Summary

Rising feed costs and the re-occurrence of drought have been two of the most important factors responsible for reducing sheep and goat inventories. Brush (e.g. juniper) encroachment exacerbates these problems by decreasing forage production and water infiltration. Drought cannot be controlled, but a livestock production practice does exist that can help increase U.S. sheep and goat inventories by reducing total feed costs and cost/lb. of gain, while at the same time, reduce juniper encroachment: processing juniper trees into a livestock feed ingredient (Fig. 1). Research dating back to the early 1900’s, has shown that ground woody products can successfully be used as a roughage ingredient in livestock diets. More recently, the TX A&M AgriLife Wood to Feed program (San Angelo) reported that ground redberry juniper trees can successfully be used as a roughage ingredient in sheep and goat diets. Our trials have shown that ground redberry juniper has nutritional and feeding values similar to traditional roughages, can reduce internal parasite viability and fecal egg shedding, and that it does not negatively affect the fetus, wool, carcass, or sensory characteristics. In fact, using juniper in lamb feedlot diets has actually increased certain “healthy” fatty acids in adipose tissue and enhanced tenderness and juiciness of cooked chops without negatively affecting off-flavor.
Commercial brush harvesters are predicting that they can profitably sell a hammermilled juniper product for under $120/dry ton; some scenarios predict less than $25/dry ton when ranchers collect chipped juniper material from commercial harvesters in the field, for free. Thus, a solid foundation has been created to safely, effectively, and profitably use ground juniper as a roughage ingredient on a commercial scale. However, to be sold commercially, feed ingredients must be approved by the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) or FDA. The approval process requires that each ingredient be evaluated to ensure safety to the animal and to consumers of animal products.
Therefore, the objectives of this proposal are to (1) expand our knowledge of using redberry juniper as a roughage ingredient by evaluating the feeding and economic value of blueberry juniper (J. ashei), oneseed juniper (J. monosperma), and eastern red cedar (J. virginiana) in sheep and goat diets; (2) evaluate effects of feeding ground juniper on end products: wool, carcass, and meat characteristics; and (3) include results in an AAFCO proposal to get commercial approval of these ingredients.

Figure 1. Whole tree chipped, hammermilled, mixed with other ingredients, and at times, pelleted

FINAL PROGRESS REPORT

February, 2014 to June, 30, 2015

 

NSIIC PROJECT TITLE:

Use of ground juniper trees as a roughage source in lamb feedlot diets

 

Contact:      Travis Whitney, Associate Professor

                     TX A&M AgriLife Research, San Angelo     trwhitney@ag.tamu.edu

 

Project Summary (2 Research Trials):
      Trials 1 (sheep) and 2 (goats) were completed during October, 2014. Results from these projects are going towards supporting a student’s Ph.D. program. In summary, both trials supported our initial hypothesis that ground juniper and mesquite trees can successfully be used as roughage sources in lamb and goat feedlot diets without negatively effecting overall growth performance or animal health.  Our results build upon a 100-year history of effectively using ground woody products in ruminant livestock diets, along with other TX A&M AgriLife “Wood to Feed” projects that have been completed over the past 7 years (Link).

      Furthermore, this NSIIC-project has been beneficial to Dr. Whitney’s proposal to get ground redberry and blueberry juniper commercially approved as livestock feed ingredients. It appears that ground juniper will be approved in Texas within the next few weeks and within the U.S. by the middle of next year. When this happens, we predict that a commercialized “Wood to Feed” industry will rapidly develop in which juniper will need to be removed from thousands of acres of rangelands; at no cost to the landowner.

 

Problems, delays, or adverse conditions:

      West Texas experienced a severe and prolonged drought during the summer of 2014, which delayed the weaning of lambs and goats. Thus, the feedlot trials began and ended later than originally planned. However, all trials have been completed and all data analysis except for the lamb meat fatty acids. Furthermore, we were able to get the sheep harvested at a local processing plant, thus were able to be on the kill floor and collect carcass data and a loin to evaluate meat fatty acids. However, after thoroughly evaluating all of options, we were unable to find a commercial harvesting plant that would slaughter the goats. Therefore, the goats had to be sold at a local auction and no carcass data was recorded.

 

 

Trial 1:     Effectiveness of replacing cottonseed hulls with ground juniper or mesquite in lamb feedlot diets: Growth, blood serum chemistry, wool and carcass characteristics, adipose tissue fatty acid profiles, and sensory panel traits

 

ABSTRACT: Effects of using ground woody plants in Rambouillet wether lamb (n = 48) feedlot diets on growth and wool, carcass, and sensory characteristics were evaluated. In a randomized design study with 2 feeding periods (Period 1 = fed a 70% concentrate (consisting mainly of 40% dried distillers grains with solubles, DDGS; 21.7% sorghum grain) diet from d 0 to 28 d; Period 2 = fed a 86% concentrate (consisting mainly of 40% DDGS and 37.5% sorghum grain) diet from d 29 to 57). Lambs were individually fed 6 diets that differed only by roughage source: cottonseed hulls (CNTL; control) or ground wood consisting of either redberry (RED), blueberry (BLUE), or one-seed juniper (ONE), eastern red cedar (ERC), or mesquite (MESQ). See Table 1 for chemical composition of the roughage ingredients and Tables 2 and 3 for composition of the treatment diets. Using ground wood vs. cottonseed hulls (CNTL) as the roughage source did not affect (P > 0.17) BW at the end of Period 1 or 2 (Period 1: 41.6, 39.8, 40.6, 40.6, 37.7, 39.9 kg; Period 2: 50.1, 46.8, 47.5, 48.7, 45.5, 46.2 kg for CNTL, RED, BLUE, ONE, ERC, and MESQ, respectively), even though ADG during the 57-d trial was greater for lambs fed CNTL vs. lambs fed RED, ERC, or MESQ (0.31vs. 0.23, 0.23, 0.22 kg/d, respectively; P = 0.007). During Period 1, DMI was greater (P < 0.001) for lambs fed CNTL vs. lambs fed RED, ONE, ERC, or MESQ, but lambs had similar DMI (P = 0.20) during Period 2. Lamb G:F did not differ (P > 0.80) during the trial (0.18, 0.17, 0.17, 0.17, 0.17, 0.16 kg/kg for CNTL, RED, BLUE, ONE, ERC, and MESQ, respectively). Lamb HCW was less (P = 0.02) for lambs fed ERC or MESQ vs. CNTL but lambs had similar (P > 0.09) LM area, back fat thickness, leg circumference, and body wall. No differences (P = 0.38) were observed in lamb grease fleece weight. Current projections suggest that ground woody plants priced at $120/dry t can be sustainably sold for a profit. Considering that cottonseed hulls are currently priced in most markets above $150/t, results indicated that ground woody products are viable and economical roughage feed ingredients, even if lambs require additional days on feed.

 

 

Accomplishments:

1.      Results presented at an invited meeting: Whitney, T. R. 2014. Integrated design to increase brush management. Menard County Soil and Water Conservation District: Fall Pesticide Workshop. Menard, TX. Oct. 1.

2.      Results presented at an invited meeting: Whitney, T. R. 2014. TX A&M AgriLife Research Wood to Feed Program. Texas Chapter ASMRA (Amer. Soc. of Rural Appraisers and Farm Managers). Uvalde, TX. Oct. 2.

3.      Results presented at an invited meeting: Whitney, T. R. 2015. Rangeland supplementation of sheep and goats; maximizing efficiency and resources. Prime Fresh Foods LLC Producer’s Gathering. Goldthwaite, TX. April 20.

4.      Results published: Glasscock, J. L., T. R. Whitney, J. R. Roper, A. R Holmes, S. G. Marrs, and J. T. Sawyer. 2015. Effects of using ground woody plants in lamb feedlot diets on growth performance and wool and carcass characteristics. In: South. Sect Amer. Soc. Anim. Sci.

 

Remaining Activities:

1.      Need to statistically analyze the following: blood serum; wool, carcass, and cook meat sensory characteristics; meat fatty acid composition.

2.      Construct a journal article and submit to the Journal of Animal Science.

3.      Construct a journal article and submit it to Meat Science Journal.

4.      Update the TX A&M Wood to Feed website with results of this trial (Link).

 

 


 

 

Trial 2:     Effectiveness of replacing cottonseed hulls with ground juniper or mesquite in kid goat feedlot diets: Growth performance and blood serum chemistry.

 

ABSTRACT: Growth performance was evaluated for Boar × Spanish kid goats (n = 48) consuming feedlot diets which differed only by roughage source. In a randomized design study with 2 feeding periods (Period 1 = 70% concentrate, 26 d; Period 2 = 86% concentrate, 37 d), goats were individually fed a control diet containing cottonseed hulls (CNTL) as the roughage source or a diet containing ground woody products; redberry juniper (RED), blueberry juniper (BLUE), one-seed juniper (ONE), eastern red cedar (ERC), or mesquite (MESQ). See Table 1 for chemical composition of the roughage ingredients and Tables 2 and 3 for composition of the treatment diets. Kid growth performance is shown in Table 4 and Fig. 1. Using ground wood vs. cottonseed hulls as the roughage source did not affect (P > 0.34) BW at the end of Period 1 or 2, even though ADG during Period 1 was greater for goats fed CNTL vs. MESQ (0.17 vs. 0.09 kg/d; P = 0.005). Goat DMI was similar (P > 0.50) during Periods 1 and 2. During Period 1, goats fed CNTL had similar (P > 0.30) G:F compared to goats fed RED, BLUE, ONE, or ERC, but greater G:F than goats fed MESQ (P = 0.03; 0.20 vs. 0.12 kg/kg). During Period 2, G:F was similar (P > 0. 59) among goats fed CNTL and goats fed ground wood as the roughage source. Results indicated that replacing all of the roughage source (cottonseed hulls) with ground juniper or mesquite trees in dried distillers grain-based feedlot diets is not detrimental to kid goat performance. However, total feedlot costs need to be further evaluated when using 30% ground mesquite wood as the sole roughage source during the growing period.

 

Keywords: feedlot, kid goats, juniper, mesquite, roughage

 

INTRODUCTION

      Due to current livestock feed prices, which are exasperated during periods of drought, alternatives to less expensive ingredients is becoming more important to the livestock industry.  One alternative is the use of ground woody products as the roughage source in mixed diets. Although, woody products are currently a novel ingredient, their use is not a new concept and dates back to Maynard (1920) stating that pine wood was useful in livestock feeds. Sawdust proved to be an effective roughage ingredient in numerous trials (Sherrard and Blanco, 1921; Morrison et al., 1922; Archibald, 1926) and mesquite wood was successfully used in cattle diets (Marion et al., 1957; Bracher, 1972). In 1980, ground aspen was adopted as an approved feed ingredient (AAFCO, 2011). 

      Invasive Juniperus (Ansley et al., 2006) and Prosopis (Felker, 1996) plants infest millions of acres of rangelands within the U.S. The negative effects of juniper encroachment on stocking rates was documented as early as 1939 (Jenkins, 1939).  Woody plant encroachment is expensive to manage and can lead to a reduction in total grass and forb production essential to livestock and wildlife (Scholes and Archer 1997).

      Recently Juniperus pinchotii leaves (Whitney and Muir 2010) and leaves and stems (Whitney et al. 2014) have shown to be effective roughage ingredients in lamb feedlot diets without negatively effecting wool, carcass, or meat sensory characteristics.  In addition, Stewart et al. (2014) reported that nutritional and digestive characteristics of J. pinchotti, J. ashei, J. monosperma, and J. virginiana are comparable, at times greater, than many traditional roughage ingredients. However, the feeding value of ground mature trees (entire above-ground biomass) needs to be further evaluated. Therefore, the objective of the current trial was to determine if mature woody plants could effectively replace cottonseed hulls in kid goat feedlot diets. If woody products can be used effectively, then potential exist to reduce feed cost while synergistically enhancing natural resources.

 

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Animals and Management

      The experimental protocol was approved by the Texas A&M University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. Boar × Spanish kid goats (n = 48; approximate age = 6 mo; initial BW = 21.5 ± 2 kg) were stratified by BW, randomly assigned to a treatment diet (n = 8/diet) and individual covered pen (2.44 by 2.97m) with an automatic watering system and a feed bunk.  Goats received an ear tag and a subcutaneous clostridial vaccine (Bar-Vac CD/T with tetanus, Boehringer Ingelheim, St. Joseph, Mo) upon arrival. A goat fed ERC died on d 46 and the veterinary diagnosis revealed a chronic duodenal ulcer with fibrinous exudate. It is unlikely that death was related to the treatment diet considering that all of the other goats fed ERC remained healthy throughout the trial.  In addition, a goat fed ONE was removed from Period 2 due to a fractured leg.

      After a 29-d transition period, during which percentage of concentrate was gradually increased and the woody product gradually replaced cottonseed hulls, goats were fed for 2 feedlot periods for a total of 64 d. During Period 1 (d 0 to 26), goats were fed a 70% concentrate ration (mainly 40% DDGS and 21.7% sorghum grain). Goats were then transitioned over 5 d into Period 2 (d 27 to 64) onto an 86% concentrate ration (mainly 40% DDGS and 37.5% sorghum grain). The DDGS were a byproduct of corn ethanol production (POET, Sioux Falls, SD).  Monensin (Rumensin 90; Elanco, Indianapolis, IN) was added to each diet at the rate of 20 g/t of feed.

      Goats were individually fed once daily at 0800 h with an approximate allowance of 15% refusals. Goats were fed a mixed diet that contained either cottonseed hulls (CNTL; control) or a ground woody product as the roughage source; redberry juniper (RED), blueberry juniper (BLUE), one-seed juniper (ONE), eastern red cedar (ERC), or mesquite (MESQ). Goat ADG and average daily DMI were determined between days that BW was recorded; d 0, 27, 41, 55 and 64.  Goat G:F was calculated between weigh days by dividing ADG by average daily DMI. 

Sample Collection and Measurements

      Juniperus pinchotti, J. ashei, J. monosperma, J. virginiana, and Prosopis glandulosa were harvested during May and June (2014) in the following locations, respectively: Tom Green Co. (TX); Edwards, Co. (TX); Torrance Co. (NM); Bastrop Co. (TX); and Tom Green Co. (TX).  Entire above ground biomass from mature Juniperus (juniper; including leaves) and mature Prosopis (mesquite; excluding leaves) trees were harvested, chipped (Vermeer, X1500, Pella, IA), and then dried for 6 hr to approximately 93% DM using a peanut drying trailer equipped with a perforated metal bottom sieve and a jet dryer (approximately 30°C; model 2001; Peerless Manuf. Co., Shellman, GA). Chipped material was fine ground through a hammermill to pass a 4.76-mm sieve (Sentry, model 100, Mix-Mill Feed Processing Systems, Bluffton, IN), bagged, and stored in an enclosed barn.

      To evaluate nutritive value, random subsamples of mechanically dried and hammermilled (4.76-mm) juniper and mesquite, and air-dried subsamples of CSH, sorghum grain, and DDGS were collected multiple times, combined by ingredient, and analyzed (Table 1). Random samples of treatment diets were collected during both periods; samples were combined by Period, analyzed separately, and values presented for Period 1 (Table 2) and Period 2 (Table 3).  Samples were dried at 55°C in a forced-air oven for 48 h, ground through a 1-mm screen (Wiley mill, Arthur H. Thomas Co., Philadelphia, PA), and stored at –20°C. Nitrogen was analyzed by a standard method (AOAC Int., 2006) and CP calculated as 6.25 × N. Crude fat was analyzed by a standard ether extraction method (AOAC Int., 2006).  Feed NDF and ADF were analyzed according to procedures of Van Soest et al. (1991), which were modified for an Ankom 2000 Fiber Analyzer (Ankom Technol. Corp., Fairport, NY) using α-amylase and Na sulfite. In addition, N was analyzed in residue remaining after ADF procedure and multiplied by 6.25 to determine acid detergent insoluble CP (ADICP). Ash was analyzed by a standard method (AOAC Int., 2006) and Ca, P, and S were analyzed by a Thermo Jarrell Ash IRIS Advantage HX Inductively Coupled Plasma Radial Spectrometer (Thermo Instrument Systems, Inc., Waltham, MA). Condensed tannins in the ground juniper, mesquite, CSH, and sorghum grain were assayed for soluble, protein-bound, and fiber-bound fractions by methods described by Terrill et al. (1992); samples were oven dried and standards were prepared for each individual ingredient as recommended by Wolfe et al. (2008). In addition, part of each sample was dried to constant weight in a forced-air oven at 103°C to determine DM concentration; all chemical analyses are reported on a DM basis.

Statistical Analysis

      Data were analyzed using PROC MIXED procedure of SAS (SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC).  Goat BW, DMI, ADG, and G:F were analyzed by period using a model that included treatment, day, and treatment × day with day as the repeated measure and goat as the subject. Within period, no treatment × day interactions were observed (P < 0.10) except for BW during Period 2 (P = 0.007). Covariance structures (autoregressive order-1 heterogeneity and toeplitz heterogeneity) were compared to determine the most appropriate structure; toeplitz was used for each repeated model. Data are reported as least squares means with greatest standard errors and P-values were generated by using the PDIFF procedure of SAS.

 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Chemical Composition of Individual Ingredients and Treatment Diets

Chemical composition of individual ingredients and treatment diets (Tables 1, 2, and 3) were not statistically analyzed. Concentrations of CP in the Juniperus plants were relatively similar to CSH, but mesquite contained 39% greater CP than CSH. In general, woody plants contained less fiber (NDF and ADF) than CSH, but Juniperus plants had greater concentrations of lignin. The concentration of Ca in woody plants was at 5 times greater than CSH, which is beneficial in feedlot diets, especially when using ingredients such as DDGS (0.91% P). Nutritive values of mature woody plants reported in this trial are fairly similar to those reported by Stewart et al. (2014) for mature Junipers plants. Furthermore, results from Table 1 suggest that ground woody products have similar to greater nutritive value than many traditional roughage ingredients such as CSH (NRC, 2007; Whitney and Muir, 2010), peanut hulls (Horton and Steacy, 1979; NRC, 2007), corn cobs, and barley straw (Ndlovu and Buchanan-Smith, 1985).

      Total CT for CSH was less than all of the woody plant species, but CT was never greater than 6% (DM basis) in any of the wood plants. The CT concentrations are fairly similar to those reported by Stewart et al. (2014). Condensed tannins are naturally occurring plant polyphenols that can bind and precipitate proteins and either positively or negatively affect animal performance (Cannas, 2014). In some cases with forages containing less than 5% CP, CT bind with plant proteins and reduce their availability for rumen microbial growth; however, with forages containing greater than 15% CP, CT have minimal effects on microbial growth and can actually improve intestinal amino acid and protein supply (Waghorn et al., 1999). In the current trial, greater CT concentration in Juniperus and Prosopis plants vs. CSH did not appear to have an adverse effect on animal performance. Juniperus species also contain volatile oils (Adams, 2010; Stewart et al., 2014; Whitney et al., 2014), but volatile oils in the current trial have not been analyzed.

      In general, nutrient composition in mixed diets (Tables 2 and 3) tended to be representative of individual ingredient analysis. However, NDF and ADF in the growing diet was lower in all woody species vs. CSH. In addition, it should be noted that by using 40% DDGS in feedlot diets, no other crude protein source (e.g., cottonseed meal) was required because CP concentration in the mixed diet was greater than 17%. 

Animal Performance

Period 1. A treatment × day interaction was observed for BW (P = 0.005; Fig. 1); however, BW at the end of Period 1 was similar (P > 0.34) for goats fed CNTL vs. goats fed RED, BLUE, ONE, ERC, or MESQ. Goats fed CNTL had similar (P > 0.88; Table 4) average daily DMI as compared to goats fed RED, BLUE, ONE, ERC, or MESQ.  Therefore, it appears that secondary compounds (e.g., volatile oils and CT) in the Juniperus species did not reduce average daily DMI.

      Average daily gain and G:F of goats fed CNTL were similar to the juniper-based diets (P > 0.20; RED, BLUE, ONE, and ERC). These results are not surprising due to the similarity in nutritional characteristics between CSH and Juniperus plants. In addition, Whitney et al. (2014) reported that feeding lambs a 64% concentrate DDGS-based diet with ground J. pinchotii leaves and small stems as the sole roughage ingredient did not affect BW, average daily DMI, ADG, or G:F as compared to lambs fed the same diet with CSH as the roughage. Furthermore, the ground J. pinchotii, J. ashei, J. monosperma, and J. virginiana have all been reported to have tIVDMD between 29 and 33% (Stewart et al., 2014), whereas tIVDMD of CSH (from the same batch that was used in the current trial) has been reported to be 21%.

      Goats fed CNTL had greater ADG and G:F (P < 0.03) than goats fed MESQ. Nutritional characteristics reported in Table 1 suggest that ground mesquite wood (no leaves) should have a comparable feeding value as CSH. In addition, previous results from our laboratory suggest that ground mesquite wood has a tIVDMD of 24%, which is similar to CSH. Others have reported that ground mesquite wood was successfully used in cattle diets at 52% (Marion et al., 1957) and up to 88% (Ellis, 1969) of the total diet. Even though ground juniper was not directly compared to ground mesquite wood in this trial, it appears that the leaves on the juniper stems enhanced the feeding value of these trees. This assumption is supported by Whitney and Muir (2010) who report that juniper leaves are 67% digestible.

      Ground mesquite used in the current trial did not contain any leaves, because mesquite leaves contain various secondary compounds that appear to be related to a reduction in animal health (Lyon et al., 1988; Baptista and Launchbaugh, 2001). However, nutritional value and digestibility of mesquite leaves have been reported to be comparable to some alfalfa varieties (Lyon et al., 1988; Baptista and Launchbaugh, 2001). Therefore, further study is warranted to determine what percentage mesquite leaves can be safely included in mixed diets. 

Period 2. No treatment × day interactions were observed for BW, DMI, ADG, or GF (P > 0.18; Table 4). No differences in BW (P > 0.21), DMI (P > 0.50), ADG (P > 0.96), or G:F (P > 0.95) were observed when goats were fed a finishing (86% concentrate) diet. In addition, when data were averaged over the entire trial, all goats that were fed woody products as the sole roughage ingredient in a mixed diet had similar final BW, DMI, ADG, and G:F (P > 0.27) as compared to goats fed CSH as the roughage ingredient. 

Conclusion

      Results indicated that replacing all of the roughage (cottonseed hulls) with ground juniper or mesquite trees in dried distillers grain-based feedlot diets is not detrimental to kid goat performance. However, total feedlot costs need to be further evaluated when using 30% ground mesquite wood as the sole roughage source during the growing period. Results from this study, along with numerous other trials over the past 100 years, suggest that ground wood can successfully and economically be fed to livestock. Current bulk feed prices (San Angelo, March, 2015) are greater than $320/metric ton. However, the use of invasive woody plants (e.g., juniper and mesquite) as ruminant livestock feed ingredients should be considered not only for finical benefits, but also as a tool for rangeland restoration that would further benefit livestock production and wildlife habitat.

LITERATURE CITED

AAFCO. 2011. 2011 Official Publication. Association of American Feed Control Officials. Champaign, IL. p. 425.

Adams, R. P. 2010. Chemosystematics of Juniperus: Effects of leaf drying on essential oil composition. Phytologia. 92:186–198.

Allen, Ed. 2013. Feed outlook: Special Article. World Corn Use Expands Despite High Prices in 2012/2013. USDA. p. 1−6.

AOAC Int. 2006. Official methods of analysis. 18th ed. AOAC Int., Arlington, VA.

Ansley, R. J., W. E. Pinchak, and D. N. Ueckert. 1995. Changes in redberry juniper distribution in northwest Texas Rangelands. 17:49–53.

Baptista, R., and K. L. Launchbaugh. 2001. Nutritive value and aversion of honey mesquite leaves to sheep. J. Range Manage. 54:82−88.

Bracher, B. 1972. Cattle feed from mesquite. The Cattleman. 108.

Ellis, L. C. 1969. Wintering cows on ground mesquite. M.S. Thesis. TX Tech. Univ., Lubbock.

Felix, T. L., and S. C. Loerch. 2011. Effects of haylage and monensin supplementation on performance, carcass characteristics, and ruminal metabolism of feedlot cattle fed diets containing 60% dried distillers grains. J. Anim. Sci. 89:2614–2623.

Felker, P. 1996. Commercializing mesquite, leucaena, and cactus in Texas. P. 133−137. J. Janick (ed.), Progress in new crops. ASHS Press, Alexandria, VA.

Horton, G. M., and G. M. Steacy. 1979. Effect of anhydrous ammonia treatment on the intake and digestibility of cereal straws by steers. J. Anim. Sci. 48:1239−1249.

Jenkins, R. B. 1939. Cedars and Poverty. The Cattleman. p. 61−62.

Johnson, R. J. 2013. Cattle Herd Rebuilding thrown a curve, drought to determine inventory dynamics in 2013. U.S.D.A. Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook. Feb. 14.

Lyon, C. K., M. R. Gumbmann, and R. Becker. 1988. Value of mesquite leaves as forage. J. Sci. Food Agric. 44:111−117.

Marion, P. E., C. E. Fisher, and E. D. Robinson. 1957. Ground mesquite as roughage in rations for yearling steers.    Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Progress Report No.

Murrieta, C. M., B. W. Hess, and D. C. Rule. 2003. Comparison of acidic and alkaline catalysts for preparation of fatty acid methyl esters from ovine muscle with emphasis on conjugated linoleic acid. Meat Sci. 65:523–529.

Ndlovu, L. R., and J. G. Buchanan-Smith. 1985. Utilization of poor quality roughages by sheep: Effects of alfalfa supplementation on ruminal parameters, fiber digestion and rate of passage from the rumen. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 65:693−703.

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2015. State of the climate: Drought: December 2012. Accessed February 15, 2015. www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/drought/2012/12.

NRC. 1983. Underutilized Resources as Animal Feedstuffs. Nat. Acad. Press. Washington D.C.

NRC. 2007. Nutrient Requirements of Small Ruminants: Sheep, Goats, Cervids, and New World Camelids. Nat. Acad. Press, Washington, DC.

Stewart, W.C., Adams, R. P., Cherry, N. M., Estell, R. E., Gardner, D. R., Lambert, B. D., Muir, J. P., Naumann, H. D., Scholljegerdes, E. J., and Welch, K.D. 2014. Effects of Juniperus species and stage of maturity on nutritional, in vitro digestive and plant secondary compound characteristics. Proceedings, Western Section, American Society of Animal Science. Vol. 65

TDA (Texas Department of Agriculture). 2015. Texas Ag Stats. Accessed February, 15 2015. https://www.texasagriculture.gov/About/TexasAgStats.aspx

Terrill, T. H., A. M. Rowan, G. B. Douglas, and T. N. Barry. 1992. Determination of extractable and bound condensed tannin concentrations in forage plants, protein concentrate meals, and cereal grains. J. Sci. Food Agric. 58:321–329.

USDA (United Stated Department of Agriculture). 2001. U.S. Forest Facts and Historical Trends. USDA. p.1−20.

Waghorn, G. C., J. D. Reed, and L. R. Ndlovu. 1999. Condensed tannins and herbivore nutrition. International Grassland. P. 153−156.

Whitney, T. R., C. J. Lupton, J. P. Muir, R. P. Adams, and W. C. Steward. 2014. Effects of using ground redberry juniper and dried distillers grains with solubles in lamb feedlot diets: Growth, blood serum, fecal, and wool characteristics. J. Anim. Sci. 92:1119−1132.

Whitney, T. R., and J. P. Muir. 2010. Redberry juniper as a roughage source in lamb feedlot rations: Performance and serum nonesterified fatty acids, urea nitrogen, and insulin-like growth factor-1 concentrations. J. Anim. Sci. 88:1492–1502.

Wolfe, R. M., T. H. Terrill, and J. P. Muir. 2008. Drying method and origin of standard affect condensed tannin (CT) concentrations in perennial herbaceous legumes using simplified butanol-HCL CT analysis. J. Sci. Food Agric. 88:1060–1067.
 

Accomplishments:

1.      Results presented at an invited meeting: Whitney, T. R. 2014. Integrated design to increase brush management. Menard County Soil and Water Conservation District: Fall Pesticide Workshop. Menard, TX. Oct. 1.

2.      Results presented at an invited meeting: Whitney, T. R. 2014. TX A&M AgriLife Research Wood to Feed Program. Texas Chapter ASMRA (Amer. Soc. of Rural Appraisers and Farm Managers). Uvalde, TX. Oct. 2.

3.      Results presented at an invited meeting: Whitney, T. R. 2015. Rangeland supplementation of sheep and goats; maximizing efficiency and resources. Prime Fresh Foods LLC Producer’s Gathering. Goldthwaite, TX. April 20.

4.      Results published: Glasscock, J. L., T. R. Whitney, J. R. Roper, A. R Holmes, S. G. Marrs, N. M. Cherry, J. P. Muir, W. C. Stewart, and E. J. Scholljegerdes. 2015. Effects of using ground woody plants in kid goat feedlot diets on growth performance. In West. Sect Amer. Soc. Anim. Sci. Proceedings Article and Oral Presentation. Ruidoso, NM.

 

Remaining Activities:

1.      Statistically analyze blood serum.

2.      Construct a journal article and submit it to the Journal of Animal Science.

3.      Update the TX A&M Wood to Feed website with results of this trial (Link). 

Table 1. Chemical composition (% DM basis) of cottonseed hulls, ground juniper and mesquite

 

Ingredient1

Item, %2

Cottonseed Hulls

J.pin

J.ash

   J.mon

   J.vir

P.glan

Nutrient composition

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  DM

90.6

92.3

  91.9

93.3

92.4

92.5

 

  CP

3.5

3.0

    2.8

2.5

3.4

5.7

 

  ADICP

3.1

1.5

    1.6

1.4

1.8

2.5

 

  NDF

78.9

64.2

  66.0

71.0

68.2

74.7

 

  ADF

69.5a

51.2

  53.1

57.9

56.1

57.8

 

  Lignin

18.9

20.8

  21.4

23.2

21.9

17.9

 

  Crude fat

0.6

      -

     -

      -

      -

     -

 

  Ash

2.7

4.5

    4.5

3.4

4.5

4.3

 

  Ca

0.27

1.46

    1.58

1.33

1.46

1.48

 

  P

0.09

0.05

    0.04

0.03

0.06

0.03

 

Condensed tannins

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Extractable

1.4

2.8

    3.2

1.8

2.4

0.9

 

  Protein bound

1.8

2.1

    2.3

1.9

2.3

3.8

 

  Fiber bound

0.2

0.0

    0.0

0.0

0.0

0.1

 

  Total

3.2

4.9

    5.5

3.7

4.7

4.7

 

                                         

    1J.pin = Juniperus pinchotii; J.ash = Juniperus ashei; J.mon = Juniperus monosperma; J.vir = J. virginiana; P.glan = Prosopis glandulosa. Juniperus (entire above-ground biomass) and Prosopis (entire above-ground biomass except for leaves) species were fine-ground to pass a 4.76-mm sieve.

    2ADICP = acid detergent insoluble CP; a = data from Whitney and Muir, 2010.

Table 2. Ingredient and chemical composition (% DM basis) of treatment diets fed during the growing period (Period 1, d 0 to 26)1                                                                                                                                  

 

Diet2

Item3

CNTL

RED

BLUE

ONE

ERC

MESQ

Cottonseed hulls

30.0

-

-

-

-

-

Ground woody product

-

30.0

30.0

30.0

30.0

30.0

DDGS

40.0

40.0

40.0

40.0

40.0

40.0

Sorghum grain

21.7

21.7

21.7

21.7

21.7

21.7

Molasses

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

Limestone

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

Ammonium chloride

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

Salt

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

Mineral premix

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nutrient Composition, %

 

 

 

 

 

 

  DM

91.2

90.8

90.6

91.6

91.4

91.2

  CP

20.2

18.5

18.6

17.3

18.5

18.8

  NDF

28.0

34.8

33.2

37.9

34.6

36.6

  ADF

13.4

19.9

19.0

22.7

20.4

19.7

  Ash

8.1

8.0

8.5

7.7

8.5

8.4

  Ca

1.2

1.4

1.4

1.3

1.4

1.4

  P

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

  Ca:P

2.3

2.7

2.9

2.8

2.9

3.0

1Animals were transitioned over 29 d onto their respective diets. During Period 1 (d 0 to 26), animals were fed a 70% concentrate ration. Animals were transitioned over 5 d into Period 2 (d 27 to 64) onto an 86% concentrate ration.

2Treatment diets were non-agglomerated and ingredient composition differed only by roughage source; either cottonseed hulls (CNTL) or ground woody products (RED = Juniperus pinchotii, BLUE = Juniperus ashei, ONE = Juniperus monosperma, ERC = J. virginiana, or MESQ = Prosopis glandulosa). Juniperus (entire above-ground biomass) and Prosopis (entire above-ground biomass except for leaves) species chipped, dried, and hammermilled to pass a 4.76-mm sieve.

 

Table 3. Ingredient and chemical composition (% DM basis) of treatment diets fed during the finishing period (Period 2, d 27 to 64)1                                                                                                                                   

 

Diet2

Item3

CNTL

RED

BLUE

ONE

ERC

MESQ

Cottonseed hulls

14.0

-

-

-

-

-

Ground woody product

-

14.0

14.0

14.0

14.0

14.0

DDGS

40.0

40.0

40.0

40.0

40.0

40.0

Sorghum grain

37.5

37.5

37.5

37.5

37.5

37.5

Molasses

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

Limestone

2.4

2.4

2.4

2.4

2.4

2.4

Ammonium chloride

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

Salt

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

Mineral premix

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nutrient Composition, %

 

 

 

 

 

 

  DM

90.6

89.6

89.9

90.1

90.0

89.7

  CP

19.9

19.8

19.1

18.5

19.3

19.7

  NDF

25.4

25.7

23.1

26.3

25.6

26.6

  ADF

13.5

13.6

12.9

14.7

13.3

12.1

  Ash

7.8

9.1

8.3

8.0

8.1

8.5

  Ca

1.2

1.4

1.3

1.3

1.2

1.4

  P

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

  Ca:P

2.4

2.7

2.8

2.7

2.5

2.9

1Animals were transitioned over 29 d onto their respective diets. During Period 1 (d 0 to 26), animals were fed a 70% concentrate ration. Animals were transitioned over 5 d into Period 2 (d 27 to 64) onto an 86% concentrate ration.

2Treatment diets were non-agglomerated and ingredient composition differed only by roughage source; either cottonseed hulls (CNTL) or ground woody products (RED = Juniperus pinchotii, BLUE = Juniperus ashei, ONE = Juniperus monosperma, ERC = J. virginiana, or MESQ = Prosopis glandulosa). Juniperus (entire above-ground biomass) and Prosopis (entire above-ground biomass except for leaves) species chipped, dried, and hammermilled to pass a 4.76-mm sieve. 


 

Table 4. Effects of replacing cottonseed hulls with ground woody products on kid goat

performance1                                                                                                                      

 

Diet2

 

Item

CNTL

RED

BLUE

ONE

ERC

MESQ

SEM3

Period 1, d 0 to 26

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DMI, kg/d

0.87

0.89

0.79

0.86

0.79

0.67

0.05

 

ADG, kg

0.17

0.16

0.12

0.14

0.13

   0.09*

0.02

 

G:F, kg/kg

0.20

0.18

0.15

0.16

0.17

   0.12*

0.03

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Period 2, d 27 to 64

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DMI, kg/d

0.97

0.98

0.85

1.01

0.89

0.87

0.05

 

ADG, kg

0.14

0.13

0.13

0.16

0.13

0.14

0.02

 

G:F, kg/kg

0.15

0.13

0.15

0.16

0.14

0.15

0.02

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Entire trial, d 0 to 64

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DMI, kg/d

0.93

0.95

0.83

0.95

0.85

0.79

0.06

 

ADG, kg

0.15

0.14

0.13

0.14

0.12

0.12

0.01

 

G:F, kg/kg

0.16

0.15

0.15

0.15

0.15

0.14

0.01

 

                         

        1Goats were transitioned over 29 d onto their respective diets. During Period 1 (d 0 to 26), goats were fed a 70% concentrate ration. Goats were transitioned over 5 d into Period 2 (d 27 to 64) onto an 86% concentrate ration. Items within a row with a different superscript differ, P < 0.05. No treatment × day interaction (P > 0.18) was observed.

        2Treatment diets were non-agglomerated and ingredient composition differed only by roughage source; either cottonseed hulls (CNTL) or ground woody products (RED = Juniperus pinchotii, BLUE = Juniperus ashei, ONE = Juniperus monosperma, ERC = J. virginiana, or MESQ = Prosopis glandulosa). Juniperus (entire above-ground biomass) and Prosopis (entire above-ground biomass except for leaves) species chipped, dried, and hammermilled to pass a 4.76-mm sieve.

        3SEM = greatest standard error of the means.  

 Figure 1. Effects of using cottonseed hulls as the roughage source vs. ground woody products on kid goat BW. Treatment diets differed only by roughage source; either cottonseed hulls (CNTL) or ground woody products (RED = Juniperus pinchotii, BLUE = Juniperus ashei, ONE = Juniperus monosperma, ERC = J. virginiana, or MESQ = Prosopis glandulosa). Goats were transitioned over 29 d onto their respective diets. During Period 1 (d 0 to 26), goats were fed a 70% concentrate ration. Goats were then transitioned over 5 d into Period 2 (d 27 to 64) onto an 86% concentrate ration. A treatment × day interaction (P > 0.007) was observed during Period 1, but goats fed CNTL had similar BW (P > 0.34) vs. goats fed ground wood as the roughage source on day 27. No treatment × day interaction (P > 0.59) was observed during Period 2 and goats fed CNTL had similar (P > 0.84) final BW vs. goats fed ground wood as the roughage.

 

 

Home