Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-sh8wx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T11:56:03.675Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of formaldehyde application at ensiling and of supplementation with urea or maize starch on the utilization by calves of ryegrass and red clover silages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

A. G. Kaiser ,
D. F. Osbourn  and
P. England
A. G. Kaiser
Affiliation:
The Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
D. F. Osbourn
Affiliation:
The Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
P. England
Affiliation:
The Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
Get access

Abstract

Primary growths of perennial ryegrass and red clover were ensiled with formic acid (2 1/t fresh crop), o an equal quantity of formic acid together with formaldehyde (46 or 49 g/kg crude protein in the ryegrass or red clover respectively). The four silages were offered ad libitum to 12 groups, each of five British Friesian steer calves, either alone or with urea or maize starch supplements at 18·4 or 185·2 g/kg total dry-matter intake respectively.

Digestible organic matter and digestible energy intake, live-weight gain, carcass weight, nitrogen retention and all digestibility measurements were higher on the ryegrass silages than on the red clover silages. However, dry-matter intake was higher on the red clover silages.

Formaldehyde treatment reduced lactic and total acid content, and protein degradation in the silages. It also increased intake, live-weight gain and nitrogen retention on ryegrass but not on red clover, the effect being greater when the urea supplement was given. Digestibility measurements were depressed by formaldehyde treatment, although cellulose digestibility was only depressed in the ryegrass silage.

Supplementation with starch depressed silage intake and nitrogen and cellulose digestibility, but increased dry matter, organic matter and energy digestibilities, digestible organic matter and digestible energy intakes, live-weight gain and carcass weight. The positive intake, live-weight gain and carcass weight responses were greater on the silages treated with formic acid, while the digestibility and the live-weight gain responses were greater on the red clover silages. Starch supplementation did not improve nitrogen retention.

The different animal production responses to formaldehyde treatment on the ryegrass and red clover silages are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , June 1983 , pp. 371 - 381
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Agricultural Research Council. 1965. The Nutrient Requirements of Farm Livestock. No. 2, Ruminants. Agricultural Research Council, London.Google Scholar
Bastiman, B. 1976. Factors affecting silage effluent production. Expl Husb. 31: 40–46.Google Scholar
Broadbent, P. J., McIntosh, J. A. R. and Spence, A. 1970. The evaluation of a device for feeding group-housed animals individually. Anim. Prod. 12: 245–252.Google Scholar
Demarouilly, C. and Dulphy, J. P. 1977. Effect of ensiling on feed intake and animal performance. Proc. Int. Meeting Anim. Prod. Temp. Grassld, Dublin, pp. 53–61.Google Scholar
Demarouilly, C. and Jarrioe, R. 1974. The comparative nutritive value of grasses and legumes. Vaxtodling 28: 33–41.Google Scholar
Ettala, E., Pohjanheimo, O., Huida, L. and Lampila, M. 1975. Ensilage of grass with acids and acid-formaldehyde additives. 1. Preservation and composition of silages. Ann. Agric. Fenn. 14: 286–303.Google Scholar
Hinks, C. E., Henderson, A. R. and Prescorr, J. H. D. 1978. The utilization of silages treated with formalin and formic acid additives by fattening beef cattle. In Proc. 5th Silage Conf., Ayr (ed. Harkness, R. D.), pp. 16–17 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Kaiser, A. G., Osbourn, D. F. and England, P. 1982. Intake and digestion of formaldehyde-treated red clover silages offered to calves either alone or with a urea supplement. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 98: 357–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, A. G., Osbourn, D. F. and England, P. 1983. Intake, digestion and nitrogen retention by calves given ryegrass silages: influence of formaldehyde treatment and supplementation with maize starch or maize starch and urea. J. agric. Set., Camb. (In press.).Google Scholar
Kaiser, A. G., Tayler, J. C., Gibbs, B. G. and England, P. 1981. The effects of the quantity of formaldehyde applied at ensiling and of urea supplementation at feeding on the utilization of red clover silages by young growing cattle. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 97: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tayler, J. C. and Wilkins, R. J. 1976. Conserved forage — complement or competitor to concentrates. In Principles of Cattle Production (ed. Swan, H. and Broster, W. H.), pp. 343–364. Butterworth, London.Google Scholar
Wilkins, R. J. 1974. Nutritive value of silages. In Nutrition Conference for Feed Manufacturers 8, University of Nottingham (ed. Swan, H. and Lewis, D.), pp. 167–189. Butterworth, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkins, R. J. 1978. Ensiled forages and their utilization by ruminants. Proc. 3rd Wld Congr. Anim. Feeding, Madrid, Vol. 7, pp. 403–412.Google Scholar
Woolford, M. K. 1978. The problem of silage effluent. Herb. Abstr. 48: 397–403.Google Scholar