguvx ”goo: o. gouwo coxo» «so: .moz .o.u.c.o .ucosuooau c.0uoLo soon so «sooua o.o.ogo: uno.o ago: ogogpo n.- o.- a.m~ o.o~ v.a~ ¢.- ..o~ o.m~ ya .uou mucogou .c.~ n~.s no.“ pc.o «5.5 vo.o mw.m o—.o— o u\u c.—o —.co ~.on n... ~.~m m.on e.~m e... mu..u3\mso.o ..zo4u¢ nu om. un nn nu nn nn nn _> u:oEo.oo=m un nu m.. nn nu nu nu nn > acoeo.oo=m nn nu nn «a. nu nu nn nn >~ ocoEo.ooom nn nu nu nn nn coo. nn nn ... u:o&o.oo=m an. nn nn nn nn nn nn nn - acoeo_oo=m nn 5.. nn nn ... up. 9.. m.. . ucoeo.ooom us.m oc.o oc.o wa.m m~.o oo.m oo.o oo.m coo...» :Lou oo.o o~.o m..o mo.m oo.o m..o -.o .o.m o. .oxouc. zo >..oo omoco>< «a. no. on. «s. on. ... as. mm. a. .c.oo A..oo omoco>< mo~ mow moN m- mom m.~ m.~ msw coo. co g8 ... ... an. an. no. o... ..o o.. um. ...: ..=.. m- n- n- -~ o- mNN -~ mNN no. ..u: .....c. ~m.~— oc.o.n—w..—n¢m.~. om.~. on.~. o..~. oo.m+o..~. oc.m cm.“ a ..m.moo to. co.uo. :. c.ouoco ovacu a s o m o m N . .oc unusaooch son now o=.c..ooo ~.:ovou + m.o.oo.s + :omuox\z< xom + zomumxxz< .ogocoo so». «coamcou :omuox\z< zamuoxxz< o oo.m. zomuox\z< a om.~ ooucoso.oo:m=: a oo.m. o om.m. o om.. u=o2.oogu =.ouogo o.— .o..». mgooum ogouogo: .o oocossomcoa co cvouono poucoso—ooam no po>oa one cocoom 5o uooueunn.o. o—nop 65 ..wmm. .umm.mw ...oAacxv moo—cgoou a».>~.o u—u—uoom as. an vac—agouuo no: on. unoucou» .oo..oo mc.ooo~ 0g» uo cooc.oeo. on» co. vow no: . u:o&o.oo=m on. axon ... an... as. .o. to» no: ... u:o2u.oo=mo mmmm. .o: monocou go: I nu! was?» ..mso. .comgoocou oco xouv co>o u .oo o c. co.uoc.sgouoo so ocvgao no..uo.o> .o «no. go. ouomcoosoo o» ooo.. .o gouuo. o an oo..a.u.os ago: moxooo. to coo..m ego oo ...:eLo» u=.:o—.o» ozu ac.u= on.om uo oaoucoocoo oc.mmo.v acoumcou o o» ooouanoo ago: .nu: .oc..o ..oooz one one. uoozu—x ncoog o. co... co... «co: .mux .o.u.=. a ucospooc. c.0uoco zoom co “Locum coconuogo u.o.osocu usu.o ago: ocog.o unusuoogu c.ouoco c.m~ m.m~ m.m~ ..ow o.o~ s.m~ c.m~ m.v~ wu .uou mmooLou aw.“ no.“ as.“ oc.m Np.» om.m o—.o n—.o— a mxu ...m 0.5m o.om m.- m.~m o.w~ ...o «.ms m”..u3\m5o.m ..zoauz nn .o. nu nu nu nn nn nn _> ucoEo.oo=m nu nn m—. nn nn nn nn nn > acoeo—ooom nu nn nn mo. nu nn un nn >~ acoEo.oaom nn nn nu nn nn omm. nn nu ... ucoEo.ouom oc.. nn nu nn nn nu nu nn - ucoeo.on=m nn .w. nn nn o~. cu. m.. w—. ~ acoEo.ooom nv.o ow.“ ~—.n no.9 mm.“ mm.o o... mw.o oooo..m cgou no.“ ~o.o on.“ we.“ mo.m u... mm.s mo.m as .ououc. to a..oo oooco>< no.— mo.. em. um. mo. om. co. we. on .cpou a—.oo omo.o>< emu omu ~m~ ~m~ NmN moN mo~ m- coo. :o «moo .nm mam m~m w.m mom mNm -m one no. ..u: .oc.. mow ~a~ mam mow now wow mww .om aux ..u: .o.u.c_ ~m.~— oo.o_+—w..—uoo.~— om.~. om.~. o..~— oo.auo..~. mo.m om.n a .Am.moo to. :o.uog c. cvouogo ooocu m N o m o n N p .o: acoEuoosh mom zoo uc.c..ooo ~.zovou + u.o.oc.e + zomuox\z< xom + zomuox\z< .ocucoo so». 2328 889:5. 5332.. o 8..... 5332.. o 8.. 8285.33,... a oo.m— a oo.m. m cm.“ o.— .o..». «Locum oogomoogu u.o.ocogu yo oucoEsoucoo co c.0uoco .oacoso.oo=m .o —o>u4 oco cocoom uo uuopuunn.u. o—ao» 6&5 ..Nmm. ..fld.mm ...AAocx. ooo.:guou au.>o.m u.u.uoom on» an ooc.suouoo no: on. monocou ; .oo.soo newton» 0;. .o .ooc.osos ecu no. so. no: . «omen—ooom coo axon ... on... ogu so. no. mo: ... u:o&o.ooomo .Am.m_ .comgooco. oco goo. co>o u now a :— co.uo¢.§oouoo to uc—sau no..uopo> .o «mo. so» oaomcooeou ou moo.— .o Louoo. o no so..o.u.=e coo: moxouc. so «on..m ccouo omom. .ux mmooLoo «o: . ..x ..=.. .o.=sgo. no.3o.—o~ as. u:.m: on.om .o monocoocoo m=.mmoco accomcou o o» ooumonoo o.o3 .mu: .oc.mu ..ouox woo woo. «oocuvx mgoog o. couwo coxou «Lox .mp3 povu.:_ a .ucusuousu c.0oogo goon co mcooun uncommoco m.o—oco;u «so.» we. ouo.ogoz azu.o «so: o.og.o o.o~ o.o~ ..mN o..~ ..oN o.o~ o.m~ m..~ .a .... ...ugao N... n... .... .o.o «... o~.o mm.o ...o. a o\. e..o ..oo o... .... ~.mo o... o..o ..o. m”...z\.5..o ..zo... nu mm. nn nn un nu nu nu ~> ucoEo.ooam nu .. 0.. -n -- -n n- n- > .cae..aa=m -- -n -- me. n- -n n- u- >. .=.Ea.aa=m nn nn nu nn nn owe. nn nn ... u:o5o.ooom cm. nn nn nn uu nu nu nn _~ acoEo.oo=m .. o.. n- -n o.. o.. o.. o.. . .eaea.aa=m .o.o m... .... ...o oo.. ...o .... oo.o noon... eeoo .o.. a... n... a... .~.. o... a... -.o 9. .oxouc. to a..oo oomco>< oo. oo. .o. .o. N.. .o. co. .0. a. .c..o ....o amogm>< m..q~ m..e~ m.om~ m.mo~ m.om~ o.~.~ o.~.~ o.m.~ o... co mxuo No. No. No. ... «a. ~oq ... oN. um. ...: ..=.. cow .mN omo ooN om~ .oN mmN omN no. ...: .....a. .m.~. oo.o.n.o...n¢o.~. om.~. on.~. o..~. oo..uc..~. a... a... a ......a £0. covuo. :. c—ouoco moogu o . o m e n N . .oe .c.2..a.. .o. .o. uc.=..uoo ~.=o.ao . .....=.e . zomooxxz¢ .0. + zomoox\z< .8.89 an». .caumcoo zomooX\z< zomoox.z< a co... zomoox\z< o oo.. ooocoeo.aa=m== o on... o oo... o oo.. unusuoogu c.o.o¢o a“. .o—ghv mucosgowsoo co c.ouogo poucosopooow mo posed oco ousoom oo uuouwmuu.- «poo» 67 mooooo...o ...oo.om.ooom ooo u mz a ..mnm. .comgoocom oco xouv cm>o com o :. co.ooc.sgouoo so mc..=o No..uo.o> mo moo. Lo. uczoooo o» woo. . .o copoom :o.ooo..oo o m=.N= oopmonoo No3 moo..m ccoo wo oxooc. .ouoos Noe .om..Am :. moons:c ocosuoogu ago on ocoomocgoo Nomogpcogoo c. =m.h= on» mcmzop—om Nuomgomoom ogpo .umospcoo on» c. oo>—o>:. mucoEpoooo on» amazon u:o.m. opnoh .sz .oN... .NNo.V .sz .N.. No. N... .o> N... o..N .o> o.oN .o.. .m> NN.. No. .mo No. .ooooooo .o. . .v No. oo.o..ooo N ..oo.. .Nz. .ooo.v .Nooo.v. .o. . em. szoN¥\z< o oN.N. oN.N .o> NN.. N.oN .o) ..NN NN.N ... oN.N NN. .o> No. .os . .. .oos ooooNoN N . .sz .sz .sz .Nzo . NN. N.=ovmw + zoNoN¥\z< o oN.N. o... .o> NN.. N.N. .o> N..N NN.N .os NN.N .N. .o> NN. .o> .N.. .v zoNoNN\zq o oo.N. N .Noo.. .NNo.V .Noo.. .o.o.. .N... o.o.oo.s + zoNoN¥\z< oo.N .m> NN.. o... .o> N.NN oo.o .oo NN.. .N. .o> NN. o oo. N. .o> . ... zoNoN¥\z NN.N o.o. .o) o..N NN.N .o> NN.N .N. .o> oN. .o> . .v zoNoN¥\z< N oN.. N .Noo.v .sz .oNo.. .Nooo.vv N .N .. e N.. o.ooooo 3o. .N.N .o> NN.. N.oN .o> o.NN o..o .o> NN.N oN. .o> .o. .o> . . ... : o.ooo.o oo.= N Amoco.vv Amzv ..oo.v Amoco.vv Amp .m. va cwouogo Foucoeopooom NN.. .m> o..o. N..N .o> ..N. .N.N .o. NN.N NN. .o> .o. .o> . .v o.ooo.o .ooooso.oo=o oz . w\u Am”. .oz\NEocmv Aux. .mxv pmogucou .oz .zoomo o.zoo< oo< NA. Fowchv oocosgomgoo mo Ncom..oosou “cosooogp oouoo.om com Npmogucou Focouo;NLOnn.mH opaoh 68 are consistent with the literature and correspond quite closely to results obtained by Preston (1974), who showed that steer calves (174 kg) receiving a corn silage ration supplemented with nitrogen had a 44% higher ADG and required 25% less feed per unit gain than steers that received no supplemental protein. In contrast 2, the performance of steers receiving a high level of supplemental protein (12.5%) was compared to that of steers receiving a low level of supplemental protein (10%). Cattle that received the high level of supplementation gained 13.8% faster (P < .0005), had a 3.6% higher ADDMI (P = .039) and an 8.6% lower F/G (P = .002). The feasibility of the "half-treat" system is examined in contrast 3. Since the protein requirement is thought to decrease on a percentage basis as cattle become heavier (Fox gt 21,, 1977a), it was anticipated that cattle could be fed silage treated with 7.80 g AN/KGCSDM with SBM supplementation during the initial phase of the feeding period only, when they had an equivalent weight less than 318 kg. Such a feeding system was expected to produce superior performance to feeding corn silage treated with 7.80 g AN/KGCSDM without SBM supplementation and equivalent performance to SBM supplementation of untreated corn silage to yield an equivalent percentage of crude protein in the ration. Bergen gt a1. (1978) noted that it was unlikely that cattle started on feed as calves could generate sufficient microbial protein from the "full-treat" silage (15.60 g AN/KGCSDM) to meet their initial protein requirement. Therefore, it would seem warranted to feed a supplemental source of higher quality preformed protein during the initial phase 69 that could at least partially escape rumen degradation to ammonia. The results of this trial do not support this contention and are inconsistent with the results of an earlier study by Cook and Fox (1977). Figures 1 and 2 graphically compare the 7.80 g AN/KGCSDM and 7.80 g AN/KGCSDM + soy treatments for the study by Cook and Fox (1977) and this trial, respectively. In the earlier study (Cook and Fox, 1977), cattle receiving the 7.80 g AN/KGCSDM + soy treatment had a 31% higher overall ADG than those cattle receiving silage treated with the same level of AN without SBM supplementation. In Figure 2, it appears that cattle that received SBM supplementation during the initial part of the feeding period maintained a superior level of performance when SBM was included in the ration. However, after the cattle reached an equivalent weight of 318 kg and SBM was removed from the diet, cattle not receiving SBM supplementation earlier tended to compensate later in the feeding period, and as a result, overall performance was equivalent. It is possible that the differing responses between the two trials may be related to use of monensin sodium which was fed in this trial but not by Cook and Fox (1977). Dartt gt_al, (1978) and Perry et_al, (1979) have concluded that monensin may have a protein sparing effect on diets borderline to deficient in protein. This may explain why cattle receiving 7.80 g AN/KGCSDM + soy did not perform significantly better than those receiving the 7.80 g AN/KGCSDM treatment in trial 1. In Figure 1, where monensin was not fed, most of the difference in perfor- mance between the two treatments was obtained before the cattle reached an equivalent weight of 318 kg, and this difference was maintained 70 .mmma .xom oz< xoouv ox Nam No .zo.mz .2N4<>.=om z< omzozz< oz..zmzm4aa=m No homaounn.a mmoo.m owmm zo m>.=om z< omzoxz< oz.»zmzmooo:m No Nommomnn.m mmoo.m owwm zo mx8... 5588. N 24... SN... ...... \ n N 5 now» nmoo Jom¢ 72 throughout the remainder of the feeding period. In Figure 2, where monensin was fed, differences between the two treatments were of smaller magnitude when the cattle reached an equivalent weight of 318 kg and performance was equivalent at the end of the feeding period. Monensin may have had a protein sparing effect on the 7.80 g AN/KGCSDM treatment that resulted in similar performance to feeding a higher level of supplemental protein during the initial part of the feeding period. Contrast 4 reveals that addition of the mineral mix to the ammonia treated silage at ensiling resulted in no improvement in animal performance. Addition of the mineral mix at ensiling resulted in a 12.0% lower ADG (P = .016), 10.7% lower ADDMI (P = .002), a 9.2% lower RELDMI (P = .022) and a 1.5% higher F/G (P = .002). Analysis of contrast 5 reveals that addition of calcium hydroxide to the ammonia treated silage at the time of ensiling resulted in no significant change in animal performance (P > .20). Performance of steers that were on the declining or constant soy treatments is compared with that of cattle receiving silage treated with 15.60 g AN/KGCSDM in contrast 6. Cattle receiving untreated corn silage supplemented with SBM had a 14.0% higher ADG (P < .0005), a 5.4% higher ADDMI (P = .009) and consumed 7.8% less DM per kg of gain (P = .007). There was no significant difference in RELDMI (P > .20). The constant soy and 15.60 g AN/KGCSDM treatments are graphically compared in Figure 3. Cattle receiving the AN treated silage gained at a similar level as the cattle supplemented with SBM during the last 73 Noz8 ..zfimzoo \ . omN ”LHSIEM 09‘ (MW .ONm 74 half of the feeding period, but they did not fully compensate for their poorer initial performance. Performance of steers that received the declining soy and constant soy treatments is compared in contrast 7. Cattle on the declining soy system had a 5.4% higher ADDMI (P = .055) and a 5.7% higher RELDMI (P = .120). There were no significant differences (P > .20) in ADG or F/G. Similar results were obtained in a study by Cook and Fox (1977). Feedlot performance of the Hereford and Charolais crossbred steers is summarized across all treatments by cattle type in Table 14. Charolais crossbred steers had a 16.7% higher ADG (P < .0005) and an 18.6% higher ADDMI (P < .0005) than did their Hereford counterparts. There were no significant differences (P < .20) in RELDMI, F/G or the percentage of carcass fat. Carcass Parameters Carcass data obtained from each protein treatment are listed for the Hereford and Charolais crossbred steers in Tables 15 and 16, respectively. Since there were no significant interactions between protein treatment and cattle type, cattle types were pooled within each protein treatment and the pooled data appear in Table 17. Orthogonal f-tests were performed on the carcass parameters using the same contrasts that were used to evaluate animal performance. These contrasts and their respective results are presented in Table 18. Cattle that received no supplemental protein had smaller rib eye areas (P = .002) and higher numerical yield grades (P = .132) than those cattle that did not receive supplemental protein. 75 Table 14.--Effect of Cattle Type on Performance (Trial 1)a Cattle type Statistical . significance b Item Hereford Charolais of difference Initial wt., kgC 224 293 <.0005 Final wt., kgd 436 523 <.0005 Days on feed 272 253 -- ADG, kg .78 .91 <.0005 DM intakee ADDMI, kg/day 6.24 7.40 <.0005 RELDMI, grams/wt.';3 80.70 81.50 NS F/G 8.09 8.19 NS Carcass fat, 2f 26.80 26.20 NS aThere were eight steers of each cattle type on each of eight protein treatments. bNS = not statistically different; P> .20. cInitial wt. was taken after 16 hr. without feed and water. dFinal wts. were adjusted to a constant dressing percentage of 59.36 using the following formula: . _ hot carcass wt. eDry matter intake of corn silage was adjusted using a correction factor of 1.068 to account for loss of volatiles during DM determi- nation in a 60°C oven (Fox and Fenderson, 1978). fCarcass fat was determined by the specific gravity technique (Kraybill gt_gl,, 1952). 76 .Awmo. .nmm.mm ...oaocxv o:o.==oou Nu.>osm u.w.ooom oz» an oo=.sooooo No; on» Nooogouo .o. n noo.o:u .m n +oooo .w n ooow .N n noooa "conga No..o=oo ... n :95 .o. . ...e... .o n .225 .N n 23.... .N . -235 388 oozeazo N n .< .N n < .. n n< 23.3%.... .oz one mo .3 scocsm _o=.m o o» Nocoomogcoo :o.g3 as man mo ago—o: moon mango acoumcoo o o» ooumowoo use: msouosoooo mmoosou .ucoeooogu =.ouoso zoom co Noooum ogomogoz m moo: ogogho o.- m.- c.N~ «.mu n.m~ m.m~ m.- m.- on .uo» mmoooou m.~ m.~ ..m ..m m.~ m.~ m.~ ..m ooogm o.o.> m.» ~.m m.m e.m m.m n.N m.N ... oouocm au._o:o m.m n.m m.m m.m n.o. ~.N M.“ N.e ooooom m=_.o.oz m.~ m.~ m.~ m.~ m.~ m.~ m.~ m.~ u .uom :ox —o.m~ n—.os .m..~ um... nc.m~ m..- m¢.oN no.5c Nso .ooco ozonpm -._ mm.. on.— NN.. NN.. NN.. N... ~o.. Eu .mmocxo_gu no» .wo< m.~ n.~ c.~ e.~ o.~ m.~ o.~ ¢.~ cocoon a~..:uoz m.mm m.co m.mm «.mm m.mm ..mm m.Nm N.mm masocoogoo m:.mmogo m N o m e n . ~ — .o: unusuoo.» mom mom Nazovou + m—o.o=.s + zomuwaz< Now + zomuuxxz< Focuooo .ouosoooo 232.3 9...: puma Smuwaz< zomuoxxz< m on. m. EmuoxNz< u on.“ 3295332: a oo.m. a om.m. a om.~ 29535 Soup... a“. .o—spv Noumea osomogo: mo mgouosogoo mmousou co =.ouo.o Paucoeopooom mo .o>oo oco oogoom no uoommunn.m. opooh 77 .Numm. .oflm.mm ...oaocxv oooNcgoou Nu.>o.m u.N.ooom on. so oo:.s.ouoo No: on. mmoogouo .o. u -oo.ooo .o . .oooo .N n oooo .. . -oooo "moo.o N...oooo ... n ..osN .o. n -..asN .o u .ooo..N .N n o.o..m .. n -ooo..N n28o oo..ooozo .N u +< .N n < .. n .< "....ooazo .ux mum No a: «coosm .oz.» o o» Nocoomooooo suNg: ox mmo No u:o.o3 Noon xuoeo acoumcoo ou ooumonoo ago: NooNNENLNo «Nausea .ucosaooou c.ouo.o coco co Noooum uncommogo N.o.o.ogu m moo: ooogho o.o~ n.e~ ~.¢~ ..N~ m.N~ o.e~ N.N~ w.o~ on .uo. monocou m.. ..N m.. ..N ~.~ o.. o.~ o.~ conga o.o.> m.N ~.m m.o N.m m.o o.N m.m o.m oooogm x...o:c m.N m.m m.o. ..o m.o. N.N N.m m.o. oocoum mo..o.oz m.~ m.~ o.~ ..N m.~ m.~ w.~ o.~ a .uoN zox um.oc mo..m Nm..m «N..m mm..m m~.~m Nm.mN mc.oN NEo .oogo oxoo.¢ Nm. pa. om. oN. mm. .m. on. em. so .mmocxo.gu no. .no< v.~ ¢.N o.~ N.. N.. m.~ ~.~ ..N aosoom Na..:uoz m.oo N.mm «.mm ~.mm m.mm N.om N.mm m.om amoucoogoo ac.umo.o a N o m o m N . .o: ucosuoooh Now Now NNzovou + m—ogoc.s + zamouxNz< Now + zamuog\z< .ocucoo .ouoEogoo acoumcou ac.=——ooo :amuox\z< somuwaz< o oo.m. zomuwaz< a oN.N ooucoso.oo=N== a co.m. m ou.m. a oN.N acosuoogu =.ooo.o .. ...... «Locum oogaomogu ova—ogozu mo moouoEogoo umoosou co =.ouocg .oocosopooom No No>o4 coo oogoomowo uoowomnu.oa o—ooh '78 .Nmmm— .awm.mm ...axosxv o:o.=:uoo a».>o.o o—NNooom ogu an ooc.sgouoo No: no» mmougouo .o— n noovozu no a +ooow “a n ooou .N u nooom "ooocm au_.ooco ... n ...oN .o. - -..NEN no u ...o..N .N n ..o..N .. . -ooo..N "ooooo oo..o.azo .N n +< .N n < .. n -< .No.o=.oz a .x.o>.uooomo. .mx mmm oco one No no: xcoggm Noe—N o» ocoomooooo go.:3 .».o>.oooomos .mgooum vogoomoso N.N—ogogu oco osomoooz ogu No. a. mac oco Nam No mugo.oz Noon Naoso acoumcou o» ooomonoo «so: msouosoooo mucosou .ucoENNosu :NNNoso gooo co mgooum oogammoou N.N—ogogu a oco ogomogo: N ago: ocogho N.NN o.oN N.NN N.NN N.NN N.NN N.NN N.NN on ..o. ooao.oo N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N ooooo o.o.. ..N N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N ooooso N...ooc ..N N.N N.N N.N N.o. ... o.N N.N oooooo oo..o.az N.N N.N N.N o.N N.N N.N N.N N.N a ..o. zoo No.NN .N.NN NN.N. ...o. oo.N. oo.oN N.... .o... .26 .oooo oNoo.N NN. No.. «N. No.. oo.. .o. .o. am. so .ooooxo.oo .o. .No< N.N N.N N.N ..N o.. N.N N.N N.N oooooo N...o.o= o.oo o.oo N.NN N.NN o.NN N.NN ..NN N.NN oooooooooo oo.ooooo N N o N a N N . .oo oooeouoo. Now Now NNzovou + N.N.oc.s + zomuwaz< Now + somuuxxz< Nogucoo .ouoEogoN .ooooooo oo.o..ooo zoNooxNza :omooxNz< o oo.N. zoNooxNz< o oo.. ooooosa.ao=mo= o oo.N. o oN.N. o oN.. ucoauooou =.ouoco oN. No—LNV ogouoaoxoo «Noosou co c—ouogo Noucosopooom mo No>o4 too cocoon mo uoowwunn.N. apnoh 79 ago ou ocoomoggoo nanosecoooo o. .m... as. o=.2o—.ow muo.oumoom ugh .Nmma. ..Mm.mm ...:Nong o:o.=:oou a».>o.o u...uoom mg» a: vac—soouoo no: on. umoooou .8. x o 3.28.... 2.85.33. .2. . 2. u .o. n -885 .o u .88 .N . 88 .N n -88 32.... 3:88 ... n :2... .o. n ...25 3 n .23.... .N n 23.... .N . -22.... .28.. 3:22... .umogucoo on» c. oo>.o>=. manoeuooou as. ouocoo coo N. «.ooh c. mgoo53: «coauoocu .N—o>.uuoomos .msooum oogommoso N.NPosogu oco ocouogoz 0:» so: a. nmv ago wow 2o mo:u.o: Noon Negev acoumcoo o» ouumonoo ago: «LoNoENLoo mmoooouo .x.o>.uuoomo. .ax nwm ago one No mugm.ox Novena .oz.» o» ocoomo..oo :u.:3 ...: .2: .2: .2: .2: .2: E... .2: Mo: .3 2.82.8 28.2. o.oN N.N... N.N 2.2. ..N 2.2. N.N N.N.2. N.NN 8.... .2. ...N. NN. .2, 3.. o.oo .2. o.oo .2. . s No. 2.5.8.. N .8... .2: :3: 88.: .2: .2: .2: :8... Mo. .N. N.NN .2, ..8 N.N... ..N N.N... N.N N.N .2. N.N N.N... N.N 8... .2. NN.... 8.. .2, 8. ..S .2. 98 4% 82$: 8..... .m> N N . N: .ooe coonaom o ...8.: .2: .2: .2: .2: .2: .2: .2: M85588 28.2, ...8. N.N .2. N.N N.N... .... N.N .2. N... N.N... o.N ...o. .2, No... a. .2. 8.. N.N... .2, N.NN . 8832.. 8.2 .2. .N. ...: 882.2. N 8.2 ... .2: .2: 3...... 88.: .2: .2: .2: .2: ...... £22.... N.NN .2, N.NN N.N... N.N N.N... N.N .32. ....o. o.N .2. N.N ...... .2. 8.... No. .2. 3.. N.N. .2, 9% . 883222 N 8..... .2. :5 582.2. N 8.... o .2: .2: .2: .2: .2: .23 .2: .8... ...: ..8 $582.2. o 8.. ...8.: N.NN N.N .2, N.N ... .2. N.N ... .2, o... N.N.2. N.N 8.8 .2. 2.: .o. .2. .o. ..8 .2, N.N. .2. .N: 889.5 N 8.. N .2: .2: ..8: 38.. .2: .2: .2: .8.: .m. .Ncoozooa .8. .2, ..oN.2. ..oN N.N... N.N N.N .2, ..N ... .2, N... N.N.2, N.N o.... .2, 8... .o. .2, 2... 9...... .2, ..8 . N : 538.. so... N .2: :2: .2: .2: .2: ...8.. .2: ...: 3 N: 28.2, N.NN N.N... N.N N.N... N.N N.N... N.N N.N .2, N.N .N... .2, .o... .o. .2, a. to... .2, N.NN 532.. $228.33 .2, . N: :.ouoso .oocoEo.ooom oz — Nu. conga v.0.» «coco ogoom Nu: NNeu: Ago: oooucouooo umogucou .oz can: mucus-u o»u..ooa ouc..osoz an. sax coco can o.¢ unocxu.go o=NNNoLa ... .No< «A. ...... «Looming-o among-u No acoNNLooEou acosuoogp oouuo.om so: mumouucou .ocooogugonn.m. upon» 80 Feeding a high level of supplemental protein (12.5%) resulted in a slightly higher dressing percent (P = .199), a higher marbling score (P = .002) and a higher quality grade (P = .001) than feeding a low level of supplemental protein (10%). When cattle fed corn silage treated with 7.80 g AN/KGCSDM were supplemented with SBM until they reached an equivalent weight of 318 kg, they had a larger rib eye area (P = .013) than their counterparts which received corn silage treated with the same level of AN without SBM supplementation. Addition of the complete mineral mix to the ammonia treated silage at the time of ensiling resulted in a lower marbling score (P = .030) and a lower quality grade (P = .155) when compared to addition of the same mineral mix to ammonia treated silage at feeding time. Addition of calcium hydroxide to the ammonia treated silage at the time of ensiling resulted in less total carcass fat (P = .039). When SBM and AN were compared as sources of supplemental nitrogen, cattle that received silage treated with 15.60 g AN/KGCSDM had a lower dressing percent (P = .012), a higher marbling score (P = .030), a higher quality grade (P = .032) and a greater percentage of carcass fat (P = .146). Since acetate is a precursor for fatty acid synthesis, the higher marbling scores and quality grades observed in those cattle that received AN treated silage may have been due at least in part to the higher levels of acetate present in these silages. Cattle that received the declining soy ration had a greater adjusted fat thickness (P = .117) than cattle fed the constant soy ration. 81 Carcass data for the Hereford and Charolais crossbred steers has been summarized across all protein treatments by cattle type in Table 19. Charolais steers had a higher dressing percent (P < .0005), less external fat thickness (P = .001), larger rib eye area (P < .0005), higher quality grade (P < .0005) and a lower numerical yield grade (P < .0005). There was no difference in the percentage of carcass fat (P > .20). Net Energy Evaluation Net energy values obtained for the protein treatments evaluated in trial 1 are listed in Table 20. Since there were no interactions between protein treatment and cattle type, cattle types were pooled within each protein treatment. Orthogonal f-tests were performed on the net energy values using the same contrasts that were used to evaluate animal performance and carcass parameters. These contrasts and their respective results are presented in Table 21. Rations supplemented with protein had higher NEm (P = .001) and NEg (P = .005) values than the control ration that was not supple- mented with protein. A high level of supplemental protein (12.5%) resulted in larger NEm (P = .008) and NEg (P = .063) values than a low level of supplemental protein (10%). Soybean meal supplementation of corn silage treated with 7.80 g AN/KGCSDM during the initial phase of the feeding period resulted in higher NEm (P = .104) and NEg (P = .050) values. 82 Table 19.--Effect of Cattle Type on Carcass Parameters (Trial l)a Cattle type Statistical . significance b Parameter Hereford Charola1s of d1fference Dressing percentage 58.6 60.2 < .0005 Maturity scorec 2.3 2.1 .039 Adj. fat thickness, cm l.09 .84 .001 Rib eye area, cm2 70.39 83.29 < .0005 KPH fat, % 2.8 2.9 .052 Marbling scored 8.l 9.4 .001 Quality gradee 7.9 8.8 < .0005 Yield grade 2.8 2.3 < .0005 Carcass fatf 26.8 26.2 NS aThere were eight steers of each cattle type on each of eight protein treatments. Carcass parameters were adjusted to constant empty body weights of 382 and 453 kg for the Hereford and Charolais crossbred steers, respectively, which correspond to final shrunk wts. of 436 and 523 kg, respectively. bNS = not statistically different; P> .20. CMaturity: A = 2; A+ = 3. dMarbling score: Slight = 8; Slight+ = 9; Small- = 10. 6Quality grade: Good = 8; Good+ = 9. fCarcass fat was determined by the specific gravity technique (Kraybill gt 31,, 1952). 83 Table 20. --Net Energy Values for Protein Treatments (Trial 1)a Cattle type No. Protein treatment Hereford Charolais 7' 1 Unsupplemented control NEm 1.52 1.48 1.50 NEg 1.06 .95 1.00 2 7.80 g AN/KGCSDM NEm 1.54 1.53 1.54 NEg 1.05 1.02 1.04 3 7.80 g AN/KGCSDM + soy Em 1.61 1.54 1.58 NEg 1.18 1.06 1.12 4 15.60 g AN/KGCSDM NEm 1.58 1.57 1.58 NEg 1.15 1.06 1.10 5 15.60 g AN/KGCSDM + minerals NEm 1.62 1.62 1.62 NEg 1.19 1.19 1.19 6 15.60 g AN/KGCSDM + Ca(OH)2 m 1.59 1.56 1.58 NEg 1.17 1.09 1.13 7 Declining soy m 1.62 1.55 1.58 NEg 1.14 .98 1.06 8 Constant soy NEm 1.64 1.60 1.62 NEg 1.20 1.10 1.15 'Y NEm 1.59 1.56 NEg 1.14 1.06 protein treatment. aThere were 8 Hereford and 8 Charolais crossbred steers on each (NEg) are listed as Mcal/kg of ration BM. Net energy values for maintenance (NEm) and gain 84 Table 21.--0rthogonal Contrasts for Selected Treatmeng Comparisons of Net Energy Values (Trial 1) No. Contrast NEmb NEgc 1 No supplemental protein (T1) vs. supplemental protein l.50 vs. l.59 1.00 vs. 1.11 (T2 ... T8) (.001) (.005) 2 High protein (T ... T8) 1.60 vs. 1.56 1.13 vs. 1.08 vs. low protein (T2, T3) (.008) (.063) 3 7.80 g AN/KGCSDM (T2) vs. 1.54 VS. 1.58 1.04 vs. 1.12 7.80 g AN/KGCSDM + soy (T3) (.104) (.050) 4 15.60 g AN/KGCSDM (T ) vs. 15.60 g AN/KGCSDM + fiinerals 1.58 vs. 1.62 1.10 vs. 1.19 (T5) (.046) (.040) 5 15.60 g AN/KGCSDM (T4, T5) vs. l5.60 g AN/KGCSDM + 1.60 vs. 1.58 1.14 vs. 1.13 Ca(0H)2(T6) (NS) (NS) 6 Soybean meal (T , T8) vs. 15.60 g AN/KGCSEM (T4, T5 1.60 vs. 1.59 1.10 vs. 1.14 T6) (N5) (.180) 7 Declining soy (T ) vs. 1.58 vs. 1.62 1.06 vs. 1.15 constant soy (T8) (.073) (.041) contrast. aSubscripts following the "T's" in parentheses correspond to the treatment numbers in Table 20 and denote the treatments involved in the b cNet energy for gain, Meal/kg of ration DM. NS = not statistically different; P > .20. Net energy for maintenance, Meal/kg of ration DM. 85 Addition of the mineral mix to the ammonia treated silage at the time of ensiling resulted in a higher NEm (P = .040) and a higher NEg (P = .040). The high net energy values obtained by the 15.60 g AN/KGCSDM treatment to which minerals were added at the time of ensiling may have been at least partially due to the high level of lactate that was present in this silage. Prigge and Owens (1976) noted that lactate was utilized more efficiently in the rumen than soluble carbohydrates. Calcium hydroxide addition to the ammonia treated silage at the time of ensiling resulted in no significant change (P > .20) in net energy values. When SBM and AN were compared as sources of supplemental nitrogen, silages treated with 15.60 g AN/KGCSDM had a slightly higher NEg (P = .180) than the untreated silage supplemented with SBM. However, there was no significant difference (P > .20) in NEm. The constant soy supplementation system resulted in higher NEm (P = .073) and NEg (P = .041) values than the declining soy protein supplementation strategy. When cattle type was compared across all protein treatments, rations had higher NEm (P = .008) and NEg (P = .002) values when fed to the Hereford steers rather than their Charolais crossbred counterparts. This was largely due to the fact that the Herefords were leaner at the start of the experiment than were the Charolais crossbreds (14.16% vs. 16.98% empty body fat), but were equivalent in body composition at the termination of the experiment. Therefore, the Herefords were depositing more fat and were more energetically efficient. 86 Economic Analysis An economic analysis of the protein treatments evaluated in trial 1 is presented in Table 22. All protein supplementation systems resulted in lower feed and nonfeed costs than did the unsupplemented control. Least total cost system was the 15.60 g AN/KGCSDM treatment. This treatment was superior to all of the other AN treatments with respect to both animal performance and cost of gain. Total cost per 45.4 kg of gain was $1.24 less for cattle on the declining soy treatment when compared to those that were on the constant soy treatment. Since performance was equivalent between these two treatments, the declining soy supplementation strategy would be more economically feasible if it were possible to group cattle according to weight. Based on feedlot performance and cost of gain, the 15.60 g AN/KGCSDM and declining soy treatments appear to be the two most relevant treatments. If anhydrous ammonia were to remain at the current price of $175/ton, the break-even price for soybean meal (soy 47) for the declining soy treatment would be $173.42/ton when compared to the 15.60 g AN/KGCSDM treatment. Conversely, if soybean meal (soy 47) were $200/ton, the break-even price for anhydrous ammonia for the 15.60 g AN/KGCSDM treatment would be $390.12/ton when compared to the declining soy treatment. If it were not possible to group cattle according to weight and the constant soy ration were fed, AN would be even more favorable economically. Therefore, based on the current market situation, .mcoruapaupao o>ona one c. covapucp «a: mum: uwcoeso «sogvagcu No Nugonoga m>.»~>gamaga as» on man maNu> mooNNm :. omomgucN new mumoo co.uuu.Nna< .a.o>.uumnmog .mucmsuamsu mam accumcou can mom m:_:..uou as» ou um»u:§ou 2mg: couxmm.mmmw can ~..oom» on v.30: newspaogu zomuux\z< m om.mN as» so» «Pcossu maoguagco No ou.ga co>o .8.... 23 £388» 98: .3 :83 .8... 53.8... t .2238» .5393... a cog... 05 3 3.2328 5:: 332.3839. .3553: .8.». «53:8 was New m:.c..oau on» go» :ou\¢o.me.n can cou\~c.m.N» on v.30: .Ne New: Name camnxom Lo. wows: :m>m-xaogn mgu .cou\mN.» mum: upcoEEa «soguxnco N. .mmmcwaxm acrumxgoe can mmo. :uamu goN momgonu mu:.uc_ we: awn as: .mcwummm Low acmeawaam can scan. new m=.m=o: .ucmspmm>=. co uw~2~un. umu=.u=. cu.g: aau\uuo:\mm.o» um umpa.=u.mu ago: mumou vommcoz .cou\oo~w ..Ne mom: News causaom .u: .Nm:m=a\oe.~» .uoNNwzm .cgou .o: "cou\om.N.» ..mvmua umumo>gmg ma: «mopvm :260 .n: .cou\mNN» .owcoesm maogvxgcm .av ”mmu.gn mcvzoNNoN mg» pom—mm; mumou cmoum mm.~a ~8..¢ aa.~¢ om.~¢ mm.oe ...ae m~.aa o~.am . .=.am .6 8. ¢.m¢\umou .muON .~.m. .o.m. 8.... am.». am.8. a¢.m. m..m. ee.¢~ . .=.am Mm No a. «.me\mumou vmomcoz mo..~ mm.o~ m~.m~ oo.¢~ .m.¢~ .~.m~ .m.m~ ~m.m~ . .=.am .6 a. «.me\umou cam. .68 .66 a=.=..uaa ~.:0:6u + 6.6.6:.5 + zomucg\z< New + zomucg\z< .ogucou acaumcou samuo¥\z< samuwx.z< m oo.m. zomuux\z< a om.. uuucasa.aa=m== o oo.m. a oo.m. a om.. acoeuougu cwmuoga a. .cNLN :. umu~=N~>u mucwEHamLN ammuogm use No m.m».a=< o.5o=oum--.- mNauN 88 it appears that anhydrous ammonia will be quite competitive with soybean meal from an economic point of view. Feedlot Trial 2 Feedlot Performance Growing and finishing phase performance of the cattle in trial 2 are listed in Tables 23 and 24, respectively, for each treatment combination. A summary of overall performance for the entire feeding period is presented in Table 25. For traits where there were no significant AN x monensin interactions, monensin treatments were pooled with AN treatments and AN treatments were pooled within monensin treat- ments. Orthogonal contrasts were then constructed for the treatment combinations of primary interest to determine whether differences in ADG, ADDMI, RELDMI or F/G were statistically significant. Contrasts for the growing phase and their respective results are listed in Table 26. There was a significant AN x monensin inter- action (P = .067) for feed efficiency during the growing phase. Lowest F/G was obtained by the 16.5, 0, and 33.0 ppm levels of monensin for the 0, 7.90, and 15.70 g AN/KGCSDM treatments, respectively. Analysis of contrast 1 reveals that supplemental nitrogen resulted in a 9.9% higher ADG (P = .013), but no significant differences (P > .20) in ADDMI or RELDMI were observed. The difference in ADG between cattle that received supplemental nitrogen and those that did not receive supplemental nitrogen was smaller than those observed in the literature from other studies (Preston, 1974; Cook and Fox, 1977). This may have been partially due to the fact that the untreated control 539 z: m:..=c mo_.uoNo> we mmo. so. ovumcmgsou o» weo.p No Logo.» o . m.m. .:Om.mc:ou was xouv cm>o u can a c. :o_uo:.sguuou a um..:.upae 82¢: mmxouc. Lavage ago mmopvm cgou a ..ouoz can vow» uaozu.3 .: a. coupe cuss» «Luz .muz Noe.» uca No.u.:.n .... N... .m.. N... n... mo.. 0... om.. om.o a. 8.. o..m ..ma ..eo .... a... m.~m ...m m... m.mm m...uz.msagm ..za... no. no. me. no. no. no. -- -- -- mac: m.. -- -- e.. -- -- ... -- -- ... u:aga.aa=m -- m.. -- -- m.. -- -- m.. -- .. acmea.aa=m -- -- 8.. -- -- 8.. -- -- 8.. . “caea.a.=m .8.. .m.m mm.m mm.m mm.m a... .8.. m..m a... 8688..m cgou m..m oa.m 88.8 ~..m ...m .8.8 ...m em.m ...m 8. .axauc. an ...au amaca>< .m. mm. .m. ... om. om. ... 8.. ~.. 8. .c... ...66 amata>< a». .8. mo. ow. mm. mm. om. co. cm. 666. :6 a... can 9.. .8. .8. .mm ... mom ... m8. an. ...: ..c.. 8.. cm. on. mm. ... ... 8.. ... 8.. an. ...: .m...=. m. a. m. m. m. a. a m . 3266». .6 .oz a... .... m... m.o. m.o. m.o. ..8 m.m m.» . .za c6...2 .6 .a>a. c.6862. 68:28 2.. a... an. ..8. an. a sa. a... an. ..8. ea. c ea. 8... ea. ..8. an. a so». so zowuog :. c—mcmcoe No No>u4 539...: a 2.2 389:5. a 8.. 56.8.2. .3 c am Nosz: mucusgowco: onus: m=.:o.w No .uussam.-.m~ wNnoN 9C) ..m.m. .comgmcco. we. xouv cm>o 9 com a c. :o.u.=.e.ouou so u:..=v .8.—ua.o> .o ..o. co. muamcoaeou o. .o.. .o .cuuuw . he um..a...=s «gm: magmas. guuuus x2: ccou 2:: . «.o— .comgmucm. cc. xouv cm>c u can a c. :o..a=.e.ouou z: o:..=u mu.....o> .o ..o. .oN mummcmasou o. woc.. .o .ouuom . a co..:.u.=s 8.8: .mxmuc. Luuuae ..u on»... cgouu emom. . . ugm.o3 ..uugau .oz u u: pus.» ...:sgom a:.3oN.oN on. m=.m= em.oo mo amouguugoa m:.mmagu acoumcou a o» vuumanvo agar ..u: ..c... ..uuu: we. coo. u:o:u.: L: a. go... an... «no: ...: ...u.:.. .... .... .... o... o... .... 8.. 2.... .... a: .... ...... ..8 ...... ...... ...... .... .... .... ”units... 25...... .... .... .... -- .. -- -- -- -- 3.... .... -- -- .... -- -- ... -- -- ... 222...... : ... .. -- ... -- -- ... -- > 2.28.8... -- -- ... -- -- ... -- -- .... ... .55....aa .... .... ...... .... ...... 8.. .... ...... .... .58 .... o... .8.. .... .... .... 2... .... ...... .... 6...... £8 8.. ...... ...... 8.... ...... .... ...... .... ...... 9. .33... .... ...... 882... .... .... o... .... o... .... .... .... .... 9. ...... ...... 6.22... ...8. a... ...... ...... a... .... o... o... o... ..8. S 23.. .3 .... .... .... .... .... .8 . .... ...... ...... ...... .8: ... 8. ... ... ... ... .... .... .8. .9. ...: 2...... e. e. z 3 : .. . . . 28.. .6 .oz .... .... .... ...... ...: ...: ...: ...: ...... . ...... 5:... .... .26. 539... 8.5 ...... o... ...... ...: ...... .. ...... a... ...... ...... ...... .. ...... o... ...... ...... ...... o 8: ta co.»o. :. :.mco:os mo .m>o. 882...... . ...... 5.8.2.. . ...... 582...... . .. .N N~.LN. mucosuo..a: «was: m=.:m.c.u No agassam--.c~ u.nnN 91 co>o u 6cm 6 c. co.u-=.s.ouou ta ac..:u mop—aa.o> yo ..o— .o» ouumcmasou o» no.. .6 Luau.» a .6 uo..:.u.:s as»: masons. .ouuaa ago 6.69 z: ...... .....mm ......6.. 666.:g66. .....6. 6...66a. 6.. .. 666.626.66 an: ... ...62666 .38. .5235. :5 not a .83. .5285... ...... .8.: 5.6 u 68 a ... SSE—E33 E 05...... «...—36.6.. .o .3. ..8 3359.8 3 8.... No .85. a E 5.23....- Eoz 5.3... so «as... Eouu ”moo . .0: 38.8 3.. n J: Noe: 3.35.. 9:328 05 2...: 3:8 5.. 83595.. 9.35.... 232.3 a 3 5.2.2... 95.. .3: .21.. 2336568.§2:x£..::.§:.££.33332: mu... ~m... 8.... ...N. ...6. ma... 6..6. ...6. ...6. 6. .... ...6..u 66.. o... 6... .... .... .... .... .... .... 6.. ...N. ...m. ....o ..... 6.... .6... mm... ....o 0.... MH...3..6..6 ..z6..¢ .6. .6. .6. .6. .6. .6. - - - «6.: 2. 1- 1- Z. 11 -1 Z. 11 11 ; «553...... - ... - - 6.. - - ... - . .=666.QQ6. 1- -1 «N. 11 -1 o.- - - Z. 3 £55.83 no. 11 - S. 11 1- S. 11 11 .2 £55.33 - 6.. - - ... - - 6.. - .. .6666.6.=. 1- - 6.. - 1- ... - - ... . .=666.66=. .... .... 6... .... .... .6.~ .6.~ .6.~ .... 66.66 2: .6.. .... o... .... 6... .... .... .... .... 666.... 6.66 .... .6.. .... .... .... .... ...6 ...6 .... 6. .6...6. :6 ....6 66..6>< ea. .6.. 66.. .6. .6. ... ... ... .6. a. .c..6 ....6 6...6.< ..6.~ 6.6.. ..6.~ 6.... 6.6.. ..6.~ 6.... 6.... 6.... 666. 66 .... one .6. .6. ... ... ... ... ... ... .6. ...: ..c.. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .6. ...: .....c. .. e. e. c. e. e. . . . “.66.. .6 .62 ....1..~. ....1..~. «...-.... ..6.1..6. ..6.1..6. ..6.1..6. ..6.1... ..6.1... ..6.1... a .:6 66.... .6 .6)». c.6.62. 666.6 ...... 6... ...... .... ...... 6 ...... 6... ...... .... ...... 6 E... 6... ...... ...... a... 6 .5: to 536.. ... 5.55... ... .25.. 339:5 ¢ ...-— z6.66..z< 6 6... 886...... 6 6 G ......Nv 3:53....— N.-5>o ..o ragga-km... 02¢ 92 .w\m Lo. ..mo. "a. co.aumgmuc. c.mcm:oe x z< .666...=m.m 6 .63 6.6;. .ucwu...:m.m a..6u..m.p6.m no: .63 6.6.6.65. 6:6 om..Am .65. .6665 mz .m.w>m. mo:mu...cm.m .66....»6pm ms. mamme Lmum56gma mg. Laue: mumm;.:mgma c. mgmnszc an». ..z. co..u6gm.:. o.ow .m> m..m ...6.. co.p66.m.c. o..m .m> m.¢m ...6.. =6..6.L6.=. 6... ..> ..6. ..z. 66.966Lmuc. ...m .m> ..mm ...6.. ..z. :6 =6.... 6... ..> 6... ... ..> 6.. :. c..=6=66 666 6... ..> :6 =o.u6g c. :.m=mcoe 566 m.o. 6 ..8; .sz .566 0.2.. .566 92. 6.55.5... mm.m .m> 0—6 mm. .m> on. 52.3 .m> AEQQ 3 5.9.5.5.: oz m ..z. ..z. 26.66X\z< mm.m .m> mm.m mm. .m> om. m o..m. .m> zomumx\z< m om.. N ..z. ...6.. .z6m66¥\z< 6 6.... .m.m .m> mm.m .m. .m> m.. .zomuw¥\z< m om... 6666...: ...:666.666m ... .26.66¥\z< . 6. =mmo...: .6.:¢E¢.66:m oz . 6\. .MM..63\.E.L.. .26... .mxv .mxv .mmg.:ou .oz .zoa< wo< 66:65Lomgmm .6 6.6;; 66.36Lw .o ... ...6.. mcom.gmasou .cmEummg. um.um.mm so. mummgucou .mcomoguLO11.om 6.66. Hi 93 silage (0 g AN/KGCSDM) was unusually high in crude protein content (8.81%, DM basis) as noted in Table 7. Therefore, there was not as much difference in the level of crude protein between the rations that were supplemented with nitrogen and those that were not supplemented with nitrogen in this study as there have been in earlier studies. Examination of contrast 2 shows that there was no significant difference (P > .20) in ADG or ADDMI between cattle receiving corn silage treated with 7.90 or 15.70 g AN/KGCSDM, but steers that received silage treated with 15.70 g AN/KGCSDM had a 3.2% higher RELDMI (P = .051). Results of trial 1 and a previous study by Cook and Fox (1977) have shown that cattle fed corn silage treated with 15.60 g AN/KGCSDM had a higher ADG, ADDMI, RELDMI and a lower F/G than those receiving the 7.80 g AN/KGCSDM treatment. However, cattle in the previous work were fed corn silage rations with no added corn throughout the entire feeding period and as a result received an all silage ration for a longer period of time. Performance of cattle that did or did not receive monensin is compared in contrast 3. Monensin resulted in a 4.6% lower ADDMI (P = .001) and a 4.1% lower RELDMI (P = .011) during the growing phase. However, monensin had no significant effect on ADG (P > .20). These results compare favorably with those of previous research (Goodrich gt_al,, 1976; Embry, 1976; Thonney, 1977). Performance of cattle that received 16.5 or 33.0 ppm monensin in the ration 0M are compared in contrast 4. Cattle receiving 33.0 ppm monensin had a 2.4% lower ADDMI (P = .087) than those that received 16.5 ppm, but there were no significant differences (P > .20) in ADG or RELDMI. 94 Orthogonal contrasts for finishing phase performance and their respective results are presented in Table 27. During the finishing phase there were significant AN x monensin interactions for ADDMI (P = .140) and RELDMI'(P = .014). Lowest ADDMI was obtained by the 16.5, 0, and 0 ppm levels of monensin for the 0, 7.90, and 15.70 g AN/KGCSDM treatments, respectively. RELDMI followed the same trend. Examination of contrast 1 reveals that cattle that received supplemental nitrogen during the finishing phase did not have a significantly different (P > .20) ADG or F/G than those cattle which received no supplemental protein. This may have been due to a greater amount of compensatory gain during the finishing phase by the cattle that received the untreated silage. Since these cattle received only an 8.5% crude protein ration (DM basis) during the growing phase, the finishing ration, which contained 10.5% crude protein (DM basis), may have resulted in a greater amount of compensatory growth than the rations that were supplemented with nitrogen during the growing phase. Finishing phase performance of cattle that received silage treated with 7.90 or 15.60 g AN/KGCSDM is compared in contrast 2. Cattle that received 15.70 g AN/KGCSDM had a 5.1% higher ADG (P = .141) and an 8.4% lower F/G (P = .024). The results of this contrast together with those of contrast 2 in Table 26 suggest that cattle that received silage treated with 15.70 g AN/KGCSDM were not able to efficiently utilize the AN above 7.90 g AN/KGCSDM during the initial phase of the feeding period. Fox 35 El- (1977a) and Bergen §5_213 (1978) noted that it was unlikely that cattle started on feed as calves could generate sufficient microbial .Aepo. "av Hzobmm wen Aoe_. "av Hzoo< Low meowuumcmpcw cwmcmcos x z< ucmowmwcmwm mew: mgmgh .pcmummwcmmm apmewumwumum yo: mm: mgodmcmsu ucm om..na page memos mz mm_w>mp wucmuwmwcmpm quppmwpmam men mamas LmqumLmq on» Lung: mommgucmcma cw mgmnsac mghm Amzv Apmo.v zo cowwmg eo.n .m> en.m compumcmucH cowpumcmucfi mm.~ .m> mm.p cw :wmcmcos Eng o.mm .m> z: :omumg :P :wmcmcos Egg m.op e Amzv Amzv Asaa o.mm .Eaa m.o_v cwmcmcoe mm.m .m> no.“ compumgmch cowuumgwucH mm.~ .m> n~.p saw: .m> Egg ov cwmcwcos oz m A¢NO.V A_¢_.V zomue¥\z< m oe.m_ MN ¢~.o .m> on.“ compumcmch cowuumcmch Fm.p .m> mm.p .m> zomuwx\z< m cm.“ N Amzv Amzv Azamo¢¥\z< m o~.mp mo.~ .m> mn.o cowpomgmpcfi cowpumgmch m~._ .m> m~.F .zomuux\z< m om.~v :wmocum: ~mucw5mpaazm .m> Azomuw¥\z< a ov cmmoguwc Pmucmsm_aa:m oz F dx . w\u Am“. pz\mEmcmv Amxv Amxv ummgacoo .oz Hzagmm Hzoo< wo< «AN meghv mucmegomcma mmmga mcpcmwcwm to mcomwcmaeou acmeummgh umuum—mm com mummgucoo _m:omo;ugo--.uw mpnmp 96 protein from corn silage treated with 15.60 g AN/KGCSDM to meet their protein requirement during the initial part of the feeding period. The results of this study indirectly support this contention. During the initial part of the feeding period, there was no significant difference (P > .20) in ADG between the 7.90 and 15.70 g AN/KGCSDM treatments, but during the finishing phase those cattle that received corn silage treated with 15.70 g AN/KGCSDM gained faster and consumed less feed per kg of gain. The finishing ration also provided more preformed protein and a higher energy density. Analysis of contrast 3 reveals that monensin resulted in no significant difference (P > .20) in ADG or F/G during the finishing phase. Finishing phase performance of cattle that received 16.5 or 33.0 ppm monensin in the ration DM is compared in contrast 4. Cattle that received 16.5 ppm monensin had a 6.9% higher ADG (P = .091) during the finishing phase than those that received 33.0 ppm monensin. There was no significant difference in F/G (P > .20) but cattle receiving 16.5 ppm monensin required 4.3% less feed per kg of gain than those that received 33.0 ppm monensin in the ration DM. Overall feedlot performance is graphically depicted by AN and monensin treatment in Figures 4 and 5, respectively. Orthogonal contrasts for overall performance and their respective results are listed in Table 28. There was a significant AN x monensin interaction (P = .033) for RELDMI. Lowest RELDMI was obtained by the 33.0, 16.5, and 33.0 ppm levels of monensin for the 0, 7.90, and 15.70 g AN/KGCSDM treatments, respectively. 97 muz<2m0dmma zo 4m>m4 «Hzozz< maoma>zz< do humaum--.a mmauud owmm 20 m><0 0mm gm 0! ON 0 a d \ \ \ 2089.24 .3 3.»Y\\ 3389.24 3 ooNv\ 2809.243 3.9L. mum con 00¢ 08 (9M) .LHSIBM 98 uuzm4 do humadm--.m wm=w_¢ ommm 20 m>o_ oucoowmwcmwm Poowpmwuopm moo memos gouosogoo on» Loocz momozpcogoo cw mgooE== ozho as am: 32: E 8.52 mm.“ .m> NP.“ cowuoogoucm o~.m .m> mm.m mm. .m> mm. cw :wmcocos son o.mm .m> 2o compo; cw cvmcocos Eon m.o_ o Amzv Aumo.v Amzv Agog o.mm .Eoo m.o_v cwmcocoe NN.~ .m> mm.“ cowpoocmucm m~.m .m> mo.“ om. .m> mm. gum: .m> Asoo ov :wmcocos oz m Amoo.v Ammp.v ze_o.v zomoo¥\z< a o~.m_ No.~ .m> mm.m cowpoocoucH um.m .m> ow.o mm. .m> mm. .m> zomuwz\z< m cm.“ N zmpo.v zmzv zNop.V Azomoo¥\z< a oz.m_ om.n .m> so.“ comuoogmucz mm.m .m> pw.o om. .m> Fm. .zomuoz\z< m om.~v comocpw: Foucosopooom .m> Azomoo¥\z< m ov comoguwc Poucosopooom oz _ u\u Am”..pz\m5mgmv Amxv Amxv pmogucou .oz Hzozmz HzQQ< oo< oAN Powghv mucosgo$coo __oco>o mo mcowuocmneou ucosaoogp oouoopmm com mumoguoou Pocomongonu.mm mpnoh 100 The effect of supplemental nitrogen on overall performance is examined in contrast 1. Cattle that received the AN treated corn silage had a 5.5% higher ADG (P = .102) and 3.6% lower F/G (P = .015) than those that received no supplemental nitrogen. There was no significant difference in ADDMI (P > .20). Analysis of contrast 2 reveals that cattle that received corn silage treated with 15.70 g AN/KGCSDM had a 7.4% higher overall ADG (P = .014), 2.5% higher ADDMI (P = .159) and consumed 4.7% less feed per kg of gain (P = .005) than those cattle that received 7.80 g AN/KGCSDM. The effect of monensin on overall performance is examined in contrast 3. Cattle that received monensin had a 3.3% lower overall ADDMI (P = .087), but there was no significant difference (P > .20) in ADG or F/G. These results are in conflict with other reports in which monensin significantly decreased ADDMI and F/G, but resulted in no change in ADG (Goodrich gt_§1,, 1976; Embry, 1976; Thonney, 1977). Monensin decreased F/G in the present study but the difference was not significant (P > .20). Examination of contrast 4 shows that steers that received 16.5 ppm monensin had a 6.4% higher ADG (P = .095) and a 2.6% higher ADDMI (P = .159) than those cattle that received 33.0 ppm monensin in the ration DM. There was no significant difference in F/G (P > .20) although cattle that received 16.5 ppm monensin required less feed per kg of gain than those cattle that received 33.0 ppm in the ration DM. In contrast to earlier work (Goodrich gt al., 1976; Embry, 1976), 33.0 ppm monensin was 101 not the optimum level in this trial. In this study, the highest level of animal performance was obtained by feeding 16.5 ppm monensin in the ration DM. Carcass Parameters A summary of the carcass data obtained for each treatment combination in trial 2 is listed in Table 29. Since there were no significant AN x monensin interactions, monensin treatments were pooled within AN treatments and AN treatments were pooled within monensin treatments, and the respective results are reported in Tables 30 and 31, respectively. Orthogonal contrasts were constructed for the treatment combinations of primary interest, and these contrasts and their respective results are presented in Table 32. Cattle that received supplemental nitrogen had more KPH fat (P = .015), a slightly higher marbling score (P = .194) and a greater amount of carcass fat (P = .048) than those that received no supplemental nitrogen. Nhen carcass parameters of cattle that received 7.90 or 15.70 g AN/KGCSDM were compared, cattle that received 15.70 g AN/KGCSDM had a higher dressing percent (P = .025), more external fat (P = .087) and a greater percentage of total carcass fat (P = .065). Cattle that received monensin had a slightly lower dressing percent (P = .127), a greater amount of KPH fat (P = .038) and a slightly higher quality grade (P = .137) than those cattle that received no monensin. 1(32 .ANmo_ .... » ...nzutgv o=a_=guuu aa.>¢eu o.Cvooam «so »a oocvsgouou .m - +ooow no u oooo “s . -ooou .o. u upposm .o u +uzuppm am a uzmvpm us a logo—pm .n u +< . .0 no: an; mucosouo nausea zuvpooao “osoum mowpncosu N u < “zu.g=uo:n x woo oo uzmwoz xcosza .oz—o o o» moooomoggoo zu.z: ax pm: mo aza.u3 soon zuoso acauuooo a o» ooumofioo ago: ugouosocoo monotone «.mn n.nm u.pn e.~n o.m~ ~.~n p.pm p.cm ~.om on .uo» mmougou m.m e.m ~.m ~.n m.~ m.n m.~ n.n a.~ ooogu ops.» e.m ¢.m N.» ~.w m.m ~.m c.m N.N n.u vooogu zuvpooc o.m m.m m.m p.a p.m ~.m ¢.m N.N «.5 cocoon mczpogo: o.n ~.m a.~ m.~ p.m a.~ m.~ a.~ ~.~ u .uam :ux no.ms om.eh Fo.m~ mm.m~ ~o.~s mm.pn m¢.ms ps.¢~ um.e~ «29 .oogo ozoovz um.— ~m.~ Nm.— oe._ eo.— nm.p a_.p mm.— sp._ so .mmocxu_za “om .eo< —.~ o.~ o.~ —.~ o.~ —.~ n.~ o.~ _.~ oogoum zupgoaoz “.oo ¢.oo ~._o o.oo n.oo ~.oo p.oc o.oo m.om amoucougoo uo_mmogo op op op e. op o- s s s acumen mo .oz in 98 5.3 map in o. Ego 9mm Ea map in o in c.nm Eon mop .53 a 538.23 zomoo2\z< a o~.m. an cowuog :— cwmcooos yo po>o4 zomoox\z< a co.“ :omoog\z< a o ozw powghv mgouosogoa amougou mo agosaomn-.a~ opooh 103 Table 30.--Effect of Level of Anhydrous Ammonia Treatment of Corn Silage on Carcass Parameters (Trial 2)a Level of anhydrous ammonia 0 g b 7.90 g c 15.70 gc Parameter AN/KGCSDM AN/KGCSDM AN/KGCSDM Dressing percentage 60.5 60.1 60.9 Maturity scored 2.2 2.1 2.0 Adj. fat thickness, cm l.30 1.35 1.52 Rib eye area, cm2 74.84 74.19 74.84 KPH fat, % 2.8 3.0 3.0 Marbling scoree 8.1 8.8 8.8 Quality gradef 3.0 8.5 8.3 Yield grade 3.l 3.2 3.3 Carcass fat, %9 30.5 31.5 32.8 aSince there were no significant interactions between anhydrous ammonia treatment and monensin treatment, monensin treatments were pooled within each anhydrous ammonia treatment. Carcass parameters were adjusted to a constant empty body weight of 43l kg which corre- sponds to a final shrunk weight of 486 kg. bTwenty-one steers received this anhydrous ammonia treatment. cForty-two steers received this anhydrous ammonia treatment. dMaturity: A = 2, A+ = 3. eMarbling: Slight = 8, Slight+ = 9. fQuality grade: Good = 8, Good+ = 9. gCarcass fat was determined by the specific gravity technique (Kraybill e_t_a_l_., 1952). 104 Table 31.--Effect of Level of Monensin on Carcass Parameters (Trial 2)3 Level of monensin in ration 0M Parameter 0 ppmb 16.5 ppmb 33.0 ppmb Dressing percentage 60.8 60.5 60.3 Maturity scorec 2.1 2.0 2.2 Adj. fat thickness, cm l.42 l.37 l.37 Rib eye area, cm2 74.l9 75.48 74.84 KPH fat, % 2.9 3.l 2.9 Marbling scored 8.1 8.4 9.l Quality gradee 7.9 8.2 8.7 Yield grade 3.2 3.2 3.2 Carcass fat, %f 3l.4 3l.l 32.3 aSince there were no significant interactions between anhydrous ammonia treatment and monensin treatment, anhydrous ammonia treatments were pooled within each monensin treatment. Carcass parameters were adjusted to a constant empty body weight of 431 kg which corresponds to a final shrunk weight of 486 kg. bThirty-five steers received each monensin treatment. cMaturity: A = 2; A+ = 3. d Marbling: Slight = 8; Slight+ = 9; Small- 10. 9. eQuality grade: Good- = 7; Good = 8; Good+ fCarcass fat was determined by the specific gravity technique (Kraybill gt_gl, (l952). IlCJS .Gmo— ...plaflo. 2235; 2.3533 326.3 92.8% «5 E 35538 an: an» 383...“. .m .. +38 3 u .58 us - -ooow "conga 3:26“. .2 u -293 3 - +233 8 . 223.. "9.39.3... .uaau_c_=a.a »__aa.aa.uaua no: as. £39.05 we. cm. 2. as: «can: mz 3.2.0— oucouCEEu 3233.3 9:. moon... $38.23 05 .525 335553 5 23:5: aid Ana—.0 .mzv zmzv zmz. ANQo.V .mz. «.3 .2. ...n N.” .2. N." 3 .2. «a ..o ...... to 2.2. ..m 3.: .2. 8..: 2...: R.— n.8 .2. ....8, Amzv .mz. :8 ca.... 5 520:2. can can .2. so .332 5 £225... .23 m6. v zsz zmzv .NM... zmz. .omo.. .mz. zmz. ANN—.0 . .288 o.nm .saa m.a_0 =.m=a=ae ~._n .3. ...m N.” ... ~.n ..o ... 5.“ o.o ... ..o o.n .3. a.~ .o..~ .8. a...“ ~n.. ... ~.._ ..oo ... o.oo g..: ... zeaa o. =.maacae 8: n Ammo.v .mz. Amzv .mzv zmz. zmzv .hmo.v AmNo.V zamoox\z< o oh.m_ o.~n .a, m._n a." ... ~.n n.o ... a.» o.o .a. a.» o.” ... o.n .o..~ .as 8..... ~m..... mn.. «.oo .8. ..oo .a. zomoox\z< 9 ca.“ ~ zoao.. .mzv zmzv ..8—.0 zm_o.. .mz. .mz. zmzv “xenoo¥\z< a o~.m. —.~n .3 m.on ~.n .2. —.n v.9 .2. oi a.» ....) —.a c." .2. c.~ 3.: .m> 3.: ~v.—.m> on; ado .u, méo .zomoox\z< a om.~v caaoaa.a ..ocasapaasa .8, Azomoog\z< a o. . 59.5.: 222283 oz — .5 03.3 393 0.83 .5 A «.50 A.5. 2358 .oz 2: 30; o 3:26 on... 3.3: a: 3.; «356.5 9:395 sum-88 :5. 93 a; we .23 Lu :2: £3283; 33.39 uo 382328 «cg-0.; 3323 ..8 335:8 $535.5--.Nn 03o» 106 Monensin added to the ration at the level of 16.5 ppm resulted in more KPH fat (P = .042) but slightly less total carcass fat (P = .163) than 33.0 ppm monensin in the ration DM. Net Energy Evaluation Net energy values for the growing ration, finishing ration and the entire feeding period are listed in Tables 33, 34 and 35, respectively. No significant AN x monensin interactions were found to exist for any of the net energy values. Monensin and AN treatment had no significant effect (P > .20) on NEm and NEg during the growing phase, but did affect finishing ration and entire feeding period net energy values. Since there were no significant AN x monensin interactions, monensin treat- ments were pooled within AN treatments and AN treatments were pooled within monensin treatments for finishing ration and entire feeding period net energy values and orthogonal contrasts were constructed for the treatment combinations of primary interest. These contrasts and their respective results are presented for finishing ration and entire feeding period net energy values in Tables 36 and 37, respectively. During the finishing phase, feeding supplemental nitrogen resulted in a higher NEm (P = .097) than when rations were not supple- mented with nitrogen. There was no significant difference (P > .20) in NEg. There were no significant differences (P > .20) in NEm or NEg between the 15.70 and 7.90 g AN/KGCSDM treatments during the finishing period. During the finishing phase, monensin had no significant effect (P > .20) on NEm or NEg. There was also no significant difference 107 Table 33.-~Net Energy Values for Growing Ration (Trial 2)a Level of monensin in ration DM Level of anhydrous ammonia 0 ppmb 16.5 ppmb 33.0 ppmb o g AN/KGCSDMC NEm 1.54 1.44 1.55 NEg 1.04 .87 1.09 7.90 g AN/KGCSDMd NEm 1.50 1.54 1.55 NEg .99 1.09 1.11 15.70 g AN/KGCSDMd NEm 1.57 1.53 1.48 NEg 1.11 1.05 .96 '7 NEm 1.54 1.51 1.53 NEg 1.05 1.01 1.05 aNet energy values for maintenance (NEm) and gain (NEg) are listed as Mcal/kg of ration DM. b There were 45 steers on each monensin treatment. CThere were 27 steers on this AN treatment. dThere were 54 steers on this AN treatment. 108 Table 34.-—Net Energy Values for Finishing Ration (Trial 2)a Level of anhydrous Level of monens1n 1n ration DM ammonia 0 ppmb 16.5 ppmb 33.0 ppmb 7' 0 g AN/KGCSDMC NEm 1.97 2.09 1.99 2.01 NEg .98 1.34 1.10 1.14 7.90 g AN/KGCSDMd NEm 2.14 2.13 2.04 2.10 NEg 1.41 1.31 1.12 1.28 15.70 g AN/KGCSDMd NEm 2.02 2.08 2.08 2.06 NEg 1.19 1.31 1.34 1.28 7' NEm 2.04 2.10 2.04 NEg 1.19 1.32 1.19 aNet energy values for maintenance (NEm) and gain (NEg) are listed as Mcal/kg of ration DM. bThere were 35 steers on each monensin treatment. CThere were 21 steers on this AN treatment. dThere were 42 steers on this AN treatment. 109 Table 35.--Net Energy Values for Entire Feeding Period (Trial 2)a Level of monensin in ration 0M Level of anhydrous __ ammonia 0 ppmb 16.5 ppmb 33.0 ppmb X 0 g AN/KGCSDMC NEm 1.70 1.71 1.73 1.71 NEg 1.05 1.08 1.17 1.10 7.90 g AN/KGCSDMd NEm 1.75 1.73 1.75 1.74 NEg 1.21 1.19 1.18 1.20 15 70 g AN/KGCSDMd NEm 1.78 1.79 1.80 1.79 NEg 1.20 1.25 1.27 1.24 7' NEm 1.74 1.74 1.76 NEg 1.16 1.17 1.21 listed b cThere were 2l steers on this AN treatment. d as Mcal/kg of ration DM. There were 35 steers on each monensin treatment. There were 42 steers on this AN treatment. aNet energy values for maintenance (NEm) and gain (NEg) are 110 Table 36.-~0rthogonal Contrasts for Selected Treatment Comparisons of Finishing Ration Net Energy Values (Trial 2)6 b c No. Contrast NEm NEg 1 No supplemental nitrogen (0 g AN/KGCSDM) vs. supplemental nitrogen (7.90 g AN/KGCSDM, 15.70 g 2.01 vs. 2.08 1.14 vs. 1.28 AN/KGCSDM) (.097) (NS) 2 7.90 g AN/KGCSDM vs. 2.10 vs. 2.06 1.28 vs. 1.28 15.70 g AN/KGCSDM (NS) (NS) 3 No monensin (0 ppm) vs. with monensin (16.5 ppm, 2.04 vs. 2.07 1.19 vs. 1.26 33.0 ppm) (NS) (NS) 4 16.5 ppm monensin in ration DM vs. 33.0 ppm monensin in ration ON 2.10 vs. 2.04 (NS) 1.32 vs. 1.19 (NS) was not statistically significant. aThe numbers in parentheses under the parameter means are statistical significance levels; NS means that P > .20 and therefore b Net energy for maintenance, Mcal/kg of ration DM. CNet energy for gain, Mcal/kg of ration DM. 111 Table 37.--0rthogonal Contrasts for Selected Treatment Comparisons of Net Energy Values for Entire Feeding Period (Trial 2)a No. Contrast 1 No supplemental nitrogen (0 g AN/KGCSDM) vs. supplemental nitrogen (7.90 g AN/KGCSDM, 15.70 g AN/KGCSDM) 2 7.90 g AN/KGCSDM VS. 15.70 g AN/KGCSDM 3 No monensin (0 ppm) vs. with monensin (16.5 ppm, 33.0 ppm) 4 16.5 ppm monensin in ration DM vs. 33.0 ppm monensin in ration DM NEmb 1.71 vs. 1.76 (<.0005) 1.74 VS. 1.79 (<.0005) 1.74 vs. 1.75 (NS) 1.74 vs. (NS) 1.76 c NEg 1.10 vs. 1.22 (.001) 1.20 vs. 1.24 (.089) 1.16 vs. 1.19 (NS) 1.17 vs. 1.21 (NS) aThe numbers in parentheses under the parameter means are statistical significance levels; NS means that P > .20 and therefore was not statistically significant. b Net energy for maintenance, Mcal/kg of ration DM. cNet energy for gain, Mcal/kg of ration DM. 112 (P > .20) in net energy values between the 16.5 and 33.0 ppm monensin treatments. Feeding supplemental nitrogen resulted in higher NEm (P < .0005) (P and NE .001) for the entire feeding period. Higher NEm (P < .0005) 9 and NE P .089) values were obtained with the 15.70 g AN/KGCSDM g ( treatment than with the 7.90 g AN/KGCSDM treatment. Monensin resulted in no significant difference (P > .20) in NEm or NEg. There was also no significant difference (P > .20) in net energy values obtained with the 16.5 and 33.0 ppm monensin treatments. Economic Analysis An economic analysis of the treatment combinations evaluated in trial 2 is presented in Table 38. Lowest total cost per 45.4 kg of gain was obtained by feeding 16.5 ppm monensin in combination with 15.70 g AN/KGCSDM. This treatment was superior to all others with respect to both animal performance and cost of gain. When monensin treatments were pooled within each AN treatment and AN treatments were pooled within each monensin treatment, 15.70 g AN/KGCSDM and 16.5 ppm were the AN and monensin treatments, respectively, that resulted in the lowest cost of gain. Highest costs of gain were obtained by the 0 g AN/KGCSDM and 33.0 ppm monensin treatments, respectively. Nitrogen Balance Nitrogen balance data are presented in Table 39 for the six treatment combinations evaluated. 11.3 .moo.uap:upou o>oao one o. outspoz— no: 8o: 2.8.53 38.5.5 mo 3.53.... 2.32.33: 05 3 moo 2:2. $27. 5 33.3.: 9:. 3.4.8 538:9? .3598 mopuoxgos oco mmop zuooo com momgozo ooopuoz no: o.o «on .acpooou so» acusovooo van Loon, coo movmzoz .acosumo>:P co umogoucp oooapucv sown: zoo\oooz\mm.o» no uouopsopoo ago: mumou ooomcoz Am+moa ooumo>cog may omopvm ogou Any “couxmspn o’cosso maogozzco Roy .pozm=n\oo.~a ooppogm .ogou Au. “cou\cm.n_« "mouvgo no.3op—ow oz» poo—mos mumou ooouo mm.~¢ um.ov -.p¢ sm.mp nu.ep mm.ep w~.m~ em.m~ m~.o~ mp.¢¢ um.—e ~v.op an.mp «N.NN mm.m~ ae.wa «..8. .m.o~ o~.e¢ mm.—¢ m—.~— cm.mp pm.- cm.m~ vm.ne mp.up on.- a .=.au to as a.me\umau ..uop » .cvom mo as e.me\»mou oooycoz a .=.aa co ox ¢.me\uaou oaaa sag o.mm aaa m.o_ 288 o Eon o.mm Eng m.op son a son o.mn so: m.c— son a zomuux\z< m o~.mp so coves; c? crococoe yo po>o4 zomoog\z< a ca.“ :omumx\z< a c ow povgh o. oouoopo>m mcopuo:_asou ucosuoog» mo mvmxpoc< o—socouu.i.mn_opaoh 114 Table 39.--Effect of Monensin and Level of Anhydrous Ammonia Treatment on Nitrogen Utilization 53:91 9f Level of anhydrous ammonia en51n in ration ngN/KGCSDM) Item DM (ppm) 0 7.80 15.60 No. of steersa 8 8 8 Nitrogen intake, g/day 0 39.1 67.5 84.3 33 38.9 67.3 84.0 Fecal N excreted, g/day 0 19.2 27.9 29.5 33 14.9 27.8 25.7 Urine N excreted, g/day 0 14.1 25.1 26.7 33 10.1 24.8 35.0 Nitrogen retained, g/dayb 0 5.8 14.5 28.1 33 13.9 14.7 23.3 Nitrogen retained/nitrogen 0 15.0 21.6 33.4 intakec 33 35.8 22.5 28.2 Apparent nitrogen 0 50.9 58.9 65.0 digestibility, 3d 33 61.4 60.8 69.6 aWithin each level of AN treated corn silage, 4 steers received each monensin treatment. bSE = 5.7. Level of AN treatment had a significant effect on nitrogen balance (P < .0005). There was an AN x monensin interaction P = .087 . cSE = 8.1. There was a significant AN x monensin interaction .010). Percentage of nitrogen retained was affected by monensin .104) and level of AN treatment (P = .107). dSE = 5.6. Nitrogen digestibility was significantly affected by monensin (P = .021) and level of AN treatment (P = .002). There was no significant AN x monensin interaction (P > .20). (P (P 115 Monensin resulted in no significant difference (P > .20) in grams of nitrogen retained per day, but the level of AN did have a significant effect (P < .0005) on this parameter. Nitrogen retention (g/day) increased as the level of nitrogen in the ration increased. There was an AN x monensin interaction (P = .087) for nitrogen retention. A significant AN x monensin interaction (P = .010) also existed for the percentage of nitrogen retained. This parameter was also affected by monensin (P = .104) and AN treatment (P = .107). Monensin resulted in a higher percentage of nitrogen being retained for the 0 and 7.80 g AN/KGCSDM treatments but a lower percentage of nitrogen retained for the 15.60 g AN/KGCSDM treatment. These results appear to be consistent with those obtained by other researchers (Van Nevel and Demeyer, 1977; Tolbert §t_§l,, 1977; Hanson and Klopfenstein, 1977; Perry gt al., 1979; Poos gt 31., 1979) which suggest that monensin is more beneficial for diets that are borderline to deficient in protein and for diets supplemented with preformed protein rather than NPN. Monensin resulted in a higher level of apparent nitrogen digestibility (P = .021). The level of AN treatment also had a signi- ficant effect on apparent nitrogen digestibility (P = .002). As the level of nitrogen in the ration increased, apparent nitrogen digestibility also increased. There was no significant AN x monensin interaction (P > .20). When the percentage of nitrogen retained and apparent nitrogen digestibility are both considered, it appears that the decrease in the percentage of nitrogen retained when monensin was fed with silage treated with 15.60 g AN/KGCSDM was due to a greater loss of nitrogen 116 in the urine. This may be due to a decrease in microbial growth efficiency which would limit the production of microbial protein, and as a result more of the ammonia arising from NPN would be lost in the urine. CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of this study, the following conclusions were made: 1. Animal response was similar for the declining soy and constant soy feeding systems. Soybean meal was superior to anhydrous ammonia as a source of supplemental protein when evaluated in terms of animal perfor- mance; however, anhydrous ammonia was more favorable economically. When evaluated in terms of total cost of gain, the most desirable protein treatment was 15.60 g AN/KGCSDM. Overall performance was not improved by supplementing anhydrous ammonia treated corn silage with soybean meal during the initial phase of the feeding period, but this response may have been influenced by monensin. Addition of the mineral mix or calcium hydroxide at the time of ensiling did not improve animal performance. Charolais crossbred steers were superior to Hereford steers with respect to carcass quality and yield grades at the same percen- tage of body fat. Addition of the mineral mix to the ammonia treated silage at the time of ensiling resulted in higher NEm and NEg values than adding the same minerals to ammonia treated silage at feeding time. 117 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 118 Addition of calcium hydroxide to the ammonia treated silage at the time of ensiling resulted in no significant change in net energy values. Corn silage treated with 15.60 g AN/KGCSDM had similar net energy values as untreated silage supplemented with soybean meal. When evaluated in terms of feedlot performance and cost of gain, 16.5 ppm monensin was superior to 33.0 ppm monensin in the ration DM. 15.70 g AN/KGCSDM was the level of anhydrous ammonia that resulted in the highest net energy values in trial 2. Monensin had no influence on net energy values. There was a significant AN x monensin interaction for the percentage of nitrogen retained. Monensin increased the percentage of nitrogen retained for corn silage treated with 0 or 7.80 g AN/KGCSDM, but decreased the proportion of nitrogen retained for the 15.60 g AN/KGCSDM treatment. APPENDIX 119 Table A.1.--Ration Ingredients Ingredient International Reference No. Corn silage 3-07-739 Corn 4-02-931 Soybean meal 5-04-604 Calcium sulfate 6-01-089 Defluorinated phosphate 6-01-780 Ground limestone 6-02-632 Potassium chloride 6-03-756 Monosodium phosphate 6-04-288 Calcium hydroxide - Anhydrous ammoniaa - Ureab - Trace mineral salt - Vitamin A premixc - Vitamin D premixd - Rumensin 30 premixe - Rumensin 60 premixf - a82% N. b45% N. C30,000 IU vitamin A per g. d3,000 IU vitamin 03 per g. e66.14 g monensin sodium per kg. f132.28 g monensin sodium per kg. 120 Table A.2.--Individua1 Shrunk Weights, Carcass Weights, and Carcass Composition of Initial Slaughter Cattle (Trial 1) a Carcass Carcass. Steer Cattle Shrunk Carcass Dressing protein, fat no. type wt, kg wt, kg % % % 387 C 263.1 156.0 59.3 17.40 22.44 405 C 272.2 143.3 52.7 18.15 15.92 414 C 301.6 164.2 54.4 17.55 18.02 426 C 317.5 180.1 56.7 17.32 19.88 219 H 260.8 139.7 53.6 17.34 16.96 225 H 226.8 127.0 56.0 18.41 14.99 234 H 204.1 109.8 53.8 17.10 16.51 243 H 210.9 117.9 55.9 18.12 15.62 aCattle type: C: Charolais crossbred; H= Hereford. Table A.3.--Individua1 Shrunk Weights, Carcass Weights, and Carcass Composition of Initial Slaughter Cattle (Trial 2) Carcass Carcass Steer Shrunk Carcass Dressing protein, fat no. wt, kg wt, kg % % % 380 244.9 141.5 57.8 18.08 16.87 384 206.4 116.1 56.3 18.57 14.15 392 222.3 133.8 60.2 18.95 13.86 405 272.2 156.9 57.7 18.21 19.19 406 213.2 112.9 53.0 19.45 12.58 422 222.3 125.6 56.5 17.88 18.42 441 220.0 131.1 59.6 18.36 15.61 487 233.6 132.9 56.9 16.66 25.15 499 249.5 148.3 59.5 17.48 19.69 121 Table A.4.--Individua1 Shrunk Weights, Carcass Weights, and Carcass Composition of Intermediate Slaughter Cattle (Trial 2) Carcass Carcass Pen Treatment Steer Shrunk Carcass Dressing protein, fat, no. no. no. wt, kg wt, kg % % % 46 l 433 376.5 231.3 61.4 16 19 26 62 46 1 465 369.7 216.4 58.5 17 13 22 63 47 2 470 367.4 213.6 58.2 18 38 17 35 47 2 508 406.0 233.6 57.5 17 30 21 92 48 3 408 365.1 220.9 60.5 17 48 21 17 48 3 479 403.7 242.7 60.1 16 72 24 36 34 4 458 378.7 223.2 58.9 17 98 19 04 34 4 468 371.9 213.2 56.3 17 93 19 26 37 4 453 399.2 223.6 56.0 16 37 25 89 37 4 483 455.9 258.5 56.7 17 20 22 35 35 5 418 313.0 177.8 56.8 17 41 21 47 35 5 519 392.4 226.8 57.8 18 06 18 68 38 5 477 360.6 217.7 60.4 16.36 25 92 38 5 517 356.1 197.3 55.4 17.06 22 95 36 6 432 353.8 202.8 57.3 17.81 19 75 36 6 518 415.0 238.6 57.5 17.10 22 79 39 6 496 365.1 212.7 58.3 17.84 22 39 39 6 527 378.7 223.2 58.9 16.22 30 97 40 7 502 347.0 208.2 60.0 15 93 27 75 40 7 526 351.5 211.8 60.3 16 70 24 47 43 7 404 337.9 205.0 60.7 17 77 19 92 43 7 491 376.5 217.3 57.7 17 05 22 97 41 8 439 383.3 233.6 61.0 16 58 24 97 41 8 471 428.6 254.9 59.5 16 53 25 19 44 8 366 326.6 187.8 57.5 18 32 17 59 44 8 416 362.9 211.8 58.4 17 78 19 89 42 9 389 303.9 176.0 57.9 18 03 18 81 42 9 430 433.2 246.3 56.9 16 98 23 30 45 9 409 387.8 222.7 57.4 17 31 21 90 45 9 405 440.0 245.4 55.8 18 11 18.49 .oN - ouNozu 3oz No a zoom zuNz Na - noon oaogo>< "conga NuNNoocu .2 . No.3 3 . +223. 3 . .225 "28. 2:2} .agoouu osouosoz oocNoucou «can oneness: coso so. «Locum oucammogu mNoNoeuzu oooNouoou «coo cocoons: noon 122 N.anN N.Nnc NneN. oNNo. NN.NN em.oN N.N N.NN o.n on. a a m.mNN mm. N.NNN N.NNN oNN N NNn No o.¢oNN N.eNm oNNN. ooao. No.mN om.oN N.N v.0» m.N «N. N N N.NNN mm. N.Nev m.mNN mNN N Nmn Ne N.NvoN N.Nmo omNN. NmNN. o¢.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N oN. m e o.omN NN. «.oNe «.oNN mNN N an Ne u.ooNN m.mmm omNN. «Noe. «N.NN mo.oN m.n m.oc N.N mo.N N N c.eoN oN. N.Nmo N.NcN mNN N omN Ne N.NNoN N.NNm eeoN. meoN. me.NN NN.mN N.N m.mN o.n Nm.N m a o.vNN em. N.NNe N.NNN mNN N NNN No N.NNN» «.omc oNon. Nome. mm.vn oN.cN N.N wam o.n eN.N N o o.moN em. N.ch N.NNN mNN N eNN No «.oomN «.oom ooeN. nmoo. Nm.NN oN.NN o.N N No o.N NN. N N N.NNN NN. o.Nmm v.NNN uNN N omN Ne n.mcoN o.NNo NNON. moNN. mN.cN no.oN N.N N.NN o.n on. o u o.moN co. N.Nmo N.NNN aNN N oON No N.NNm N.NNN «Noo. omoN. NN.oN ov.NN o.N N.NN o.N mN. a a N.NeN Nm. N.Noc N.NmN moN N va Ne N.NNnN N.NNm nNcN. oNoN. Nm.NN oN.NN N.N o.oo m.N an. N N o.oeN no. ¢.Noe N.NNN moN N moo No N.Noen N.Nem mmon. coma. om.en on.oN m.n c.mo N.N NN. NN oN N.NNN on. o.oao N.NNN moN N can Ne o.NNom o.NNw NmNn. mnoN. mn.NN NN.mN N.N m.qm N.N em. a o N.Nmn Nc.N N.vom N.oNn moN N man No m.NoeN N.NNN mncN. NNoN. on.eN NN.oN N.N o.uw o.n an. N N N.mNn No. N.Nmm N.NNN moN N «am No N.NNNN N.NNN mNNN. omNN. No.mN om.oN N.N N.No o.n NN. a a o.nNm ca. N.NNm o.NNN moN N Nan No m.ooNN o.ooo NeNN. eNmN. NN.NN «N.NN N.N N.NN m.N NN.N oN oN o.Nmn co. N.Nom m.NNn moN N NNn Ne N.mmNN m.Nao NNNN. NNNN. mm.mN mo.oN c.n o.oN c.n NN.N N N N.NNN co. ¢.mNm N.Non moN N won Ne m.n¢mN N.eNc mooN. oeNo. em.eN No.oN N.N N.mo o.n co. a o N.NNN mm. o.oon N.NNN mNN N mNm on N.NNmN o.NNm mmoN. Nmoo. an.oN mN.oN o.N N.No o.n Nm. m c N.NoN Nm. N.NNN o.oNN NNN N «Na en N.NonN N.Nmm anoN. nmoN. No.NN Nm.NN m.N N.No m.N Nm. e N o.nmN mo. N.NNe «.oeN aNN N NNm on N.NNN N.NNN moNo. memo. mc.NN NN.NN N.N N.Nm m.N NN. m c e.ooN Ne. N.ven N.NNN mNN N NaN on a.oNoN N.Nec eNNN. NNNo. NN.mN oe.cN N.N o.Nm o.m Nm.N N N N.NNN mm. N.Nmm N.NON mNN N eoN em o.monN N.Noe nmmN. nNNo. nN.NN mo.NN N.N v.Nm o.n Nm. N N o.oNN em. N.mon m.mNN oNN N emN «m N.NNNN «.mmm omoN. oNoo. NN.mN an.oN o.n N.N. o.m No.N N m N.NNN eN. o.mNc N.NoN oNN N omN on N.NNNN o.oon NNNn. coco. No.vn «N.cN N.N N.mu m.N on. oN oN N.NoN no. o.mN¢ N.NNN oNN N meN on N.NNNN N.Nmo moNN. emNN. «N.NN no.mN N.N o.Nm o.n Nc.N N a m.Nmn on. N.mmm N.oNn mNN N va mm N.NoNn N.Nmm oan. ono. NN.nn Nm.cN o.n o.NN o.n Nm.N NN NN N.Non cc. N.Nom N.NNN aNN N NNo mm o.omeN o.eNe ommN. Nmmo. mn.eN «N.NN c.N N.oN m.N om. NN eN N.NNN mm. N.Nov N.¢oN oNN N omm mm N.ch c.¢mm «moo. ovoN. No.mN oN.oN N.N N.oN o.N NN. m N N.NNN no. N.NNc m.eeN mNN N man an N.onN N.NNo NooN. NmNo. mo.Nn No.mN N.N m.mN m.N oN. a a N.NNN co. N.Noe m.mmN mNN N can an N.NNN u.omo NNoo. memo. mm.oN oo.NN N.N N.mo m.N Nm. N N N.NNN om. o.mmm o.eeN oNN N mNn an N.vomN N.Nme oomN. ono. oo.oN «N.NN m.N o.oo o.n on. oN NN o.nom am. N.NNc N.NNN oNN N oNn an o.NoN m.eoo NNNo. auNN. oo.oN NN.NN N.N v.oN o.N on. oN NN o.NNn NN. v.nmm m.Nmn oNN N can an Nos. N8. 9. 9. a a 895 «so a so 396 .95. 9. J: 9. 9. J: 9. J: .38 .o: .o: .o: J: .5393 Sam .53 NC 539:. 30; .8.; NS 5.35 .226 a mucosa... . < :5... 23:: co «:8 .3on noon :Nou cNou «ac eNouoeo «mousse maoutou 0N0 ANN zax uau u uo: «Non taunt» Nucoco Nusoco ANN-a NN.-a NNN-a NNNgo AN NoNst can: mucus-u ecu oucasxousoa NaauN>chNun.m.< oNa-N 123 .oN - ouNozu so. No - Noom gmNz .N . ooou onuso>< "conga NNNNooou .o— n 1NNNEm Na - +uzoNNm No a ousz—m Nogoum acNNogox a .mgooum NsoNoLo: NocNoucoo «can vogoasac =o>o ago «Locum oogammogu «NNNogazu Noe—Nucou moon outages: Noon N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N NN N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN oN N.NNoN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NoNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N NN NN N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NoNN N.NNN NNoN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N oN NN N.NNN No. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN oN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. Nome. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNN N.NNN NNNo. NoNo. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN oN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N NN oN N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NoN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. NN NN N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. NN NN N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NoNN N.NNN NoNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N oN NN N.NNN NN.N N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN oNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N NN NN N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNoN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N NN NN N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N NN NN N.NNN NN.N N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N NN NN N.NNN NN.N N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNoN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. NN NN N.NNN om. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNoN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NoNN N.NNN NoNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NN.N. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NoNo. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNoN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. oN oN N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NoNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NoN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN.N N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNo. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNoo. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN Naux Noox as as N a conga «so N so NN.NN .aso: a. .u: on a; .0: Na .03 tom» .o: .o: .o: J... .539... .53 .53 NC 539:. N.NNN» .3... 2... 3.35 ”N.N-so a 3.9.3 .22 Nos... 33:: .5 ago.- ..o3m Noon :NNN NN.N NNN cNoNosN «Nous-u «nousou 0N0 NNN :Nz can no: mNNN -u-ogN Nuance Nutoeo NN..a NN.-a .53 NN.... vase—acouiu.m.< NNNNN 124 .o— - NN.NNu nag “N - vooN NN.N "N - NooN oNosoNN "NNNLN NN.—anon .o— u np—NEN “N u +ugNN—N “N a ougNN—N "osoum NN.NNLN: a .Ngooun NLoNusox Noc_au:cu Neon voNoassc =o>o as. NLoauN vogammosu N.N—ogogu uchaucou Neon uoguaesc NNN. N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NN.N. NN.NN .N.N. N.N N.NN N.N NN.N o. o— N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. .NNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N— N— N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.N. N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNPN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N N.N NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. N—N_. NN.NN NN.N— N.N N.NN N.N NN.— o— Np N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.N—N NNN N NNN NN N.NNN. N.NNN NN.N. .NNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNw NNN N NNN NN N.N—Np N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. Np N— N.NNN NN.. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN ..NooN N.NNN N.NN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N —— N— N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNN—. NNNN. NN.NN NN.N. N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NN.N. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. N. Np N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN N.NN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.. N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN —.NN~ NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.N. N.N N.NN N.N NN.N 0— mp N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.N—N .NNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.N—N NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.N—N. N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. o. Np N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNN. N.NNN NNNN. NNNo. NN.NN NN.N. N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N._N_ NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.N—N NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.N. N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.N. N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.N—N NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N— Np N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NN.N. NN.N. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.o~_N N.NNN NNNN. N_——. NN.—N NN.N. N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.Noou N.NNN NN.N. NN.N. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.. N— o— N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNo. NN.NN NN.N. N.N N.NN N.N NN. N— N— N.NNN NN. N._NN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNo. NN.NN —_.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N o_ N. N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNo. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNN. N.NNN NNNN. NNo—. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. N_.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.. o— o. N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN N.NN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.N. N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN. N.N—N N.NNN NNN N ..N NN N.NNNN —._NN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.N. N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN.N N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NN.N. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN :8. :9. Nx N.. a a SEN N...“. a .6 SEN N.N..N: Nx rt. 9. N; J: Nu J: N08 .2. .2. .oc .uNN .c_oaoga .=_NN .NNNN NNN =.ououn NNNN> .oosa NNN ..xuNNu u..-=o «Nausea .NNN .16.; NN.».=_ co acme soouN ago; N.NN N.NN N.N Npouosn «Noug-u NN-uL-u may N.N :Nx can an: «NNN nouns» NNLoco NNsoco NN.NN NNN-N Nap—Na N.NNN 3.528--..3 as: .o— - ouNogu rod “N - NooN NNN: "N . vooN «Nago>< ”NNNLN NN.—Naau .NN - -NNNEN "N u +uNN.—N uN . .NNNNNN "ugoum N=._Nguza .ugouuu ugoNauoz Noe—Nucou «can Nessa-3: so». use "Locum Nugammogu N.N—ogagu cog—oucou Neon vogoasac Noon 125 N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN.N N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N._NN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. N.NN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N —.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNN— N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.N—N NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NN—N. —N.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N No.— N— .N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.N—N NNN N NNN NN N.NN—N N.NNN NNNN. NN.N. NN.NN NN.N. N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN No.— N.~_N N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.N—Nu N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N o— —— N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN .NNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.N. N.N N.NN N.N NN. o— N— N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.N—N NN.N. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNN—. N.N—N NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N N—N NN N.NNN— N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NN—N N.NNN N.NN. ..NN. NN.NN NN.N. N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN.N N.NNN . N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNo— N.NNN oN—_. NN—N. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N _NN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.— N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.N—N N—NN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NN—N. NN.—N NN.N. N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.N—N NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. «NNN. NN.NN NN.N. N.N N.NN N.N NN.N o. N— —.NoN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNN_ N.NNN NNNN. N.NN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN. N.N N N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N._NN N.NN. N.NN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. N. N— N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.N—N NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.. N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. N-—. NN.NN NN.N. N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.N—N NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.N. N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNN— N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.N. N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN.— N.NNN N.NNN NNN N N.N NN N.NNNN N.Noop NN.N. NNN—. NN.—N NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN.N N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. _N~_. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.—N NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N o_ o— N.NNN NN.N N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NN—N N.NNN NNNN. N.NN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN.N N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.N. N.N N.NN N.N NN.N .N N— N.NNN NN.N N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. No—N. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N o— _— N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN ..8. N3“. N4 9. a u SEN «3 a 5 NN.NN N.NNN: N“. J: N; N: J: N“. J: um...“— .o: .2. .2. £3 ...—39:. .58 .53 NNN 5.39:. 30; £93 NNN 2335 v.78 33.30 .22 :2: 2.3:: so «so: .395 econ =NNN N.NN N.N c—ouoga mucus-u unuugau NNN N.N Nag NNN no: Nana -uaos» NNsoco NNgoco NN.NN NN—NN :3. N23 vascvucouuu.N.< ops-h 126 Tab1e A.6.--Scanoprobe Estimates of Fat Thickness Over the Twe1fth Rib (Tria1 1)a Estimated Actual Estimated Actua1 Pen Steer fat fat Pen Steer fat fat no. no. cm cm no. no. cm cm 33 366 .51 .64 37 373 .76 .51 374 .38 1.02 377 .64 .64 375 .25 .38 381 .51 .51 390 .64 .51 388 .64 .89 398 .51 .64 406 .64 .51 399 .64 1.02 416 .38 .51 422 1.27 1.52 417 .76 .76 424 .89 .89 428 1.02 .64 34 245 .76 .76 38 211 .51 .76 250 .38 1.02 247 .76 1.02 254 .38 .64 251 1.02 1.52 294 .51 1.02 279 .51 .89 298 .25 .05 301 .64 .76 317 .38 .64 326 .51 .76 323 .25 .64 356 .64 .64 325 .51 .51 359 .89 1.65 35 367 .76 .89 39 378 .25 .38 386 .51 .76 395 .76 1.02 392 .64 .38 396 .76 .89 407 .89 1.02 412 .76 1.14 409 1.02 1.14 415 1.02 1.02 410 .76 .76 418 1.27 1.65 413 .64 .51 432 1.02 .76 433 .64 .89 434 .51 .25 36 226 .64 .64 40 203 .89 1.02 230 .76 .76 213 .64 .51 231 1.02 1.27 222 .25 .64 259 .64 .76 232 .51 .51 266 .76 1.14 236 .64 1.40 309 .76 1.78 257 1.02 1.78 354 .76 1.14 334 .51 .89 355 .76 1.52 365 .64 1.14 aITHAco u1trasonic SCANOPROBE, Ithaca, New York. 127 Tab1e A.6.--Continued Estimated Actua1 Estimated Actua1 Pen Steer fat fat Pen Steer fat fat no. no. cm cm no. no. cm cm 41 368 .51 1.27 45 376 .76 .76 371 .51 1.14 379 1.02 1.02 382 .76 .89 411 .76 .51 389 .76 .51 421 .25 .64 393 .51 1.02 425 1.02 .38 394 .51 1.02 427 .76 .51 403 .38 .51 429 1.27 1.78 419 .38 .38 430 .25 1.14 42 209 .51 .64 46 200 .76 .89 258 .38 .64 218 .76 1.27 274 .64 .64 268 .51 1.02 277 .76 1.40 278 .64 .76 290 .89 1.27 308 .51 .76 310 .51 .76 320 .38 .76 357 .76 .51 324 .64 .76 372 .25 .25 353 .51 .64 43 369 .38 .51 47 370 .51 .25 380 .64 .89 383 .76 .25 391 .76 1.27 384 .76 .76 397 .51 .38 385 .76 1.02 401 .64 .38 400 .25 .38 404 .51 .51 402 .64 .38 423 .64 .64 408 1.27 .89 431 .51 .64 420 1.02 .51 44 198 .76 1.27 48 208 .51 .64 201 .89 .89 241 .64 .89 249 .38 .25 280 .51 .89 276 .51 .64 319 .51 .51 293 .51 .76 347 .64 1.02 333 .38 .76 350 .51 1.27 342 .64 .89 361 .76 .64 346 .76 1.78 364 .51 1.52 aITHAco u1trasonic SCANOPROBE, Ithaca, New York. 128 .8.:5538 Na NESN 2:322. No 32 ..8 339:3 no: 0...! N23:— 332 be NNN—3 £8 a 55.58..» 53?... 53 .8 9.33 289.9. N 8...... 82:6 NNm.NNN~ N.N.NNNN N.N.NNNN NNN.NNN~ NNN.N~N~ N.N..NNN NNN.~NN~ NNN.NNN~ ..8: .NNNNNNNN..E to. .Nu. NNLNNN NNN.NN .NN.N. NNN.NN NNN.NN NNN.NN .NN.NN N.N..N NN~.~N N .NNNNNNNN.N .0. an: N: Na Nuco.u..NN NNN. N.N. NNN. NNN. .NN. NNN. NNN. NNN. N.N—.oz .c..N go. =°.u.. No NN.N, Nz NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN. N.N. NNN. .NN. NNN. N.N—.oz ..Nc..s to. NN.N.. .o NN.N. N2 NNN.N_— NNN..~— NN~._~. «NN.NN. NN~.NN. NNN.N~. NNN.N~. N-.N~. ..8! ....NNN NN.NN» so» .Nu. NN.NN. N: N..NN .NN..N_ NNN.NN_ NNN.NN_ NNN.NN_ .NN.NN. NNN.NN_ .N~.NN_ NNN.NN_ NNN—Nag .Nx .Nus »_==\.uo.N N.NN N...N NNN.N.~ NNN.-~ NNN.NNN NNN.NN~ NNN.NN~ NNN.NN~ NNN.N.~ NNN.NN. N.N—.82 .»2 .Ngs N.NNNNNNNN. N: N_.~N NNN.N. NN..N_ NNN... NN.... NN..N_ NNN.N. NNN... NN..N. ..8: .u.~.=_ N: N..NN NNN. Nnm. NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN. N.N. N.N..u: .u=.~> N: NN.NNN NNN.N NNN.N NN..N NNN.N NNN.N NN~.N NNN.N ~N..N ..u: .c..N + .Ng..s Lo. Naucaaxo Nz N..~N NNN.N NNN.N NNN.N NNN.N .NN.N NNN.N NN~.N NNN.N ..u: .uu:.=a~=..e .0. .Na. Nz N...N NN..NNN NNN.NNN ~NN.NNN ~NN.NNN NN..~NN NNN.~NN NNN.NNN NNN.NNN ..8: .u.. N.NN NNLocm «NN.NN. ..N.~N_ NNN.NN. «NN.NN. NNN.NN. NNN.NN_ NNN.NN. NNN.NN. NP .=.~N 8.. NN~.NN. NNN.NN_ NN..NN. NNN..N. NN..N~. NNN.NN_ NNN.NN. NNN.N~_ ..8: .=.ouota N.NN NN.NNN NNN.NN NNN.NN NNN.NN NNN.~N NNN.NN NNN.NN N.N.NN NNN.NN a. .N..N N.NNoga NNN.NNN NNN.~NN NNN.~NN NNN..NN NN~.N~N NNN.NnN NN..NNN NN~.NNN a. .NNN.N3 anon Nuaea .~.u.=. N.N.N. NNN... NNN.~. NN~.~. NNN.N. NNN.~. NNN.N. NNN... an. .oNNNN. No N...N NNNLN>< NNN.NN~ NNN.NN~ NNN.NN~ NNN.NN~ NNN.NN~ NNN.NN~ NNN.NN~ NNN.NN~ NNNN co NNNN NNN...N NNN.NNN NNN..NN NNN..NN NNN.NNN NNN.NNN NNN.NNN NNN..NN a. .u: NNN. Nuns» .N=.. NNN.NN NNN.N~ N~_.N~ NNN.N~ .NN.N~ NnN.N~ NNN.N~ NNN.- a .NNN Nvoa Nous» ..=.. NN.... NN_.N. NN..N. NN..N_ NN..N. NN.... NN..N. NN_.N. a .8.» Nuoa NNNEN ...».c. NNN.N. NNN.N_ No~.N. N.N.N. N.N.N. NNN.N_ NN..N_ .NN.N. N .=.ouo.N Nvoa Nuaea _~=.. NN~.N. NN~.N_ NN~.N_ NN~.N. NN~.N. NN~.N. NN~.N. NN~.N. N .=_ouo.g NNNN Nuns» ...“.c. NNN.NNN NNN..NN NNN..N. NNN.NNN NN_._NN NN~.NNN NNN.NNN NNN.NNN a. .3: .....c. N N N N N N N . .oz N:~EN.N.N N3 N8 ~23: + £89. £22.... 339. N2 + 589. .339. .228 232.8 2.5.8.. :2 N NN.N. N+ “Nwwfl. :2 N 8..... :2 N NN.N 2.. N NN.N 822283.... zN . 2253.5 538.. N: :25 9.03..” 2380: 3 to... Nee—NS. Ne Nos; 3.55 no: No 53.3281.N.< 03-.— 129 63:53.38 .53.... Du NEE... 3.322. No «3— ..8 33853 3.. to: N335 .532. .2... «NNN—N ...—3.. 555-0..» 539:. 53 8 £8: 3.5393 N.N—9.28 N 8o... 82.: NNN.NNN~ NNN.NNN~ NNN.NNN~ NNN.NNNN NNN.NNN~ N.N.NNNN «NN.NNNN NN..NNN~ ...: .ouc.cuuc.ue .o. .Nu. NN.N:N NN~.NN NNN.NN NNN.NN NNN.NN N...NN NNN.NN NNN.NN N.N.NN a .co..uaeo.N .9. on: N: .0 Nu...u...u NNN. NNN. NN.. .NN. NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN. N.N—.oz .c..N ... NN.... .o N3... N2 NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN. N.N. NNN. NNN. NNN. N.N—.oz ...:..s .o. NN.... .8 «a... N2 NN..NN. NN..N~_ NNN.N~_ N.N.NN. NNN.-_ NNN.N~. .NN.N~. .NN._N. ..ug ....Nao NN.NN» .8. .Na. 8..... N: N...N NNN.NN_ NNN.NN_ NNN.NN_ N.N.NN. NNN.NN. N.N..N. NNN.NN. NNN.NN. N.N..ug ..3 ..05 ..==\.No.a .... N...N NNN.N.~ ....NNN NNN...~ .NN.NN~ N.N.NNN NNN.NN~ N.N...N N.N.NNN N.N..ux ..3 ..ua N.NNNN..... N: N...N ~NN.N_ NN..N. NN..N_ N.N.N. NNN.N. NNN.N_ ~N~.N. NNN.N. ...: .....c. N: N...N NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN. N.N. .NN. NNN. N.N..ux .a:... N: NN.N.N «NN.N NNN.N NNN.N NNN.N NNN.N_ .N..N NN..N NN~.N ...: .g..N + .u:..: .8. ouccoaxa Nz N...N N.N.N NNN.N NNN.N NN~.N NNN.N NNN.N NN~.N N.N.N ..8: .oucacouc..s .0. .N.. N: N...N NNu.NNN NNN.NNN NNN.NNN NNN..NN NNN.NNN NNN.~NN NNN.~NN NN..NNN ...: .... N.NN NN.N.N NNN.NN. NNN.NN. NNN.NN. N.N.NN. ~NN.NN. NNN..N. NNN.NN. NNN.~._ .. ...NN ... NNN.NN. NNN.~N. NNN.NN. NN~.~N_ NNN._N_ NNN..N. NNN..N. NNN.~N_ ...: ...».N.N N.NN NN.N.N NNN.~N NNN.NN ~NN.~N NNN.~N .NN.NN N.N.NN NNN.NN NNN.NN .. ....N c.».o.. NNN._NN NNN.NNN NNN.NNN ~NN.NNN NNN.NNN NNN.~NN NNN.NNN NN..NNN a. .NNN.N: NNN; N.NNN .....c. NN..N. NNN.N_ NN..N. NNN... NNN.N_ N.N.N. NN~.N. NN.... an. .o...=. 2N N...N NN..N>< NNN.NN~ NNN.NN~ NNN.~N~ NNN.~NN NNN.~N~ NNN.NNN NNN.NN~ NNN.NN~ NNN. co Nxoo NN~.N_N_ NNN.N.N. NN~.N.N. NNN.NNN NN~.NNN_ NNN.~NN_ N~_.NNN_ NNN.N~N a. ..2 NNN. N.NN. ..c.. .NN.- NN..N~ .NN.N~ NNN.N~ N.N.NN N~o.N~ NNN.- NNN.- N .... NNN. N.NNN ..... NNN.N. NNN.N. NNN.N. NNN.N_ NNN.N. NNN.N_ NNN.N. NNN.N. N .N.. NNN. Nuns. .....c. NNN.N. NN~.N. .N~.N. NNN.N. NNN.N. NNN... NNN.N. NNN.N. a .=.o.o.a NNN. N.NNN ..c.. NN..N. NN..N_ NN..N. NN..N_ NN..N. o...N_ o._.N. NN..N. a .c...o.a NNN. Nuns. .....c. NNN.NNN NNN.NNN NN~.NNN NN..NNN NNN.NNN NN..NNN NN~.NNN NN~._NN .. ..x .....c. N N N ... N N N . .2. 2.952...» ..8 N8 N2.8.5 + .389. 3:2... .589. N8 + 338.. .339. 3.5.8 2.3.8... N553... :2 N 8..... N. ....Nwwfi :2 N 8..... :2 N NN.N :2 N NN.N 8298.852... z< . . 295......» 539... ... ...... ...aaN NN....N.N N...¢...N o. No. NNN.».N .9 N.N... NN.NNN .oz .9 co..._=u..u--.o.¢.._a.N 1.31) .coNNNNNELooNN Logan: Nut NNNLNN NupNuupo> No man. NNN Nouuosgou No: 0.»: Nox~u=_ saunas Nye NN.—Na cgou a .ucusuou.u =.ooo.a Nuao co «Locum NoNNNNNNo N.N—N.NNN N NNN ugouogoz N «.23 N.NNN. NNN.NNN~ NNN.NNNN NNN.NNN~ NNN.NNN~ N.N.NNNN N.N.NNNN NNN.NNNN NNN.NNN~ ..8: .ou=.=~.=..e .0. .Nu. NN.NN“ NN~.NN NNN... NNN.NN NNN.NN NNN.N. N.N... NNN..N N._.NN N .co..u=No.N .o. 0.: N: .o Nu:o.u...u NNN. .NN. N.N. NNN. NNN. NNN. NN.. NNN. N.N..u: ....N .0. NN.... .0 «a... N2 NNN. N.N. N.N. NNN. N.N. N.N. NNN. NNN. N.N..u: ......s .8. NN.... No «a... N2 NNN._~_ ..N.N~. ~NN.-. NNN..N. .NN.N~. NNN.N~. NNN.NN. NNN.N~. N.NN ....NN. NN.NN» .o. .No. N.N.N. u: N...N N.N.NN. NNN.NN. NNN.NN_ NN..NN_ NNN.NN_ NNN.NN. NNN.NN. ~NN.NN. N.N..u. .8: ...e ..NNN.NN.N ...; N...N ~NN.N.~ NNN.NN~ NNN.NNN N.N.NNN NNN.N_~ NNN.NN~ NN....N NNN.NN~ N.N—.8. .8: ...s N.NNN....=. N: N...N NNN.N_ NNN.N. NNm.N. NNN.N. NNN.N. .NN.N. NNN.NN NNN.N_ ..8: .....c. N: N...N .NN. N.N. .NN. NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN. .NN. ..8: .oz... N: NN.N.N NNN.N NNN.N NNN.N NNN.N NNN.N NNN.N NNN.N NNN.N ..8: .c..N + ..g..5 .o. Noucuqxu Nz N...N .NN.N NNN.N N.N.N N.N.N NNN.N NNN.N NNN.N NNN.N ...: .oucacoug..e .0. .N8. N2 N...N NN..NNN NN..~NN NNN.NNN NNN.NNN NNN.NNN NNN.~NN NNN.NNN NNN.NNN ...: .... =..N NN...N N.N.NN. NN...N. NNN.NN. NNN.NNN NNN.NN_ NNN..N. .NN.~N. NN..NN. a. ....N ... NNN.NN. NNN..N. NNN.NN_ NNN..N_ NNN.NN. NNN.NN. N.N.NN. NNN.NN_ ...: .=.u.o.N N.NN NN.NNN NN..NN NNN.NN .NN.NN .NN.~N NNN.NN .NN.NN NNN.NN NNN.NN .. .=.~N =.a.o.. NNN.NNN NN~.NNN N.N.NNN NNN.NNN NNN.NNN NNN.NNN NNN.NNN NN..NNN a. ...N..3 NNN. N.NNN .....2. Non... NNN.N. N.N.N. NNN.N. NNo.N_ NNN.N. NNN... NNN.~. an. .....N. Na NN.NN NN....< NNN.NNN NNN.NN~ NNN.NN~ NNN.NNN NNN.NN~ NNN.NN~ NNN.NN~ NNN.NN~ no». go “N.N NNN.~NN NN...NN NNN.NNN NNN.N.N NNN.NNN NNN.N~N NNN.NNN NNN.NNN .. ..x NNN. N.Nsa ..... NNN.N~ NNN.NN NNN.N~ NNN.N~ NNN.N~ NNN.N~ NNN.N~ N.N.NN N .... NN.N Nuaeo .~=.. NNN.N. NNN.N. NNN.N. NNN.N. NNN.N. NNN.N. NNN.N. NNN.N_ N .... Nae. N.NN. .....N. NNN.N. NNN.N. N.N.N. NNN.N_ .NN.N. NNN.N_ .N~.N. .NN.N_ N .g.o.o.N NNN. N.NNN ..=.. NN..N. NN..N. NN..N_ NN..N_ NN..N. NN_.N. NN..N. NN..N. N .=.u.o.a NN.N N.NNN .....c. NNN.~NN NNN.NNN NNN.NNN NNN.NNN NNN.N.N NN_.NNN NNN.~NN NNN.NNN a. .8: .....c. N N N N N N N . .2. 2.25.5 No. No. NNNN..N..=NNNNN .....c.a zNNNN. NN. + NNNNNN NNNNN. .o..=ou 2.32.8 82:88 :2 N 8..... N + $wa N2... N 8..... :2 N NN.N 2... N NN.N 822283.... zN .N. NNNENNNLN NNoNNNN ... ....NN coNo.».= ..ueuao_NN=N .o N..».. N:- Nou.=oN NNN...» NN.N—augou N.N...N .8 «NN.NN NN.NN” .oz No NN.NNNNNNNN--.N.N «NN.N 131 .oN . ouNogu :24 "N . NooN NNN: “N - NooN oNogo>< "on-2N NuNNoaaN .NN - -NNNEN mN - +NNNNNN «N . .NNNNNN "N.NNN NNNNNNNNN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNoN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N NN NN N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN ooNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN.N N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNoN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN.N N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNo. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN. N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN.N N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNoN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN.N N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N NN NN N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. oN NN N.NNN NN.N N.NNN. N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. N .N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNoN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNoN. NN.NN NN.NN -- -- -- -- -u .. N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NoNo. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N NN NN N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N NN NN N.NNN NN.N N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNoN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN.N N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NN—N N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N oN NN N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNoN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNo. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NoNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN.N N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN.N N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNoN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN Nous Noun Nu NJ a a «NN.N «20 a so NN.NN N.NN-t N8 .N3 Na N; .u3 Nx .u: can» .oz .0: .o: .NNN .eNouoga .cNNN .cNoN NNN :Nuuogn NN.N» .Noua .NNN xuNNN .Naao NN-ogau .NN< NacNN N-NuNcN co News NoouN cog NN.N NNNN NNN cNoucLN mucus-u «Nausau one NNN NNN NNN N no: nN-N -NNNLN NN.N:N NNgoco NNN-N NNN-N .58 ...:3 AN NNNLNV NN.N NNNugNu v:- oocoscovsom NuavN>NucNuu.oN.< NNNNN 132 .NN - ouNoNu 304 .N . NooN NNN: .N - NooN oNNso>< "NN.NN NaNN-aoa .NN .. -225 .N _. +2.25 8 . .225 .983 9.39.3... N.NNNN N.NNN NNoN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N NN NN N.NNN NN.N N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN.N N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN.N N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN.N N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. NN. NN N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN.N N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N oN NN N.NNN NN.N N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNoN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NoNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN.N N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N NN NN N.NNN NN.N N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNo. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N NN NN N.NNN NN.N N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNoN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N NN NN N.NNN NN.N N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NoNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N NN oN N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NooN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNo. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. NN NN N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN -- -- -- -- -- -- N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN.N N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. N. N N.NNN NN.N N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN.N N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N NN NN N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN.N N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. cNoN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N oN NN N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. NN NN N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N3... Nos. 9. N.. a u SEN ..u a 8 03.5 ...fa: N.. J... N... N.. J: N._ J: to...» .2. 6.. .2. .NNN .cNouosu .cNoN .eNaN NNN cNoNo.N NN.N» .NNLN NNN NuNNu .N-aa «anus-u .NNN N.NNN NNNuNcN so ago: soouN NNN NNNN NN.N NNN :NNNNLN among-u NN-usau NNN NNN NNN NNN N no: Nana -NNNLN NN.N:N NN.N:N NNNNN NNNNN NNN-N NNN-N ll 1Ml1 toscNu:OUuu.cN.< NNN.» 133 .2 - BN2? .8.. .N .. NSN N.NNN. .N .. NSN «NN.N: .2.-.5 5:25.. .NN - -NNNEN .N . +NNNNNN .N - .NNNNNN "N.NNN NNNNN.NNN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN Noon. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNoN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN ON. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNoN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N N0.— 0— ~— N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N ON.— N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.N—«N N.NNN «NNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N oN NN N.NNN Na. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N o.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNo. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N NN NN N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN.N N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. NN Np N.NNN No.— N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NoNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNo. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NnN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NmN NN N.Noom N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNoN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N oNN NN N.NN—N N.ONN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN.N N.N—m N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN.N N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN.N N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNo. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N NN NN N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NN—N N.NNN NNNN. NNNo. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN.N N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN o.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN oNoN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNoN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNoN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN No.— N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N c— o— N.NNN No. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNoN. NNoN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNoN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N NN NN N.NNN NN.N N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNO. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N. N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. ONNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNoN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N oN NN N.NNN NN.N N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N @— c— N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N NN NN N.NNN NN.N N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN.N N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NN—N N.NNN NNNN. «NNN. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN.N N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN N.NNNN N.NNN NNNN. NNNo. NN.NN NN.NN N.N N.NN N.N NN. N N N.NNN NN. N.NNN N.NNN NNN N NNN NN No“... Nos. 9. 9. a a 8.3 ..8 a ...u NN.NN N.NN-N. N; J... N.. 9. J: N._ J... coo» .2. .2. .2. J: .539... ...NNN .53 a: 53?... N.NNN» .3... a2 N35 .38 33.3 .22 N.NN... N32,: .5 as! .33 ...... 53 £8 NNN 53...... 3328 33.8 .5. N... :5. an... N No: a»... .39.» 3.2.0 52... NNN-N NNN-N NNN-N NNN-N Ll I‘ Nose—acounu.cN.< NNNNN 134 .532338 .332 be N526 3.322, no 32 .3» 332:3 «o: to: «9.35 .332 Pu «Na—3 E3- ch.a_.. .oo.~°.. ooa.hsn_ cm..¢.m. am~.~um. csm...o_ .oa.oom_ ao~.m~op aaa.o~m_ ..u: .oucacuu=.gs go; .aug augocu “mo.an mo_.~. .co.ee sac... mmo.n. -m.an a_..n. N.N..n me.... a .co.»u=uo.a go» on: m: .o Nu=~.u_».u ”me. “No. com. new. owe. ~¢.. .¢.. mom. -.. ._\_.u= .c..a 50‘ co.u.g No u=~.> uz ”so. can. ~_~. .cN. aoo. can. «as. mmo. mam. ap\..u: ..u:..5 go. co.».g No n:..> u: n~¢.g~. ~om.m~_ .cm.-. moo.n~_ ~a~..~_ ~o..o~_ m_~..~_ ..o.nn_ ma~.m~. ..ux ....aoo Nuguco LON .aa. u8.a=. u: »__~o ~cn.ms. o.»..~_ .oe.-_ mno.me. ano.m¢_ nm_.a~. m_n.c~_ «no.mm. om~.a~_ u.\..ux .uz .uua u.=:\.uoga ”a”; »__.o .o..mo~ .-._.~ m-.n.~ o-.no~ "mo.~o~ om~.~_~ ~on.mo~ _m~.~_~ oom.~_~ a.\_.ux .»3 .uoe u_==\o..u=. u: »_v.o omm.n_ ..m.., QNN... mam.n. .om.n. .mw... mNm.n. om¢.n. ~o¢.._ ..u: .uxouc* m: x__.a «an. ace. mNu. mNo. ~No. mom. oNQ. omm. moo. a.\..uz .o=_.> m: co_ua¢ «no.0 o~m.~ new.“ ma..~ .N..~ mo..~ mac.“ New.» Nae.“ _.ux .g..u...u=..e 59* umvcogxu mz a...o amo.. ¢o_.m m~_.m mmo.m ~e_.m om_.m ~a°.m «so.m oo_.m ..u: ..u=.=ou=_.e so. .aog u: »P_.o moc.mn~ ova.oa~ ~m_.omm no~.c.n coo.n_n .na..on moo.o~n com..- o°_.-n _.u: .u.. c..0 augucu m...mm oom.uo oem.na ..m._o .ma.n~ oso._~ num.o~ .om.~m Nuh.ma a, .=*.u “nu oeu._o_ o~s.___ cmo.co_ .m~.aa “mo.np. mmm.°~. nom.~.. mm~.m._ www.mo_ ..u: .=.uaog¢ c..u Nagocu o...mn a~n.n. con... .wa.mn poo.¢. _m~.o. aoo.ne «a»... o-.c. a. .c..m c.0uoga mam.am. ono.~o. omm.noe cmn.o¢. a~n.mo. o~_.~o. on~.om. -~._mc now.mme ‘— .ugo_u: swan auge~ ...».c. ONO... omn.~. osm.~. mam... oqo.__ mom.~_ aeo... oa~.~_ oom.~_ .a. .oxoug. to »_,~u moagu>< occ.oop coo.om_ coo.ao. ooo.oa_ oco.m¢_ ooc.m¢_ coc.oa. coo.om_ ooo.cm_ wouN ca name com.~oo com._~s oco.o- oom.mON oco._nN ocm.hm~ coo.n- °o°.~_s ooo.-~ op .uz auoa Nags» .oz.“ °.n.m_ owm.a_ c-._~ ca...~ omm.u. mo~.a_ c~m.o~ omm.~. ooc.- a .u.‘ mean augeo _.=,u onn.m_ can.m_ omn.m_ onn.m_ can.m. onn.m_ can.m. can.m_ onn.m_ a .u.. avg; mans» ...».=_ o~_.a_ m~a.~_ cam.~_ o.m.~_ asa.~_ mom.~. c-.s_ com.o_ c~..~_ a .=.uuogg Nuca Nugea ..c.u oom.o_ oom.m. °¢m.a. omm.m_ cam.a_ cam.¢. cam.m. com.m_ com.a. u .c..uogn ago; mane. ...u_c~ coo.nom aoo.oom coc..om ocm.nom cco.mom com.mom coc.oa. coo.mom coo.nom a. .u: ...u.=~ a a N o m e n ~ . .oc “cusu.ogp ...... can ...: v.2 :8 o ..8 can ...: 3: ...: c 8.. can {a 3: ...... o .8 .838. 5 $325.. No .26.. 889.5 a 2.2 589.? a 8; .9885 a o a :2: .533. 9.26.5 .5» «03—; NN.-ecu uoz No 8333—3 on.S.< «SE. 135 .covuacvsgouuv Lounge Nun chgau m~.*u~—o> No mmop so» uuuuogsou yo: egg: "usage. Locum: Nut «Nap—m cgou was cgou ogaum.oe NN.:- 528 898.. «3.32 828 .838 3...: $3.: :28 233 .8.. 52.2358 ..8 ...3 .335 .2.: «2:2 5.8 ...8.: 2.33 8...... 38.8 23.2 «2.: a .8388... ..8 3.. m: .... 353:: So. am. as. 8.... 8m. 8... .8. oz. 3.. 5:8: .5... .5 5:... ..o 3:; 2. m3. .3. m8. :3. 93. 2a. 8.... 8.... a... 5:8: :35: ...... =53... .... 3:... a. ...8.”: 3:: 8:: 8a.:— $~....: 2:: SE: 8...:— §.:_ :3. :52.» .835 ..8 .8.. 335 u... .58 :93... 333 5:2. :23 @332 39:... 23.3 :93... 5.3.3. 958.. J.. J: 5.5.8.... 33.. .58 8:: 2.32 33.8 :38 «:53 «.832 $3: ...8.—S 858.». 9:23.. J: 3...... 32.3335 m... .58 :93 8a.: .8.8. 5...: «3.8 .8.: :3: 5.3 NS: .3: .335 m... .58 9:. E. .3. n8. 9:. 9:. “.3. n2. .3. £23.. 63... m... .33.... 8a.: 8...: :92 ~25. v2.2 98.: :82 5...: 8...: .8: 5:335... ..5 82.3.... a. .53 :2 ..8... a: as 8.3 3.2 a; 8m.» :3 .8... 6.2.2.352 ..8 .8.. M... .58 :23 33.3 :25 8:93 3......» 82% ~83. 813... 5.5 .3... J... 53 .335 :32 «2.3. 832 9:32 :22 82: 3.8. .8.8. .8.8. 5 .53 .2 $3: 5.3 23.8 3...: 8....2 :9: 82m 5.3 ...8.: .8... .539... 53 .335 33.: 2...: ~33 8%: 2...: .8.8 .8.8. 08.: 858 5 .53 53...... 8:3 8...»: 3:: :98: 8:8 33:» BS: :98: 8:: 5 .252. .32. 3...... .555 8...: 898 8...: 2:3 898 8...: 9:: 8......— 82. .5 .335 S 3.... 383... 8...—2 8...; 832 8a.; 8a.: 898 8a.: 8a.: 8...—... 23 .... :8 828 29.8 :38 3:35 833 :33 892... ”5.3... 8.33 5 J: 32 3...... .2.: ~84: «2.8 "3.3 93.3 898 39.8 83.: 8...: 8%: n J: 33 be... :5. and. 8a.: :3: 8...: 3.2 892 83: 8.1: 2...: a J... 33 3...... .525 o2...— 55 59.5 .8.: 8..: .33. 23.2 :3: 83. a .539... 5.3 3%... :5. 2...: 8a.: 8...: 8...: 89: 8a.: 2:: 2.3: 8..: a .539... .63 .39.... 3:5 :86: 3:8 2:8 :38 "3.3: :3: 2.5.2: 838 :3: 5 J: .555 a a : o m e n ... _ .2. 2938.; ...... 3: ...... ....2 ...... o ...... can ...... ....5 ...... c I... can ...... ....5 ...... o E .53: 5 cums—5! ho 3:0.— .883? a 2.2 Basis. ... 8.: £832.. ... a AN po—LNV nova-u Nc—guvcwu saN moapa> Nasocm am: No co.u-p:u_-uuu.-.< u—aa» 136 .cozac—Eaaou .332 b... 55.5.. «2323 mo «.3— ..8 339:3 uoc «so: 383.: .332. Eu «3:... E3 2.. E8 2338. :3... oom.o~v~ —ao.mmn~ cpv.—m¢~ vmc.—mm~ n—n.~mn~ «0—.mmew psm.e¢m~ pc~.~no~ omm.o—o~ you: .oucocoucvoe Lou .cog magnum omm.mo cn~.m¢ —mm.mv nmo.n¢ ~.m.nc ope.¢¢ mme.~¢ om—.an ~w~.om a .covuuauosn so; on: u: we huco.u.bwm osm. men. men. mam. cem. ocm. cam. mac. use. a—\—aux .:_om Lou cowuug uo ozpo> uz m—o. npc. mom. was. cos. man. was. cs“. NNN. apxpuu: ..uc—ue so» coves; mo ua—a> uz -o.m—— cam.o—— v—o.o—p nm—.—~— n¢—.—~— www.cu— vom.-p cmo.¢~— mem.e~— pang ..——:ao masoco so» .aas oxoucv u: »——oo mwc.~o— pwm.~m— aem.po— “mo.mo— ~m¢.nm— nma.no— mm~.mm— ao~.wo— pmm._o~ axxpaux .ux .uus u.::\.uosa ago: x——oo mpo.mn~ pm~.v¢~ s—u.¢¢~ meo.mmu moo.—n~ mom.nn~ nv~.—n~ ocm.mv~ mne.w¢~ wax—aux .93 .uue uwcaxoxoucw m: »_*oo mmn.~— mov.m— amo.mp sm~.~— vn¢.s— eno.s— oao.sp n—m.o— m~m.¢— pun: .mxoucw u: appoo moo. mac. mum. mew. men. who. vew. ~nw. ewe. n—xpaux .oz—a) u: co_uc¢ ena.a cc—.o— mno.c— ~nm.o mov.m m—c.a no—.o voc.o nm~.w pan: .c'aa.+.ucwas so» uuuconxo mz ap—mo nom.m emo.m cwa.m ~0n.m pea.m uwm.m cou.m «mm.m -~.m —~ux .oucncoucvue Lam .oug m2 Apvuo .o—.—~o Nan.cem nem.~mm —mo.—mo psc.-~ www.mmw Npm.~m~ ~eo.m—m www.nom pout .uaw c—ou museum www.m—N mem.-~ e~¢.m—~ o—o.so~ ov~.—m— au~.~o~ enn.mm— ~co.~m— om~.uwp np .cvam can «on.ao— oow.mo— www.msp mam.o¢— ~mw.on— —o~.mo— noo.mo— ~m—.mw— ~on.~mp pact .cvouoga :pom Acumen po~.mo mqm.mo mno.mo eav.mo ps~.oo ooo.vw www.mo pom.pn www.ch n— .c5om c—oucgn ¢¢m.mmv omo.ooo ovm.eov nom.~mv mc~.msc mum.woe m:m.~mv ume.omv o—o.omc a— .usuwoz anon Apnea para—=— m——.v— mow.v— ooa.c— mm~.vp cap.¢— cm~.¢p ccs.n~ csm.vp osm.o— cap .oxouc. to A—vou wougm>< cow.o- ooo.co~ Oom.°nu coc.pmw ooo.oo~ ccm.o- coo.pm~ ooo.—o~ ooo.—w~ vmm: no name mmo.a¢o nco.poa v.5.mno ~mn.veo oco.~vm v—5.m¢o coc.m~m nc—.wmm coo.mvo a. .03 Avon Agnew —ocpu ~o~.on vuv.cm nvn.o~ 0m~.o~ soo.o~ ~mm.»~ cao.s~ om~.- om~.s~ a .ua» swag xunsm pug.“ cmm.m— omn.m— onn.m— Omn.m— can.m— can.mp onn.mp anm.m— omn.m— a .uov Avon spasm payu’c~ can.m— ~e~.m— pom.m— pwm.m— cm¢.o— pvo.w— ¢a~.o— nsm.mp nom.o— a .c—ouosn hues zaaeo —oc—u cam.m— cam.m— oom.m— omm.m— cam.m— omm.m— cam.mp cam.mp cam.o— u .c—ouosn avoa huneu po'uv=~ psm.mov ¢p~.nom cpn.o—m o—~.oom smn.o~m cem.~—m coo.mav cm~.omo smm.~ae pp .u: powuwc~ a a s o m c n N — .2. «5.53..» ...... can ...... .2: ..8 a .8.. ...: ...... 3: ...... a ...... ...: ...... ...: ...... o .8 83.... 5 £208.. .3 52.3 83¢ng a 2.2 5.58%.: a 8.: zomuofifi a a Au pa—th vowsoa acruoou osvucw soc ao:—¢> augocu an: mo corps—:upou-u.n~.< open» LITERATURE CITED LITERATURE CITED Allen, C. K.,and H. E. Henderson. 1972. Effect of elevated levels of acetic and lactic acid on steer performance on an all corn silage ration. Michigan Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Rep. 174. Allen, C. K., H. E. Henderson and H. G. Bergen. 1971. Ammonium salts as a source of crude protein for feedlot cattle. Michigan Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Rep. 143. Allen, C. K., H. E. Henderson and w. G. Bergen. 1972. Ammonium salts as a source of crude protein for feedlot cattle. Michigan Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Rep. 174. Barker, 5. B., and N. H. Summerson. 1941. The colorimetric determina- tion of lactic acid in biological material. J. Biol. Chem. 138:535. Beattie, D. R., H. E. Henderson, M. R. Geasler and w. G. Bergen. 1971. Pro-sil and urea addition to corn silage. Michigan Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Rep. 136. Bergen, N. G., J. R. Black and D. G. Fox. 1978. A net protein system for predicting protein requirements and feed protein values for growing and finishing cattle. Part 2. Constraints of system on NPN utilization--upper limit of ruminal microbial protein synthesis. Michigan Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Rep. 353. Bergen, w. G., E. H. Cash and H. E. Henderson. 1974. Changes in nitro- genous compounts of the whole corn plant during ensiling and subsequent effects on dry matter intake by sheep. J. Anim. Sci. 39:629. Black, J. R., and D. G. Fox. 1977. Interpretation and use of research results. Michigan Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Rep. 328. Black, J. R., and H. w. Harpster. 1978. Standard, but seldom used statistical techniques. Michigan Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Rep. 353. Blaxter, K. L., and J. A. F. Rook. 1953. The heat of combustion on the tissues of cattle in relation to their chemical composition. Brit. J. Nutr. 7:83. 137 138 Braman, w. L., E. E. Hatfield, F. N. Owens and J. M. Lewis. 1973. Protein concentration and sources for finishing ruminants fed high-concentrate diets. J. Anim. Sci. 36:782. Britt, D. G., and J. T. Huber. 1973. Fungal growth in NPN-treated corn silage. J. Anim. Sci. 37:294 (Abstr.). Brown, H., L. H. Carrol, N. G. Elliston, H. P. Grueter, J. w. McAskill, R. D. Olson and R. P. Rathmacher. 1974. Field evaluation of monensin for improving feed efficiency in feedlot cattle. Proc. Western ASAS Meetings, p. 25. Bucholtz, H. F., and H. E. Henderson. 1971. Starea and biuret as a protein source for feedlot cattle. Michigan Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Rep. 136. Burroughs, H., A. H. Trenkle and R. L. Vetter. 1974. A system of protein evaluation for cattle and sheep involving metabolizable protein (amino acids) and urea fermentation potential of feed- stuffs. Vet. Med. Small Anim. Clin. 69:713. Burroughs, H., A. H. Trenkle and R. L. Vetter. 1976. Completion of two feeding trials testing the value of rumensin in cattle feedlot rations. Iowa Agr. and Home Econ. Exp. Sta. Cattle Feeding Res. Rep. AS-416, AS Leaflet R226. Byers, F. M., and A. L. Moxon. 1979. Protein and selenium levels for growing and finishing beef cattle. Ohio Agr. Res. Dev. Ctr. Res. Rep. 79-1. Byers, F. M., and R. L. Preston. 1976. Relationship of corn silage or grain diets fed during the growing phase to protein requirements during growing and finishing. Ohio Agr. Res. Dev. Ctr. Beef Day Rep. Byers, F. M., and C. K. Smith. 1976. Antibiotics and protein supple- ments in receiving rations for feeder calves. Ohio Agr. Res. Dev. Ctr. Beef Day Rep. Cash, E. H. 1972. Relationship of silage fermentation and additives to dry matter consumption by ruminants. Ph.D. thesis. Michigan State University, East Lansing. Cash, E. H., H. E. Henderson and w. G. Bergen. 1971. Corn silage additives and concentrate levels compared. Michigan Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Rep. 143. Combs, D. K., J. E. Garrett, R. D. Goodrich and J. C. Meiske. 1978. Evaluation of nitrogen sources for growing steer calves. Minnesota Beef Cattle Feeders Rep. B-241. 139 Cook, R. J., and D. G. Fox. 1977. Anhydrous ammonia treated corn silage for feedlot cattle. Michigan Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Rep. 328. Core, J. E., D. N. Mowat, J. G. Buchanan-Smith and G. K. Macleod. 1974. Nitrogen additives for corn silage. J. Anim. Sci. 39: 998 (Abstr.). Crickenberger, R. G. 1977. Effect of cattle size, selection, and crossbreeding on utilization of high corn or high grain rations. Ph.D. thesis. Michigan State University, East Lansing. Dartt, R. M., J. A. Boling and N. N. Bradley. 1978. Supplemental protein withdrawal and monensin in corn silage diets of finishing steers. J. Anim. Sci. 46:345. Ely, L. O. 1978. The use of added feedstuffs in silage production. In Fermentation of Silage--A Review. National Feed Ingredients Association, west Des Moines. Embry, L. B. 1976. Rumensin for growing and finishing cattle. South Dakota Cattle Feeders Day Rep. Essig, H. w. 1968. Urea-limestone-treated silage for beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 27:730. Fox, D. G., and J. R. Black. 1977. A system for predicting perfor- mance of growing and finishing beef cattle. Michigan Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Rep. 328. Fox, D. G., and R. J. Cook. 1977. Performance of steer calves fed corn silage treated with three sources of anhydrous ammonia. Michigan Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Rep. 328. Fox, D. G., R. G. Crickenberger, w. G. Bergen and J. R. Black. 1977a. A net protein system for predicting protein requirements and feed protein values for growing and finishing cattle. Michigan Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Rep. 328. Fox, D. G., and C. L. Fenderson. 1978. Influence of NPN treatment, oven temperature and drying time on error in determining true corn silage dry matter. J. Anim. Sci. 47:1152. Fox, D. G., C. L. Fenderson and R. G. Crickenberger. 1977b. Sources of supplemental protein for growing and finishing holstein steers. Michigan Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Rep. 328. Fox, D. G., H. N. Woody, M. L. Danner, R. J. Cook, D. B. Bates and L. N. Lomas. 1977c. Starting new feeder cattle on corn silage. Michigan Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Rep. 328. 140 Garrett, N. N., and N. Hinman. 1969. Re-evaluation of the relationship between carcass density and body composition of beef steers. J. Anim. Sci. 28:1. Garrett, N. N., J. H. Meyer and G. P. Lofgreen. 1959. The comparative energy requirements of sheep and cattle for maintenance and gain. J. Anim. Sci. 18:528. Gill, J. L. 1979. Combined significance of non-independent tests for repeated measurements. J. Anim. Sci. 48:363. Goodrich, R. D., J. G. Linn, J. C. Schafer and J. C. Meiske. 1976. Influence of monensin on feedlot performance--a summary of university trials. Minnesota Beef Cattle Feeders Rep. B-214. Goodrich, R. D., and J. C. Meiske. 1971. Methods for improving the interpretation of experimental feedlot trials. J. Anim. Sci. 33:885. - Guyer, P. 0., V. Krause and w. Tolman. 1977. Non-protein nitrogen additions for corn silage. Nebraska Beef Cattle Rep. EC 77—218. Hankins, O. G., and P. E. Howe. 1946. Estimation of the composition of beef carcasses and cuts. USDA Tech. Bull. No. 926. Hanson, T. L., and T. J. Klopfenstein. 1979. Monensin, protein source and protein levels for growing steers. J. Anim. Sci. 48:474. Harpster, H. w. 1978. Energy requirements of cows and the effect of sex, selection, frame size, and energy level on performance of calves of four genetic types. Ph.D. thesis. Michigan State University, East Lansing. Henderson, H. E., C. K. Allen, E. Cash and w. G. Bergen. 1971a. Pro-sil vs. soybean meal for supplementing O%, 1/2%, 1%, 1-1/2%, and 2% concentrate rations. Michigan Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Rep. 143. Henderson, H. E., D. R. Beattie, M. R. Geasler and N. G. Bergen. 1971b. Effect of level of pro-sil addition to corn silage on performance of yearling steers. Michigan Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Rep. 136. Henderson, H. E., D. R. Beattie, M. R. Geasler and w. G. Bergen. 1971c. Molasses, minerals, ammonia and pro-sil addition to corn silage for feedlot cattle. Michigan Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Rep. 136. Henderson, H. E., D. R. Beattie, M. R. Geasler and w. G. Bergen. 1971d. Pro-sil, ammonia, urea-mineral and urea addition to corn silage for feedlot cattle. Michigan Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Rep. 136. Henderson, H. E., D. R. Beattie, M. R. Geasler and N. G. Bergen. 1971e. Pro-sil treated vs. control corn silage with varying levels of concentrate addition for finishing yearling steers. Michigan Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Rep. 136. 141 Henderson, H. E., and w. G. Bergen. 1972a. Methionine hydroxy analog, corn silage additives and concentrate levels for growing steer calves. Michigan Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Rep. 174. Henderson, H. E., and N. G. Bergen. 1972b. Treating corn silage with pro-sil and urea minerals for feedlot cattle. Michigan Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Rep. 174. Henderson, H. E., w. G. Bergen and C. M. Hansen. 1972. Treating corn silage with gaseous ammonia for feedlot cattle. Michigan Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Rep. 174. Henderson, H. E., and w. T. Britt. 1974. Effect of source of protein and level of concentrate and corn silage on steer and heifer calf performance. Michigan Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Rep. 245. Henderson, H. E., R. G. Crickenberger and C. A. Reddy. 1975. Fermented, ammoniated, condensed whey as a source of crude protein for feedlot cattle. Michigan Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Rep. 288. Henderson, H. E., and M. R. Geasler. 1970. Regular corn silage full fed with varying levels of protein, sources of protein and concentrate levels. Michigan Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Rep. 108. Henderson, H. E., D. B. Purser and M. R. Geasler. 1970. Anhydrous ammonia, urea and mineral additives to corn silage. Michigan Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Rep. 108. Hendrix, K. S. 1979. Anhydrous ammonia addition to corn silage. Indiana Cattle Feeders Day Rep. Huber, J. T. 1973. Non-protein nitrogen additions to silages for dairy cattle. Proc. Dist. Feed Res. Coun., p. 53. Huber, J. T. 1975. Protein and non-protein utilization in practical dairy rations. J. Anim. Sci. 41:954. Huber, J. T., J. Foldager and N. E. Smith. 1979. Nitrogen distribu- tion in corn silages treated with varying levels of ammonia. J. Anim. Sci. 48:1509. Huber, J. T., R. E. Lichtenwalner and J. w. Thomas. 1973. Factors affecting response of lactating cows to ammonia-treated corn silages. J. Dairy Sci. 56:1283. Huber, J. T., and O. P. Santana. 1972. Ammonia-treated corn silage for dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 55:489. Hungate, R. E. 1966. The Rumen and Its Microbes. New York: Academic Press. 142 Johnson, R. R., K. E. McClure, E. W. Klosterman and L. J. Johnson. 1967. Corn plant maturity. III. Distribution of nitrogen in corn silage treated with limestone, urea and diammonium phosphate. J. Anim. Sci. 26:394. Klett, R. H., R. C. Albin, R. L. Kellison and G. Chrisman. 1973. Energy and protein levels for finishing steers. J. Anim. Sci. 36:1208 (Abstr.). Klopfenstein, T. J. 1978. Chemical treatment of crop residues. J. Anim. Sci. 46:841. Klosterman, E. W., R. R. Johnson, A. L. Moxon and H. W. Scott. 1963. Feeding value of limestone-treated corn silages for fattening cattle. Ohio Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Bul. 934. Krause, V., P. Q. Guyer, I. G. Rush, 0. C. Clanton and T. J. Klopfenstein. 1976. Protein sources for growing calves. Nebraska Beef Cattle Rep. EC 77-218. Kraybill, H. F., H. L. Bitter and O. G. Hankins. 1952. Body compo- sition of cattle. II. Determination of fat and water content from measurement of body specific gravity. J. Appl. Physiol. 4:575. Lalonde, C. M. 1976. A nutritive evaluation of ammonia treated corn silage and high moisture grain. M. S. thesis. Pennsylvania State University, State College. Lalonde, C. M., T. A. Long, H. W. Harpster and W. W. Baylor. 1975. Evaluation of "cold-flow" ammonia treated corn silage and high moisture corn. J. Dairy Sci. 58:1243 (Abstr.). Larsen, R. D., and G. M. Jones. 1973. Effects of different dry matter determination methods on chemical composition and jg. vitro digestibility of silage. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 53:753. Lofgreen, G. P., and W. N. Garrett. 1968. A system of expressing net energy requirements and feed values for growing and finishing cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 27:793. Mowat, D. N., J. G. Buchanan-Smith and G. K. Macleod. 1974. Nitrogen supplementation of corn silage for growing calves. Univ. of Guelph Beef Ind. Res. Rep. Nissen, S., and A. Trenkle. 1976. Rumensin: A new feed additive for feedlot cattle. Iowa State Univ., Veterinarian 1:10. N.R.C. 1976. Nutrient Requirements of Domestic Animals, No. 4. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle. Fifth revised ed. National Academy of Science--National Research Council, Washington, D.C. 143 Owens, F. N., J. C. Meiske and R. D. Goodrich. 1970. Corn silage fermentation. II. Effects of crude protein sources and sodium bisulfite on nitrogenous constituents. J. Anim. Sci. 30:462. Perry, T. W., W. M. Beeson and M. T. Mohler. 1978. Effect of rumensin on cattle fed corn silage ensiled with an ammonia-mineral- suspension. Indiana Cattle Feeders Day Rep. Perry, T. W., W. J. Dunn, R. C. Peterson, W. M. Beeson, M. Stob and M. T. Mohler. 1979. Ammonia-mineral-suspension treated corn silage, protein levels and monensin for growing and finishing beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 48:742. Peterson, L. A., E. E. Hatfield and U. S. Garrigus. 1973. Influence of concentration of dietary energy on protein needs of growing- finishing cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 36:772. Poos, M. I., T. L. Hanson and T. J. Klopfenstein. 1979. Monensin effects on diet digestibility, ruminal protein bypass and microbial protein synthesis. J. Anim. Sci. 48:1516. Preston, R. L. 1974. Utilization of urea by light-weight feeder calves. Ohio Agr. Res. Dev. Ctr. Rep. 77. Preston, R. L., F. M. Byers, P. E. Moffitt and C. F. Parker. 1975a. Soybean meal and urea as sources of supplemental protein for newly received feeder calves. Ohio Agr. Res. Dev. Ctr. Res. Rep. Preston, R. L., and V. R. Cahill. 1972. Source of supplemental protein and time of supplementation for growing-finishing steer calves. Ohio Agr. Res. Dev. Ctr. Rep. 63. Preston, R. L., and V. R. Cahill. 1973. Withdrawing supplemental soybean meal from steer calves at varying times during the finishing period and the value of supplemental amino acids, with observations on DES implants. Ohio Agr. Res. Dev. Ctr. Rep. 68. Preston, R. L., V. R. Cahill and C. F. Parker. 1975b. Supplemental protein withdrawal in steer calves fed high concentrate rations containing adequate mineral fortification. Ohio Agr. Res. Dev. Ctr. Res. Rep. Preston, R. L., C. K. Smith and F. M. Byers. 1975c. Role of protein level, protected soybean meal, and urea-treated corn silage on the performance of new feeder calves. Ohio Agr. Res. Dev. Ctr. Res. Rep. Prigge, E. C., and F. N. Owens. 1976. Energy changes with silage making. California Feeders Day Rep. 144' Ritchie, H. D., W. G. Bergen, C. A. McPeake, H. D. Woody and W. T. Magee. 1975. Effect of urea vs. soy on feedlot performance of early and late weaned drylot calves. Michigan Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Rep. 288. Ritchie, H. D., H. D. Woody, W. T. Britt, D. R. Strohbehn and H. E. Henderson. 1974. Post-weaning feedlot performance of calves born and reared in drylot. Michigan Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Rep. 256. Raun, A. P., C. O. Cooley, E. L. Potter, R. P. Rathmacher and L. F. Richardson. 1976. Effect of monensin on feed efficiency of feedlot cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 43:670. Riley, J. G., K. F. Harrison and G. Fink. 1975. Effects of protein levels and withdrawing supplemental protein on performance of growing and finishing steers. Kansas Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Prog. Rep. 230. Salas, F., H. E. Henderson and W. G. Bergen. 1971. Methionine hydroxy analog addition to corn silage rations. Michigan Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Rep. 143. Shirley, J. E., L. D. Brown, F. R. Toman and W. H. Stroube. 1972. Influence of varying amounts of urea on the fermentation pattern and nutritive value of corn silage. J. Dairy Sci. 55:805. Snedecor, G. W., and W. G. Cochran. 1967. Statistical Methods. Ames: Iowa State University Press. Snoddon, P. M., D. N. Mowat and G. K. Macleod. 1976. Supplemental protein for finishing steers fed corn silage. Univ. of Guelph Beef Ind. Res. Rep. Soper, I. G., and F. G. Owen. 1977. Improving silage preservation and stability with an ammonia-molasses-mineral solution. J. Dairy Sci. 60:1077. Thonney, M. L. 1977. Use of monensin sodium in feeding cattle, a review. Proc. Cornell Nutr. Conf. for Feed Manufacturers, p. 104. Tolbert, R. E., R. E. Lichtenwalner and G. A. Broderick. 1977. Effect of monensin on protein degradation. Proc. 69th Mtg. ASAS, p. 263. Van Nevel, C. J., and D. I. Demeyer. 1977. Effect of monensin on rumen metabolism jn_vitro. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 34:251. Van Soest, P. J. 1963. Use of detergent in the analysis of fibrous feeds. II. A rapid method for the determination of fiber and lignin. J. Assoc. Official Anal. Chem. 46:829. 145 Van Soest, P. J., and R. H. Wine. 1967. Use of detergents in the analysis of fibrous feeds. IV. Determination of plant cell- wall constituents. J. Assoc. Official Anal. Chem. 50:50. Woody, H. D., and J. R. Black. 1978. Pricing corn silage. Michigan Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Rep. 353. Woody, H. D., and D. G. Fox. 1977. The influence of monensin on the feedlot performance of heifer calves. Michigan Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Rep. 328. Workman, B. L., F. M. Byers, A. L. Moxon and R. L. Preston. 1979. Protein and potassium requirements of feedlot cattle. Ohio Agr. Res. Dev. Ctr. Res. Rep. 79-1. Young, A. W. 1978. Supplemental protein withdrawal from corn- corn silage rations: Effect of weight and corn intake at withdrawal. J. Anim. Sci. 46:505. Young, A. W., J. A. Boling and N. W. Bradley. 1973. Performance and plasma amino acids of steers fed soybean meal, urea or no supplemental nitrogen in finishing rations. J. Anim. Sci. 36:803.