WI W:w”‘ m 1333} £33m3 3IfiI-3M333333vfi II " .11.":3.‘ '533‘~»‘_33:?,=.133:I‘. ' 3333 3 " ,. ‘.'IIII‘»: 333" ' ' 313333 '33 333 3 333331 3 I 33333 3 - .., , . (I! " g H ‘ '1 1‘ v . ‘l 1! - c . IN .Iumw,«I .. - ' . . 1,Y'¢y' 31“ 331.”... “ I ,l 4 .' ‘3’”3'33-3-1333‘333 l ‘ I . ' I, ‘3-43 . ' ,J 3 I I 1' a I I 4 I 133‘. . I l I I 1“ " 33 3 3 (.3 . I I. I. ' 3 'I l 1‘ ' o 3‘ 3 P I ‘.‘ I g3 .‘ u n , - o'u ' . . ' - Q . v I I . ‘ ., a . '3‘ I D | ' .'3I3 . , . . , . ‘.- .. v A: i .u . ' - 3‘7 3 . ‘ V: ‘ .1. I I 3 c _ I . | . . '.'! 33 N33 3 3 33: I3 333 333: '3' 3 3333333. 3333'" . ~. 3333 3"II'33I 333333333: 3", 3333:: 1:33: I . 1133113 I3 .3' 3 3.113333 3 33 3'33: 33 33333 3:33 '33::33'33: :3 I333 33‘ 3:33 3'3 I33 '3 3 3'33" 3333333. 33 3 333 3333 II 33:33 I: I . I. , 333.333 3333 “I 4:; J 333:1 33fi33g31“ I. II :333 33' 333.13: | .1 l u";. , '."J, :3L. ‘3.: v ' ‘ '7‘; C b a" D ‘\ 3:. ~.;.‘3 I - '. .E A it l'q.‘ | 3 3 I 3 I ' 3 -: a 2 ”J! t I“: '.' ‘ I ' 3 3 v 3’ v "i. 3:3,]. 3 ”he 3,33 3 3 3” “ W uzL3W'-'I-‘ .‘Infib . . ' 3- v: ' t ‘ 3‘ a .1 ' - 1 'WHW3 3 ..J~WIL§ .hI -r;, .h:, (:33 o 3 13,3 :3 i’l'.‘ I, ‘ 13... t g I i I h ‘.'-1. ‘.‘ if , o P‘ ‘ . ‘ ' a. I O v. I ' ' : o' L 3633. 3523333331..” 1 V :. .Az“. . .3 . : ‘ 3: 3' '3 ., . f 333 E33 333,33 3333333 .333:E:L3.313333‘ . .3 ‘J v . 3 f 3 333 W; ‘ 3333’ I'Q'IIp'i ' ' : '3 u .0 . “I 3; H3333? 333‘ 333le 333:. 3c g. I 3:3 . 3 ”3 "- 3:11. ‘ 33?! 3 I“, ‘ " . l 3 I. . II ..., q a :23 ‘ ' u .. I ' mi' 3 ‘ u 3 u ' 3 . ' ” 333333 3333‘ 3 33 (33:3, ‘33, W ”“3 33M 1'33 :33333, 33 ,3'33 3'33 : 333333 1.33: 333333 II." 3333333333333'3'33333331333333313333333333 :I::::'333I: _"3 I : :33::::::: 333333333333 t.I 3"3 333333 .5:3333 33333»: 33:33“:‘ 3 33' 3 '3 '3' '3'" 333333 '3' .33 I ”3,333 3 3333333 33 333333 333333333 33333333333 L III 3333333 : 3.3.3'33333, III. 3III133 :333' 3I:II:3;3 33333333 .333 3M3n3 .'Mt3 3:333 3333- .: IW ”3%33333WMI 333333 333k'fij3jfi&I : fl ’MWWMWMmmWV33WMI 33 . ———‘_—_. -- m 33' I" '3 3 3 I Mia —-—:=--—-i —-<.-::,___;.“_.. ..——-r_ __ -.-——_.;__ ——__. ‘.‘-5:; w -§— 1 w -Wflk —-.—— -m—r W. m 3:. m 3' 33 __._..,. 2::-.~_—._:-—-_,-:_ M 3333. 3' w_=-——W em—~— .. 3' 3333 i 3333 3'33" 3333 33 3 333 3.33 III I 3333 :33 3:: I 333333 3 l 3 ' - l ‘V a .‘I; 9 a . ' ‘q 31' . . I .r "a o |. .. 3 .34.. .' I.“ . :33: 333 3; II 33331.33: . '3 A- 3% ‘ . I I?!” '3'33U3 '_.r 3:.” 2P In '.' 1’ i "33'; h .I l‘ " “I I». '1’” ‘ i u '3‘; ' l3! . ‘4' (v‘ ‘ n I I 3 I'ILQF ‘33:}; Mg} G 39:3 ll :- ‘ I '31 :3. K {I '3' n ' I! In”. J ' LEI! '- . . 3 ' . ‘ a I A: ’3 V .l . I : I ' ' 2 . I. . - . 1 3 .I. 33, "3'; '- flmfv\ ————-.__._.. LN. £31....r‘m. ’_'H._ *— 0... —~_-,..—. '.W - q, . __—_...: ‘_.-‘t—— '33 3351:3333 I3, 3333 33333, :33 33 33 fl £15: 3W; THESIS ‘mfifiwl’wt' A 4 . 9 q I I This is to certify that the thesis entitled EFFECT OF DRY MATTER LEVEB OF ALFALFA HAYLAGE ON FEEDLOT PERFORMANCE AND CARCASS CHARACTERISTICS OF FINISHING STEERS presented by Gustavo Fabian Nahara has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for M. Sc . degree in Animal Science gulf/[Q/fla’ 7 Major professor 0-7639 1V453I_) BEIURNING MATERIAL§z Place in book drop to LJBRARJES remove this checkout from .lslacgaalL your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. ’— EFFECT OF DRY MATTER LEVEL OF ALFALFA HAYLAGE ON FEEDLOT PERFORMANCE AND CARCASS CHARACTERISTICS OF FINISHING STEERS BY Gustavo Fabian Nahara THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Animal Science 1981 ABSTRACT EFFECT OF DRY MATTER LEVEL OF ALFALFA HAYLAGE ON FEEDLOT PERFORMANCE AND CARCASS CHARACTERISTICS OF FINISHING STEERS BY Gustavo Fabian Nahara Alfalfa haylage (30% DM or 60% DM) was fed to 112 Angus steers during a 106 day finishing trial. The rations were: 1) 70% high moisture corn (HMC) + 30% untreated corn silage (UCS); 2) 70% HMC + 30% treated corn silage (TCS 11%); 3) 70% HMC + 30% treated corn silage (TCS 13%); 4) 85% HMC + 15% high moisture haylage (HMH); 5) 85% HMC + 15% low moisture haylage (LMH); 6) 80% HMC + 10% UCS + 10% HMH; 7) 80% HMC + 10% UCS + 10% LMH. Rations were calcu- lated to be isonitrogenous and isocaloric. Average daily gain-in Kg and feed/gain ratio were: 1.35 and 7.58; 1.45 and 6.67; 1.42 and 6.75; 1.40 and 7.38; 1.46 and 7.06; 1.41 and 7.12; 1.48 and 6.87, for the respective treatments. Carcass parameters showed no significant differences. Nitrogen balance and dry matter digestibility were obtained for each alfalfa haylage. To my patent» Miguefl Nahaha and Ncflida Cuna dc Nahaaa and to Maniana B. Ladmann ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to express my appreciation to Dr. David R. Hawkins, for his wise advise during my graduate program. I am also grateful to Drs. W. G. Bergen, R. Erickson, D. E. Eversole and J. Waller for serving on my committee. The help of Dr. W. T. Magee was very important in the statistical analysis of this thesis. Sincere thanks are extended to Dr. Ronald H. Nelson, Chairman of the Department of Animal Science forlfijshospit- ability, and for making available the research facilities for this study. Thank you Elaine Fink and Liz Rimpau for cooperating and instructing me in laboratory analysis. Paul W. Aho was in charge of the editing of this manuscript but more than that I have to thank him for his friendship during these two years, and for making me feel like I was at home. I want to express my appreciation to Patrico (I. Hirst for his advise at the beginning of my studies at Michigan State University. I will always be indebted with Dr. Ezequiel C. Tagle for encouraging me to come to study at M.S.D. and for the faith he always had in me. iii Finally, I want to express my greatest gratitude to my parents Mr. and Mrs. Nahara for their assistance, faith and confidence and to Mariana B. Ladmann for her patience and encouragement. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vii INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Silage Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Effect of Wilting on Silage Characteristics . . 4 Temperature Effects . . . . . . . 8 Animal Performance as Affected by the DM Level of the Haylage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Haylage- -Corn Silage Diets . . . . . . . 12 Digestibility of Nutrients as Affected by 3x4 Content of the Haylage . . . . . . . . . . 15 Effect of DM of Haylage on Carcass Parameters . 18 Use of Additives in the Preparation of Alfalfa Haylage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Dry matter Losses and Type of Silo . . . . . . 22 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 MATERIALS AND METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Forage Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Feeding Trial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Management Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Carcass Evaluation Procedure . . . . . . . . . 31 Nitrogen Balance Trial . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Trial Design . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Sample Collection and Preparation . . . . 34 Nitrogen and Dry Matter Determination . . . . . 35 Digestible Energy Study . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Acid Detergent Fiber Evaluation . . . . . . . . 36 Statistical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Overall Feedlot Performance . . . . . . . . . . 37 Carcass Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Comparison No 1: High Moisture Corn + Untreated Corn Silage Ration vs. High Moisture Corn + Urea Treated Corn Silage Rations . . . . . . 41 Feedlot Performance . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Carcass Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Page Comparison No 2: High Moisture Corn + Corn Silage Rations vs. High Moisture Corn + Corn Silage and/or Alfalfa Haylage . . . . . . . . 43 Feedlot Performance . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Carcass Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Comparison No 3: High Moisture Corn + 30% DM Alfalfa Haylage vs. High Moisture Corn + 60% DM Alfalfa Haylage . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Feedlot Performance . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Carcass Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Comparison No 4: High Moisture Corn 4- 10% Corn Silage + 10% Alfalfa.Haylage vs. High Moisture Corn + 15% Alfalfa Haylage . . . . . . . . . 51 Feedlot Performance . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Carcass Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Nitrogen Balance Trial . . . . . . . 51 Acid Detergent Fiber and Digestibility of Dry Matter and Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 vi Table l. 10. ll. 12. 13. LIST OF TABLES Page Feedlot Trial Experimental Design . . . . . . . 23 Dry Matter and Crude Protein Analyses for the Feedlot Trial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Composition of the Supplements . . . . . . . . 30 Effect of Treatments on Feedlot Performance . . 38 Effect of Treatments on Carcass Traits . . . . 39 Effect of Treatments on Carcass Composition . . 40 Feedlot Performance of Steers Fed High Moisture Corn + Untreated Corn Silage vs. Steers Fed High Moisture Corn + Urea Treated Corn Silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Carcass Parameters of Steers Fed High Moisture Corn + Untreated Corn Silage vs. Steers Fed High MoistureeCorn + Urea Treated Corn Silage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Feedlot Performance of Steers Fed High Moisture Corn + Corn Silage vs. Steers Fed High Moisture Corn + Corn Silage and/or Alfalfa Haylage . . 45 Carcass Parameters of Steers Fed High Moisture Corn + Corn Silage vs. Steers Fed High Moisture Corn + Corn Silage and/or Alfalfa Haylage . . 47 Feedlot Performance of Steers Fed High Moisture Corn + 30% DM Alfalfa Haylage vs. Steers Fed High Moisture Corn + 60% DM Alfalfa Haylage . 49 Carcass Parameters of Steers Fed High Moisture ‘ Corn + 30% DM Alfalfa Haylage vs. Steers Fed High Moisture Corn + 60% DM Alfalfa Haylage . 50 Feedlot Performance of Steers Fed High Moisture Corn + 10% Corn Silage + 10% Alfalfa Haylage vs. Steers Fed High Moisture Corn + 15% Alfalfa Haylage in the Ration . . . . . . . . 52 vii Table Page 14. Carcass Parameters of Steers Fed High Moisture Corn + 10% Corn Silage + 10% Alfalfa Haylage vs. Steers Fed High Moisture Corn + 15% Alfalfa Haylage in the Ration . . . . . . . . 53 15. Effect of Alfalfa Haylage Harvested at Different Dry Matter Levels on Nitrogen Utilization . . 55 16. Effect of Alfalfa Haylage Harvested at Different Dry Matter Levels on Acid Detergen Fiber Fraction and Digestibility of Dry Matter and Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 viii INTRODUCTION Alfalfa is a widely grown forage in the North Central area of the United States. In 1969, almost 20 million acres of alfalfa were grown in this area (Fed. Ext. Serv., 1970). Alfalfa follows corn in acreage in Michigan, where approximately 1,020,000 acres are grown for hay (Mich. Ag. Statistics, 1981). The practice of ensiling the last out of alfalfa is increasing due to the absence of Optimum weather conditions for making hay at that time of the year. Research has been done inorder to determine what would be the appropriate dry matter level at which alfalfa should be ensiled. In a beef cattle feedlot operation alfalfa haylage can be used as an inexpensive protein source, replacing, up to a certain point, more expensive protein supplements such as soybean meal. Increasing dry matter content of alfalfa by wilting in the field results in higher intake by sheep, dairy and beef cattle (Hawkins, 1969; and E1 Serafy gt 31., 1974). Despite the higher intake of drier haylage, results on daily gain and feed efficiency are inconclusive. The same can be stated when alfalfa haylage was compared against corn silage. Also, there is little data reported on carcass traits of steers fed alfalfa haylage. Thus, the objectives of this study were to gain further information on: 1. Effect of treating corn silage with urea at ensiling on feedlot cattle performance and carcass traits. 2. Effect of replacing corn silage with alfalfa haylage on feedlot cattle performance and carcass traits. 3. Effect of level of dry matter of alfalfa haylage on feedlot cattle performance and carcass traits. LITERATURE REVIEW Several research studies have been conducted in the last forty years evaluating alfalfa haylage at different dry matter (DM) levels. The majority of those studies tried to establish the most appropriate moisture content at which alfalfa silage should be ensiled. This review will cover the most important aspects affected by the DM level of the silage such as: silage characteristics, animal performance, nutrient digestibility and DM losses. Use of additives and type of silo are also included. Several of these studies used silages made of other species than alfalfa (legumes, grasses, or a combination of both). Table A.l lists all the species and DM levels used by the respective authors cited in this review. Silage Characteristics Thomas gt 31. (1980) in a review paper, cited that the main fermentation products in the silage-making process are lactate and acetate which reduce the pH in the silo to about 4 units, inhibiting further fermentation and preserving the crop. The action of saccharolytic and proteolytic clostri- dial bacteria, which ferment sugars and lactate to butyrate and raise the pH in the silo, is discouraged through a com- bination of the correct moisture conditions and pH in the silo. They reported that wilting reduces clostridial activity especially when the DM content of the crop is above 28%. This effect is achieved by a drOp in the pH of the ensiled forage which encourages lactic acid bacteria activity re- sulting in a silage of good quality. The rate of fall in pH following ensilage depends on the buffering capacity of the grass, the establishment and maintenance of anaerobio- sis in the silo and the availability of sugars for fermen- tation. These factors are influenced by the crop and the ensilage technique. The same authors reported that for well preserved wilted formic acid silages non-protein nitrogen can often account for 60-65% of the total nitrogen. Waldo 33 El. (1973) made a comparison between the characteristics of alfalfa haylage and the correspondent original forage. Silage oven dried matter contained less hemi- cellulose and sugars, but more energy, cellulose, lignin and nitrogen than fresh forage. Nitrogen in silage contained smaller how water insoluble and larger ammoniacal fractions than that in forage. The pH was lower in haylage than in fresh forage. Effect of Wilting on Silage Characteristics It is important at this point to establish the differ- ence between direct-cut silage, high-moisutre haylage, low- moisture haylage and hay. Direct-cut silage is forage ensiled right after being cut with a very high moisture level (usually 20 to 25% DM for alfalfa). When the forage is allowed to wilt in the field for a period of time and then ensiled, this will re- sult in high-moisture haylage or low-moisture haylage, de- pending on the wilting period. Dry matter level of the high— moisture haylage is about 30 to 35% and for low-moisture haylage is approximately 50 to 60%. Finally, hay is the re- sult of wilting the forage up to 85-90% DM to preserve it for a long time without being ensiled. Hawkins (1969), working with alfalfa haylage of four different DM levels, found an extensive fermentation in the three lower DM haylages with a trend of decreased fermenta— tion as DM increased. The highest DM haylage showed a very low organic acids content. This is in accordance with other studies (Gordon gt gt., 1965; Gordon gt gt., 1967;Jackson and Forbes, 1970; Forbes and Jackson, 1981; and Hinks gt gt., 1976) which showed an inhibition in fermentation as DM increased. Gordon gt gt. (1961) reported that acetic acid was pre- dominant in direct-cut silage, while lactic was the predomin- ant acid in haylage. Gordon gt gt. (1965) cited that the drop in acetic acid is critical after 30% DM level. For lac- tic acid this limit was about 40% DM. The excess of lactic over acetic acid was most pronounced in the 40-50% DM range. Several studies also reported a decreased organic acids content when DM level was increased (Murdoch, 1960; Roffler gt gt., 1967; Hawkins, 1969; Jackson and Forbes, 1970; Sutton and Vetter, 1971; and McGuffey and Owens, 1979). Forbes and Jackson (1971) observed a greater drop in organic acids when going from 18.7 to 35.2% DM than from 35.2 to 51.0%. Roffler gt_gt, (1967) cited that butyric acid accounted for a much greater portion of the total acid present in wilted alfalfa-brome haylage than in low-moisture haylage. Dry matter content of the ensiled forage has a negative correlation with the amount of ammonia nitrogen (Gordon gt gt., 1961; Roffler gt gt., 1967; Gordon gt gt. 1967; Wilkins gt gt., 1971; Hinks gt gt., 1976; and Rogers gt gt., 1979). Roffler gt gt., (1967) found that ammoniacal nitrogen con- stituted a much greater proportion of the total nitrogen in wilted haylage than in low-moisture haylage. This indicates that a more extensive breakdown occurs during the fermenta- tion of wilted haylage compared to low-moisture haylage. Hawkins (1969) also reported that the water soluble non-protein nitrogen and ammonia nitrogen decreased as. haylageifldincreased. The steepest decline in ammoniacal nitrogen occurs below 50% DM, according to Gordon gt gt. (1965) . Sutton and Vetter (1971) measured some nitrogen parameters in low-moisture, wilted and high-moisture haylages and observed that wilted alfalfa contained the least soluble and non-protein nitrogen followed by low—moisture and high- moisture haylages respectively. McGuffey and Owens (1979) ensiled alfalfa with 34 and 43% DM and observed greater total nitrogen in 43% DM haylage. Non-protein nitrogen and ammonia nitrogen were greater in 34% DM haylage. Finally, acid detergent insoluble nitrogen expressed as % of total nitrogen was greater in 34% DM haylage than in 43% DM haylage. Hammes, gt gt., (1964) found that low-moisture haylage was higher in crude protein and nitrogen free ex- tract, and lower in crude fiber and ether extract than high- moisture haylage. Also, the nitrogen free extract digesti- bility was higher for the low-moisture haylage than for high-moisture haylage but there were no significant differences iiiaverage TDN content for both types of forages. Forbes and Jackson (1971) also reported a higher nitro- gen free extract value as the DM of the haylage increased from 18.7 to 35.2%. In the same study, they obtained higher soluble carbohydrates figures going from 18.7 up to 51% DM. This is in accordance with data presented by Gordon gt gt., (1961), Gordon gt gt., (1965), and Rogers gt gt., (1979). The explanation for these higher sugar contents in high DM haylages(above 40% DM) can be found in the low fermentation occuring in these haylages and the consequent low sugar utilization by the fermentative bacteria. Again Gordon gt gt., (1961 and 19650 reported a loss in carotene content in the low moistunehaylage, but this lower level is still quite adequate from the standpoint of meeting nutritional requirements. This is also substantiated by Roffler gt gt., (1967). Temperature Effects McGuffey and Owens (1979) studied the effect of cover— ing and DM at ensiling on preservation of alfalfa in bunker silos. They found that covering markedly reduced tempera- ture of silage but they could not find any difference in temperature in alfalfa ensiled at either 34 or 43% DM. Thomas gt gt., (1972) found a positive correlation (r = +.92) between extent of heating measured as degree- days above 35C, and acid detergent insoluble nitrogen (unavail- able nitrogen) expressed as percent of total nitrogen. Yu Yu and Veira (1977) studied the effect of artificial heating (88C for 24 or 48 hours) of alfalfa haylage and found that proximate analysis constituents were not affected by heating. Also, acid detergent fiber was increased by heating and hemicellulose was lowered. Both acid detergent insoluble nitrogen and acid detergent insoluble nitrogen as a percent of total nitrogen were increased by heat treatment. Pierson gt gt., (1971) also studying the effect of heating on alfalfa haylage prepared two silages. One was ensiled using pr0per ensiling techniques and the other was ensiled so that it would heat during ensiling (forage mass was not packed andmoxygen was not evacuated). Results of a digestion trial with lambs showed that the digestible protein content of the heated haylage was significantly less than in the haylage ensiled so that heating was prevented 8.0 vs. 13.5% digestible protein). Practices oriented to- wards a good quality haylage production are: fine chopping, packing, and ensiling at proper DM contents (not above 55% DM) . Animal Performance as Affected by_the DM Level of uyeHaylage Daily dry matter intake has a significant influence on animal performance. Intake of haylages has been correlated with haylage pH and with haylage concentration of ammonia (% in total nitrogen), lactic acid, acetic acid, and total acids (% in DM) suggesting that the haylage fermentation products are involved in appetite regulation (Thomas gt gt., 1980). It has been seen in the previous section of this review, how an increase in DM of the ensiled forage produced a de- crease in fermentation resulting in lower concentrations of ammonia and organic acids. It is reasonable to say that an increase in DM will give an increase in feed intake. Wilkins gt gt., (1971) measured intake by sheep of seventy silages made of legumes and/or grasses. They found that voluntary intake was positively correlated with the con— tent ofIfl4,nitrogen and lactic acid as a percentage of total acids. Also, voluntary intake was negatively correlated with acetic acid and ammonia content as a percentage of total nitrogen. Thomas gt gt., (1961) also obtained higher intake in dairy heifers with higher levels of DM (r = +.79). However, this was shown to be a secondary relationship since changing the DM content of haylage or hay (watering the hay or drying the haylage at time of feeding) did not alter the rate of 10 consumption. It was concluded that the DM content of the forage when ensiled and the resulting fermentation process, are very important factors in determining the rate of consumption of the resulting haylage. Several studies also established the trend of higher DM consumption with higher DM level of the forage at the time of ensiling, and also reported higher weight gains (either with dairy heifers or beef cattle) of the animals eating the drier haylage (Voelker gt gt., 1960; Thomas gt gt., 1961; Yoelao gt gt., 1970; Jackson and Forbes, 1970; Forbes and Jackson, 1971; E1 Serafy gt gt., 1974; Hammes, gt gt., 1974; Hinks gt gt., 1976; and McGuffey and Owens, 1979). Nevertheless, there were some works which were not in agreement with this general trend. Thomas gt gt., (1969) working with alfalfa haylage and hay in dairy heifers, ob- tained higher intakes for hay but they were not able to demonstrate a consistent difference in weight gains. Gordon gt gt., (1963) working with heifers, observed that they con- sumed similar amounts of low-moisture alfalfa haylage and hay DM per day, and also that the animals made similar gains. However, they did not use high-moisture haylage which would have provided a greater contrast in consumption and perfor— mance than low-moisture haylage when compared with hay. Brown (1964) found that 24.3% DM haylage resulted in greater intakes and similar live weight gains than 17.5% DM haylage when fed to beef cattle. ll Alder gt gt., (1959) ensiled wilted and unwilted grass-clover herbage' for three consecutive years. Live- weightLIgains were higher with the wilted in the first two years but not in the last one. Morgan gt_gt,, (1980) ‘worked with fresh and wilted ryegrass silage. The voluntary intakes of DM for fresh and wilted silages were not significantly different. They con- cluded that the high intake of the fresh silage is noteworthy, as it casts grave doubt on the widely held View that fermentation acids, particularly lactate, are pre— eminent in governing the voluntary intake of silages. Several researchers reported neither significant in- crease in milk yield nor any variation in milk composition when the DM of the consumed haylage was increased (Voelker gt gt., 1960; Gordon gt gt., 1961; Neidermeir gt gt., 1961; Byers, 1965; and Gordon gt gt., 1965). Nevertheless, Rogers gt gt., (1979) working with Jersey cross-bred dairy cows demonstrated relative increases in yields of milk and its components by increasing the DM at ensiling. Roffler gt gt., (1967) compared milk production and milk fat from cows fed alfalfa-brome forage stored as wilted haylage, low-moisture haylage and hay. Low-moisture haylage ranked first in supporting 4% fat corrected milk production, wilted haylage ranked second and hay last. Fat test of cows fed wilted haylage was higher than that of cows fed low-moisture haylageznuithis, higher than cows fed hay. 12 Haylage-Corn Silage Diets Henderson and Newland (1966) showed higher DM intakes in beef cattle with low-moisturehaylage compared with high- moisture.hay1age. Despite this, cattle fed the wetter forage gained more weight during the trial With superior feed efficiencies. When they tested a constant vs. a vary- ing level of concentrate, little or no difference existed in average daily gain and daily DM intake. In further experiments, the same researchers (Newland and Henderson, 1966; and Henderson and Newland, 1967), used a similar design to compare alfalfa hay, haylage and corn silage. In 1966, cattle fed alfalfa hay gained non-signifi- cantly faster than those fed haylage, and consumed more feed daily as a percentage of their body weight. This was not true for 1967 since cattle fed hay gained Significantly (P<.01) faster ‘than the haylage fed group. In the same year, a cxnxl silage fed group with 1% of body weight fed daily in shelled corn significantly outgained the haylage group and slightly outgained the hay fed group, although the hay and haylage fed groups received 1.5% of body weight daily in shelled corn. When they tested for constant vs. varying level of added shelled corn, they found no significant effect of these two variables on daily gain and daily DM intake. A similar trend of superior performancevdifllcorn silage compared with alfalfa haylage was reported by Chase gt gt., (1971), and Tolman and Guyer (1974). 13 Some other researchers working with diets equalized for protein, calcium, salt and vitamin A reported no signi- ficant differences in gain and feed efficiency between corn silage and alfalfa haylage (Haarer gt gt., 1963; Perry and Beeson, 1966; Windels gt gt., 1966; and Goodrich and Meiske, 1967). A third group of studies reported superior performances for alfalfa haylage than corn silage. Zimmerman gt gt., (1964) reported the superiority of a ration containing a1- falfa haylage and corn over another containing corn silage, corn and soybean meal when fed to steer calves. Steers fed haylage outgained those fed corn silage by 19.5% in the lots receiving corn in a full-fed basis. When fed in a limited corn grain basis, haylage fed steers gained 17.1% faster than the corn silage fed group. Limiting the corn intake to a constant level equal to about one-half of a full-fedcflfcorn was a slightly superior system of limiting the corn than in- creasing the level of corn as the feeding period progressed. The steers on the constant corn level were about 4% more efficient than the steers fed the increasing level of corn. Zimmerman gt gt., (1965) working with steer calves found that in the first 112 days of the feeding period of their trial, haylage fed steers had a slight advantage in the rate of gain. During the remainder of the trial the haylage fed steers maintained their rate of gain, while those fed corn silage tended to decline. When results for the entire experiment were analyzed, they showed that the l4 hayalge fed cattle had gained significantly faster than the corn silage fed cattle. The corn silage fed steers has lower liver vitamin A levels than the haylage fed steers at the con- clusion of the trial. However, no response in gain was observed when part of the steers in each lot were injected with 1,000,000 IU of vitamin A near the end of the trial. Berger and Fahey, Jr. (1981) conducted a trial feeding (l) direct-cut alfalfa ensiled with ground corn, (2) field wilted alfalfa haylage with ground corn added at feeding, (3) chopped baled alfalfa with ground corn added at feeding, and (4) corn silage plus a soybean meal supplement. Steers fed the alfalfa diets gained on the average 0.27 kg. more per day and required 5.12% less fed per kg. of gain then those fed the corn silage diet. The fastest and most efficient gains were made by steers fed the direct-cut alfalaf diet, followed by those fed the haylage and hay diets. Krause and Britton (1981) evaluated alfalfa as a pro- tein source. Growing cattle that require more bypass protein than is supplied by urea-supplemented corn silage rations gained more and were more efficient when fed high-moisture alfalfa haylage as a protein source than when fed alfalfa hay or lowemoisture haylage. When additional bypass protein was not needed, no difference was observed in gain or efficiency of steers fed alfalfa hay or haylage. 15 Digestibility of Nutrients as Affected by DM Content of the Haylagg Results of studies comparing the digestibility of low-moisture haylage with high-moisture haylage have been inconsistent. Some reports have shown the DM of the low— moisture haylage to be less digestible than that of high- moisture haylage (Gordon gt _a_l_., 1961; Brown, 1964; Roffler gt gt., 1967; Jackson and Forbes, 1970; Sutton and Vetter, 1971; El Serafy gt gt., 1974; Donaldson and Edwards, 1976; Rogers gt gt., 1979; and Morgan gt gt., 1980). The decrease in digestibility of low-moisture haylage may result from excessive spontaneous heating during fer- mentation (Sutton and Vetter, 1971). This is specially true for nitrogen digestibility and availability. Apparent di- gestibility of DM, nitrogen, nitrogen free extract and acid detergent fiber is reduced by heating. With similar nitro- gen intakes, sheep fed heated haylage will excrete more nitrogen in feces, less nitrogen in urine, and will retain less nitrogen than sheep fed unheated haylage (Yu Yu and Veira, 1977). Other researchers have observed no differences in DM digestibility between low-moisture haylage and high-moisture haylage (Hammes, gt gt. 1964; Byers, 1965; Gordon gt gt., 1965; Campling, 1966; Hawkins, 1969; Forbes and Jackson, 1971; Hinks gt gt., 1976; Clancy gt gt., 1977; and McGuffey and Owens, 1979.) 16 A third group includes those which stated a higher digestibility value for low-moisture haylage compared with high-moisture haylage (Dodsworth, 1955; Roffler gt gt., 1967; Alder gt gt., 1969; and Yoelao gt gt., 1970). E1 Serafy gt gt., (1974) found that steers fed low- moisture haylage consumed significantly more gross energy than those fed either high—moisture haylage or hay. Forage treatment had no significant effect on digestible energy or metabolizable energy intakes or on energy gain. They also found that steers consuming high-moisture haylage had the lowest ruminal pH value. Low-moisture haylage provided an intermediate value and hay value was the highest. Ruminal acetate: propionate ratios were 5.6:1 for steers fed hay, 5.2:1 for steers fed low-moisture haylage, and 4.5:1 for those fed high-moisture haylage. Sutton and Vetter (1971) reported that cellulose diges- tibility was lowest for hay-fed lambs, intermediate for lambs fed low—moisture haylage, and highest for lambs fed high- moisture haylage. Nitrogen balance was highest for hay-fed lambs. For lambs fed high-moisture haylage, nitrogen balance was above the value of those fed low-moisture haylage. Rumen ammonia and blood urea nitrogen levels in hay-fed lambs were significantly higher than those in lambs fed fermented forages. No significant difference was found between the two fermented forages. Hawkins (1969) working with sheep fed alfalfa haylage (from 22 to 80% DM) reported no significant differences in 17 mean fluid retention time in rumen. The fluid was retained the longest in the rumen for the sheep fed 80% DM forage. Also these sheep showed the highest rumen fluid volume. The sheep fed the 80% DM forage may have compensated for the increased DM consumption by increasing fluid volume and by retaining the material in the rumen for a more ex- tended fermentation period. Yoelao gt gt., (1970) however, reported no significant differences in retantion time when using alfalfa silage (20 and 50% DM)fed to dairy heifers. Nitrogen retention increased as haylage DM increased (r = +.75) (Hawkins, 1969). This was also demonstrated by Roffler gt gt., (1967), Forbes and Jackson (1971), and MuGuffey and Owens (1979). However, studies conducted by Hinks gt gt., (1976) and Robers gt gt., (1979) did not show higher retention of nitrogen for the higher DM haylages. Hawkins (1969) showed that the rumen ammonia levels for sheet fed 22% DM haylage were significantly lower at feeding time than for sheep fed 45% and 80% DM haylages but were higher at 6 hr. post-feeding than for sheep fed 45 and 80% DM haylages. At all sampling times, the total volatile fatty acids concentrations of sheep fed 22% DM haylage were lower than for other treatments. Markedly lower concen- trations of the branched and longer chain volatile fatty (isobutyrate, isovalerate, 2-methy1-butyrate and valerate) occurred in the higher DM haylage treatments. Roffler gt_gt., (1967) also found higher total volatile fatty acids concentration and butyrate in the lowest DM haylage level of their experiment. 18 Effect of DM of Haylage on Carcass Parameters El Serafy gt gt., (1974) found that carcasses from steers fed high-moisture haylage were fatter than those from steers fed hay or low-moisture haylage. However, Henderson and Newland (1966) reported little or no differ- ence in any of the carcass traits of steers fed either low-moisture haylage or high-moisture haylage. Both hay- lages produced carcasses of desirable quality (middle choice) and minimum fat cover. When Henderson and Newland (1966) tested a constant vs. a varying level of concentrate, differences which approached significance (P<.10) did exist in carcass grade and marbling and in both cases favored a constant level of grain feeding. The constant level of grain feeding group graded one-third of a grade higher (middle choice vs. low choice) and scored a point higher on marbling (modest vs. modest plus). They also tested the influence of protein addition and demonstrated that the added protein group averaged .23 cm greater external fat cover and dressing percent was increased by .9%. Both of these values proved to be significant. The added protein group also had a slightly higher marbling score but the difference did not prove to be significant. Combining all the carcass traits it appeared that the added protein group possessed a slightly higher degree of finish. l9 Comparisons between hay, haylage, and corn silage, showed small but non-significant differenced in carcass traits (Newland and Henderson, 1966; and Henderson and Newland, 1967). When constant vs. varying level of added shelled corn were included in these diets, rib eye area and dressing percent were significantly greater for the constant grain feeding system. Shoemaker gt gt., (1964) measured carcass traits of steers fed alfalfa haylage and corn vs. a second group con- suming corn silage, corn and soybean meal. They also studied the effect of a full-fed corn system vs. a limited corn grain system. Comparison of the full-fed lots showed statistically significant differences in carcass grade favoring haylage fed steers. No other differences were significant, and the two treatments produced carcasses that were very similar. Fat thickness and total fat trim were greater for full-fed lots than for the limited-fed lots. There were no signifi- cant differences in any of the measurements between silage fed steers and haylage fed steers. However, in another study (Zimmerman gt gt., 1965) silage fed steers produced carcasses that were significantly higher in both carcass quality grade and overall carcass grade compared with haylage fed steers. Use of Additives in the Preparation of Alfalfa Haylagg Although no additives were used in the silage prepara- tion of this research, it was considered important to briefly 20 review this topic due to its importance in the preparation and utilization of alfalfa haylage. Several researchers reported that organic acids (such as propionic and formic) or formaldehyde, inhibited fermen- tation when added to silage. The resulting material had higher levels of water-soluble carbohydrates, lower con- centrations of volatile nitrogen and lower organic acid contents than untreated silages (Waldo gt gt., 1971; Binnie and Barry, 1976; Donaldson and Edwards, 1976; Hinks gt gt., 1976; Lancaster gt gt., 1977; Lancaster and Brunswick, 1977; Barry gt gt., 1978; Lu gt gt., 1979; Rogers gt gt., 1979; and Stallings gt gt., 1979). Better responses in DM intake and liveweight gain by beef steers, dairy heifers or sheep were reported when using treated silages compared with untreated silages (Waldo gt gt., 1971; Binnie and Barry, 1976; Donaldson and Edwards, 1976; Clancy gt gt., 1977; Lancaster gt gt., 1977; Lancaster and Brunswick, 1977; Barrygt gt., 1978a; and Stallings gt gt., 1979). However, Hinks gt gt,, (1976) reported no advantage in DM intake and liveweight gain in beef steers by the addition possmmg .zo mo mM\Hmoz cHHL .Aza wow maoumEonuommv woodman ousumfloelzoqhw .AEQ wom mamumfiflxoummmv monawm: whopmfloEIanmmw .mu wma mampmeflxonmmm ou mcflawmcm pm wow: nufls poummuu ommaflm cucumw .Amov cflmuoum opsuo wad hamumfifixoumoo on mafiafimcm um won: Spas poummuu mmwaam CHOUMV .mmmaflm cuoo poummuucono .cnoo onsumaoe swarm“ .muofip o>wuoommmu may ca choc wusumfloe 50H: .mflmwn “muons who o co UmumHDEHom mums mGOAuMmmw m.HH mm.H as n u . OH cm a m.HH mm.H I OH n . oH . om m m.HH mm.a mg n u u u mm m m.HH mm.H n ma . u . mm a m.HH mm.H : . om . u on m m.HH mm.H u u a om u on m m.HH mm.H u u u . cm on H mow emmz mmzqw exams memoem eHHmoaw omoow nwzmm .oz pouoasoaou monsom mmmnmsom mousom mumuucmocoo .uHB atmwmma Hmucmeflummxm HMHHB uoprmmll.H mance 29 Table 2.--Dry Matter and Crude Protein Analyses for the Feedlot Trial Ingredient % Dry Matter %Crude Protein High Moisture Corn Untreated corn silage Corn silage treated to 11% CP Corn silage treated to 13% CP High-moisture haylage Low-moisture haylage Supplement No. 1081 Supplement No. 1181 Supplement No. 1281 Supplement No. 1381 Supplement No. 1481 Supplement No. 1581 71.4 31.2 36.8 37.2 28.8 62.0 91.0 90.8 90.3 89.3 90.0 89.9 9.90 8.24 11.20 14.44 19.51 16.80 35.33 26.50 7.93 8.40 14.73 18.90 30 .mEmumoHHx cH H o.ooos o.oooa o.oooa o.ooog o.oooa o.ooog sauce m.H 0.5 m.a m.a m.H m.H xaEmum o chamua> m.H 0.5 m.H m.H m.H m.H xasmum < caeaua> o.a o.s .. .. o.HH o.ag mommasm guacamo o.mm o.g~ o.mm o.mm o.mm o.mm pamm Hmuwcaz momma o.mm o.mm u- .. o.sm o.ma Az wmsc awn: o.moa o.moa 0.4m o.HmH o.mma o.sma acoumm8aq o.vgm o.~mm o.mom o.m~m o.~ea o.maa coco umaamam canouo m m v m N H .02 usefiumous Hams Hmsa Hams Hams swag smog .oz newsmamasm HmucmEmHomsm one mo cofluflmomEooll.m magma 31 before each feeding. Dry matter and crude protein analyses of the ingredients of the rations were made every fifteen days. The duration of the feeding trial was 106 days divided in three periods of 28 days followed by one of 22 days. Cattle were individually weighed at the beginning of the trial and at the end of each period. 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 partially co- vered concrete lots (4.27in x 11.89 n0 which were 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. Carcass Evaluation Procedure At the termination of the feeding trial, on March 17, 1981, two animals per pen were randomly selected for carcass evaluation. These 28 animals were trucked to ADA Beef Co. at Ada, Michigan, 112 km. from M.S.U. Beef Cattle Research Center. These cattle hadauiaverage final shrunk weight of 520.8 Kg. Hot carcass weights were obtained. After the carcasses had been chilled for a minimum of 24 hours, the other carcass parameters were determined by a U.S.D.A. grader. The 9-10-11 rib cut from the left side of each carcass (Hankins and Howe, 1946) was saved in order to 32 estimate carcass composition. Rib eye area and fat thick- ness were measured at the 12th rib, and kidney, heart, and pelvic fat (KPH) was also determined. At the M.S.U. Meat Laboratory, the soft tissue portion of the 9-10-11 rib cut was ground first coarsely and then three more times through a .47 cm screen, thoroughly mixed, and a subsample (500 9) frozen (-20C) for further analyses on fat, protein (N x 6.25), and moisture. Before these analyses, meat subsamples were left in a cooler (4C) for thawing, and then, moisture content was determined by drying 2 to 3 g in a 60C oven for 48 hours. Total nitrogen was determined on a wet portion of subsample weighing 1.00 to 1.10 g by the Technicon Block Digestion Auto-Kjeldahl System using HgO as a digestion catalyst. 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 the rib cut composition: % Carcass Protein = .66 (rib protein (%))-+5.98 % Carcass Fat = .77 (rib fat (%)) + 2.85 In order to calculate daily protein gain and daily fat gain, initial carcass data are required. Data from eight steers of similar breed, type, size, and weight (Lomas, 1979) were averaged for shrunk weight, hot carcass weight, percent protein, and percent fat. These values were considered 33 representative of the steers in this study at the beginning of the feeding trail. Nitrogen Balance Trial Trial Design A metabolism study was designed to evaluate the effect of dry matter level of alfalfa haylage on the nitrogen status of four crossbred steers (average weight 415 kg). Two steers were initially assigned to the low-moisture haylage diet and the other two received the high-moisture haylage diet. The diets were switched after the first experimental period. Each experimental period had an adaption period of 14 days followed by a 7 day period of feed, feces and urine collection. During the adaptation period steers were placed in individual pens (182 x 224 cm) inside the M.S.U. Beet Cattle Research Center Metabolism Room. At this time, they were gg libitum fed the assigned haylage along with 459 of trace mineral salt. Protein, calcium, and phosphorus requirements (N.R.C., 1976) were met by this ration. Vitamin require- ments were met by a 2 ml injection of vitamin A, D, and E complex at the start of the trial. Weighbacks were record— ed in order to have a clear idea of their intake. Free access to water was provided. During the collection period, the same diet was fed at 90% gg libitum intake level. Steers were fed twice daily at approximately lZ-hour intervals. 34 Sample Collection and Preparation During the collection period, the animals were confined to individual stalls (91 x 244 cm) and were elevated approxi- mately 30 cm above the floor on wooden platforms (85 x 180 cm). Wooden boxes (90 x 84 x 58 cm) were placed behind the platforms in order to collect the fecal output. The boxes were tall enough to avoid fecal losses. 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 plac- ed underneath. Total fecal output was weighed daily and a 5% subsample was secured after thoroughly mixing the feces. Subsamples were kept in a cooler (4C) during the collection period and composited for each steer at the end of each collection period. At this time subsamples were correctly mixed and a 10% of the composite was frozen for later analyses. Urine was collected daily in plastic bottles that had a capacity of approximately 30 liters. The bottles were connected to the pans by a hose. Prior to placing these bottles in the collection place, 250 ml of 50% sulfuric acid were poured into the bottles in order to avoid nitrogen losses from the collected urine. Collection pans were co- vered with wire screening to prevent contamination of the urine with foreign material. After measuring and recording urine volume, a 5% subsample was saved and cooled until the end of the collection period when composites were 35 prepared from the subsamples and a 5% aliquot of those composites was frozen for later analyses. Feed subsamples were taken daily during the collection period and at the end of this period, subsamples were thoroughly mixed and 1 kg of composite was frozen for later analyses. Nitrogen and Dty Matter Determination Total nitrogen content of feed, feces, and urine samples were determined on the wet samples by the Technicon Block Digestion Auto-Kjeldahl System. Feed and feces DM was determined by drying in a 60C oven for 48 hours. Nitrogen balance was expressed as total nitrogen in- take - (fecal N + urinary N). Digestible Energy Stugy An energy study was conducted in order to evaluate the levels of digestible energy as affected by DM content of the haylage. Dried samples of feed and feces were ground through a Thomas mill (1 mm screen). After this, pellets of both feed and feces were prepared and burned in a Parr Adiabatic Calorimeter. Digestible energy of both haylages was expressed as 100 x (Mcal from feed - Mcal. from feces divided by Mcal. from feed). 36 Acid Detergent Fiber Evaluation Dried and milled feed samples were also used for acid detergent fiber analyses (Van Soest, 1963). Acid detergent fiber fraction was expressed as a percentage of the DM of the sample. Statistical Analysis Analysis of variance (Snedecor and Cochran, 1967) was used to examine main effects and interactions for feedlot and carcass traits as well as nitrogen and digestibility studies. When apprOpriate, specific contrasts (Snedecor and Cochran, 1967) were designed for comparing selected treat- ment combinations of primary interest. If P<.20, the level of statistical significance was reported. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Overall Feedlot Performance A summary of the performance obtained from each diet is reported in Table 4. Since all diets consisted of 70% or more of the dry matter from high moisture corn, the primary area of interest wastfluaroughage source in each diet. Four specific contrasts were constructed for the treatment combinations of primary interest to determine whether di- fferences in animal performance were statistically signi- ficant. The comparison of diet roughage source were: 1. Untreated corn silage vs. urea treated corn silage, 2. Corn silage vs. corn silage and alfalfa haylage, 3. 30% DM alfalfa haylage vs. 60% DM alfalfa haylage, and 4. 10% alfalfa haylage vs. 15% alfalfa haylage in the ration. Carcass Parameters Carcass data obtained from each treatment are listed in Tables 5 and 6. The same contrasts as for the feeding trial, were tested and reported for carcass traits. 37 38 .mmmp Goa How com com Mom muooum usmflo cam ucmEpmoHu mom mama osu mums muons .uoums cam comm usonufl3 mason ma Hmumm cmxmu ohms musmflms Hmswm pom HmHuHcH Q o «a. mo.n hm.m ma.h oo.h mm.> mh.m hm.m mm.h camw\pmom ma. mo.oa 5H.oa Ho.oa mm.oa om.OH Hm.m mo.m mH.oa mm .mxmucH So maflmn mmmuo>< «a. mv.H mv.H HV.H m¢.H ov.H N¢.H mv.a vm.a mm .cflmo maamo wmmum>< mam mmm mam Hmm mam Ham mam nom nom .uz Hogan 4mm mom «mm mom mom own man mom has .uz HmauaaH h w m w m N H .02 pcoEumoHB coo: ozmwom UEmwom Uzmwmm Uzmwmm osmmOh Osmwoh 02mmo> .m.m Hamuo>o mzqwoa +mzmwoa mzAme mammma mamoewom HHmOBwom moomom EouH +mUDon +moawoa mmocmEHOMHom uoHpoom co mucoEumoHB mo pooMMMII.v mance 39 sHuanHm “3 “ma n I ummUOE «NH uNH u + moHoao uHH mums com Moo Hm I pentagon sHunoHHm + HHmEm “OH H I n o moHoso “OH NO unov mummum 03¢ mo mHmEmmadm m umH I." HHMEm u + oumumpoe “ma + HsmHHm .mH u + meHm Ava I moaogu “m u + poow “m .HN u + ucmpcsnm I mumnmpoe “ma u + ummpofi “a n I uanHm "whoom mcHHnHmz o o mEHHm “ma u I mEHHm I @000 umpmuw >uHHmoo n .wosum many How coxmu .ucmEummHu Hmm mcmm 03H mums whose mm.H «.mH m.HH o.HH a.mH o.mH a.OH a.~H o.mH omuoom mcHHnumz no. a.OH ~.0H o.OH N.NH m.HH a.a m.OH m.OH nmemuo suHHmso am. m.m v.m m.m o.m e.m ~.m m.m m.m momma chH» mm. m.m a.m e.m m.m s.m s.m a.m m.m m .uma max mo.m GH.Hm Ha.~m sm.ma mm.aa ao.mm mm.mm Hm.om mm.ma mac .mona mam on om. He.H am.H mm.H mm.H Hm.H me.H as.H oe.H so .mmmEHOHne Ham mo.mH mmm omm «mm omm smm mHm «Hm mHm me .uamHmz mmMOHMU won a m m s m m H .02 pqmsummue cam: uzmwom ozmwom ozmwmm ozmwmm ozmwoa cameos ozmwoa .m.m HHmum>o mzHHOH+ mzmon+ mzHHmH mzmme mHmoswom HHm69mom moowom smHH moDHOH mUSHOH omuflmue mmmonmv so mucmfiummha mo uomwmmII.m manna 40 omo. mvm. mum. vvm. 5mm. omo. mmv. mmm. OHm. mm .CHmw umm mHflmo aHo. sac. omH. mOH. Hmo. NHH. Hmo. sac. mmo. mm .szo cwououm Mawmo mm.H o>.~m m>.~m om.mm mm.mm m>.vm om.mm ha.vm mm.Hm w .pmm mmmoumo mm. vu.vH no.mH mm.va mn.vH so.VH om.¢H mv.VH om.vH w .cwouonm mmmoumu cmoz uzmwom ozmwom Uzmwmm ozmwmm UEmth uzmth Uzmwon .m.m HHmuo>o mZHon+ mzmwoa+ mzqme mimme MHmUBwom HHmuemom moawom EouH muowoa moowoa _ :ofluflmomEou mmmonmv so mucoEummHB mo HomMMMII.w mance 41 Comparison No. 1: High Moisture Corn Plus Untreated Corn Silage Ration vs. High Moisture Corn Plus Urea-Treated Corn Silage Rations Feedlot Performance Feedlot performance of steers fed high moisturecxnni plus untreated corn silage vs. those fed high moisture corn plus urea-treated corn silage can be found in Table 7. Corn silage was treated with urea up to 11 and 13% CP. These two treatments were pooled and compared against treatment 1. Cattle fed urea treated corn silage gained 7.5% faster than those fed untreated corn silage as the roughage source but this difference did not prove to be significant (P<.20). This is in accordance with the experiment conducted by Combs gt gt. (1978) who found a 9.4% faster gain in growing steer calves (275 Kg. initial weight) fed either urea-treated corn silage plus corn grain, or corn silage plus corn grain treat- ed with urea at feeding time. The difference was also non- significant for this study. Average daily dry matter intake was 5.3% higher for the untreated silage supplemented with urea at time of feeding, and this difference approached significance (P<.10). Kilograms of feed per each kilogram of gain was 16.4% lower (P<.005) for the urea-treated silage group. Combs gt gt. (1978) also found a lower feed per gain ratio for the urea-treated silage fed cattle. Carcass Parameters: Results of the carcass parameters of steers fed untreat- ed corn silage compared with steers fed urea-treated corn 42 £512.01 ..¢..I!4 . . .9 moo.v Hm.m mm.h :flm0\pmmm OH.V mm.m oH.OH mm .mxmucH so sHHma mmmum>< mz as.H sm.H me .aHmo HHHmo mmmum>¢ MHm pom mm .Hanmz Hmch Hem mom mm .uamHoE HmHuHcH mm GH mummum mo umossz m.m H .02 ucoEumoua a We a OOMHHm CHOU coumoneImonD msHm CHOU undemfloz nmwm pom mummpm .m> ommHHm :Hou poumouuco mSHm CHOU monumaoz bmfim pom muooum mo mocmeuomuom uOHpoomII.n OHnme 43 silage as the roughage source are reported on Table 8. There were no significant differences between groups. Rib eye area was 8.4% larger for the urea-treated corn silage group and carcass protein was 2.9% higher for this group too. These differences approached significance (P<.15). Comparison NO. 2: High Moisture Corn Plus Corn Silage Rations vs. High Moisture Corn Plus Corn Silage and/or Alfalfa Haylage Feedlot Performance Table 9 shows the performance of steers fed high~ moisture corn + corn silage vs. high moisture corn + corn silage and/or alfalfa haylage. Non-significant differences in average daily gain and feed efficiency were found be- tween both groups. Average daily dry matter intake was 3.9% higher for the alfalfa haylage groups (P<.10). Similar results with finishing steers were reported in earlier studies by Goodrich gt gt. (1967) when alfalfa haylage and corn silage diets were supplemented to equalize protein, calcium, salt and vitamin A. Corn grain was present in both diets. This is also supported by studies done by Windels gt gt. (1966), Perry and Beeson (1966), and Haarer gt gt. (1963). However, other studies reported the super— iority of corn silage over alfalfa haylage (Tolman and Guyer, 1974; and Chase gt gt. 1971) or vice-versa (Zimmerman gt gt. 1965). Henderson and Newland (1967) re— ported that Hereford finishing steers fed corn silage with 1% of body weight in shelled corn significantly (P<.01) 44 mz was. OHm. mm .cho umH HHHmo mz «mo. Nmo. OM .CHmU CHOHOHH HHHmo m2 mmm.Hm omm.Hm w umH mmmoumo mH.v ma.sH om.eH m :Hmmoum mmmoumo mz a.HH o.~H muomm mzHHnHmz mz H.¢H m.OH mmmno HHHHmsO mz m~.m oe.m mcmHo mHmHH mz mm.m om.m m .umm max mH.v ao.mm mm.ma «so .mmua mam nHm mz mmm.H oom.a Eu .mmmCxOHCB pom mz m.~Hm o.mHm mm .msmHmz mmmonmo mom mm GH mummum mo Hmnsaz m.m H .02 ucmsmmmus a. We a mmmHHm CHOU pmumeBImmHD mCHm CHOU wHCHmHOZ Coax pom mHmmum .m> ommHHm CHOU OOHCOHHCD mCHm CHOU OHCHmHoz Coax Ooh mHomum mo mHouoEMHmm mmMOHmUII.m mance 45 m2 HH.> oo.h CHMU\Ummh OH.V o~.0H mm.m mm .mHchH 2o HHHmo .>¢ mz av.H ov.H mm .eHmO HHHmo mmmHm>C a.aHm m.HHm me .HsmHmz HmaHm m.mem m.~mm me .msmHmz HmHHHcH vm mv mHmEHCd mo HOQECZ a.m.m.v m.m.H .oz ucmsmmmue mmmawwm HO\OCC OOCCOHMHCmHm mmoaflm CHOU + CHCHU mmmaflm CHOU + CHCHU EOHH ommemm mmammad HO\pCm ommHHw CHOU + CHOU OHCHmHoz swam pom mHmoum .m> OOMHHm CHOU + CHOU OHCHmHOE nmwm pom mHoon mo OOCMEHOMHOH uoHpmwmII.m OHCCB 46 outgained 35% DM and 55% DM haylage groups although these groups received 1.5% of body weight daily in shelled corn. These results with yearling steers are not consistent with the results of a previous experiment (Henderson and Newland, 1965) where steer calves full fed haylage and 1.5% of body weight daily in shelled corn gained equal to steer calves receiving a full feed Of corn silage and 1% of body weight daily in shelled corn. In 1967 cattle fed corn silage had a 68% higher NEg intake while in 1965 the corn silage fed group had a 63% higher NEg intake. Carcass Parameters: The carcass characteristics of steers fed high moisture corn + corn silage vs. steers fed high moisture corn + corn silage and/or alfalfa haylage are shown in Table 10. There were no significant differences in carcass traits. Alfalfa haylage showed slightly higher quality grades (P<.20). This is in agreement with experiments conducted by Henderson and Newland (1967) and Windels gt gt. (1966). Shoemaker gt gt. (1964) also reported no differences in carcass traits from steer calves finished on alfalfa haylage or corn silage. In that study, the only important difference was found in quality grade (P<.05) favoring the haylage group. The same was true for this study but the difference was not high (P<.20). Steers consuming alfalfa haylage showed higher percent protein in the carcass (P<.20) and higher daily pro- tein gains (P<.14). 47 n. 1.. . (l mz Hem. mom. mm .szo mmm HHHmo 4H.v mOH. mmo. mm .CHmO chuoum HHHmo mz n~.mm «m.Hm m .mmm mmmmumo om.v mm.¢H mm.4H m .CHmuoum mmmonO mz om.NH om.HH mHoom mCHHQHmz om.v om.~H m~.oH mmmuo HHHHmso mz mm.m am.m mcmuo chHH mz mm.m om.m w .umm max mz mm.Hm mm.om mam .mmHC mam nHm mz «G.H am.H so .mmmconCH Hmm mz o.>~m O.va mm .Hz mmmOHmU uom we we mummum Ho Hmbsaz a.e.m.v m.~.H Hmnssz mqmeummua monawmm HO\pCm OOCCOHMHCmHm ommHHm CHOU + CHCHU ommaflm CHOU + CHCHU EOHH mmmammm CMHMMHC HO\pCm ommaflm CHOU + CHOU OHCumHOE mem pom mHomum .m> ommaflm CHOU + CHOU mHCumHoz Coax pom mHooum mo mHOHwEmHmm mmCOHmUII.OH OHCCB 48 Comparison No. 3: High Moisture Corn Plus 30% DM Alfalfa Haylage vs. High Moisture Corn Plus 60% DM Alfalfa Haylage Feedlot Performance Feedlot performance of steers fed high moisture corn and 30% DM or 60% DM alfalfa haylage are presented in Table 11. Average daily gain and average daily dry matter intake did not differ when 30% DM haylage was compared with 60% DM haylage. Feed efficiency was 4.2% higher (P<.10) for the 60% DM haylage ration. Several researchers have shown high- er intakes and gains for low-moisture haylage compared with high-moisture haylage when haylage was the major component of the ration (Jackson and Forbes, 1970; Forbes and Jackson, 1971; Hinks gt gt., 1976; and McGuffey and Owens, 1979). In the present trial, haylage was fed at 10% or 15% of the total ration, and the other feed stuffs could decrease the effect of the DM level of the haylage on feed intake and average daily gain. In two experiments where differing dry matter levels of alfalfa haylage were fed with corn grain, Henderson and Newland (1966 and 1967) reported no difference in daily gain, feed intake, and feed efficiency between high—moisture haylage (30% DM) and low-moisture haylage (60% DM). Carcass Parameters Table 12 shows the effect of 30% DM haylage and 60% DM haylage on carcass parameters. There was no signifi- cant effect of dry matter level on any carcass trait. The 49 OH.v mm.m mm.h Cflmw\poom mz mm.OH mH.0H OH .mxmmcH so HHHma mmmum>a mz as.H Hv.H mm .cho HHHma mmmum>< m.H~m o.sHm me .msmHmz HmcHH m.mmm m.mmm mm .mCmHmE HmHchH mm mm mHmoum mo HOQECZ s.m m.a Hmoeaz Hememmmue ommahmm so wow _ mmwamom so wom OOCMOHMHCmHm mCHm CHOU OHCHmHOz swam moan CHOU OHCumHoz Coax EOHH mmmHHmm mmHmmHa 2a woe msHm sumo musmmHoz cmHm cmm mummmm .m> mmmHHmm omamwad 20 won msam CHOU mHCHmHOZ Cmflm pom mHmwum mo mUCmEHomHmm uoHpmmmII.HH OHQMB 50 thIII III... mz mom. man. on .cho uma HHHmo mz mOH. oHH. as .CHmo CHmuon HHHmo mz mo.mm Hm.mm w .umm mmMOHmU mz om.vH Hm.vH w .eHmmon mmmmumo mz om.~H oo.mH muoom mcHHnHmz mz om.HH ms.OH mnmuo HHHHmsO mz om.m mm.m mpmHU pHoHH mz om.m om.m w .umm mmM mz Hm.Hm ma.Hm «so .mmHC mam nHm m2 mm.H o>.H Eu .mmOCxOHCB umm mz mmm mmm mm .quHoz mmMOHMU pom mm mm mHomum mo Honesz h.m m.v HmQECz HCOEHCOHB mmmHHmm so mom mmmHHmm so mom OOCCOHMHCmHm mCHm CHOU OHCHmHOS Coax mCHm CHOU OHCHmHoz Coax EOHH mmmemm mmamma< Zn mom mCHm CHOU OHCumHoz Cmflm pom mHooum .m> mmmamwm mmamde so wom mCHH CHOU OHCHmHoz nmflm pom mHmoum mo mHouoEMme mmCOHmUII.NH mHnt 51 same results were obtained by Henderson and Newland (1965) and Henderson and Newland (1966). Comparison NO. 4: High Moisture Corn Plus 10% Corn Silage Plus 10% Alfalfa Haylage vs. High Moisture Corn Plus 15% Alfalfa Haylage Feedlot Performance: Feedlot performance of steers fed high moisture corn plus 10% corn silage plus 10% alfalfa haylage vs. those fed high moisture corn plus 15% alfalfa haylage rations are shown in Table 13. Increasing the haylage level in the ration from 10 to 15% produced no significant changes (P>.20) in average daily gain, average gaily dry matter intake, and feed gain. Carcass Parameters Table 14 shows no significant differences in any of the carcass characteristics from steers fed 10% haylage or 15% haylage. Steers fed 15% haylage in the diet presented 17.3% higher quality grade (P<.10), 27.5% higher marbling score (P<.20) and 2.1% less carcass protein (P<.20). Nitrogen Balance Trial The nitrogen balance trial was conducted in April, May, and June 1981 after the feedlot trial had been completed. At this time, the haylage being fed was that in the lowest 2 m of each silo. The dry matter content of the low-moisture haylage decreased dramatically during the nitrogen balance study from 62.3% on April 1, 1981 to 36.9% on June 1, 1981. 52 m2 mm.h mm.m CHMU\Uoom mz Hm.oH mo.OH mm .mxmucH so HHHmo momum>¢ mz mv.H mv.H mm .CHMU >Hflmo mmmHm>m o.mHm m.sHm ms .quHmz HmCHH m.mem m.smm me .mamHmz HmHmHaH mm mm mHomum mo HOQECZ >.m m.v HmCECz uCoEHCOHB mmmHHm :Hoo mcH+ OOCCOHMHCmHm womawmm wma+ ommawmm woa+ EOHH CHOU OHCumHoz mem CHOU OHCHmHOZ Cmflm COHHmm OCH CH mmmawmm mmHmmHa mmH msHm :uoo musmmHoz anm ems mummmm .m> mmmHHmm mHHmmHC HOH + wmmaflm CHOU woa mCHm CHOU OHCHmHOE mem pom memum mo mOCmEHomHmm Hodpommll.ma mange 53 mz vow. mmm. mm .chO mmm HHHmn mz «OH. VHH. mm .CHMU CHmHOHm mawmo mz oo.sm mm.mm m..umm mmmoumo om.v oa.vH Ho.mH w .eHmuoum mmmoumo o~.v mm.eH mm.HH muoom mcHHhHmz oH.v mm.HH OH.OH momHo HHHHmsO mz om.m ms.m mcmuo chHH mz mm.m mm.m m umm max mz mm.Hm am.Hm «so .mmHC mam nHm mz mo.a mm.H EU .mmexOHCB Hum mz amm amm me .quHmz mmmoumo pom mm mm mHmmum mo Honesz a.m m.v Hmossz uqmsmmmue mmmHHm :Hoo HOH+ OOCMOHHHCmHm mmmawmm wma+ mmmammm wOH+ EOHH CHOU OHCHmHOE swam CHOU OHCHmHoz Cmflm COHHmm OCH CH ommawmm MMHCMHC wma mCHm CHOU oHCHchZ Cmflm pom mHmmum .m> mmmHmmm mmammam wed wCHm mmmawm CHOU wOH moan CHOU OHCHmHoE smflm pom mHOOHm mo mHmumEmHmm mmMOHMUII.¢H mance 54 This could be partially explained by the fact that the first material ensiled was the last to be fed out. The weather conditions during the first day of harvest for the low-moisture haylage were not ideal for wilting. A second possibility would be the accumulation of sepage from higher levels in the silo. Nitrogen balance data are presented in Table 15 for cattle fed both levels of haylage dry matter. Although it is reasonable to expect no differences in nitrogen reten- tion between the 34.3% DM haylage and the 37.0% DM haylage, nitrogen retained was three times higher for the 34.3% DM haylage (P<.10). One of the reasons for this difference was the higher nitrogen intake of the animals fed the 34.3% DM haylage. Nitrogen retained was a function of nitrogen intake. In addition 37% DM haylage came from a 60% DM original material which may have produced excessive heating inside the silo apparently resulting in a haylage of low nitrogen availability. This silage had a brownish color and carmelization must have occurred to some extent. Sutton and Vetter (1971) working with lambs reported lower nitrogen balance with low-moisture haylage (60% DM) than with high—moisture haylage (28% DM). Lambs fed the low-moisture haylage retained 0.4 g/day and those fed the high-moisture haylage retained 1.6g/day. However, Hawkins (1969) also working with sheep and four DM levels (22, 40, 45 and 80% DM) reported that nitrogen balance increased as silage DM increased (r = .75). 55 OH.V mm. «.mm p.4s w .HHHHHnHmmmoHa z memummmm o~.v wo.m H.4H m.am omnuomna 2 mo H mm 2 mmaHmHmm mz mm.m m.m m.aH mgmmcH 2 mo H mm 2 umchmmm mz am.m m.mm m.mv mxmueH 2 H0 H mm z HHmCHHo OH.V mm. m.am m.mm mxmmeH z «o m mmtszomm OH.V sa.a ~.~H m.mm lsmoxmo cmmouqu cmchmmm mo.v am.m m.m~H o.amH Hamo\mv ammonHz ommmumxm o~.v mo.m m.sa «.mm Asmm\mv ammonHz sumcHHa Hoo.v ~H.H m.mm o.HMH Hame\mo cmmoumHz omnuomnm mo.v mH.H o.~m m.ma Asmaxmv cmmoumHz Hmmmm Ho.v mm.s m.mMH e.mom lsmc\mo mxmmcH :mmoumHz 2o mo.am 2a wm.am mcHommm mo Hm>mH Hmmumz Hun cm>Hmmno OOCCOHHHCmHm .m.m EmHH so mom so Hem mmm>nmm mm Hm>mH Hmmmmz Hun embomaxm conmNHHHmo COUOHHHZ Co me>mA HOHHCZ %Ho quHommwo um pmumo>me ommammm mmammad mo HommmmII.mH OHQCB In ’67 dryi 5112 to 1y 1e: ti 56 III the later study, experimental silos were used and the drying process of the forage was closely observed. All siLLages were of excellent quality. When it is not possible t£> achieve good oxygen exclusion, excessive heating is like- lgr'to occur degrading protein and nitrogen compounds to less efficent undigestible forms due to aerobic fermenta- tion. Retained nitrogen as a percentage of nitrogen absorbed inas 95% (P<.20) higher for the 34.3% DM haylage. This in- Idicates that in the 37% DM haylage, the nitrogen absorbed from the small intestine and rumen had a lower quality (biological value) compared with the 34.3% DM haylage. The lower nitrogen value of the 37% DM haylage showed a lower utilization (retention) of nitrogen by the steers fed that silage. Apparent nitrogen digestibility was 3.7% higher for the 34.3% DM haylage. This difference approached signifi- cance (P<.10). A reason for this difference could be the lower quality of the 37% DM haylage. Sutton and Vetter (1971) reported values of 72.8% and 63.0% in nitrogen digestibility for 28% and 60% DM haylages, respectively. Acid Detergent Fiber and Digestibility of Dry Matter and Energy Results on the effect of alfalfa haylage DM level on acid detergent fiber (ADF), DM digestibility, and energy digestibility are reported in Table 16. 57 mz mm. o.oo m.mm w .HHHHHnHummmHo Hmumem mmouo mz mmo. mm.H om.H Hm\Hmozv mmomm CH hmeCm mmOHU mm.¢ mv.v Hm\HmOzv comm CH hmHOCm mmOHU H.mm ~.mm w .HmnHm mammumumn cHoa mo.v ms. e.mm m.mm w .HHHHHCHummmHo Hmuumz HHC mo.v ova. Hm.~ mm.~ .Hmuumz Hun Hmomm moo.v «so. mm.m mo.a .mxmucH Hmuumz sun so wo.am so mm.sm ocmema mo Hm>mH Hmuumz Hun mm>ummno mocmonHcmHm .m.m EmuH so wow so mom mmm>umm Hm Hm>mH Hmuumz Hun cmuommxm hmHmCm pCm Houumz mHQ mo muHHHQHHmmmHQ pCm COHHOMHm HOQHH HCmmHouma CHOC Co mHo>mH Hmuumz MHQ HCOHOHHHQ um pwumo>Hmm mmMmem CHHCHH< mo HOOMHMII.OH OHQCB 58 Values for ADP were almost equal. This is in accord- ance with Thomas gt gt. (1969) who showed no differences in ADF when direct-cut silage was compared with wilted silage. Other researchers also showed no effect of dry matter level on the ADF content of the ensiled material (El Serafy gt gt., 1974; and Clancy gt gt., 1977). No statistical analysis is provided because the figures report- ed are means of the samples taken from each silo (one silo/ haylage). Dry matter digestibility was 6.1% higher for the 34.3% DM haylage than for the 37% DM haylage (P<.05). As was earlier stated, the lower DM digestibility of the 37% DM haylage could be due to its low-quality. Also, to a certain extent, the higher DM digestibility for the 34.3% DM haylage could be attributed to its higher DM intake during the di- gestibility trial. El Serafy gt gt. (1974) ensiled alfalfa at 42% and 51% DM and obtained dry matter digestibilities of 54.9% and 52.7%, respectively. Gross energy in the feed was 3.6% higher for the 37% DM haylage. This was probably due to the lower fermentation taking place in the low-moisture silage (37% DM) at that time of the experiment. Again, it was not possible to re- port statistical results because the values are means of samples taken from each silo. Gross energy digestibility did not differ between silages. The values reported in this study are very close to those reported by Waldo gt gt. 59 (1971). Other experiments also showed similar digestible energy figures with different levels of DM (Hinks gt_gt., 1976; and Morgan gt gt., 1980). CONCLUSIONS Reviewing the results of this experiment, the follow- ing conclusions can be made: 1. Feedlot performance on the high moisture corn- corn silage rations was superior when treating corn silage with urea at ensiling time, rather than feeding untreated corn silage supplemented with urea at feeding time. 2. Alfalfa haylage can successfully replace corn silage in a 85% HMC, 15% CS feedlot diet without affecting feedlot performance. This could save some protein supple- mentation. 3. There was no difference in performance of steers fed high moisture corn plus 30% DM haylage or 60% DM haylage. 4. Animal response was similar with 10% or 15% haylage level in the ration. 5. There were no significant effects in any of the carcass parameters by any treatment combination. 6. In the nitrogen balance study, nitrogen retained appeared to be a function of nitrogen intake. 7. There was no difference in ADF fractions of high- moisture or low-moisture silage. 8. Gross energy digestibility was not affected by DM level of alfalfa at time of ensiling. 60 APPENDIX 61 .Hm .mm .Hm .mv .mm .om .om .mN .mv .mm .mH .vm .Nv .ov .mH .hH .om .om .mm .mm .Hm .vm .mm msommm 30pmmz .wCHOEHB CHHMHHC mmMHomEOHm .mmHmmHm CHHCHHC mmMHmomm HCHCCOHmm OHCHmmm mesmoq OCH mmmHU MHHMHHm CHHMHHC MHHCHHC CHHCHHC Ho>OHU ouHCS msomom 300mm: .hCHOSHB MHHCHHC mmmHU HO>OHU OHHCS pCm mmmHmmwm memmHm CHHmde MMHMMHd %CHoEHB .wsommm 300mm: mmMHmo>m HCHCCmHmm HHanV ComeMO CCC mOQHom AvhmHv HHanV HmomHv ..H..m Mm >35 .mm mm Hmmumm Hm .Hm mm Hmmumm Hm HmHaHv moumsem cam someHmcoa 1mmmHv amuozmcoo HneaaHv .Hm mm ammo HmsamHO .Hm mm ammo AhhmHv AHhmHv .mm mm >OCCHU .mm mm ommCU AmmaHv mcHHasmo HmmaHv mumsm HammHv czoum HmHmHV HHHmm cam cheHm HmeHv .Hb .mmnmm pCm Homem HbmhmHv Homanv HmmmHv .mm MM hHHmm .mm MM mHHmm .Hm mm umeHm Amy Hm>wq SD OUMHOH mOOCmHmmmm Houumz >Ho mo HO>OH pCo UmHHmCm mommHom mo mameII.H.4 OHnt 62 .em .OH «a .me .mm .mm .sm .om .om .mv .mm .mm .mH .mm .HH .mm .mm .00 .om om .ms .oq .mm .mv .mm .ms .mm .mo .mm .Nv .Ha .mm .ms .om mmHHU 30OHOE mmHHmoxm HHHCCOHOm mmHHmomm CHHHHHH «a HHHHHHH HHHHHHd HHHHHH< HHHHHHC osommm soOHOz .mCHOEHE mmHHmowm CHHHHHH HHHHHHH HHHHHH< HHHHHHC mmHHmOHHCOHO .HHHHHHC HHHHHHC mmHHmOHHCOHO HHHHHH< HHHHHHH HHHHHHH mmHHmoEOHm .HHHHMHC mmHHOHEOHm .HHHHHH< HommHv .mm mm CHmHoz HmHmHV Cmumz Hmach .Hm mm 9H HhhmHv xOHszCHm OCH HHHOHOCHH AhhmHv .flm MW HmumHOCHH HHmmHV COHHHHm OCH OmCHHx HOBmHV monHom OCH ComeHh AmhmHv .mm MM meHm memHvOCHH3Oz OCH ComHOOCmm HmmmHvOCHHSOZ OCH ComHOOCmm AmOmHv mCHx3Hm HemmHv .mm mm ..HO .moEEHm HHOHHO .Hm mm Hmummm Emmi 2mm mm COOHOU HmmmHv .flm mm COOHOU HmmmHv .mm mm COOHOU HHmmHO .Hm mm :oHHou AhOmHV .mm mm CUHHOOOU AOOmHV .mm MM COHHOOOU Hwy HO>OA SQ HmHHom mmOCOHOHOm OOCCHHCOUII.H.¢ OHQHB 63 CO .mm .mm essmuomucmocsm .mHHmHHH HHamHv .Hm mm oeHmz .ea mHHmHHa HoomHV .Hm mm meHmo> I mHHmHHa HsHmHO Hmsso Ham cmeHoe «« «a HommHv .mm mm mHEOCB .as mmHmHHH HNHmHO .Hm mm mmsone mm .om mHHmHHH HmmmHV .Hm mm mmsone .am .mH mmHmHHC HHmmHv .Hm mm mmsoae .om .mm HHHHHHH HHHmHV Hmuum> Ham coumsm .om HHHHHHC Hmanv .mm mm mmCHHHmum mmHHmOHHCOHO II II .oo Hm>oHO Hmm .mHHmHHH HemaHv .Hm um HmHomsmoCm Hm>oHO mHHCz II II .mm .mm mmHHmowm HHHCCHHOm Hmanv .HH Hm mHmmom .ae .mm mmmummsoum .mHHmHHC HamaHv .Hm mm HmHHHmom .om mHHmHHH HHamHU .Hm mm comumHm .oo HHHHHHH HemmHl eommmm Hem HHHmm .mo .mv mmmummeoum .mHHmHHH HHmmHv .Hm mm HmHmsHmHmHz .vm mHHmHHC HomaHv acmHchmm Hem HcmHsmz .mm mHHmHHH HomaHv cmansH HCm mcm>mz .mv .vm mHHmHHH Hmach mcmso Ham ummmsooz .mm .Hm .mm .om mHHmHHH HommHO noocusz Hwy HO>OH so omHHom mOOCOHOmOm OOCCHHCOUII.H.¢ OHQHB 64 HO>OH OCO .mOCum OEHm OCH CH OOHHomOH OHO3 CHCH OHOE COC3 OmHHO>H CH mH COCHH COOC mHC HO>OH so “Ouoz OHOHHHC 3OH>Omea COHHHEHOHCH OHCHHHH>HCD* .mo .om .Hs .om .Hs .Om .mm .mm .mm .mm .mm OHCHxHS OECOOH mmHHU mmHHmOHHCOHO HO>OHU OOm .HMHHHH< HHHHHH< HHHHHHC HHHHHHC HHHHHHC HHHHHHC OHCHmHm mmHHU OCH OECOOH mmHHmOHHCOHO .HHHHMHd HmmmHv .HH HO CHEHOEEHN vach .HO HO cmeumeeHN HHHaHO mHHm> Ham 5» 5» HmamHv mmsose Hem 9» CH HoamHv .Hm mm omHmoH HeHaHV .HO HO maHz HmsaHv .HO HO mHmocHz HHHaHV .HO HO mcHHHHz HmaaHv .HO HO oHHmz Amy HO>OH SD OmHHom mOOCOHOmOm OOCCHHCOUII.H.< OHCHB 65 .HOuHa OCH OOOm uCOCuH3 mHCOC OH HOHHH COxHu OHO3 mquHO3 HHCHm OCH HHHuHCH C .mmHO OOH How OOH COO HOC mHOOum quHO OCH HCOEHHOHH HOC OCOC 03H OHO3 OHOCHH mo.a Ha.e Ho.H m~.a 0H.H ma.c HH.H mo.a em.o Ha.e am.e wa.s NH.H ms.a u\a mm.a as.OH ma.a so.OH HN.OH ms.OH He.OH wH.OH oe.a Ne.a aw.a as.a os.oH Na.m we .zon< Hs.H mm.H Ne.H mm.H ~s.H Hm.H ss.H mm.H ss.H am.H om.H os.H mm.H aN.H we .on< NHH Nam son omm sHm cam aNm How aHm mom «Hm HHH aHm «as Ewe .uz .aHE Hem mom mmm sum mom com «Hm com «em smm emm mom Ham Ham awe .us .cH es 0H 04 me mH sH we as mH NH HH oH me Ne .02 amm H a e o m m s s m m N N H H .oz .UHH +.mmflm%m .+ mammww 02: Ham 0:: Nmm oz: MON 0:: Not oz: NON emUH + moaNOH + mODNOH mes HHH mze NHH HHmOH Hem HHmOH Non mo: Non m COm Comm mo OOCHBHOHHOm HOH OOOm CO OHCOEHHOHH mo HOOHHMIIN.« OHCHH 66 .Amanv OHEOH EOHmH :HN «NHH OJHHN OIHOm M mw.mH mm.NH w.HHN m.~om nc.cm oh.OH w.HH~ m.Hmm m~.mH Hw.NH w.~o~ w.mmm mm.~N Oo.nH n.5mH H.Omm mm.mN Om.OH m.NH~ O.oom ON.OH ma.NH ~.mHN m.Hnm co.mH mm.NH ~.m~N n.wnm NH.H~ mq.mH m.omm H.mOm mo.- MH.NH 0.0HN m.mom N0.0~ mH.OH m.Hm~ m.onm uHm N CHOHOHm N wav HCwHOs OOHOHHU uom wM .quHOz CCCHCm HHHHQ HOHOHHU HHHHHCHIIm.¢.OHCHH 67 NHHmn %HHHC OOHOHHU OOHOHHU C CHM umH Com HNNm. ONOH. MO.Nm oo.mH mH MH H.m m.m O0.0w Nm.H mHm m mHm OH mem. mHNH. No.Nm Na.OH OH OH H.O m.m mm.oN mO.H mmm m mom OH OONO. NNHH. N0.0m N0.0H OH NH O.m o.m NO.NN 0O.H Hmm O mom OO wOmw. mmOH. mm.Nm om.MH OH HH 0.0 o.O mm.om NO.N mum O COM wO mnOO. OOOH. NN.mm O0.0H OH mH O.m o.m OH.NO OO.H mNm O HNO nO nOMO. OHOo. NN.Hm HN.mH HH OH H.m m.m NO.NN NN.H oom O mwm nO CONN. OoNo. ON.NN HN.mH N w N.N m.m NO.Hm OH.H mON m ONO mH ONON. ONNH. mm.mm Ho.OH HH 0H m.m n.m Nm.Ow om.H nmm m mum mH OmHm. wao. mw.ON 0O.mH OH HH O.m o.O Ow.mw OH.N Nom m Hmm NH HOHO. Homo. ON.mN NN.OH HH 0H o.m m.m mN.HO mN.H Oom m mam NH OHMO. mNmo. mO.Hm Om.OH w m H.m m.m oo.om OO.H mmN N OHO HH amOO. OHHH. ww.mm on.OH NH OH N.m m.m Om.mw OO.H omm N Nmm HH mOOm. HmOo. oa.mm Nm.OH OH OH O.m o.O MH.ON nO.H OmN N 0mm OH OOOO. Nnmo. wo.mm ON.OH HN mH O.m o.O mN.mO Nn.H Hmm N Hom OH ommm. ONmH. NN.Hm Om.OH mH HH N.m m.N oo.ow ON.H Hmm H mmm MO moon. HOOD. m0.0N mm.OH HH 0H m.m o.O MN.mO Nm.H OHM H 0mm mO NMNO. NmNo. NN.mm O0.0H OH OH N.m m.m ON.ON OO.H ONN H HOm NO OOMO. Oomo. m0.0m HN.MH OH HH N.O m.m Oo.mO mO.H Nmm H NNm NO mm 5:5 mm CHHU N N OHoom OOHHU OOHHU N NEO..HOH< SO MM 33 .oz .02 .oz uHm CHOHOHm uHm CHOuOHm wCHHCHHZ %HHHHCO HOHOHH HEM Ohm mmOCxOHCH OOHOHHU .HHH HOOum COm OHHHHH HOHOHHU Co OHCOEHHOHH mo HOOHHMIIO.< OHCHH 68 .Hm I + HemOaOOO mHuawHHm ”OH I I HamOaOOO HHOEOHHO “OH I + mumumeoz “OH I I mumumcoz mOH I + ummOoz ME I I ummOoz “H I + HHmam “OH I I HHmam mm I + uanHm “a I I HOOHHO "muoum OeHHOpsz . .OH I + msHHm mOH I o maHHm MS I I meHHa uNH I + mUHoaO HHH I o mUHoEO mOH I I moHoao Hm I + Ooou Hm I I OooO "mOmHO muHHmaom Hmmm. ammo. mo.mm mm.OH mH HH O.m m.m mH.OH OO.H mHm H Ohm OO OmOH. HmmH. Om.mm mm.OH m m m.m o.m Oo.mm mO.H OOm a Omm OO mOOm. OHOH. OO.Hm mm.mH HH OH m.m m.O mm.~m OO.H OOm H HOO OH mmmO. ammo. mO.om HO.mH OH HH m.m o.O mm.mm mO.H mom a Hmm OH mmmm. Ommo. mm.Om om.OH OH HH m.m o.O HH.OH HN.H mHm O OOO OO HmOm. mmHH. OH.mm mo.mH HH OH m.m o.O m~.mm mO.H Omm O mOm OO Ommm. Omao. NH.HH mH.mH m a m.m m.m OH.NH OO.H mam O OOO mO mOmO. HHOH. mo.Om OH.OH HH OH H.O o.O HH.mm mo.~ Hmm O Ham mO mOOO. mHOo. oa.mm H0.0H mH HH m.m 0.0 HH.OH om.H mmm m mmm OH mmHO. OHHH. Om.Om mm.OH mH HH m.m 0.0 mm.mm Hm.H HOm m omm OH 3H CHHU NM CHHU N N OHOOm OOHHU OOHHO N NEO.HOH< CO NM 33 .oz .02 .Oz HHC CHOuOHm uHm CHOuOHm CwCHHCHHz .muHHHCo HOHOHV mag OHM mmOCxOHCH OOHOHHU .HHH HOOum COm .HHHHC %HHHC mmHOHHU mmHOHHU OHm umm uom OOCCHHCOUII O .< OHCHH LITERATURE CITED LITERATURE CITED Alder, F. E., D. StL. McLeod, and B. G. Gibbs, 1969. Comparative feeding value of silage made from wilted and unwilted grass and grass/clover herbage. J. Br. Grassld. Soc. 24:199. Barry, T. N., J. E. Cook, and R. J. Wilkins. 1978a. The influence of formic acid and formaldehyde additives and type of harvesting machine on the utilization of nitrogen in lucerne silages. I The voluntary intake and nitrogen retention Of young sheep consuming the silages with and without intraperitonael supplements of DL-methionine. J. Agric. Sci., Camb. 91:701. Barry, T. N., D. C. Mundell, R. J. Wilkins, and D. E. Beever. 1978b. The influence of formic acid and formaldehyde additives and type of harvesting machine on the utili- zation of nitrogen in lucerne silages. II Changes in in amino-acid composition during ensiling and their influence on nutritive value. J. Agric. Sci., Camb. 91:717. Berger, L. L., and G. C. Fahey, Jr. 1981. Comparison of the effects of three alfalfa harvesting and storage methods on steer performance. Illinois Beef Cattle Day Rep. Binnie, D. B., and T. N. Barry. 1976. Farm production ex- periments comparing formalin-treated silage with con- ventional foods for wintering yearling beef cattle. N. Z. Journal of Experimental Agriculture. 4:227. Brown, S. M. 1964. Results of experiments at Loughry. 27 Low versus high dry matter silage for beef production. Agriculture North Ire. 38:372. Byers, J. H. 1965. Comparison of feeding value of alfalfa hay, silage, and low moisture silage. J. Dairy Sci. 48:206. Campling, R. C. 1966. The intake of hay and silage by cows. J. Br. Grassld. Soc. 21:44. Chase, L. E., L. L. Wilson, T. A. Long, and M. C. Rugh. 1971. A comparison of alfalfa and corn silages for growing steers. Pennsylvania Livestock Day Rep. 69 70 Clancy, M., P. J. Wangsness, and B. R. Baumgardt. 1977. Effect of conservation method on digestibility, nitrogen balance, and intake of alfalfa. J. Dairy Sci. 60:572. 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. Dash, S. K., H. H. Voelker, L. D. Muller, and D. J. Schingoethe. 1974a. Comparison between whey and lactose as alfalfa haylage additives. J. Anim. Sci. 39:115. Dash, S. K., H. H. Voelker, D. J. Schingoethe, and L. D. Muller. 1974b. Evaluation of whey-treated alfalfa haylage. J. Dairy Sci. 57:434. Dodsworth, T. L. 1955. Further studies on the fattening value of grass silage and on the effect of the dry matter percentage of the diet on dry matter intake in ruminants. J. Agric. Sci., Camb. 43:383. Donaldson, E., and R. A. Edwards. 1976. Feeding value of silage: silages made from freshly cut grass, wilted grass and formic acid treated wilted grass. J. Sci. Fd. Agric. 27:536. E1 Serafy, A. E. M., R. D. Goodrich, and J. C. Meiske. 1971. Nutrient losses during harvesting and the comparative feeding value for growing steers of alfalfa-brome hay, haylage and silage. Minnesota Beef Cattle Rep. El Serafy, A. E. M., R. D. Goodrich, and J. C. Meiske. 1974. Influence of degree of fermentation on the utilization of energy from alfalfa-brome forage. J. Anim. Sci. 39:780. Embry, L. B., W. M. Larson, and L. J. Nygaard. 1967. Hay and "reconstituted haylage" in high roughage rations for beef cattle. South Dakota Beef Cattle Feed Day Rep. Federal Extension Service. 1970. Extension Service Review. June, 1970. Forbes, T. J., and N. Jackson. 1971. A study of the utili- zation of silages of different dry matter content by young beef cattle with or without supplementary barley. J. Br. Grassld. Soc. 26:257. 71 Goodrich, R. D. and J. C. Meiske. 1966. The value of haylage from two silos and a grubicide for growing steers. Minnesota Beef Cattle Feeders Day Rep. Goodrich, R. D., and J. C. Meiske. 1967. A comparison of haylage and corn silage in finishing rations. Minnesota Beef Cattle Feeders Day Rep. Gordon, G. H., J. C. Derbyshire, H. G. Wiseman, E. A. Kane, and C. G. Melin. 1961. Preservation and feeding value Of alfalfa stored as hay, haylage and direct-cut silage. J. Dairy Sci. 44:1299. Gordon, C. H., J. C. Derbyshire, W. C. Jacobson, and H. G. Wiseman. 1963. Feeding value of low-moisture alfalfa silage from conventional silos. J. Dairy Sci. 46:411. Gordon, C. H., J. C. Derbyshire, W. C. Jacobson, and J. L. Humphrey. 1965. Effects of dry matter in low-moisture silage on preservation, acceptability, and feeding value for dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 48:1062. Gordon, C. H., J. C. Derbyshire and J. R. Menear. 1967. Conservation and feeding value of low-moisture orchard- grass stored in gas-tight and bunker silos. J. Dairy Sci. 50:1109. Haarer, G., E. Hieber, W. L. Brittain, and R. J. Deans. 1963. Corn silage vs. haylage for feedlot steers. Michigan Cattle Feeders Day Rep. Hammes, R. C., Jr., J. P. Fontenot, H. T. Bryant, R. E. Blaser, and R. W. Engel. 1964. Value of high-silage rations for fattening beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 23:795. Hankins, O. G., and P. E. Howe. 1946. Estimation of the composition of beef carcasses and cuts. USDA Tech. Bull. No. 926. Hawkins, D. R. 1969. Effect of dry matter levels of alfalfa silage on intake and metabolism in the ruminant. Ph.D. Thesis, Michigan State University. Henderson, H. E., and H. W. Newland. 1965. Corn silage, haylage, vitamins and housing for finishing steer calves. Michigan Beef Cattle Day Rep. Henderson, H. E., and H. W. Newland. 1966. Alfalfa haylage with varying moisture, concentrate, and protein levels for finishing yearling steers. Michigan Beef Cattle Day Rep. 72 Henderson, H. E., and H. W. Newland. 1967. Alfalfa hay, haylage, and corn silage with varying moisture and concentrate levels for finishing yearling steers. Michigan Beef Cattle Day Rep. Hinks, C. E., L. E. Edwards, and A. R. Henderson. 1976. Beef Production from formic acid-treated and wilted silages. Anim Prod. 22:217. Jackson, N., and T. J. Forbes. 1970. The voluntary intake by cattle Of four silages differing in dry matter con- tent. Anim. Prod. 12:591. Krause, V. E., and R. A. Britton. 1981. Alfalfa silage as.a protein source. Nebraska Beef Cattle Rep. EC 81-218. Lancaster, R. J., and L. F. C. Brunswick. 1977. Comparison of formic acid with a formaldehyde and formic acid mixture as additives for lucerne silage. N. Z. Journal of Experimental Agriculture. 5:445. Lancaster, R. J., L. F. C. Brunswick, and R. K. Wilson. 1977. Evaluation of formic acid as an additive for lucerne silage. N. Z. Journal of Experimental Agriculture. 5:407. Lomas, L. W. 1979. Effect of anhydrous ammonia treated corn silage on the performance of growing and finish- ing steers. Ph.D. Thesis, Michigan State University. Lu, C. D., N. A. Jorgense, and G. P. Barrington. 1979. Wet fractionation process: Preservation and utilization of pressed alfalfa forage. J. Dairy Sci. 62:1399. Marsh, R. 1978. A review of the effects of mechanical treatment of forages on fermentation in the silo and on the feeding value of the silages. N. Z. Journal of Experimental Agriculture. 6:271. Michigan Department of Agriculture. 1981. Michigan Agricultural Statistics, p. 21. Morgan, C. A., and R. A. Edwards, and P. McDonald. 1980. Intake and metabolism studies with fresh and wilted silages. J. Agric. Sci., Camb 94:287. Murdoch, J. C. 1960. The effect of pre-wilting herbage on the composition of silage and its intake by cows. J. Br. Grassld. Soc. 15:70. 73 McGuffey, R. K., and M. J. Owens. 1979. Effect of cover- ing and dry matter at ensiling on preservation of alfalfa in bunker silos. J. Anim. Sci. 49:298. Nevens, W. B., and A. F. Kauhlman. 1936. Alfalfa Silage. J. Dairy Sci. 19:611. Newland, H. W., and H. E. Henderson. 1966. Comparison of alfalfa hay and alfalfa haylage with two concentrate levels for finishing heifers. Michigan Beef Cattle Day Rep. Niedermeier, R. P., B. R. Baumgardt, and C. E. Zehner. 1961. Digestibility, consumption, and milk production by cows fed low-moisture (43%) vs. wilted (68%) grass silage as the only roughage. J. Dairy Sci. 44:962. (ABSTR.) 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. Perry, T. W., and W. M. Beeson. 1966. The nutritive value of haylage for beef cattle. Annual Indian Cattle Feeders Day Rep. 251. Pierson, D. C., R. D. Goodrich, J. E. Linn and J. C. Meiske. 1971. Influence of heat damage on haylage quality. Minnesota Beef Cattle Rep. Roffler, R. E., R. P. Niedermeier, and B. R. Baumgardt. 1967. Evaluation of alfalfa-brome forage stored as wilted silage, low-moisture silage, and hay. J. Dairy Sci. 50:1805. Rogers, G. L., A. M. Bryant, K. E. Jury, and J. B. Hutton. 1979. Silage and dairy cow production. I Digestible energy intake and yield and composition of milk of cows fed pasture and pasture silages. N. Z. Journal of Agricultural Research 22:511. Shoemaker, B. E., B. B. Breidenstein, and B. C. Breidenstein. 1964. Comparison of corn silage and haylage in steer calf finishing programs. Part II: Carcass Analysis. Illinois Cattle Feeders' Day Rep. Snedecor, G. W., and W. G. Cochran. 1967. Statistical Methods. Ames: Iowa State University Press. Stallings, C. C., R. K. McGuffey, T. R. Middleton, and J. W. Thomas. 1979. Responses of sheeps and dairy cows to prOpionic acid treatment of alfalfa haylage fed with or without corn silage. J. Dairy Sci. 62:1264. 74 Sutton, A. L., and R. L. Vetter. 1971. Nitrogen studies with lambs fed alfalfa (medicago sativa) as hay, low- moisture and high-moisture silages. J. Anim. Sci. 32:1256. Thomas, J. W., L. A. Moore, M. Okamoto, and J. F. Syker. 1961. A study of factors affecting rate of intake of heifers fed silage. J. Dairy Sci. 44:1471. Thomas, J. W., L. D. Brown, R. S. Emery, E. J. Benne, and J. T. Huber. 1969. Comparison between alfalfa silage and hay. J. Dairy Sci. 52:195. Thomas, J. W., Yu Yu, D. Hillman, J. T. Huber, and R. Lichtenwalner. 1972. Unavailable nitrogen in haylage and hays. J. Anim. Sci. 35:1115 (ABSTR.) Thomas, P. C., N. C. Kelly, and D. G. Chamberlain. 1980. Silage Proc. Nutr. Soc. 39:257. Tolman, W., and P. Q. Guyer. 1974. Alfalfa haylage and corn silage for growing calves. Nebraska Beef Cattle Rep. EC. 74:218. Van Soest, P. J. 1963. Use of detergent in the analysis of fibrous feeds. II. A rapid method for the determina— tion of fiber and lignin. J. Assoc. Official Anal. Chem. 46:829. Voelker, H. H., and E. Bartel. 1960. Feeding value of alfalfa haylage, silage, green chop, pasture and artificially dryed hay. J. Dairy Sci. 43:869. (ABSTR.) Waldo, D. R., J. E. Keys, Jr., L. W. Smith and C. H. Gordon. 1971. Effect of formic acid on recovery, intake, di- gestibility, and growth from unwilted silage. J. Dairy Sci. 54:77. Waldo, D. R., J. E. Keys, Jr., and C. H. Gordon. 1973. Preservation efficiency and dairy heifer response from unwilted formic and wilted untreated silages. J. Dairy Sci. 56:129. Wilkins, R. J., K. J. Hutchinson, R. F. Wilson and C. E. Harris. 1971. The voluntary intake of silage by sheep. I Interrelationships between silage composi- tion and intake. J. Agric. Sci., Camb. 77-531. Windels, H. F., R. D. Goodrich and J. C. Meiske. 1966. The comparative value of beef toplage, alfalfa haylage, alfalfa hay and corn silage for growing and finishing beef steers. Minnesota Beef Cattle Feeders Day Rep. 75 Wing, P. D., R. D. Goodrich, J. G. Linn, and J. C. Meiske. 1976. Effects of chemical additives on the preserva- tion and digestibility of alfalfa haylage. J. Anim. Sci. 42:469. Yoelao, K., M. C. Jackson, and Ishwar Saran. 1970. The effect of wilting berseem and lucerne herbage on voluntary dry matter intake by buffalo heifers. J. Agric. Sci., Camb. 74:47. Yu Yu, and J. W. Thomas. 1975. Effect of prOpionic acid and ammonium isobutyrate on preservation and nutritive values of alfalfa haylage. J. Anim. Sci. 41:1458. Yu Yu and D. M. Veira. 1977. Effect of artificial heating of alfalfa haylage on chemical composition and sheep performance. J. Anim. Sci. 44:1112. Zimmerman, J. E., P. E. Lamb and A. L. Neumann. 1964. Comparison of corn silage and haylage in steer calf finishing programs. Part I: Feedlot performance. Illinois Cattle Feeders' Day Rep. Zimmerman, J. E., A. L. Neumann, F. C. Hinds, B. C. Breidenstein, B. E. Shoemaker and P. E. Lamb. 1965. Comparison of haylage and corn silage in steer calf finishing programs. Illinois Cattle Feeder's Day Rep. IIIIIII‘II'III‘I‘II‘ 6 7288 Ri II" VI N“ U" u I" III-I ” H I" I 1293 0319