No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Rapeseed meal, maize-gluten feed and fish meal as protein supplements for maize silage given to growing/finishing Limousin × Holstein Friesian bulls
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2010
Abstract
In each of three experiments, 60 Limousin × Holstein Friesian bulls, initially of 191, (s..e. 5·0), 177 (s.e. 5·5) and 210 (s.e. 7·2) kg mean live weight for experiments 1, 2 and 3 respectively, were offered maize silage ad libitum plus one of three barley-based, isonitrogenous compound diets containing 200 g rapeseed meal, 575 g maize-gluten feed or 100 g fish meal per kg fresh weight. Compound diets were given at the rate of 3·0 kg (fresh weight) per head per day up to 320 kg live weight and at 3·3 kg per head per day from 320 kg to 420 kg live weight. In experiment 3, when bulls were taken through to slaughter, the compound diet was further increased to 3·5 kg per head per day from 420 kg live weight to slaughter. Experiments 1 and 2 were conducted over 128 and 194 days, with mean live weights at the end of the experiments of 347 (s.e. 17·2) and 414 (s.e. 24·2) kg respectively. In experiment 3, bulls were slaughtered at 16 months of age at a mean live weight of 544 (s.e. 25·0) kg.
In experiment 1, the fish-meal diet gave the highest rate of daily live-weight gain at 1·34 compared with 1·17 and 1·16 (s.e.d. 0·041) kg for rapeseed-meal and maize-gluten diets, respectively. In experiments 2 and 3, daily gains were similar on all treatments at 1·21, 1·19 and 1·26 (s.e.d. 0·036) kg and 1·06, 1·09 and 1·11 (s.e.d. 0·035) kg for the rapeseed-meal, maize-gluten and fish-meal diets respectively. Total daily dry-matter intakes did not show consistent trends: in experiment 1, intakes were 5·8, 5·6 and 5·8 kg/day, in experiment 2, 6·2, 6·2 and 6·3 kg/day; and in experiment 3, 7·1, 7·3 and 7·1 kg/day for rapeseed-meal, maize-gluten and fish meal, respectively. The higher intakes of dry matter in experiment 3 were due to the greater intakes of maize silage by bulls taken to heavier weights in this experiment.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1996
References
Agriculture and Food Research Council. 1993. Energy and protein requirements of ruminants. An advisory manual prepared by the AFRC Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Agricultural Research Council. 1984. Nutrient requirements of ruminant livestock, suppl. 1. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough.Google Scholar
Cottrill, B. R. 1981. The supplementation of maize silage for young calves. Ph.D. thesis, University of Reading.Google Scholar
Cottrill, B. R., Beever, D. E., Austin, A. R. and Osbourn, D. F. 1982. The effect of protein- and non-protein-nitrogen supplements to maize silage on total amino acid supply in young cattle. British Journal of Nutrition 48: 527–541.Google Scholar
Cottrill, B. R. and Osbourn, D. F. 1977. The effect of source of nitrogen and energy supplementation on the utilization of maize silage by calves. Animal Production 24: 127 (abstr.).Google Scholar
England, P. and Gill, M. 1985. The effect of fishmeal and sucrose supplementation on voluntary intake of grass silage and live-weight gain of young cattle. Animal Production 40: 259–265.Google Scholar
Garstang, J. R. 1981. Silage supplements for calves. Animal Production 32: 355 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Garstang, J. R., Thomas, C. and Gill, M. 1979. The effect of supplementation of grass silage with fishmeal on intake and performance by British Friesian calves. Animal Production 28: 423 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Gill, M. and England, P. 1984. Effect of degradability of protein supplements on voluntary intake and nitrogen retention in young cattle fed grass silage. Animal Production 39: 31–36.Google Scholar
Givens, D. I. 1990. The use of the neutral detergent cellulase procedure for predicting the digestibility of maize silage. In Proceedings of the 1990 Maize Growers Association annual convention. Berkshire College of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, E., Hildyard, N., Bunyard, P. and McCully, P. 1990. Imperiled planet, a guide to our endangered ecosystems. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Hardy, R. and Meadowcroft, S. C. 1986. Indoor beef production, p. 95. Farming Press Ltd, Ipswich.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Cuthbertson, A. and Harrington, G. 1982. Beef carcass grading and classificaion. In Carcass evaluation in livestock breeding, production and marketing, pp. 163–201. Granada, London.Google Scholar
Kossaibati, M. A. and Bryant, M. J. 1992. Effects of rapeseed meal and fishmeal supplementation of maize silage-based diets upon voluntary intake, live-weight gain and wool growth of store lambs. Animal Production 58: 49–56.Google Scholar
Martin, T. G., Perry, T. W., Beeson, W. M. and Mohler, M. T. 1978. Protein levels for bulls; comparison of three continuous dietary levels on growth and carcass traits. Journal of Animal Science 47: 29–33.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1993. Beef yearbook, p. 92. Meat and Livestock Commission, Milton Keynes.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 1984. Calf rearing. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 1986. The analysis of agricultural materials. Reference book 427, third ed. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 1990. UK tables of nutritive value and chemical composition of feedingstuffs (ed. Givens, D. I.). Rowett Research Services Limited, Aberdeen.Google Scholar
Rohr, K., Daenicke, R. and Oslage, H. J. 1982. The optimum protein supply for young fattening bulls on a high-energy level. In Protein and energy for high production of milk and meat. Pergamon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Southgate, J. R., Cook, G. L. and Kempster, A. J. 1982. A comparison of the progeny of British Friesian dams and different sire breeds in 16- and 24-month beef production systems. 1. Live-weight gain and efficiency of food utilisation. Animal Production 34: 155–166.Google Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. 1989. A comparison of soya-bean, sunflower and fish meals as protein supplements for yearling cattle offered grass silage-based diets. Animal Production 48: 81–89.Google Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. 1992. A comparison of soya-bean meal, fish meal, and maize gluten feed as protein sources for calves offered grass silage ad libitum. Animal Production 54: 333–339.Google Scholar
Steen, R. W. J., Unsworth, E. F., Gracey, H. I., Kennedy, S. J., Anderson, R. and Kilpatrick, D. J. 1989. Evaluation studies in the development of a commercial bacterial inoculant as an additive for grass silage. 3. Responses in growing cattle and interaction with protein supplementation. Grass and Forage Science 44: 381–390.Google Scholar
Thomas, C., Wilkinson, J. M. and Tayler, J. C. 1975a. The utilisation of maize silage for intensive beef production. 1. The effect of level and source of supplementary nitrogen on the utilisation of maize silage by cattle of different ages. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 84: 353–364.Google Scholar
Thomas, C., Wilson, R. F., Wilkins, R. J. and Wilkinson, J. M. 1975b. The utilisation of maize silage for intensive beef production. 2. The effect of urea on silage fermentation and on the voluntary intake and performance of young cattle fed maize silage-based diets. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 84: 365–372.Google Scholar
Waldern, D. E. 1973. Rapeseed meal versus soybean as the only protein supplement for lactating cows fed corn silage roughage rations. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 53: 107–112.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, J. M., Penning, I. M. and Osbourn, D. F. 1978. The 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