Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T06:38:43.064Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The utilization by calves of formaldehyde-treated maize silages and the response to supplementary protein

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

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

Abstract

Four silages were prepared from whole crop maize, each receiving additives of 21 1 formic acid per t fresh crop, and 0, 14, 27 or 53 g formaldehyde per kg crude protein in the crop. These silages, together with 19·6 g urea per kg dry matter, were offered ad libitum for 83 days to 60 British Friesian steer calves, initially 99 kg live weight, either alone or with groundnut or fish meal to raise the dietary crude protein content by 27 g/kg dry matter.

Formaldehyde treatment restricted silage fermentation, increased silage and dry-matter intake and live-weight gain, but reduced digestibility, so digestible organic matter and digestible energy intakes were unaffected. Much of the increase in live-weight gain appeared to be due to an increase in gut fill, as carcass weight was not significantly affected by formaldehyde treatment. There was no improvement in the utilization of dietary nitrogen, but there was some evidence that formaldehyde treatment may have increased the proportion of muscle in the carcass.

Supplementation with protein improved intake, nitrogen retention, feed conversion ratio, live-weight gain and carcass weight. The improvement in intake and food conversion ratio occurred mainly on the control silage, there being little effect on the formaldehyde-treated silages. Fish meal supplementation increased the digestibility of organic matter, cellulose and energy, and was more effective in improving food conversion ratio than groundnut meal. There were no significant differences between diets in the proportion of dietary nitrogen retained.

It was concluded that the scope for the use of formaldehyde, when ensiling maize for use in diets for young calves, appears to be limited.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , April 1982 , pp. 179 - 190
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1982

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
Arnould, R., Vanbelle, M., Joassart, J. M., Pastor, C. and Blanc Ortiz, H. 1978. [Formaldehyde used as a silage preservative. 3. Influence on intake, digestibility, nitrogen retention and the composition of milk in sheep.] Revue Agric, Brux. 31: 629–640.Google Scholar
Aston, K., Daley, S. R. and Tayler, J. C. 1979. Maize silage for milk production: the influence of concentrate supplementation and the effect of adding urea or ammonia before feeding. Anim. Prod. 29: 163–173.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. Anim. Prod. 31: 243–250.Google Scholar
Baxter, H. D., Montgomery, M. J. and Owen, J. R. 1980. Formic acid treatment of wheat and corn silages. J. Dairy Sci. 63: 1291–1298.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
Cottrill, B. R., Osbourn, D. F., Wilkinson, J. M. and Richmond, P. J. 1976. The effect of dietary pH and nitrogen supplementation on the intake and utilization of maize silage by young calves. Anim. Prod. 22: 154–155 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Dewar, W. A. and McDonald, P. 1961. Determination of dry matter in silage by distillation with toluene. J. Sci. Fd Agric. 12: 790–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, M. and Thomas, C. 1978. Supplementation of silage with specific nutrients and their effect on voluntary intake. In Proc. 5th Silage Conf., Ayr (ed. Harkess, R. D.), pp. 38–39(Abstr.).Google Scholar
Kaiser, A. G., Tayler, J. C., Gibbs, B. G. and England, P. 1981b. 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.Google Scholar
Kaiser, A. G., Terry, R. A. and Dhanoa, M. S. 1981a. Fermentation patterns in ryegrass, red clover and maize silages treated with formaldehyde additives at ensiling. J. Sci. Fd Agric. 32: 637–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lonsdale, C. R. 1976. The effect of season of harvest on the utilization by young cattle of dried grass given alone or as a supplement to grass silage. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Reading.Google Scholar
Lonsdale, C. R., Thomas, C. and Haines, M. J. 1977. The effect of urea on the voluntary intake by calves of silages preserved with formaldehyde and formic acid. J. Br. Grassld Soc. 32: 171–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDougall, E. I. 1948. Studies on ruminant saliva. 1. The composition and output of sheep's saliva. Biochem. J. 43: 99–109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomas, C. and Wilkinson, J. M. 1975. The utilization of maize silage for intensive beef production. 3. Nitrogen and acidity as factors affecting the nutritive value of ensiled maize. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 85: 255–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, C., Wilkinson, J. M. and Tayler, J. C. 1975a. The utilization of maize silage for intensive beef production. I. The effect of level and source of supplementary nitrogen on the utilization of maize silage by cattle of different ages. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 84: 353–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, C., Wilson, R. F., Wilkins, R. J. and Wilkinson, J. M. 1975b. The utilization of maize silage for intensive beef production. II. The effect of urea on silage fermentation and on the voluntary intake and performance of young cattle fed maize silage-based diets. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 84: 365–372.Google Scholar
Wilkins, R. J., Wilson, R. F. and Cook, J. E. 1975. Restriction of fermentation during ensilage: the nutritive value of silages made with the addition of formaldehyde. Proc 12th Int. Grassld Congr., Moscow, 1974, Vol. 3, pp. 674–690.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, J. M., Huber, J. T. and Henderson, H. E. 1975. HCHO-treated corn silage: intake, DDM and N use by calves. J. Anim. Sci. 41: 426 (Abstr.).Google Scholar