Prediction of urinary and fecal nitrogen excretion by beef cattle1

Dong, Ruilan; Zhao, Guanglei; Chai, Lilong; Beauchemin, K. A.

doi:10.2527/jas.2014-8000

Cited by 71 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 74 publications

(84 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Predictions of N excretion proposed by Waldrip et al (2013) and Dong et al (2014), and used by BCNRM (2016), also showed a positive correlation between nitrogen intake and excretion. These authors observed better fit of the prediction equations using the N intake than the percentage of crude protein in the diet, and the same behavior was observed in the present database.…”

Section: No3mentioning

confidence: 76%

“…Prior to generating new equations for nitrogen and phosphorus excretion, prediction equations of nitrogen and phosphorus excreted (Geisert et al, 2010;Waldrip et al, 2013;Dong et al, 2014) as proposed by BCNRM (2016), were tested for appropriateness for these database. The tested equations are presented below.…”

Section: Equations Proposed By Bcnrm (2016) Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Urinary N (g/d) = -21.18 + 0.56 × NI [Waldrip et al, 2013] Fecal N (g/d) = 24.28 + 0.15 × NI [Waldrip et al, 2013] Urinary N (g/d) = -14.12 + 0.51 × NI [Dong et al, 2014] Fecal N (g/d) = 15.82 + 0.20 × NI [Dong et al, 2014] Urinary N (g/d) = 2.39 + 0.55 × NI -3.36 × DMI [BCNRM, 2016] Total P (g/d) = 0.82 + 0.57 × P intake [Geisert et al, 2010] where NI is nitrogen intake (g/d); DMI is dry matter intake (kg/d) and P intake is phosphorus intake (g/d). The equations proposed by BCNRM (2016) were tested using the BR-CORTE (2016) database.…”

Section: Equations Proposed By Bcnrm (2016) Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The equations for nitrogen excretion (Waldrip et al, 2013;Dong et al, 2014) use nitrogen intake as an independent variable. The BCNRM (2016) proposed an equation for predicting urinary N excreted using the nitrogen intake and dry matter intake as independent variables.…”

Section: Equations Proposed By Bcnrm (2016) Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Nutrient Requirements of Zebu and Crossbred Cattle - BR-CORTE

Filho¹,

Silva²,

Gionbelli³

et al. 2016

Exigências Nutricionais De Zebuínos Puros E Cruzados - BR-CORTE

121

155

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: No3mentioning

confidence: 76%

Section: Equations Proposed By Bcnrm (2016) Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Equations Proposed By Bcnrm (2016) Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Equations Proposed By Bcnrm (2016) Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Nutrient Requirements of Zebu and Crossbred Cattle - BR-CORTE

Filho¹,

Silva²,

Gionbelli³

et al. 2016

Exigências Nutricionais De Zebuínos Puros E Cruzados - BR-CORTE

121

155

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Dietary crude protein level and N excretion from dairy cattle is primarily affected by N intake; about 70-80% of the N consumed by dairy cows is excreted in manure [62]. The lower N excretion of the corn silage-based system resulted in lower manure N 2 O emissions and less manure N to spread on fields.…”

Section: Item Alfalfa Silage System Corn Silage Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Demonstrating the Effect of Forage Source on the Carbon Footprint of a Canadian Dairy Farm Using Whole-Systems Analysis and the Holos Model: Alfalfa Silage vs. Corn Silage

Little

Benchaar

Janzen

et al. 2017

Climate

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Before recommending a feeding strategy for greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation, it is important to conduct a holistic assessment of all related emissions, including from those arising from feed production, digestion of these feeds, managing the resulting manure, and other on-farm production processes and inputs. Using a whole-systems approach, the Holos model, and experimentally measured data, this study compares the effects of alfalfa silage-versus corn silage-based diets on GHG estimates in a simulated Canadian dairy production system. When all emissions and sources are accounted for, the differences between the two forage systems in terms of overall net GHG emissions were minimal. Utilizing the functional units of milk, meat, and total energy in food products generated by the system, the comparison demonstrates very little difference between the two silage production systems. However, the corn silage system generated 8% fewer emissions per kg of protein in food products as compared to the alfalfa silage system. Exploratory analysis of the impact of the two silage systems on soil carbon showed alfalfa silage has greater potential to store carbon in the soil. This study reinforces the need to utilize a whole-systems approach to investigate the interrelated effects of management choices. Reported GHG reduction factors cannot be simply combined additively because the interwoven effects of management choices cascade through the entire system, sometimes with counter-intuitive outcomes. It is necessary to apply this whole-systems approach before implementing changes in management intended to reduce GHG emissions and improve sustainability.

show abstract

Nutrient excretion from cattle grazing nitrogen‐fertilized grass or grass–legume pastures

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nutrient cycling via livestock excreta is an important grassland ecosystem service.This study was conducted in 2016 and 2017 and determined nutrient excretion from cattle grazing three systems: (a) N-fertilized bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum Flüggé) overseeded with rye (Secale cereale L.) and oat (Avena sativa L.) during winter (Grass+N), (b) unfertilized bahiagrass overseeded with rye-oat-clover (Trifolium sp.) mixture (Grass+clover), and (c) rhizoma peanut (Arachis glabrata Benth.)bahiagrass mixture overseeded with a rye-oat-clover mixture (Grass+CL+RP). Urinary volume excreted in the warm season ranged from 122 to 182 L ha −1 d −1 , more than double that in the cool season (56-70 L ha −1 d −1 ). Urinary N concentration during the warm season was greater in Grass+CL+RP compared with Grass+N (4.4 vs.3.1 g kg −1 , respectively). In addition, fecal dry matter and organic matter output was greater for Grass+N than for steers grazing Grass+CL+RP during the warm season (3.8 and 3.2 vs. 2.8 and 2.2 kg hd −1 d −1 , respectively). Total annual feces excretion concentrations of P, K, Mg, and N were greater in the Grass+N than in Grass+CL+RP system. The introduction of legumes increased the proportion of N returning via urine. However, when summed across seasons, total N excretion (feces and urine) was greater in Grass+N than in Grass+CL+RP (89 vs. 71 kg ha −1 yr −1 ), mainly due to the greater stocking rate in the former. Grass-legume systems receiving 34 kg N ha −1 yr −1 recycled 80% of the N recycled in the grass system receiving 224 kg N ha −1 yr −1 , indicating the potential of forage legumes to add N to grasslands.In grazing systems, nutrient cycling is a complex network of interactions between plant growth, type of livestock grazing, grazing intensity, and soil fauna and flora (Burns & Sollenberger, 2001). Nutrients such as C, N, P, and S reside temporarily in various reservoirs or different pools in the Abbreviations: DM, dry matter; IVDOM, in vitro digestible organic matter; OM, organic matterThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

show abstract

Prediction of urinary and fecal nitrogen excretion by beef cattle1

Cited by 71 publications

References 74 publications

Nutrient Requirements of Zebu and Crossbred Cattle - BR-CORTE

Nutrient Requirements of Zebu and Crossbred Cattle - BR-CORTE

Demonstrating the Effect of Forage Source on the Carbon Footprint of a Canadian Dairy Farm Using Whole-Systems Analysis and the Holos Model: Alfalfa Silage vs. Corn Silage

Nutrient excretion from cattle grazing nitrogen‐fertilized grass or grass–legume pastures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About