JDS
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 51 No. 3 362-366
© 1968 by American Dairy Science Association ®
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Donker, J. D.
Right arrow Articles by Mohrenweiser, H. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Donker, J. D.
Right arrow Articles by Mohrenweiser, H. W.

Forage Evaluation. I. Performance of Holstein Heifers Fed Only Early-Cut or Late-Cut Alfalfa Hay on a Free-Choice Basis1, 2,

J. D. Donker, Harbans Singh and H. W. Mohrenweiser

Department of Animal Science, University of Minnesota, St. Paul

ABSTRACT

Early-cut and late-cut alfalfa hays were evaluated by various prediction formulae from the literature, using chemical analysis of the hays for dry matter, crude protein, and crude fiber. For the early- and late-cut hays, respectively, the values on a dry basis were crude protein—19.5 vs. 15.5%, crude fiber—28.9 vs. 32.7%, range of total digestible nutrients (TDN) (%)—55 to 65 vs. 52 to 60, estimated net energy (Mcal/ 45.4 kg dry matter)—43 to 56 vs. 37 to 49.

The heifers ate more early- than late-cut hay. Intakes expressed as percentages of body weight or per metabolic weight unit (weight 3/4) also were used. Weight gains were higher on the early-cut than on the late-cut hays, but showed opposite trends with time, i.e., highest with early-cut in first phase of trial and highest with late-cut in last phase of the trial.

A method to evaluate forage energy production formulae by comparing the various energy intake estimates to requirements was used. Nine systems of hay evaluation proved inadequate to differentiate the two hays to stimulate growth in heifers.


FOOTNOTES

1 Scientific Journal Series, Paper no. 6330, Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station.

2 Data are based partly on a Ph.D. thesis by Harbans Singh.

3 Present address: International House, 600-9th Ave., S.E., Minneapolis, Minnesota.

4 Present address: Department of Dairy, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1968 by the American Dairy Science Association ®.