Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Article contents

The effects of grain treatment, grain feed level and grass silage feed value on the performance of and meat quality from, finishing beef cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2008


T. W. J. Keady
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co., Down BT26 6DR, Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development for Northern Ireland, Newforge Lane, Belfast BT9 5PX, Ireland The Queen’s University of Belfast, Newforge Lane, Belfast BT9 5PX, Ireland
F. O. Lively
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co., Down BT26 6DR, Ireland
D. J. Kilpatrick
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture and Rural Development for Northern Ireland, Newforge Lane, Belfast BT9 5PX, Ireland The Queen’s University of Belfast, Newforge Lane, Belfast BT9 5PX, Ireland
B. W. Moss
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture and Rural Development for Northern Ireland, Newforge Lane, Belfast BT9 5PX, Ireland The Queen’s University of Belfast, Newforge Lane, Belfast BT9 5PX, Ireland
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

A completely randomised design study involving 132 continental crossbred beef steers was undertaken to evaluate the effects of method of grain treatment and feed level, and grass silage feed value on animal performance, carcass characteristics and meat quality of beef cattle. Winter wheat was harvested and the grain was stored either ensiled crimped and treated with 4.5 l/t of a proprietary acid-based additive (crimped), ensiled whole and treated with 20 kg feed-grade urea per t (urea) or stored conventionally in an open bin treated with 3 l propionic acid per t. Two grass silages, of contrasting feed value (L and H) were ensiled. For the conventional, crimped and urea treatments, grain dry matter (DM) concentrations were 802, 658 and 640 g/kg, respectively. For the L- and H-feed value silages, DM concentrations were 192 and 240 g/kg and D values were 671 and 730 g/kg DM, respectively. The silages were offered as the sole forage supplemented with either conventional, crimped or urea-treated grain-based concentrate at either 3.5 or 6.0 kg DM per steer per day. The grain supplement consisted of 850 and 150 g/kg DM of grain and citrus pulp, respectively. For the conventional, urea and crimped treatments, DM intakes were 8.85, 9.43 and 9.04 kg/day (standard error (s.e.) = 0.129); estimated carcass gains were 0.60, 0.55 and 0.61 kg/day (s.e. = 0.020), respectively. For the low- and high- feed value grass silages, estimated carcass gains were 0.56 and 0.61 kg/day (s.e. = 0.014), respectively. For the low and high grain feed levels, estimated carcass gains were 0.56 and 0.61 kg/day, respectively. Grain treatment, grain feed level or silage feed value did not alter (P > 0.05) meat quality, lean colour or fat colour. There were significant silage feed value × grain feed level interactions (P < 0.05) for final live weight (LW) and daily live-weight gain (DLWG). Increasing grain feed level increased final LW and DLWG when offered with the low-feed value silage, however, grain feed level had no effect on final LW or DLWG when offered with the high-feed value silage. It is concluded that urea treatment of grain increased silage intake and feed conversion ratio (kg DM intake per kg carcass) and tended to decrease carcass gain. Crimping provides a biologically equally effective method to store grain as conventional methods. Improving grass silage feed value had a greater impact on animal performance than increasing grain feed level by 2.4 kg DM per day.


Type
Full Paper
Information
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Aberle, ED, Reeves, ES, Judge, MD, Hunsley, RE, Perry, TW 1981. Palatability and muscle characteristics of cattle with controlled weight gain: time on a high energy diet. Journal of Animal Science 52, 757763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckley, DJ, Morissey, PA, Gray, JI 1995. Influence of dietary vitamin E on the oxidative stability and quality of pig meat. Journal of Animal Science 73, 31223130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drennan, MJ, Almiladi, AA, Maloney, AP 1995. Digestibility of cereal grains, sugar-beet pulp and molasses in cattle. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 34, 111.Google Scholar
Fishell, VK, Aberle, ED, Judge, MD, Perry, TW 1985. Palatability and muscle properties of beef as influenced by preslaughter growth rate. Journal of Animal Science 61, 151157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, P, O’Riordan, EG, Monahan, FJ, Caffrey, PJ, Mooney, MT, Troy, DJ, Moloney, AP 2001. The eating quality of meat of steers fed grass and/or concentrates. Meat Science 57, 379386.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, DM, Kennelly, JJ, Mathison, GW 1988. The performance of dairy and feedlot cattle fed sulfur dioxide-treated high moisture barley. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 68, 471482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, FJ 1980. The effect of interval between harvests and wilting on silage for milk production. Animal Production 31, 3541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopkins, DL, Fogarty, NM, Mencies, DJ 1996. Muscle pH of lamb genotypes. Proceedings of Australian Society of Animal Production 21, 347.Google Scholar
Huhtanen, P 1984. Wood molasses as a preservative for high moisture barley. 2. Ration digestibility and rumen fermentation in sheep. Journal of Agricultural Science, Finland 56, 265274.Google Scholar
Ingalls, JR, Clark, KW, Sharma, HR 1974. Acid treated high moisture barley for dairy cows. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 54, 205209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keady TWJ 1991. Studies of the mode of action of a bacterial inoculant as a silage additive and an evaluation of its efficiency. PhD thesis, The Queen’s University of Belfast.Google Scholar
Keady TWJ 2000. Beyond the Science: what the farmer looks for in the production of silage. In Biotechnology in the feed industry (ed. TP Lyons and KA Jacques), Proceedings of Alltech’s 16th Annual Symposium, pp. 439–452. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham.Google Scholar
Keady TWJ and Gordon AG 2006. The effects of maturity of maize at harvest and level of maize in forage based diets on the performance of beef cattle. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, p. 46.Google Scholar
Keady TWJ and Kilpatrick DJ 2005. Prediction of carcass weight from live weight. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, p. 179.Google Scholar
Keady TWJ and Kilpatrick DJ. 2006. The effect of forage: concentrate ratio on the performance of bulls slaughtered at a range of live weights. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, p. 51.Google Scholar
Keady, TWJ, Mayne, CS 2001. The effects of concentrate energy source on feed intake and rumen fermentation parameters of dairy cows offered a range of grass silages. Animal Feed. Science Technology 90, 117129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keady, TWJ, Steen, RWJ, Kilpatrick, DJ, Mayne, CS 1994. Effects of inoculant treatment on silage fermentation, digestibility and intake by growing cattle. Grass Forage Science 49, 284294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keady, TWJ, Mayne, CS, Marsden, M 1998. The effects of concentrate energy source on silage intake and animal performance with lactating dairy cows offered a range of grass silages. Animal Science 66, 2133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keady, TWJ, Mayne, CS, Fitzpatrick, DA, Marsden, M 1999. The effects of energy source and level of digestible undegradable protein in concentrates on silage intake and performance of lactating dairy cows offered a range of grass silages. Animal Science 68, 763777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keady, TWJ, Mayne, CS, Offer, NW, Thomas, C 2004. Prediction of voluntary intake. In Feed into milk – a new applied feeding system for dairy cows (ed. C Thomas), pp 110. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham.Google Scholar
Keady TWJ, Kirkland RM and Kilpatrick DJ 2005. Preliminary effects of altering plane of nutrition during different stages of the life cycle, and gender, on beef cattle performance. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, p. 2.Google Scholar
Keady, TWJ, Lively, FO, Kilpatrick, DJ, Moss, BW 2007. Effects of replacing grass silage with either maize or whole crop wheat silages on the performance and meat quality of beef cattle offered two levels of concentrates. Animal 1, 613623.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kempster, AJ, Cuthbertson, A, Harrington, G 1982. Carcass evaluation in livestock breeding, production and marketing. Granada, London.Google Scholar
Kennelly, JJ, Dalton, DL, Ha, JK 1988a. Digestion and utilization of high moisture barley by lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 71, 12591266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kennelly, JJ, Mathison, GW, deBoer, G 1988b. Influence of high moisture barley on the performance and carcass characteristics of feedlot cattle. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 68, 811820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, TW, Death, AF 1999. Effects of oral and injected Vitamin A (retinol) supplements on liver Vitamin A and plasma carotenoid and cholesterol concentrations in cattle. Animal Science 69, 607612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laksesvela, B 1981. A note on the use of whole, moist barley treated with ammonia as a feed supplement for sheep. Animal Production 32, 231233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lively FO, Keady TWJ, Moss BW, Farmer LJ, Gault NFS, Tolland ELC, Patterson DCP and Gordon AG 2006. The effect of beef genotype, pelvic hanging technique and aging period on the eating quality of some hindquarter muscles. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, p. 20.Google Scholar
Low, SG, Kellaway, RC 1983. The utilization of ammonia-treated whole wheat grain by young steers. Animal Production 37, 113118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marx, GD 1973. Harvesting, storing and feeding high moisture barley to lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 56, 677.Google Scholar
McDonnell, P, Henderson, AR, Heron, SJE 1991. The biochemistry of silage. Chalcombe Publications, Marlow, Bucks, England.Google Scholar
McNamee, BF, Kilpatrick, DJ, Steen, RWJ, Gordon, FJ 2001. The prediction of grass silage intake by beef cattle receiving barley-based supplements. Livestock Production Science 68, 2530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, MF, Corr, MA, Ramsey, CB, Crockett, KL, Hoover, LC 2001. Consumer thresholds for establishing the value of beef tenderness. Journal of Animal Science 79, 30623068.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mowat, DN, McCaughey, P, Macleod, GK 1981. Ammonia or urea treatment of whole high moisture shelled corn. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 61, 703711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, DC, Yan, T, Gordon, FJ 1998. The effects of bacterial inoculation of unwilted and wilted grass silages: 2. Intake, performance and eating behavior by dairy cattle over eight harvests. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 131, 113119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettersson, T, Martinsson, KA 1994. Digestibility of whole or rolled ensiled barley grain feed to heifers or lactating cows. Swedish Journal of Agricultural Research 24, 109113.Google Scholar
Pettersson, T, Bernes, G, Martinsson, K 1998. Ensiled rolled or dried barley grain and different levels of grass and hay to dairy cows. Swedish Journal of Agricultural Research 28, 99109.Google Scholar
Porter, MG, Murray, RS 2001. The volatility of components of grass silage on oven- drying and inter-relationships between dry matter content estimated by different analytical methods. Grass Forage Science 56, 405411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rode, LM, Cheng, KJ, Costerton, JW 1986. Digestion by cattle of urea-treated, ammonic-treated or rolled high-moisture barley. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 66, 711721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, RW, Lin, JCM, Thomas, EE, Mora, EC 1988. Preservation of high-moisture milo with urea: grain properties and animal acceptability. Journal of Animal Science 66, 21312139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stacey P, O’Kiely P, Rice B, Hackett R and O’Mara FP 2003. Changes in yield and composition of barley, wheat and triticale grains with advancing maturity. Agricultural Research Forum, p. 128.Google Scholar
Steen, RWJ 1984. A comparison of two-cut and three-cut systems of silage making for beef cattle using two cultivars of perennial ryegrass. Animal Production 38, 171179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steen RWJ 1987. Factors affecting the utilization of grass silage for beef production. In Efficient beef production from grass (ed. J Frame), Occasional Symposium of the British Grassland Society No. 22, pp. 129–139. British Grassland Society, Reading, UK.Google Scholar
Steen, RWJ 1993. A comparison of wheat and barley as supplements to grass silage for finishing beef cattle. Animal Production 56, 6167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steen, RWJ, Kilpatrick, DJ 2000. The effects of the ratio of grass silage to concentrates in the diet and restricted dry matter intake on the performance and carcass composition of beef cattle. Livestock Production Science 62, 181192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steen, RWJ, Robson, AE 1995. Effects of forage to concentrate ratio in the diet and protein intake on the performance and carcass composition of beef heifers. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 125, 125135.Google Scholar
Steen, RWJ, Gordon, FJ, Dawson, LER, Park, RS, Mayne, CS, Agnew, RE, Kilpatrick, DJ, Porter, MG 1998. Factors affecting the intake of grass silage by cattle and prediction of silage intake. Animal Science 66, 115127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steen, RWJ, Kilpatrick, DJ, Porter, MG 2002. Effects of the proportions of high or medium digestibility grass silage and concentrates in the diet of beef cattle on ADG, carcass composition and fatty acid composition of muscle. Grass Forage Science 57, 279291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yaremcio, B, Mathison, GW, Engstorm, DF, Rogh, LA, Caine, WR 1991. Effect of ammoniation on the preservation and feeding value of barley grain for growing-finishing cattle. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 71, 439455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 16
Total number of PDF views: 202 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 3rd December 2020. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-79f79cbf67-hp6v8 Total loading time: 0.794 Render date: 2020-12-03T02:08:26.084Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags last update: Thu Dec 03 2020 02:07:00 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) Feature Flags: { "metrics": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "peerReview": true, "crossMark": true, "comments": true, "relatedCommentaries": true, "subject": true, "clr": false, "languageSwitch": true }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The effects of grain treatment, grain feed level and grass silage feed value on the performance of and meat quality from, finishing beef cattle
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

The effects of grain treatment, grain feed level and grass silage feed value on the performance of and meat quality from, finishing beef cattle
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

The effects of grain treatment, grain feed level and grass silage feed value on the performance of and meat quality from, finishing beef cattle
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *