Abstract
Corn condensed distillers solubles (CDS) is a protein and energy dense by-product from dry-milled production of ethanol. Recent oil extraction has posed modifications to the nutrient profile of CDS, suggesting that de-oiled CDS needs to be re-evaluated in beef cattle diets. Three experiments were conducted to evaluate the effects of CDS in high-concentrate diets, forage-based diets, as well as evaluate the effects of CDS on diet digestibility and rumen fermentation parameters in forage-based diets. Feeding CDS in high-concentrate diets up to 20% of the diet DM or in combination with wet distillers grains plus solubles (WDGS) improved performance and resulted in greater energy value compared to corn. Feeding values of 20% CDS or the combination of 16% CDS and 20% WDGS were 147 and 129% compared to corn, respectively. Feeding CDS in forage-based diets up to 40% of the diet DM diminished performance and resulted in a lesser energy value compared to corn. Linear decreases were observed in total tract digestibility of NDF and the acetate to propionate ratio in rumen fluid. Double-cropped forages following corn harvest offer livestock producers an opportunity to extend their grazing season on high quality forage in the fall. Additionally, crop producers may benefit from the implementation of grazing animals due to added soil nutrients and removal of residue. Therefore, an experiment was conducted to evaluate the effects of double-cropped oats following corn silage (CS) or high-moisture corn (HMC) on calf gains, forage production, and subsequent cash crop yields. Oats seeded after CS produced more forage biomass than oats seeded after HMC. Both treatments produced high quality oats (22% CP, 39% NDF, and 24% ADF averaged across treatments). Calf gains were greater grazing oats following CS compared to HMC at 1.10 and 0.84 kg / d, respectively. Across 1-yr of data, subsequent cash crop yields were not different for HMC and soybeans with increased CS yields in both covered/grazed and non-covered/non-grazed treatments compared to the covered/non-grazed treatment. Advisor: James C. MacDonald
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 13
Claim · model-written summary
Feeding CDS in high-concentrate diets up to 20% of diet DM improved cattle performance.
- Taxon
- corn
Zea mays subsp. mayse0 - Treatment
- Feeding CDS in high-concentrate diets up to 20% of the diet DMe0
- Outcome
- performancee0
- Direction
- improvede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Feeding CDS in high-concentrate diets up to 20% of the diet DM or in combination with wet distillers grains plus solubles (WDGS) improved performance and resulted in greater energy value compared to corn.”
Claim · model-written summary
Feeding CDS in high-concentrate diets up to 20% of diet DM gave greater energy value than corn.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- Feeding CDS in high-concentrate diets up to 20% of the diet DMe0
- Outcome
- energy valuee0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- corne0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Feeding CDS in high-concentrate diets up to 20% of the diet DM or in combination with wet distillers grains plus solubles (WDGS) improved performance and resulted in greater energy value compared to corn.”
Claim · model-written summary
Feeding value of 20% CDS was 147% of corn.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- 20% CDSe0
- Outcome
- Feeding valuese0
- Direction
- higherinferrede0
- Value
- 147e0
- Comparator
- corne0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Feeding values of 20% CDS or the combination of 16% CDS and 20% WDGS were 147 and 129% compared to corn, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Feeding value of the combination of 16% CDS and 20% WDGS was 129% of corn.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- the combination of 16% CDS and 20% WDGSe0
- Outcome
- Feeding valuese0
- Direction
- higherinferrede0
- Value
- 129%e0
- Comparator
- corne0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Feeding values of 20% CDS or the combination of 16% CDS and 20% WDGS were 147 and 129% compared to corn, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Feeding CDS in forage-based diets up to 40% of diet DM diminished cattle performance.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- Feeding CDS in forage-based diets up to 40% of the diet DMe0
- Outcome
- performancee0
- Direction
- diminishede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Feeding CDS in forage-based diets up to 40% of the diet DM diminished performance and resulted in a lesser energy value compared to corn.”
Claim · model-written summary
Feeding CDS in forage-based diets up to 40% of diet DM gave lower energy value than corn.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- Feeding CDS in forage-based diets up to 40% of the diet DMe0
- Outcome
- energy valuee0
- Direction
- lessere0
- Comparator
- corne0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Feeding CDS in forage-based diets up to 40% of the diet DM diminished performance and resulted in a lesser energy value compared to corn.”
Claim · model-written summary
Feeding CDS in forage-based diets up to 40% of diet DM linearly decreased total tract digestibility of NDF.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse1
- Treatment
- Feeding CDS in forage-based diets up to 40% of the diet DMe1
- Outcome
- total tract digestibility of NDFe0
- Direction
- decreasese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Linear decreases were observed in total tract digestibility of NDF and the acetate to propionate ratio in rumen fluid.”
e1“Feeding CDS in forage-based diets up to 40% of the diet DM diminished performance and resulted in a lesser energy value compared to corn.”
Claim · model-written summary
Feeding CDS in forage-based diets up to 40% of diet DM linearly decreased the acetate to propionate ratio in rumen fluid.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse1
- Treatment
- Feeding CDS in forage-based diets up to 40% of the diet DMe1
- Outcome
- the acetate to propionate ratio in rumen fluide0
- Direction
- decreasese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Linear decreases were observed in total tract digestibility of NDF and the acetate to propionate ratio in rumen fluid.”
e1“Feeding CDS in forage-based diets up to 40% of the diet DM diminished performance and resulted in a lesser energy value compared to corn.”
Claim · model-written summary
Oats seeded after corn silage produced more forage biomass than oats seeded after high-moisture corn.
- Taxon
- Oats
Avena sativae0 - Treatment
- following corn silage (CS)e1
- Outcome
- forage biomasse0
- Direction
- moree0
- Comparator
- high-moisture corn (HMC)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Oats seeded after CS produced more forage biomass than oats seeded after HMC.”
e1“Therefore, an experiment was conducted to evaluate the effects of double-cropped oats following corn silage (CS) or high-moisture corn (HMC) on calf gains, forage production, and subsequent cash crop yields.”
Claim · model-written summary
Calves grazing oats following corn silage gained more than calves grazing oats following high-moisture corn (1.10 and 0.84 kg/d).
- Taxon
- oatsAvena sativae0
- Treatment
- following CSe0
- Interactor
- Calfe0herbivore
- Outcome
- Calf gainse0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 1.10 and 0.84 kg / de0
- Comparator
- HMCe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Calf gains were greater grazing oats following CS compared to HMC at 1.10 and 0.84 kg / d, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Both oat treatments produced high quality oats.
- Taxon
- oatsAvena sativae0
- Outcome
- high qualitye0
- Value
- 22% CP, 39% NDF, and 24% ADFe0
- Qualifier
- averaged across treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Both treatments produced high quality oats (22% CP, 39% NDF, and 24% ADF averaged across treatments).”
Claim · model-written summary
Subsequent cash crop yields after high-moisture corn were not different from soybeans.
Verbatim
e0“Across 1-yr of data, subsequent cash crop yields were not different for HMC and soybeans with increased CS yields in both covered/grazed and non-covered/non-grazed treatments compared to the covered/non-grazed treatment.”
Claim · model-written summary
Cash crop yields increased after oat grazing in both covered/grazed and non-covered/non-grazed treatments compared with the covered/non-grazed treatment.
Verbatim
e0“Across 1-yr of data, subsequent cash crop yields were not different for HMC and soybeans with increased CS yields in both covered/grazed and non-covered/non-grazed treatments compared to the covered/non-grazed treatment.”
The same questions in other papers
Zea mays subsp. mays · yield · Avena sativa (oats)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
infection · quality: grain · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- negative
- negative
processing · yield · Avena sativa (oats)Results agree
4 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.