Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-cf9d5c678-p4zth Total loading time: 0.745 Render date: 2021-08-03T04:05:21.534Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

A comparison of silage-based and dried forage-based diets for finishing beef cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

R. W. J. Steen
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co. Down BT26 2DR
Charlotte A. Moore
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co. Down BT26 2DR
Get access

Abstract

Two experiments have been carried out to compare silage-based and dried forage-based diets for finishing beef cattle, and to examine the effect of supplementing the silage-based diet with additional protein. The three diets used in experiment 1 consisted of (1) grass silage supplemented with a low-protein, cereal-based concentrate (98 g crude protein (CP) per kg dry matter (DM)) (2) grass silage supplemented with a high-protein, cereal/soya-bean meal concentrate (208 g CP per kg DM) and (3) grass hay supplemented with a cereal-based concentrate (130 g CP per kg DM). The two diets used in experiment 2 consisted of (1) grass silage supplemented with barley and (2) a mixture of grass hay and artificially dried grass supplemented with barley. All the diets contained approximately 700 g forage and 300 g concentrates per kg DM except diet 3 in experiment 1 which contained 240 g hay and 760 g concentrates per kg. The silages were of high digestibility (digestible organic matter in dry matter 0·72) and were well preserved (ammonia N 36 g/kg total N). The diets were offered to castrated male cattle which were initially 384 kg in experiment 1 and 515 kg in experiment 2. For diets 1 to 3 in experiment 1 and diets 1 and 2 in experiment 2 respectively metabolizable energy intakes were, 92, 94, 94, 124 and 120 MJ/day; live-weight gains were 1·21, 1·16 and 1·21 (s.e. 0·044) and 1·25 and 1·22 (s.e. 0·060) kg/day; carcass gains were 0·76, 0·76 and 0·75 (s.e. 0·034) and 0·80 and 0·74 (s.e. 0·036) kg/day; carcass fat classifications (five-point scale; 1 = leanest, 5 = fattest) were 2·4, 2·9 and 2·2 (s.e. 0·09) and 3·6 and 3·6 (s.e. 0·18); mean subcutaneous fat depths were 6·8, 8·1 and 6·6 (s.e. 0·74) and 7·8 and 7·4 (s.e. 0·48) mm; areas of m. longissimus dorsi at the 10th rib were 66·4, 69·4 and 71·3 (s.e. 3·16) and 77·6 and 72·3 (s.e. 1·52) cm2 and marbling scores (eight-point scale; 1 = leanest, 8 = fattest) for m. longissimus were 1·7, 2·5 and 2·2 (s.e. 0·24) and 3·2 and 2·8 (s.e. 0·16). It is concluded that performance, efficiency of energy utilization and carcass fatness were similar for silage-based and dried forage-based diets, and that protein supplementation of a silage-based diet did not affect performance but tended to increase carcass fatness.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1988

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. Recommended Procedures for Use in the Measurement of Beef Cattle and Carcasses. Agricultural Research Council, London.Google Scholar
Agricultural Research Council. 1980. The Nutrient Requirements of Ruminant Livestock, pp. 121181. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough.Google Scholar
Allen, D. M. and Kilkenny, B. 1984. Beef production from dairy bred calves. In Planned Beef Production. 2nd ed., pp. 131173. Granada, London.Google Scholar
Drennan, M. J. 1973. Supplementation of silage with protein for beef cattle. Irish Grassland and Animal Production Association Journal 8: 3141.Google Scholar
Drennan, M. J. 1983. Supplementary concentrates for young fattening bulls fed silage. An Foras Taluntais, Animal Production Research Report, pp. 1314.Google Scholar
Ekern, A. and Reid, J. T. 1963. Efficiency of energy utilization by young cattle ingesting diets of hay, silage and hay supplemented with lactic acid. Journal of Dairy Science 46: 522529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flynn, A. V. 1976. Effect of conservation system on the composition of the beef carcass. An Foras Taluntais, Animal Production Research Report, pp. 2324.Google Scholar
Flynn, A. V. and Wilson, R. K. 1978. The relative importance of digestibility, ensiling, fermentation and dry matter content in limiting the utilization of grass silage by beef cattle. Proceeding of the 7th General Meeting of the European Grassland Federation, Ghent, pp. 6.3–6.15.Google Scholar
Keane, M. G. and Drennan, M. J. 1980. Effects of diet type and feeding level on performance, carcass composition and efficiency of Friesian steers serially slaughtered. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 19: 5366.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Chadwick, J. P. and Charles, D. D. 1986. Estimation of the carcass composition of different cattle breeds and crosses from fatness measurements and visual assessments. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 106: 223237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Cuthbertson, A. and Harrington, G. 1982. Beef carcase grading and classification. In Carcase Evaluation in Livestock Breeding, Production and Marketing, pp. 163201. Granada, London.Google Scholar
Kirby, P. S., Chalmers, A. J. and Hannam, D. A. R. 1983. Fish meal supplementation of grass silage diets for fattening British Friesian steers. Animal Production 36: 538 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Kirby, P. S., Outhwaite, J. R. and Jones, T. O. 1984. A comparison of two types of fish meal as protein supplements for finishing British Friesian steers given grass silage ad libitum. Animal Production 38: 551 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Kirby, P. S., Outhwaite, J. R. and Jones, T. O. 1985. A comparison of formaldehyde-treated soya bean meal and fish meal as protein supplements for finishing beef cattle given grass silage. Animal Production 40: 552 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Lonsdale, C. R. 1976. The effect of season of harvest on the utilization by growing cattle of dried grass given alone or as a supplement to silage. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Reading.Google Scholar
Lowman, B. G., Neilson, D. R. and Hunter, E. A. 1985. The effect of growth promoters on fattening cattle:growth, intake and carcass composition. Animal Production 40: 538 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
McCarrick, R. B. 1966. Effect of method of grass conservation and herbage maturity on performance and body composition of beef cattle. Proceedings of the 10th International Grassland Congress, Helsinki, pp. 575580.Google Scholar
McCarrick, R. B. 1967. The growth and body composition of beef cattle fed conserved fodders. In Fodders Conservation (ed. Wilkins, R. J.), Occasional Symposium No. 3, British Grassland Society, pp. 121131.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: 2933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. 1975. Manipulation of rumen fermentation for maximum food utilization. World Review of Nutrition and Diet 22: 151182.Google ScholarPubMed
Porter, M. G., Patterson, D. C., Steen, R. W. J. and Gordon, F. J. 1984. Determination of dry matter and gross energy of grass silage. Proceedings of 7th Silage Conference, The Queen's University of Belfast, pp. 8990.Google Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. 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, R. W. J. 1985. Protein supplementation of silage-based diets for calves. Animal Production 41: 293300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. 1986. Effects of protein supplementation of silage-based diets on the intake, performance and carcass composition of finishing beef cattle. Animal Production 42: 439 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. 1988. The effect of implantation with hormonal growth promoters on the response in the performance of beef cattle to protein supplementation of a silage-based diet. Animal Production 47: 2128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, P. C. 1982. Utilization of conserved forages. In Forage Protein in Ruminant Animal Production (ed. Thompson, D. J., Beever, D. E. and Gunn, R. G.), Occasional Publication of the British Society of Animal Production, No. 6, pp 6776.Google Scholar
Thomas, P. C. and Chamberlain, D. G. 1982. The utilization of silage protein. In Forage Protein Conservation and Utilization, Commisson of the European Communities Seminar, Dublin, pp. 121145.Google Scholar
Waldo, D. R. 1977. Potential of chemical preservation and improvement of forages. Journal of Dairy Science 60: 306326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waterhouse, A., Laird, R. and Holuday, R. J. 1983. A response to protein supplementation of grass silage for growing and finishing cattle. Animal Production 36: 503 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Williams, D. B., Vetter, R. L., Burroughs, W. and Topel, D. G. 1975. Effects of ration protein level and diethylstilbestrol implants on early-weaned bull calves. Journal of Animal Science 41: 15251531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7
Cited by

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.

A comparison of silage-based and dried forage-based diets for 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.

A comparison of silage-based and dried forage-based diets for 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.

A comparison of silage-based and dried forage-based diets for finishing beef cattle
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *