Forages in the United States, a Perspective

Griffith, William K.

doi:10.2527/jas1978.473708x

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Among livestock, ruminants are by far the predominant utilizers of forage protein, consuming nearly 1.5 times that fed to monogastrics (Wedin et al, 1975). Of the ruminants, dairy animals, beef cattle, and sheep, obtain nearly 61, 83 and 90%, respectively, of their total protein needs from forages (Griffith, 1978;CAST, 1980). While forages have long been the principal source of dietary protein for ruminant growth and production, only recently have nutritionists begun to fully comprehend the factors involved in ruminai protein metabolism and what factors affect the utilization of dietary nitrogen contributed by fibrous feeds.…”

Section: Review Of Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Forage Fiber: Relationship of Nutritional Quality to Chemical Composition and the Kinetics of Ruminai Digestion Fibrous feeds, consisting of grazed pasture, harvested forages, and crop residues, comprise from 60 to 90% of the total feed units consumed each year by ruminant animals in the United States (Griffith, 1978). The utilization of these fibrous feeds is facilitated by complex relationships between the animal, the microorganisms that inhabit its rumen, and the material consumed.…”

Section: Harvesting and Storagementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Kinetics of alfalfa nitrogen and cell wall disappearance from ruminally-incubated dacron bags

Farquhar

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This reproduction was made from a copy of a manuscript sent to us for publication and microfilming. While the most advanced technology has been used to pho tograph and reproduce this manuscript, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. Pages in any manuscript may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed.The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify notations which may appear on this reproduction. Manuscripts may not always be complete. When it is not possible to obtainmissing pages, a note appears to indicate this. When copyrighted materialsare removed from the manuscript, a note ap pears to indicate this. 3. Oversize materials (maps, drawings, and charts) are photographed by sec tioning the original, beginning at the upper left hand comer and continu ing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. E)ach oversize page is also filmed as one exposure and is available, for an additional charge, as a standard 35mm slide or in black and white paper format.* 4. Most photographs reproduce acceptably on positive microfilm or micro fiche but lack clarity on xerographic copies made from the microfilm. For an additional charge, all photographs are available in black and white standard 35mm slide format.*

show abstract

Section: Review Of Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Harvesting and Storagementioning

confidence: 99%

Kinetics of alfalfa nitrogen and cell wall disappearance from ruminally-incubated dacron bags

Farquhar

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Among animals, ruminants are the predominant forage utilizers (Wedin et al, 1975). Forages provide 83% of the protein requirements of beef cattle and 90% of the protein requirements of sheep (Griffith, 1978).Forage protein serves as a source of metabolizable protein to the ruminant by providing both ruminally degradable protein for microbial growth, and some ruminally undegradable protein for intestinal digestion . Because of rapid and extensive degradauon of forages in the rumen (Brown and Pitman, 1991), escape protein concentrations of forages are usually low .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ruminal microbial protein synthesis in sheep fed forages of varying nutritive value

Karsli

Russell

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer.The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note wiU indicate the deletion.Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book.Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI IntroductionIt has been reported that approximately 37 million metric tons of forage protein were consumed by animals to produce an estimated 5.4 million tons of animal protein for human consumption every year in the United States (Pimental et al., 1980). Among animals, ruminants are the predominant forage utilizers (Wedin et al., 1975). Forages provide 83% of the protein requirements of beef cattle and 90% of the protein requirements of sheep (Griffith, 1978).Forage protein serves as a source of metabolizable protein to the ruminant by providing both ruminally degradable protein for microbial growth, and some ruminally undegradable protein for intestinal digestion . Because of rapid and extensive degradauon of forages in the rumen (Brown and Pitman, 1991), escape protein concentrations of forages are usually low . One approach to increase the amount of protein which reaches the small intestine is to improve efficiency of microbial protein synthesis in animals fed forages.Efficiency of microbial growth is dependent on amounts and types of nitrogen and carbohydrate sources of the diet , the feed intake by the animals , as well as the concentrations of trace minerals and vitamins in the diet . Concentrations of nitrogen, fiber fractions and readily fermentable carbohydrates significantly differ between legume and grass species and even within legume 2 and grass species (Brown and Pitman, 1991). Although ruminal nitrogen degradation is extensive, low absolute quantities of ruminally soluble and degradable nitrogen may limit microbial growth in ruminants fed grass diets (Brown and Pitman, 1991). A lack of readily fermentable carbohydrate sources in forage is another limitation for optimal microbial gr...

show abstract

Effect of Different Sowing Dates on the Growth and Yield of Canola (Sarson) Varieties

Yousaf¹,

Ahmad²,

Jahangir³

et al. 2002

Asian J. of Plant Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forages in the United States, a Perspective

Cited by 3 publications

References 1 publication

Kinetics of alfalfa nitrogen and cell wall disappearance from ruminally-incubated dacron bags

Kinetics of alfalfa nitrogen and cell wall disappearance from ruminally-incubated dacron bags

Ruminal microbial protein synthesis in sheep fed forages of varying nutritive value

Effect of Different Sowing Dates on the Growth and Yield of Canola (Sarson) Varieties

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About