Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBowman, J. G. P.
dc.contributor.authorSowell, Bok F.
dc.contributor.authorPaterson, J. A.
dc.identifier.citationBowman, J.G.P., Bok F. Sowell, and J. A. Paterson. “Liquid Supplementation for Ruminants Fed Low-Quality Forage Diets: a Review.” Animal Feed Science and Technology 55, no. 1–2 (September 1995): 105–138. doi:10.1016/0377-8401(95)98203-9.en_US
dc.description.abstractForty-three studies involving liquid supplementation of cattle and sheep consuming low-quality forages were identified, summarized in tabular form and reviewed. All studies that could be found containing animal gain, forage intake and (or) supplement consumption with molasses-urea supplements under grazing conditions were reviewed. Seven studies were found which compared forage intake or animal performance by animals fed hay or straw and molasses-urea supplements with unsupplemented animals. Molasses-urea supplements did not increase forage intake or animal performance compared with unsupplemented animals in five of the seven studies. Thirteen studies were identified which evaluated performance of grazing animals receiving molasses-urea supplements compared with unsupplemented animals. Seven of these 13 grazing studies reported improved live weight change when animals received molasses-urea supplements. Only two grazing studies were found which evaluated forage intake by animals consuming molasses-urea supplements and compared it with unsupplemented animals. Both studies found no effect. Five of six studies identified that compared molasses-urea supplements with dry supplements, forage intake or animal live weight change were not increased by molasses-urea supplements over dry supplements. Most authors concluded that feeding molasses-urea supplements to grazing ruminants was not as profitable as feeding dry supplements; however, few studies reported economic data. Studies demonstrated that level of molasses and nitrogen influenced animal performance. Asynchrony between molasses and nitrogen resulted in animal weight loss. Most positive animal responses were seen with a combination of high levels of molasses and nitrogen. However, these results may have been influenced by supplement formulation. Performance and intake results were confounded by pasture condition, forage quality, animal variation and supplement delivery system. In four studies that measured supplement intake by individual animals, between 1 and 20% of experimental animals refused to consume any molasses-urea supplement. Quantification of supplement intake and animal feeding behavior has not been adequately addressed in the literature.en_US
dc.rightsThis Item is protected by copyright and/or related rights. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s).en_US
dc.titleLiquid supplementation for ruminants fed low-quality forage diets: a reviewen_US
mus.citation.journaltitleAnimal Feed Science and Technologyen_US
mus.relation.collegeCollege of Agricultureen_US
mus.relation.departmentAnimal & Range Sciences.en_US
mus.relation.universityMontana State University - Bozemanen_US

Files in this item


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

MSU uses DSpace software, copyright © 2002-2017  Duraspace. For library collections that are not accessible, we are committed to providing reasonable accommodations and timely access to users with disabilities. For assistance, please submit an accessibility request for library material.