Sixteen cows grazing smooth bromegrass pasture were unsupplemented or supplemented a 35:65 Synergy:straw mixture. Grazed forage intake was replaced about 50% with supplementation, with no differences in cow performance. In a second experiment conducted over two summers, yearling steers grazing native range were fed a mixture of 70:30 or 60:40 hay:WDGS or 60:40 straw:WDGS. During the first year, all steers fed byproduct-forage mixtures had greater ADG than control steers. During the second year, steers supplemented with byproduct-hay mixtures had similar gains as control while steers supplemented byproduct-straw mixtures gained less. Supplementing WDGS and low quality forage reduced forage intake by 17 to 22% in Experiment 2

Doerr, Annie J.

Griffin, William A.

Klopfenstein, Terry J.

Nuttelman, Brandon L.

Rolfe, Kelsey M., Rolfe

Schacht, Walter H.

Villasanti, Sandra

English

UNL | Libraries

University of Nebraska - Lincoln 
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln 
Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports Animal Science Department 
2012 
Byproducts with Low Quality Forage to Grazing Cattle 
Annie J. Doerr 
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, adoerr@live.com 
Sandra Villasanti 
University of Nebraska-Lincoln 
Kelsey M. Rolfe Rolfe 
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, krolfe2@unl.edu 
Brandon L. Nuttelman 
University of Nebraska-Lincoln 
William A. Griffin 
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, wgriffin2@unl.edu 
See next page for additional authors 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr 
 Part of the Animal Sciences Commons 
Doerr, Annie J.; Villasanti, Sandra; Rolfe, Kelsey M. Rolfe; Nuttelman, Brandon L.; Griffin, William A.; 
Klopfenstein, Terry J.; and Schacht, Walter H., "Byproducts with Low Quality Forage to Grazing Cattle" 
(2012). Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports. 668. 
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr/668 
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. 
Authors 
Annie J. Doerr, Sandra Villasanti, Kelsey M. Rolfe Rolfe, Brandon L. Nuttelman, William A. Griffin, Terry J. 
Klopfenstein, and Walter H. Schacht 
This article is available at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/
animalscinbcr/668 
© The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska.  All rights reserved. 2012 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report  — Page 53 
13) and the number of days to change 
BCS with the NRC. 
Experiment 2
Forty yearling steers (712 ± 33 lb 
in 2009 and 721 ± 33 lb in 2010) were 
stratified by BW and assigned ran-
domly to treatment paddocks, using 
five steers/treatment in each of two 
blocks. Experimental unit was a set 
of five paddocks consisting of mostly 
warm season grasses that were as-
signed to a treatment within a block 
and rotationally grazed once during 
the experimental period of 68 days 
from June 18 to August 26 in 2009 
and from June 17 to August 25 in 2010 
at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln 
Gudmundsen Sandhills Laboratory 
located near Whitman, Neb. The first 
paddock was grazed for 12 days, and 
the remaining four paddocks were 
grazed for 14 days. Treatments were: 
1) control (CON) at the recommended 
stocking rate (0.68 AUM/ac), 2) 
double stocked (1.3 AUM/ac supple-
mented with a mixture consisting 
of 60: 40 straw:WDGS (STRAW)), 3) 
double stocked supplemented with 60: 
40 hay:WDGS (LOW), and 4) double 
stocked consuming a supplement 
made of 70: 30 hay:WDGS (HIGH). 
Cattle were supplemented daily with 
a targeted intake of 1.15% BW on a 
DM basis, representing 50% of their 
daily intake. Mixtures (50% DM) 
were ensiled 30 days prior to trial 
initiation. Beginning and ending BW 
were measured on three consecutive 
days after a five-day limit fed period 
to reduce fill effects. Esophageally fis-
tulated cows were used to determine 
forage quality (IVODMD, CP, NDF). 
Standing crop and forage utilization 
were determined by clipping five 0.25 
m2 quadrats post-grazing. Pre-graze 
forage availability was calculated by 
adding an estimated amount of for-
age intake to the amount of forage 
remaining in the control paddocks at 
the end of the grazing period.
 (Continued on next page)
Byproducts with Low Quality Forage to Grazing Cattle
 
Annie J. Doerr
Sandra Villasanti
Kelsey M. Rolfe
Brandon L. Nuttelman
William A. Griffin
Terry J. Klopfenstein
Walter H. Schacht1
Summary
Sixteen cows grazing smooth brome-
grass pasture were unsupplemented or 
supplemented a 35:65 Synergy:straw 
mixture. Grazed forage intake was 
replaced about 50% with supplemen-
tation, with no differences in cow 
performance. In a second experiment 
conducted over two summers, yearling 
steers grazing native range were fed a 
mixture of 70:30 or 60:40 hay:WDGS 
or 60:40 straw:WDGS. During the first 
year, all steers fed byproduct-forage 
mixtures had greater ADG than control 
steers. During the second year, steers 
supplemented with byproduct-hay mix-
tures had similar gains as control while 
steers supplemented byproduct-straw 
mixtures gained less. Supplementing 
WDGS and low quality forage reduced 
forage intake by 17 to 22% in Experi-
ment 2.
Introduction
Crop residues on farms with cool-
season pastures are economical sourc-
es of fiber to feed during the summer 
to replace grass consumption. To 
complement this, purchasing and/or 
storing byproducts, such as wet dis-
tillers grains plus solubles (WDGS), 
during summer also may be economi-
cal for producers. Mixing WDGS with 
low quality forages has been shown 
to increase the palatability of the for-
age; and the bulk from the forage may 
potentially have a fill effect that will 
reduce grazed forage intake. This was 
illustrated when 1.0 lb of native range 
was replaced for every 1.0 lb of 70:30 
straw:WDGS and fed to cow-calf pairs 
(2010 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report, p. 
19). The objective of the following ex-
periments was to determine the effect 
of supplementing low quality forage-
byproduct mixtures to cattle grazing 
either smooth brome pasture or native 
Sandhills range on forage intake.
Procedure
Experiment 1
Nonpregnant, nonlactating cows 
(n=16, initial BW = 1,270 lb) grazed 
smooth bromegrass pastures at the 
University of Nebraska–Lincoln Ag-
ricultural Research and Development 
Center near Mead, Neb., for 138 days 
from late April to mid September. 
Cows were limit fed at 2% of BW for 
five days prior to and at the conclu-
sion of the grazing period to mini-
mize variation due to gut fill. Initial 
and final BW was an average of three 
consecutive day weights. Cows were 
assigned randomly to one of two 
treatments, with four cows/paddock 
and two replications. Treatments con-
sisted of: 1) 1.8 ac/cow with no supple-
mentation (CON); or 2) 0.9 ac/cow 
with supplementation (SUP). Supple-
mentation consisted of a 35% synergy 
(40% WCGF and 60% MDGS) and 
65% wheat straw mixture (DM basis), 
which was fed daily in feed bunks. An 
ensiled mixture (46.6% DM) was fed 
from late April to mid-August (111 
days), and a fresh mixture (30.7% 
DM; mixed at feeding time) from 
mid-August to mid-September (27 
days). Cows were supplemented at 
0.56% of BW at experiment initiation, 
with supplementation level increas-
ing throughout the grazing period to 
achieve 2.25% of BW at trial conclu-
sion. It was expected that grazed for-
age intake would be greatest early in 
the growing season and would decline 
as cool-season grass matured. There-
fore, supplement intake was lower 
at initiation and increased as forage 
quality declined. Predicted total DMI 
was calculated using 2.12% of BW 
(2009 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report, p. 
Page 54 — 2012 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report  © The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska.  All rights reserved.
Results
Experiment 1
Initial and final BW and ADG 
(Table 1) were not different between 
treatments (P > 0.35). In this ex-
periment, the Synergy:straw mixture 
reduced intake of smooth brome by 
48%. Supplement at about 12 lb/DM/
day replaced grazed forage at nearly a 
1:1 ratio.
Synergy and straw mixed fresh (at 
feeding time) may be as palatable as 
ensiled material. As days of the exper-
iment progressed, it appeared that the 
ensiled material was not getting fed 
fast enough, and quality deteriorated 
in the bag. The fresh mixture was 
then fed. It appeared to have the same 
or better palatability as the higher 
quality ensiled mixture fed early in 
the grazing period. Mixture with a 
moisture content greater than 50% 
enhanced palatability, with optimum 
moisture content at 65 to 70%. Addi-
tionally, it may be necessary to feed a 
greater proportion of byproducts (up 
to 50%) to encourage cows to eat the 
supplement mixture early in the graz-
ing season. 
Experiment 2 
 Final BW was greater (P = 0.02; 
Table 2) for the CON, HIGH, and 
LOW treatments compared to the 
STRAW group. In 2009 there was 
greater ADG (P=0.03) for supplement-
ed steers consuming a 40:60 WDGS: 
low quality forage mix, compared to 
the CON and HIGH (30:70 WDGS: 
grass hay). In 2010, steers on CON, 
HIGH, and LOW treatments achieved 
the same gains, while those consum-
ing the 30:70 WDGS:straw mix were 
significantly lower (P < 0.01), most 
likely due to lower intake of the 
supplement. Supplementation with 
low-quality harvested forage and 
WDGS reduced intake of range for-
age by 17.8, 21.6, and 22.2% for the 
Table 1. Performance cows grazing smooth bromegrass pasture and supplemented a byproduct:forage 
mixture.
Variable CON1 SUP2 SEM P-value
Initial BW, lb 1268 1273 2.9 0.35
Ending BW, lb 1566 1587 26.3 0.62
ADG, lb/day 2.16 2.28 0.2 0.68
Forage intake, lb 26.5 13.8 — —
Supplement, lb — 12.1 — —
1Cattle grazed at recommended stocking rate and received no supplementation.
2Cattle grazed at double the recommended stocking rate and received 50% of estimated daily intake of 
35:65 synergy:wheat straw mixture. 
Table 2. Performance of yearling steers grazing native range and supplemented a byproduct:forage 
mixture.
 Treatment
 CON1 HIGH2 LOW3 STRAW4 SEM P-value
Initial BW, lb 721 719 725 712 6.42 0.92 
Ending BW, lb 798a 792a 816a 782b 12.05 0.02 
ADG, lb/day (2009) 1.06a 1.12a 1.41b 1.39b 0.07 0.03 
ADG, lb/day (2010) 1.17a 1.01a 1.23a 0.71b 0.04 <0.01 
Forage intake, lb5 17.4a 13.7b 13.6b 14.3b 0.31 0.03 
Supplement intake, lb6 — 7.39 7.37 6.17 0.2 0.17 
Total DM intake, lb7 17.4 21.1 20.9 20.5 0.46 0.10
1CON (Control) = Cattle grazed at the recommended stocking rate (0.68 AUM/ac).
2HIGH=Cattle grazed at double the recommended stocking rate (1.3 AUM/ac) and supplemented with 
70: 30 grass hay:WDGS at estimated 50% of daily DM intake.
3LOW=Cattle grazed at double the recommended stocking rate and supplemented with 60:40 grass 
hay:WDGS at estimated 50% of daily DM intake.
4STRAW=cattle grazed at double the recommended stocking rate and supplemented with 60:40 wheat 
straw:WDGS at estimated 50% of daily DM intake.
5Average amount of range forage intake.
6Average amount of supplement intake during the experimental period.
7Amount of total DM intake. Calculated by adding forage intake and supplement intake. 
a,bDifferent letters represent differences between treatments (P < 0.05).
STRAW, LOW, and HIGH treatments 
respectively, compared to the CON. 
In general, doubling the stocking rate 
for supplemented treatments did not 
negatively affect performance. Supple-
menting a byproduct and low-quality 
forage mixture can replace forage 
intake without sacrificing animal per-
formance.
Utilizing mixtures of low-quality 
forage and ethanol byproducts to 
reduce pasture intake was more suc-
cessful on bromegrass pasture in 
Eastern Nebraska than on upland 
range in the Sandhills. Overgrazing 
in the Sandhills because of lower 
grazed forage replacement by the 
mixtures would likely have greater 
consequences long-term on range/
pasture condition than similar over-
grazing of brome pasture. Further-
more, crop residues for making the 
byproduct:residue mixtures are more 
readily available at minimal cost on 
farms with cool-season grass pastures.
1Annie J. Doerr, graduate student; Sandra 
Villasanti, former graduate student; Kelsey 
M. Rolfe, research technician; Brandon L. 
Nuttelman, research technician; William 
A. Griffin, research technician; Terry J. 
Klopfenstein, professor; University of Nebraska–
Lincoln (UNL) Department of Animal Science; 
Walter H. Schacht, professor, UNL Department 
of Agronomy and Horticulture, Lincoln, Neb. 


Byproducts with Low Quality Forage to Grazing Cattle

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska

University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports Animal Science Department 2012 Byproducts with Low Quality Forage to Grazing Cattle Annie J. Doerr University of Nebraska-Lincoln, adoerr@live.com Sandra Villasanti University of Nebraska-Lincoln Kelsey M. Rolfe Rolfe University of Nebraska-Lincoln, krolfe2@unl.edu Brandon L. Nuttelman University of Nebraska-Lincoln William A. Griffin University of Nebraska-Lincoln, wgriffin2@unl.edu See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr  Part of the Animal Sciences Commons Doerr, Annie J.; Villasanti, Sandra; Rolfe, Kelsey M. Rolfe; Nuttelman, Brandon L.; Griffin, William A.; Klopfenstein, Terry J.; and Schacht, Walter H., "Byproducts with Low Quality Forage to Grazing Cattle" (2012). Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports. 668. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr/668 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. Authors Annie J. Doerr, Sandra Villasanti, Kelsey M. Rolfe Rolfe, Brandon L. Nuttelman, William A. Griffin, Terry J. Klopfenstein, and Walter H. Schacht This article is available at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr/668 © The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska.  All rights reserved. 2012 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report  — Page 53 13) and the number of days to change BCS with the NRC. Experiment 2Forty yearling steers (712 ± 33 lb in 2009 and 721 ± 33 lb in 2010) were stratified by BW and assigned ran-domly to treatment paddocks, using five steers/treatment in each of two blocks. Experimental unit was a set of five paddocks consisting of mostly warm season grasses that were as-signed to a treatment within a block and rotationally grazed once during the experimental period of 68 days from June 18 to August 26 in 2009 and from June 17 to August 25 in 2010 at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln Gudmundsen Sandhills Laboratory located near Whitman, Neb. The first paddock was grazed for 12 days, and the remaining four paddocks were grazed for 14 days. Treatments were: 1) control (CON) at the recommended stocking rate (0.68 AUM/ac), 2) double stocked (1.3 AUM/ac supple-mented with a mixture consisting of 60: 40 straw:WDGS (STRAW)), 3) double stocked supplemented with 60: 40 hay:WDGS (LOW), and 4) double stocked consuming a supplement made of 70: 30 hay:WDGS (HIGH). Cattle were supplemented daily with a targeted intake of 1.15% BW on a DM basis, representing 50% of their daily intake. Mixtures (50% DM) were ensiled 30 days prior to trial initiation. Beginning and ending BW were measured on three consecutive days after a five-day limit fed period to reduce fill effects. Esophageally fis-tulated cows were used to determine forage quality (IVODMD, CP, NDF). Standing crop and forage utilization were determined by clipping five 0.25 m2 quadrats post-grazing. Pre-graze forage availability was calculated by adding an estimated amount of for-age intake to the amount of forage remaining in the control paddocks at the end of the grazing period. (Continued on next page)Byproducts with Low Quality Forage to Grazing Cattle Annie J. DoerrSandra VillasantiKelsey M. RolfeBrandon L. NuttelmanWilliam A. GriffinTerry J. KlopfensteinWalter H. Schacht1SummarySixteen cows grazing smooth brome-grass pasture were unsupplemented or supplemented a 35:65 Synergy:straw mixture. Grazed forage intake was replaced about 50% with supplemen-tation, with no differences in cow performance. In a second experiment conducted over two summers, yearling steers grazing native range were fed a mixture of 70:30 or 60:40 hay:WDGS or 60:40 straw:WDGS. During the first year, all steers fed byproduct-forage mixtures had greater ADG than control steers. During the second year, steers supplemented with byproduct-hay mix-tures had similar gains as control while steers supplemented byproduct-straw mixtures gained less. Supplementing WDGS and low quality forage reduced forage intake by 17 to 22% in Experi-ment 2.IntroductionCrop residues on farms with cool-season pastures are economical sourc-es of fiber to feed during the summer to replace grass consumption. To complement this, purchasing and/or storing byproducts, such as wet dis-tillers grains plus solubles (WDGS), during summer also may be economi-cal for producers. Mixing WDGS with low quality forages has been shown to increase the palatability of the for-age; and the bulk from the forage may potentially have a fill effect that will reduce grazed forage intake. This was illustrated when 1.0 lb of native range was replaced for every 1.0 lb of 70:30 straw:WDGS and fed to cow-calf pairs (2010 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report, p. 19). The objective of the following ex-periments was to determine the effect of supplementing low quality forage-byproduct mixtures to cattle grazing either smooth brome pasture or native Sandhills range on forage intake.ProcedureExperiment 1Nonpregnant, nonlactating cows (n=16, initial BW = 1,270 lb) grazed smooth bromegrass pastures at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln Ag-ricultural Research and Development Center near Mead, Neb., for 138 days from late April to mid September. Cows were limit fed at 2% of BW for five days prior to and at the conclu-sion of the grazing period to mini-mize variation due to gut fill. Initial and final BW was an average of three consecutive day weights. Cows were assigned randomly to one of two treatments, with four cows/paddock and two replications. Treatments con-sisted of: 1) 1.8 ac/cow with no supple-mentation (CON); or 2) 0.9 ac/cow with supplementation (SUP). Supple-mentation consisted of a 35% synergy (40% WCGF and 60% MDGS) and 65% wheat straw mixture (DM basis), which was fed daily in feed bunks. An ensiled mixture (46.6% DM) was fed from late April to mid-August (111 days), and a fresh mixture (30.7% DM; mixed at feeding time) from mid-August to mid-September (27 days). Cows were supplemented at 0.56% of BW at experiment initiation, with supplementation level increas-ing throughout the grazing period to achieve 2.25% of BW at trial conclu-sion. It was expected that grazed for-age intake would be greatest early in the growing season and would decline as cool-season grass matured. There-fore, supplement intake was lower at initiation and increased as forage quality declined. Predicted total DMI was calculated using 2.12% of BW (2009 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report, p. Page 54 — 2012 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report  © The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska.  All rights reserved.ResultsExperiment 1Initial and final BW and ADG (Table 1) were not different between treatments (P > 0.35). In this ex-periment, the Synergy:straw mixture reduced intake of smooth brome by 48%. Supplement at about 12 lb/DM/day replaced grazed forage at nearly a 1:1 ratio.Synergy and straw mixed fresh (at feeding time) may be as palatable as ensiled material. As days of the exper-iment progressed, it appeared that the ensiled material was not getting fed fast enough, and quality deteriorated in the bag. The fresh mixture was then fed. It appeared to have the same or better palatability as the higher quality ensiled mixture fed early in the grazing period. Mixture with a moisture content greater than 50% enhanced palatability, with optimum moisture content at 65 to 70%. Addi-tionally, it may be necessary to feed a greater proportion of byproducts (up to 50%) to encourage cows to eat the supplement mixture early in the graz-ing season. Experiment 2  Final BW was greater (P = 0.02; Table 2) for the CON, HIGH, and LOW treatments compared to the STRAW group. In 2009 there was greater ADG (P=0.03) for supplement-ed steers consuming a 40:60 WDGS: low quality forage mix, compared to the CON and HIGH (30:70 WDGS: grass hay). In 2010, steers on CON, HIGH, and LOW treatments achieved the same gains, while those consum-ing the 30:70 WDGS:straw mix were significantly lower (P < 0.01), most likely due to lower intake of the supplement. Supplementation with low-quality harvested forage and WDGS reduced intake of range for-age by 17.8, 21.6, and 22.2% for the Table 1. Performance cows grazing smooth bromegrass pasture and supplemented a byproduct:forage mixture.Variable CON1 SUP2 SEM P-valueInitial BW, lb 1268 1273 2.9 0.35Ending BW, lb 1566 1587 26.3 0.62ADG, lb/day 2.16 2.28 0.2 0.68Forage intake, lb 26.5 13.8 — —Supplement, lb — 12.1 — —1Cattle grazed at recommended stocking rate and received no supplementation.2Cattle grazed at double the recommended stocking rate and received 50% of estimated daily intake of 35:65 synergy:wheat straw mixture. Table 2. Performance of yearling steers grazing native range and supplemented a byproduct:forage mixture. Treatment CON1 HIGH2 LOW3 STRAW4 SEM P-valueInitial BW, lb 721 719 725 712 6.42 0.92 Ending BW, lb 798a 792a 816a 782b 12.05 0.02 ADG, lb/day (2009) 1.06a 1.12a 1.41b 1.39b 0.07 0.03 ADG, lb/day (2010) 1.17a 1.01a 1.23a 0.71b 0.04 <0.01 Forage intake, lb5 17.4a 13.7b 13.6b 14.3b 0.31 0.03 Supplement intake, lb6 — 7.39 7.37 6.17 0.2 0.17 Total DM intake, lb7 17.4 21.1 20.9 20.5 0.46 0.101CON (Control) = Cattle grazed at the recommended stocking rate (0.68 AUM/ac).2HIGH=Cattle grazed at double the recommended stocking rate (1.3 AUM/ac) and supplemented with 70: 30 grass hay:WDGS at estimated 50% of daily DM intake.3LOW=Cattle grazed at double the recommended stocking rate and supplemented with 60:40 grass hay:WDGS at estimated 50% of daily DM intake.4STRAW=cattle grazed at double the recommended stocking rate and supplemented with 60:40 wheat straw:WDGS at estimated 50% of daily DM intake.5Average amount of range forage intake.6Average amount of supplement intake during the experimental period.7Amount of total DM intake. Calculated by adding forage intake and supplement intake. a,bDifferent letters represent differences between treatments (P < 0.05).STRAW, LOW, and HIGH treatments respectively, compared to the CON. In general, doubling the stocking rate for supplemented treatments did not negatively affect performance. Supple-menting a byproduct and low-quality forage mixture can replace forage intake without sacrificing animal per-formance.Utilizing mixtures of low-quality forage and ethanol byproducts to reduce pasture intake was more suc-cessful on bromegrass pasture in Eastern Nebraska than on upland range in the Sandhills. Overgrazing in the Sandhills because of lower grazed forage replacement by the mixtures would likely have greater consequences long-term on range/pasture condition than similar over-grazing of brome pasture. Further-more, crop residues for making the byproduct:residue mixtures are more readily available at minimal cost on farms with cool-season grass pastures.1Annie J. Doerr, graduate student; Sandra Villasanti, former graduate student; Kelsey M. Rolfe, research technician; Brandon L. Nuttelman, research technician; William A. Griffin, research technician; Terry J. Klopfenstein, professor; University of Nebraska–Lincoln (UNL) Department of Animal Science; Walter H. Schacht, professor, UNL Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, Lincoln, Neb. 

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1684&amp;context=animalscinbcr

Byproducts with Low Quality Forage to Grazing Cattle

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UNL | Libraries

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska