Two forage sources, high and low quality, were used to evaluate effects of five levels of dried distillers grains on forage intake. Ninety heifer calves were fed high or low quality forage, supplemented with 0, 1.5, 3, 4.5, or 6 lb DM dried distillers grains. Forage intakes linearly decreased as dried distillers grains increased. Average daily gain increased linearly with increased dried distillers grains indicating that dried distillers grains can be a protein and energy supplement source and a substitute for forage. Dried distillers grains are an economical supplement to cattle on either high or low quality forage diets

Adams, Don C.

Erickson, Galen E.

Klopfenstein, Terry J.

Morris, Sarah

Vander Pol, Kyle J.

English

UNL | Libraries

University of Nebraska - Lincoln 
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln 
Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports Animal Science Department 
January 2005 
The Effects of Dried Distillers Grains on Heifers Consuming Low 
or High Quality Forage 
Sarah Morris 
University of Nebraska-Lincoln 
Terry J. Klopfenstein 
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, tklopfenstein1@unl.edu 
Don C. Adams 
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, dadams1@unl.edu 
Galen E. Erickson 
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, gerickson4@unl.edu 
Kyle J. Vander Pol 
University of Nebraska-Lincoln 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr 
 Part of the Animal Sciences Commons 
Morris, Sarah; Klopfenstein, Terry J.; Adams, Don C.; Erickson, Galen E.; and Vander Pol, Kyle J., "The 
Effects of Dried Distillers Grains on Heifers Consuming Low or High Quality Forage" (2005). Nebraska 
Beef Cattle Reports. 172. 
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr/172 
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Animal Science Department at 
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Beef Cattle 
Reports by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. 
2005 Nebraska Beef Report — Page 18
The Effects of Dried Distillers Grains
on Heifers Consuming Low or
High Quality Forage
zation is due to competition
between amolytic microbes and
cellulolytic microbes. The produc-
tion of ethanol, through fermenta-
tion of the starch in grain, results in
a by-product known as distillers
grains. This by-product is a viable
alternative to cereal grains because
the starch has been removed, elimi-
nating the starch and forage digest-
ibility issues. Dried distillers grains
(DDG) and/or DDG plus solubles
(DDGS) are a feasible supplement
for cattle producers not near etha-
nol plants because the dried by-
product is easily transported and
can be stored for an extended time.
With increasing supplies of DDGS
and increasing cost of forage (2004
Nebraska Beef Cattle Report, p. 25) we
hypothesize that DDGS can substi-
tute for forage. The objectives of this
trial were to determine effects of
increasing levels of DDGS on forage
intake, predict forage intakes of
grazing animals supplemented
with DDGS, and evaluate the eco-
nomical worth of supplementing
DDGS.
Procedure
Experimental design, animal
performance and forage intake
Ninety head of heifer calves (631
lb) were stratified by weight and
then assigned randomly to one of
ten treatments in a 2 × 5 factorial
design. The diets consisted of either
smooth brome grass hay (BROME),
a low quality forage source (53%
TDN), or alfalfa hay and sorghum
silage mix (ALSS 60% and 40% mix,
respectively), a high quality forage
source (65% TDN). The BROME
was used to simulate winter range
or hay feeding. The ALSS was used
to simulate grazed summer forage.
These two forage sources simulated
the differences in nutritive values
between growing and dormant
range. Diets were supplemented
with one of five levels of DDGS: 0,
1.5, 3, 4.5, or 6 lb DM DDGS. Heifers
were individually fed forage in
Calan electronic gates ad libitum
with their respective amounts of
DDGS. The forage and DDGS were
weighed separately, mineral
supplement was weighed sepa-
rately and mixed with DDGS, and
placed in the bunks with the DDGS
on top of the forage. The DDGS
were placed on top of the forage so
the heifers would eat DDGS before
eating forage. Five days before and
at the end of the
84-day experiment, heifers were
limit fed. At the end of the limit
feeding periods, heifer weights
were recorded for three consecutive
days. Additional weights were
obtained beginning on day 46 for
three consecutive days. Orts were
collected weekly. Total forage dry
Sarah E. Morris
Terry J. Klopfenstein
Don C. Adams
Galen E. Erickson
Kyle J. Vander Pol1
Summary
Two forage sources, high and low
quality, were used to evaluate effects of
five levels of dried distillers grains on
forage intake. Ninety heifer calves
were fed high or low quality forage,
supplemented with 0, 1.5, 3, 4.5, or 6
lb DM dried distillers grains. Forage
intakes linearly decreased as dried dis-
tillers grains increased. Average daily
gain increased linearly with increased
dried distillers grains indicating that
dried distillers grains can be a protein
and energy supplement source and a
substitute for forage. Dried distillers
grains are an economical supplement
to cattle on either high or low quality
forage diets.
Introduction
Traditionally, cereal grains have
been used to supplement cattle on
forage based diets;  however, due
to the amount of starch in these
grains, a negative associative effect
has been seen between starch and
forage digestibility, leading to over-
all depressed forage utilization.
This depressed level of forage utili-
Page 19 — 2005 Nebraska Beef Report
increased (Figure 1). The rate of
increase in gain was greater for the
BROME diet (0.265 lb per lb DDGS)
than for the ALSS diet (0.20 lb per lb
DDGS). Forage intakes were signifi-
cantly different between forage
sources (P < 0.001). Control heifers
on ALSS diets consumed 12.6 lb/
day DM in contrast to controls on
BROME diets consuming 9.5 lb/
day DM. Forage intake linearly
decreased as level of DDGS
increased (Figure 2). The rate of
decline was greater for the calves
fed ALSS than those fed BROME
(0.53 v 0.33 lb forage per lb of
DDGS).
Both ADG and forage intake
were significantly different
(P < 0.001) for the two types of for-
age. The two qualities of forage
were selected to simulate range-like
conditions, so that intakes could be
projected for cattle grazing range at
different times of the year, for the
spring/summer with the high qual-
ity forage and fall/winter with the
low quality forage. The higher ADG
and forage intake, seen with the
controls on the ALSS, are similar to
what would be observed on
spring/summer range. Cattle can
consume more of the higher quality
forage and digest it more rapidly,
resulting in increased animal per-
formance. In contrast to the ALSS
group, ADG and forage intake were
lower (P < 0.001) for animals on the
control for BROME. Decreased for-
age intake resulting in decreased
animal performance is typical of
animals grazing dormant or winter
range. Cattle on winter range may
perform poorly because they cannot
consume enough of the highly lig-
nified forage to meet their require-
ments.
Economical analysis
Supplementing DDGS to cattle
on either high or low quality forage
diets appears to be profitable
through increased selling weight
and decreased forage costs. Tables
1 and 2 show the values of all levels
Figure 1. Average daily gain for both forage diets tested.
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
A
D
G
 (
lb
)
y = 0.2026x + 1.4066
R2 = 0.9236
P < 0.001
y = 0.265x + 0.4175
R2 = 0.8866
P < 0.001
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
DDGS level
 ALSS
 Brome
Figure 2. Dry matter forage intake for both diets tested.
 ALSS
 Brome
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
D
M
I 
(l
b)
y = -0.5312x + 12.864
R2 = 0.9709
P < 0.001
y = -0.3272x + 9.1566
R2 = 0.811
P < 0.0010   1   2  3   4   5 6 7
DDGS level
(Continued on next page)
matter intakes were determined
from the trial based on dry matter
offered (DMO) and orts, with the
assumption that all DDGS were
consumed. Impact of the five levels
of DDGS on forage intakes was
analyzed, as well as differences
between the forage sources.
Economical analysis
The value of supplementing
DDGS was determined by combin-
ing the values of the additional
gain obtained and the decreased
forage intake. The additional gain
was valued by determining the
income from selling the additional
weight at the end of the grazing
period. The selling price was esti-
mated using the following regres-
sion equation y = 0.00005x2 -
0.1071x + 127.3 where y = price
paid and x = animal weight. This
equation was previously developed
from the September-October average
of feeder calf prices from 1992 to
1999. This equation relates well to
actual prices (r = 0.987) and
accounts for price slide of heavier
cattle selling for less money per
hundred weight. The forage
replaced by DDGS was valued at
the 10-year average for Nebraska,
for brome hay ($64/ton dry matter)
and alfalfa hay ($70/ton dry mat-
ter).
Results
Average daily gain and total forage
intake
Average daily gain was signifi-
cantly different (P < 0.001) between
forage diets. Heifers on ALSS and
BROME control diets gained 1.41
and 0.42 lb/day, respectively.
Average daily gain for both diets
linearly increased as level of DDGS
2005 Nebraska Beef Report — Page 20
Table 1. Value of dried distillers grains and solubles (DDGS) due to improved animal performance (IAP) and reduced forage intake
(RFI) with the high quality forage, alfalfa sorghum silage (ALSS).
Supplemental DDGS, lb per day (DM): 0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6
Beginning wt, lba 631 631 631 631 631
End wt, lbb 749 775 800 826 851
Sale price, $ per 100 lbc 75.13 74.34 73.61 72.96 72.36
Revenue, $d 562.82 575.88 589.07 602.42 615.99
DDGS value from IAP, $ per tone 207.39 208.34 209.54 211.01
DDGS value from RFI, $ per tonf 30.10 30.10 30.10 30.10
Total DDGS value, $ per tong 237.49 238.44 239.64 241.11
aAverage start weight for this trial.
bExpected weight after 84 days based on the equation y = 0.20x +1.41 where y = ADG and x = DDGS intake.
cSale price per 100 lb determined from the equation y = 0.00005x2 - 0.1071x + 127.3 where y = sale price and x = sale weight.
dRevenue determined by multiplying end weight and sale price/100.
eDDGS value (DM) due to improved animal performance. Calculated from additional revenue over 0 DDGS.
fDDGS value (DM) due to reduced forage intake assuming a forage cost of $70.00 per ton dry matter.
gTotal DDGS value (DM) from IAP + RFI.
Table 2. Value of dried distillers grains and solubles (DDGS) due to improved animal performance (IAP) and reduced forage intake
(RFI) with the low quality forage, smooth brome hay (BROME).
Supplemental DDGS, lb per day (DM): 0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6
Beginning wt, lba 631 631 631 631 631
End wt, lbb 666 669 733 766 800
Sale price, $ per 100 lbc 78.15 76.85 75.67 74.59 73.63
Revenue, $d 520.51 537.54 554.51 571.55 588.77
DDGS value from IAP, $ per tone 270.25 269.87 270.07 270.87
DDGS value from RFI, $ per tonf 27.52 27.52 27.52 27.52
Total DDGS value, $ per tong 297.77 297.39 297.59 298.39
aAverage start weight for this trial.
bExpected weight after 84 days based on the equation y = 0.27x +0.42 where y = ADG and x = DDGS intake.
cSale price per 100 lb determined from the equation y = 0.00005x2 - 0.1071x + 127.3 where y = sale price and x = sale weight.
dRevenue determined by multiplying end weight and sale price/100.
eDDGS value (DM) due to improved animal performance. Calculated from additional revenue over 0 DDGS.
fDDGS value (DM) due to reduced forage intake assuming a forage cost of $60.00 per ton dry matter.
gTotal DDGS value (DM) from IAP + RFI.
of DDGS with the high- and low-
quality forage diets, respectively.
Supplementation of DDGS at any
level with either high- or low-
quality forage appears to be more
profitable than not supplementing
at all; however, the DDGS are
valued higher with the low quality
than with the high quality forage.
Total DDGS value averaged over all
levels was $298 and $237, respec-
tively. These values depend on the
values placed on the forage. Grazed
forages would be somewhat less
expensive and would lower the
value of the DDGS; however, most
of the value was from increased
cattle gains.
In conclusion, dried distillers
grains appear to be a viable supple-
ment to cattle on forage-based diets,
resulting in increased animal per-
formance and decreased forage
intakes. These results suggest
supplementing DDGS does not
adversely affect forage digestibility,
although digestibility was not
directly measured. Forage intakes
can be predicted for cattle on either
high or low quality forage diets
supplemented with up to 6 lb DM
DDGS. Economically it appears to
be advantageous to supplement
DDGS to cattle on either low or
high quality forage diets; however,
the value of the DDGS is higher
when supplementing low quality
forage diets.
1Sarah Morris, graduate student;
Terry Klopfenstein, professor; Galen
Erickson, assistant professor, Kyle Vander
Pol, research technician, Animal Science,
Lincoln; Don Adams, professor, Animal
Science, West Central Research and
Extension Center, North Platte.


The Effects of Dried Distillers Grains on Heifers Consuming Low or High Quality Forage

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska

University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports Animal Science Department January 2005 The Effects of Dried Distillers Grains on Heifers Consuming Low or High Quality Forage Sarah Morris University of Nebraska-Lincoln Terry J. Klopfenstein University of Nebraska-Lincoln, tklopfenstein1@unl.edu Don C. Adams University of Nebraska-Lincoln, dadams1@unl.edu Galen E. Erickson University of Nebraska-Lincoln, gerickson4@unl.edu Kyle J. Vander Pol University of Nebraska-Lincoln Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr  Part of the Animal Sciences Commons Morris, Sarah; Klopfenstein, Terry J.; Adams, Don C.; Erickson, Galen E.; and Vander Pol, Kyle J., "The Effects of Dried Distillers Grains on Heifers Consuming Low or High Quality Forage" (2005). Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports. 172. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr/172 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Animal Science Department at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. 2005 Nebraska Beef Report — Page 18The Effects of Dried Distillers Grainson Heifers Consuming Low orHigh Quality Foragezation is due to competitionbetween amolytic microbes andcellulolytic microbes. The produc-tion of ethanol, through fermenta-tion of the starch in grain, results ina by-product known as distillersgrains. This by-product is a viablealternative to cereal grains becausethe starch has been removed, elimi-nating the starch and forage digest-ibility issues. Dried distillers grains(DDG) and/or DDG plus solubles(DDGS) are a feasible supplementfor cattle producers not near etha-nol plants because the dried by-product is easily transported andcan be stored for an extended time.With increasing supplies of DDGSand increasing cost of forage (2004Nebraska Beef Cattle Report, p. 25) wehypothesize that DDGS can substi-tute for forage. The objectives of thistrial were to determine effects ofincreasing levels of DDGS on forageintake, predict forage intakes ofgrazing animals supplementedwith DDGS, and evaluate the eco-nomical worth of supplementingDDGS.ProcedureExperimental design, animalperformance and forage intakeNinety head of heifer calves (631lb) were stratified by weight andthen assigned randomly to one often treatments in a 2 × 5 factorialdesign. The diets consisted of eithersmooth brome grass hay (BROME),a low quality forage source (53%TDN), or alfalfa hay and sorghumsilage mix (ALSS 60% and 40% mix,respectively), a high quality foragesource (65% TDN). The BROMEwas used to simulate winter rangeor hay feeding. The ALSS was usedto simulate grazed summer forage.These two forage sources simulatedthe differences in nutritive valuesbetween growing and dormantrange. Diets were supplementedwith one of five levels of DDGS: 0,1.5, 3, 4.5, or 6 lb DM DDGS. Heiferswere individually fed forage inCalan electronic gates ad libitumwith their respective amounts ofDDGS. The forage and DDGS wereweighed separately, mineralsupplement was weighed sepa-rately and mixed with DDGS, andplaced in the bunks with the DDGSon top of the forage. The DDGSwere placed on top of the forage sothe heifers would eat DDGS beforeeating forage. Five days before andat the end of the84-day experiment, heifers werelimit fed. At the end of the limitfeeding periods, heifer weightswere recorded for three consecutivedays. Additional weights wereobtained beginning on day 46 forthree consecutive days. Orts werecollected weekly. Total forage drySarah E. MorrisTerry J. KlopfensteinDon C. AdamsGalen E. EricksonKyle J. Vander Pol1SummaryTwo forage sources, high and lowquality, were used to evaluate effects offive levels of dried distillers grains onforage intake. Ninety heifer calveswere fed high or low quality forage,supplemented with 0, 1.5, 3, 4.5, or 6lb DM dried distillers grains. Forageintakes linearly decreased as dried dis-tillers grains increased. Average dailygain increased linearly with increaseddried distillers grains indicating thatdried distillers grains can be a proteinand energy supplement source and asubstitute for forage. Dried distillersgrains are an economical supplementto cattle on either high or low qualityforage diets.IntroductionTraditionally, cereal grains havebeen used to supplement cattle onforage based diets;  however, dueto the amount of starch in thesegrains, a negative associative effecthas been seen between starch andforage digestibility, leading to over-all depressed forage utilization.This depressed level of forage utili-Page 19 — 2005 Nebraska Beef Reportincreased (Figure 1). The rate ofincrease in gain was greater for theBROME diet (0.265 lb per lb DDGS)than for the ALSS diet (0.20 lb per lbDDGS). Forage intakes were signifi-cantly different between foragesources (P < 0.001). Control heiferson ALSS diets consumed 12.6 lb/day DM in contrast to controls onBROME diets consuming 9.5 lb/day DM. Forage intake linearlydecreased as level of DDGSincreased (Figure 2). The rate ofdecline was greater for the calvesfed ALSS than those fed BROME(0.53 v 0.33 lb forage per lb ofDDGS).Both ADG and forage intakewere significantly different(P < 0.001) for the two types of for-age. The two qualities of foragewere selected to simulate range-likeconditions, so that intakes could beprojected for cattle grazing range atdifferent times of the year, for thespring/summer with the high qual-ity forage and fall/winter with thelow quality forage. The higher ADGand forage intake, seen with thecontrols on the ALSS, are similar towhat would be observed onspring/summer range. Cattle canconsume more of the higher qualityforage and digest it more rapidly,resulting in increased animal per-formance. In contrast to the ALSSgroup, ADG and forage intake werelower (P < 0.001) for animals on thecontrol for BROME. Decreased for-age intake resulting in decreasedanimal performance is typical ofanimals grazing dormant or winterrange. Cattle on winter range mayperform poorly because they cannotconsume enough of the highly lig-nified forage to meet their require-ments.Economical analysisSupplementing DDGS to cattleon either high or low quality foragediets appears to be profitablethrough increased selling weightand decreased forage costs. Tables1 and 2 show the values of all levelsFigure 1. Average daily gain for both forage diets tested.3.002.502.001.501.000.500.00ADG (lb)y = 0.2026x + 1.4066R2 = 0.9236P < 0.001y = 0.265x + 0.4175R2 = 0.8866P < 0.0010 1 2 3 4 5 6 7DDGS level ALSS BromeFigure 2. Dry matter forage intake for both diets tested. ALSS Brome14121086420DMI (lb)y = -0.5312x + 12.864R2 = 0.9709P < 0.001y = -0.3272x + 9.1566R2 = 0.811P < 0.0010   1   2  3   4   5 6 7DDGS level(Continued on next page)matter intakes were determinedfrom the trial based on dry matteroffered (DMO) and orts, with theassumption that all DDGS wereconsumed. Impact of the five levelsof DDGS on forage intakes wasanalyzed, as well as differencesbetween the forage sources.Economical analysisThe value of supplementingDDGS was determined by combin-ing the values of the additionalgain obtained and the decreasedforage intake. The additional gainwas valued by determining theincome from selling the additionalweight at the end of the grazingperiod. The selling price was esti-mated using the following regres-sion equation y = 0.00005x2 -0.1071x + 127.3 where y = pricepaid and x = animal weight. Thisequation was previously developedfrom the September-October averageof feeder calf prices from 1992 to1999. This equation relates well toactual prices (r = 0.987) andaccounts for price slide of heaviercattle selling for less money perhundred weight. The foragereplaced by DDGS was valued atthe 10-year average for Nebraska,for brome hay ($64/ton dry matter)and alfalfa hay ($70/ton dry mat-ter).ResultsAverage daily gain and total forageintakeAverage daily gain was signifi-cantly different (P < 0.001) betweenforage diets. Heifers on ALSS andBROME control diets gained 1.41and 0.42 lb/day, respectively.Average daily gain for both dietslinearly increased as level of DDGS2005 Nebraska Beef Report — Page 20Table 1. Value of dried distillers grains and solubles (DDGS) due to improved animal performance (IAP) and reduced forage intake(RFI) with the high quality forage, alfalfa sorghum silage (ALSS).Supplemental DDGS, lb per day (DM): 0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6Beginning wt, lba 631 631 631 631 631End wt, lbb 749 775 800 826 851Sale price, $ per 100 lbc 75.13 74.34 73.61 72.96 72.36Revenue, $d 562.82 575.88 589.07 602.42 615.99DDGS value from IAP, $ per tone 207.39 208.34 209.54 211.01DDGS value from RFI, $ per tonf 30.10 30.10 30.10 30.10Total DDGS value, $ per tong 237.49 238.44 239.64 241.11aAverage start weight for this trial.bExpected weight after 84 days based on the equation y = 0.20x +1.41 where y = ADG and x = DDGS intake.cSale price per 100 lb determined from the equation y = 0.00005x2 - 0.1071x + 127.3 where y = sale price and x = sale weight.dRevenue determined by multiplying end weight and sale price/100.eDDGS value (DM) due to improved animal performance. Calculated from additional revenue over 0 DDGS.fDDGS value (DM) due to reduced forage intake assuming a forage cost of $70.00 per ton dry matter.gTotal DDGS value (DM) from IAP + RFI.Table 2. Value of dried distillers grains and solubles (DDGS) due to improved animal performance (IAP) and reduced forage intake(RFI) with the low quality forage, smooth brome hay (BROME).Supplemental DDGS, lb per day (DM): 0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6Beginning wt, lba 631 631 631 631 631End wt, lbb 666 669 733 766 800Sale price, $ per 100 lbc 78.15 76.85 75.67 74.59 73.63Revenue, $d 520.51 537.54 554.51 571.55 588.77DDGS value from IAP, $ per tone 270.25 269.87 270.07 270.87DDGS value from RFI, $ per tonf 27.52 27.52 27.52 27.52Total DDGS value, $ per tong 297.77 297.39 297.59 298.39aAverage start weight for this trial.bExpected weight after 84 days based on the equation y = 0.27x +0.42 where y = ADG and x = DDGS intake.cSale price per 100 lb determined from the equation y = 0.00005x2 - 0.1071x + 127.3 where y = sale price and x = sale weight.dRevenue determined by multiplying end weight and sale price/100.eDDGS value (DM) due to improved animal performance. Calculated from additional revenue over 0 DDGS.fDDGS value (DM) due to reduced forage intake assuming a forage cost of $60.00 per ton dry matter.gTotal DDGS value (DM) from IAP + RFI.of DDGS with the high- and low-quality forage diets, respectively.Supplementation of DDGS at anylevel with either high- or low-quality forage appears to be moreprofitable than not supplementingat all; however, the DDGS arevalued higher with the low qualitythan with the high quality forage.Total DDGS value averaged over alllevels was $298 and $237, respec-tively. These values depend on thevalues placed on the forage. Grazedforages would be somewhat lessexpensive and would lower thevalue of the DDGS; however, mostof the value was from increasedcattle gains.In conclusion, dried distillersgrains appear to be a viable supple-ment to cattle on forage-based diets,resulting in increased animal per-formance and decreased forageintakes. These results suggestsupplementing DDGS does notadversely affect forage digestibility,although digestibility was notdirectly measured. Forage intakescan be predicted for cattle on eitherhigh or low quality forage dietssupplemented with up to 6 lb DMDDGS. Economically it appears tobe advantageous to supplementDDGS to cattle on either low orhigh quality forage diets; however,the value of the DDGS is higherwhen supplementing low qualityforage diets.1Sarah Morris, graduate student;Terry Klopfenstein, professor; GalenErickson, assistant professor, Kyle VanderPol, research technician, Animal Science,Lincoln; Don Adams, professor, AnimalScience, West Central Research andExtension Center, North Platte.

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1171&context=animalscinbcr

The Effects of Dried Distillers Grains on Heifers Consuming Low or High Quality Forage

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UNL | Libraries

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska