Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T08:11:38.562Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Intake, digestion and nitrogen retention by calves given ryegrass silages: influence of formaldehyde treatment and supplementation with maize starch or maize starch and urea

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

A. G. Kaiser ,
D. F. Osbourn  and
P. England
A. G. Kaiser
Affiliation:
The Grassland Research InstituteHurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire, SL6 5LR
D. F. Osbourn
Affiliation:
The Grassland Research InstituteHurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire, SL6 5LR
P. England
Affiliation:
The Grassland Research InstituteHurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire, SL6 5LR
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Three silages were prepared from a second cut of perennial ryegrass, using additives of 2 l formic acid/t fresh crop together with formaldehyde at either 0, 47 or 100 g/kg crude protein (CP) in the crop. The silages were offered to appetite either alone, or with supplements of maize starch or maize starch + urea, to 18 British Friesian steer calves, half of which were rumen-cannulated. The maize starch and urea supplements were provided at 184·4 and 18·9 g/kg total dietary dry matter (D.M.) respectively.

The low contents of volatile fatty acids and ammonia N in each silage indicated that they were well preserved. Formaldehyde treatment reduced protein degradation in the silages and reduced total acid content. There was a small increase in butyric acid content at the low application of formaldehyde, and the content of 2,3·butanediol increased with formaldehyde application.

Formaldehyde treatment depressed intake, although the decline at the high level of application was less when calves were given the starch + urea supplement. Supplementation with starch reduced silage D.M. intake, although total D.M. intake was unaffected, and increased digestible organic matter (OM) intake. The addition of urea to the supplement further increased total D.M., digestible OM and digestible energy intakes. The apparent digestibilities of D.M., OM, N, cellulose and energy were depressed by formaldehyde treatment. Starch supplementation increased the apparent digestibility of D.M. and OM but depressed that of N and cellulose. The deleterious effect on cellulose digestibility was most evident at the high application of formaldehyde. Starch + urea supplementation further increased the digestibility of D.M. and OM, and increased N digestibility. Both supplements increased energy digestibility.

N retention was improved by formaldehyde treatment, particularly when the starchfurea supplement was provided. Supplementation with starch did not improve the utilization of dietary N, but reduced N retention on the formaldehyde-treated silages.

Within the rumen, ammonia-N concentration declined with increasing application of formaldehyde, and was increased by starch + urea supplementation. There was a tendency for the molar proportion of acetate to increase, and that of propionate and butyrate to decrease with increasing application of formaldehyde. Starch supplementation resulted in a small increase in the molar proportion of butyrate.

The apparent rate of digestion of silage in nylon bags in the rumen was reduced by the high application of formaldehyde. On this silage diet, rate of digestion was further depressed by supplementation with starch, but improved by supplementation with starch + urea. The apparent rate of digestion was also depressed when a reference silage (the control) was incubated in the rumens of calves on the high formaldehyde silage, indicating that the adverse effect of formaldehyde was partly due to an effect on the rumen environment. However, it is also possible that formaldehyde reacted with cell wall components, inhibiting fibre digestion.

It was concluded that formaldehyde treatment, but not starch supplementation.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 100 , Issue 1 , February 1983 , pp. 63 - 74
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 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

Agricultural Research Council (1965). The Nutrient Requirements of Farm Livestock, No. 2, Ruminants. London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
Beever, D. E. (1976). The digestion and metabolism of the energy and protein of maize. In The Maize Crop as a Basic Feed for Beef Production (ed. Tayler, J. C. and Wilkinson, J. M.), Animal Feed Science and Technology 1, 455–464.Google Scholar
Demarquilly, C. & Dulphy, J.-P. (1977). Effect of ensiling on feed intake and animal performance. Proceedings of the International Meeting on Animal Production from Temperate Grasslands, Dublin, pp. 53–61.Google Scholar
Fujita, H. (1978). Effect of different carbohydrates on the rumen fermentation and nitrogen utilization in silage-fed ruminants. Japanese Journal of Zootechnical Science 49, 40–46.Google Scholar
Hartley, R. D. & Jones, E. C. (1977). Phenolic components and degradability of cell walls of grass and legume species. Phytochemistry 16, 1531–1534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderickx, H. K. (1976). Quantitative aspects of the use of non-protein nitrogen in ruminant feeding. Cuban Journal of Agricultural Science 10, 1–18.Google Scholar
Kaiser, A. G., Osbourn, D. F. & England, P. (1982). Intake and digestion of formaldehyde-treated red clover silages offered to calves either alone or with a urea supplement. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 98, 357–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, A. G., Osbourn, D. F., England, P. & Dhanoa, M. S. (1982). The utilization by calves of formaldehyde-treated maize silages and the response to supplementary protein. Animal Production 34, 179–190.Google Scholar
Kaiser, A. G., Tayler, J. C., Gibbs, B. G. & 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. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 97, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, A. G., Terry, R. A. & Dhanoa, M. S. (1981). Fermentation patterns in ryegrass, red clover and maize silages treated with formaldehyde additives at ensiling. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 32, 637–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, N. C. & Thomas, P. C. (1978). The nutritive value of silages. Energy metabolism in sheep receiving diets of grass silage and barley. British Journal of Nutrition 40, 205–219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lonsdale, C. R., Thomas, C. & Haines, M. J. (1977). The effect of urea on the voluntary intake by calves of silages preserved with formaldehyde and formic acid. Journal of the British Grassland Society 32, 171–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okorie, A. U., Buttery, P. J. & Lewis, D. (1977). Ammonia concentration and protein synthesis in the rumen. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 36, 38A.Google ScholarPubMed
Ørskov, E. R. (1975). Manipulation of rumen fermentation for maximum food utilization. In World Review of Nutrition and Dietetics (ed. Bourne, G. H.) 22, 152–182. Basel: Karger.Google Scholar
Satter, L. D. & Roffler, R. E. (1975). Nitrogen requirement and utilization in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 58, 1219–1237.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Syrjälä, L. (1972). Effect of different sucrose, starch and cellulose supplements on the utilization of grass silage by ruminants. Annales Agriculturae Fenniae 11. 199–276.Google Scholar
Tayler, J. C. & 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. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Wilkins, R. J. (1974). Nutritive value of silages. In Nutrition Conference for Feed Manufactures, University of Nottingham (ed. Swan, H. and Lewis, D.) 8, 167–189. London: Butterworths.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkins, R. J. (1978). Ensiled forages and their utilization by ruminants. Proceedings of the 3rd World Congress on Animal Feeding, Madrid 7, 403–412.Google Scholar
Wilkins, R. J., Wilson, R. F. & Cook, J. E. (1975). Restriction of fermentation during ensilage: the nutritive value of silages made with the addition of formaldehyde. Proceedings of the 12th International Grassland Congress, Moscow 3, 674–690.Google Scholar