Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T01:02:33.442Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Intake, growth and meat quality of steers given diets based on varying proportions of maize silage and grass silage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

D. T. Juniper ,
E. M. Browne ,
A. V. Fisher ,
M. J. Bryant ,
G. R. Nute  and
D. E. Beever
D. T. Juniper*
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University of Reading, Earley Gate, Reading RG6 6AR, UK
E. M. Browne
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University of Reading, Earley Gate, Reading RG6 6AR, UK
A. V. Fisher
Affiliation:
Division of Farm Animal Science, Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK
M. J. Bryant
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University of Reading, Earley Gate, Reading RG6 6AR, UK
G. R. Nute
Affiliation:
Division of Farm Animal Science, Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK
D. E. Beever
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University of Reading, Earley Gate, Reading RG6 6AR, UK
*
†E-mail: d.t.juniper@reading.ac.uk
Get access

Abstract

Simmental × Holstein-Friesian steers were offered four forage diets. These comprised grass silage (G); proportionately 0·67 grass silage, proportionately 0·33 maize silage (GGM); 0·33 grass silage, 0·67 maize silage (MMG); maize silage (M) from 424 (s.d. = 11·5) kg to slaughter at a minimum weight of 560 kg. Forages were mixed and offered ad libitum. Steers were offered 2 kg of a concentrate daily, the concentrate being formulated such that all steers had similar crude protein intakes across dietary treatments. A sample of steers was slaughtered at the beginning of the experimental period to allow the calculation of the rate of gain of the carcass and its components. Carcass dissection of a sample of steers allowed the development of a prediction equation of carcass composition based on thoracic limb dissection of all carcasses. Forage dry matter intake and live-weight gain increased linearly as maize silage replaced grass silage in the forage mixture, resulting in improvements in food conversion ratio (all P = 0·001). Killing-out proportion increased with maize silage inclusion (P < 0·001) but fat and conformation scores did not differ significantly between diets. However, increasing maize inclusion in the diet resulted in a greater weight (P = 0·05) and proportion (P = 0·008) of fat in the carcass, and significant increases in internal fat deposition. The inclusion of maize led to a progressive increase in the daily gains of carcass (P < 0·001), and significant increases in the daily gains of both fat (P < 0·001) and lean tissue (P < 0·001). Fat colour was more yellow in cattle given diets G and GGM than diets MMG and M(P < 0·001) and colour intensity was lower on diet M than the other three diets (P < 0·001). There were no significant differences in any aspects of eating quality between diets. Therefore, maize silage has the potential to reduce the time taken for finishing beef animals to achieve slaughter weight with no apparent detrimental effects on subsequent meat quality.

Keywords

carcass compositiongrass silagegrowthmaize silagesteers
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 81 , Issue 1 , August 2005 , pp. 159 - 170
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2005

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.)

Footnotes

‡Meat and Livestock Commission, PO Box 44, Winterhill House, Snowdon Drive, Milton Keynes MK6 1AX, UK.

References

ADAS/DANI/SAC/UKASTA. 1993. The NIRS regression equations for silage evaluation. Press release, UKASTA, London.Google Scholar
Agricultural and Food Research Council. 1995. Energy and protein requirements of ruminants. CAB International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
Aston, K. and Tayler, J. C. 1980. Effects of supplementing maize and grass silages with barley, and maize silage with urea or ammonia, on the intake and performance of fattening bulls. Animal Production 31: 243–250.Google Scholar
Bergstrom, P. L. and Williams, D. R. 1980. Anatomical jointing, tissue separation and weight recording: EEC standard method for beef. Commission of the European Communities, EUR 6878 EN.Google Scholar
Boer, H. de, Dumont, B. L., Pomeroy, R. W. and Weniger, J. H. 1974. Manual on EAAP methods for the assessment of carcass characteristics in cattle. Livestock Production Science 1: 151–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brabander, D. L. de, Boever, J. L. de and Buysse, F. X. 1990. The quality and utilisation of maize silage for dairy cattle. Proceedings of the second annual conference of the Maize Growers Association, Berkshire College of Agriculture.Google Scholar
British Standards Institution. 1993. Assessors for sensory analysis. Part 1. Guide to the selection, training and monitoring of selected assessors. BS7667. British Standards Institution, London.Google Scholar
Broadbent, P. J., McIntosh, J. A. R. and Spence, A. 1970. The evaluation of a device for feeding group housed animals individually. Animal Production 12: 245–252.Google Scholar
Browne, E. M. 2000. Maize silage-based diets for finishing beef cattle. Ph. D. thesis, University of Reading.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browne, E. M., Bryant, M. J., Beever, D. E. and Thorp, C. L. 1998. Effect of forage maize harvested at different stages of maturity on feed intake and performance by growing beef cattle. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, 1998, p. 148.Google Scholar
Bryan, J. G. E. 1990. The potential for beef production from forage crops. In Milk and meat from forage crops (ed. Pollott, G. E.), British Grassland Society occasional symposium no. 24, pp. 252–254.Google Scholar
Daly, C. C., Young, O. A., Graafhuis, A. E., Moorhead, S. M. and Easton, H. S. 1999. Some effects of diet on beef meat and fat attributes. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 42: 279–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Economic Community. 1981. Council regulation (EEC) no. 1208/81 of 28 April 1981 determining the Community scale for the classification of carcasses from adult bovine animals. EEC official journal no. L123/3 (7·5·81), pp. 191–193.Google Scholar
Forrest, R. J. 1982. A comparison of the growth and carcass characteristics of steers reared on pasture and finished for varying periods on corn or grass silage. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 62: 769–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forrest, R. J. and Vanderstoep, J. 1985. A comparison of grass and corn silages for finishing steers. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 65: 769–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerring, J. 1990. Maize: a farmer's experience. In Milk and meat from forage crops (ed. Pollott, G. E.), British Grassland Society occasional symposium no. 24, pp. 121–126.Google Scholar
Hameleers, A. 1998. The effects of the inclusion of either maize silage, fermented whole crop wheat or urea-treated whole crop wheat in a diet based on high-quality grass silage on the performance of dairy cows. Grass and Forage Science 53: 157–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honikel, K. O. 1998. Reference methods for the assessment of physical characteristics of meat. Meat Science 49: 447–457.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoving-Bolink, A. H., Hanekamp, W. J. A. and Walstra, P. 1999. Effects of diet on carcass, meat and eating quality of once-bred Piemontese x Friesian heifers. Livestock Production Science 57: 267–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Izumi, Y., Kurosawa, H., Ogura, N., Ishida, S. and Onue, S. 1982. Effect of feeding various levels of grass silage and corn silage to lactating dairy cows. Japanese Journal of Zootechnical Science 53: 686–691.Google Scholar
Jones, S. D. M., Jeremiah, L. E., Tong, A. K. W., Lutz, S. and Robertson, W. M. 1991. The effect of marbling level, electrical stimulation, and post-mortem aging on the cooking and palatability properties of rib-eye stakes. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 71: 1037–1043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Cook, G. L. and Grantley-Smith, M. 1986. National estimates of the body composition of British cattle, sheep and pigs with special reference to trends in fatness: a review. Meat Science 17: 107–138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knight, T. W., Death, A. F., Boom, C. J. and Litherland, A. J. 1998. The relationship between carotenoid concentration and fat colour in beef carcasses. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 58: 256–258.Google Scholar
Kogel, V. J., Augustini, C., Pickl, M. and Edelmann, P. 1998. Influence of grass silage, meadow hay and corn silage on meat quality of heifers. Züchtungskunde 70: 185–195.Google Scholar
McCabe, N. H., O'Mara, F. P. and Caffery, P. J. 1995. Evaluation of maize silage in the diet of finishing steers. Animal Science 60: 554A.Google Scholar
McDonald, P., Edwards, R. A., Greenhalgh, J. F. D. and Morgan, C. A. 1995. Animal nutrition, fifth edition. Pearson Education Ltd, Harlow, UK.Google Scholar
MacRae, J. C. and Armstrong, D. G. 1968. Enzyme method for determination of a-linked glucose polymers in biological materials. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 19: 578–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 1982. The feedingstuffs (sampling and analysis) regulatory instrument no. 1144. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 1986. The analysis of agricultural materials. MAFF reference book 427. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 1992. UK tables of feed composition and nutritive value for ruminants, second edition. Chalfont Publications, Canterbury.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 1993. Prediction of the energy values of compound feeding stuffs for farm animals. MAFF Publications, London.Google Scholar
Mulligan, F. J., O'Mara, F. P., Rath, M., Caffery, P. J., Callan, J. and Flynn, B. 1999. Factors affecting the feeding value of maize and grass silage in late lactation dairy cows. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, 1999, p. 79.Google Scholar
Nix, J. 2003. Farm management pocketbook (34th edition). Wye College, Ashford.Google Scholar
O'Mara, F. P., Fitzgerald, S., Murphy, J. J. and Rath, M. 1998. The effect on milk production of replacing grass silage with maize silage in the diet of dairy cows. Livestock Production Science 55: 79–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pahl, H., Steinhauser, H. and Heissenhuber, A. 1987. The cultivation of selected animal feed stuffs (maize and perennial ryegrass, whole plant silage and maize husks), and the economics of their use in fattening bulls. Berichte uber Landwirtschaft 65: 629–670.Google Scholar
Phipps, R. H., Sutton, J. D. and Jones, B. A. 1995. Forage mixtures for dairy cows: the effect on dry-matter intake and milk production of incorporating either fermented or urea-treated whole-crop wheat, brewers' grains, fodder beet or maize silage into diets based on grass silage. Animal Science 61: 491–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phipps, R. H., Weller, R. F. and Rook, A. J. 1992. Forage mixtures for dairy cows: the effect on dry matter intake and milk production of incorporating different proportions of maize silage into diets based on grass silage of differing energy value. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 118: 379–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, M. G., Patterson, D. C., Steen, R. J. W. and Gordon, F. J. 1984. Determination of dry matter and gross energy of grass silage. Proceedings of the seventh silage conference on silage production and utilisation, Belfast (ed. Gordon, F. J. and Unsworth, E. F.), pp. 89–90.Google Scholar
Steen, R. W. J., Gordon, F. J., Dawson, L. E. R., Park, R. S., Mayne, C. S., Agnew, R. E., Kilpatrick, D. J. and Porter, M. G. 1998. Factors affecting the intake of grass silage by cattle and prediction of silage intake. Animal Science 66: 115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Syed, J. S. and Leaver, J. D. 1999. Effect on milk production in dairy cows of feeding grass silage and maize silage as a mixture, or separately within days, or on alternate days, with low or high protein supplements. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, 1999, p. 202.Google Scholar
Tatum, J. D., Smith, G. C. and Carpenter, Z. L. 1982. Interrelationships between marbling, subcutaneous fat thickness and cooked beef palatability. Journal of Animal Science 54: 777–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vadiveloo, J. and Holmes, W. 1979. The effects of cereal supplementation of grass and maize silages. Grass and Forge Science 34: 319–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vatansever, L., Kurt, E., Enser, M., Nute, G. R., Scollan, N. D., Wood, J. D. and Richardson, R. I. 2000. Shelf life and eating quality of beef from cattle of different breeds given diets differing in n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid composition. Animal Science 71: 471–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, T. L., Cundiff, L. V. and Koch, K. M. 1994. Effect of marbling degree on beef palatability in Bos taurus and Bos indicus cattle. Journal of Animal Science 72: 3145–3151.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilkinson, J. M., Penning, I. M. and Osbourn, D. F. 1978. Effect of stage of harvest and fineness of chopping on the voluntary intake and digestibility of maize silage by young beef cattle. Animal Production 26: 143–150.Google Scholar