Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T09:25:46.469Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

A. G. Kaiser ,
J. C. Tayler ,
B. G. Gibbs  and
P. England
A. G. Kaiser
Affiliation:
The Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
J. C. Tayler
Affiliation:
The Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
B. G. Gibbs
Affiliation:
The Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
P. England
Affiliation:
The Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Six silages were prepared from a primary growth of red clover using additives of 21 formic acid/t fresh crop together with formaldehyde at 0, 16, 34, 52, 77 or 117 g/kg crude protein (CP) in the crop. These silages were offered to appetite, either alone or with a urea supplement at 19·4 g/kg total dietary dry matter (D.M.), to 60 British Friesian steer calves with an initial mean live weight of 106 kg.

Formaldehyde treatment restricted silage fermentation, the effect increasing with level of application. However, butyric acid and 2, 3-butanediol content increased at intermediate levels of application. Protein degradation in the silages was reduced by formaldehyde treatment, as evidenced by a decline in ammonia-N and an increase in insoluble-N content with increasing level of formaldehyde application. The recovery of applied formaldehyde in the silages was low (less than 13%) but increased with level of application.

Intake, live-weight gain and feed conversion ratio followed quadratic trends, with formaldehyde having a deleterious effect at high levels of application. The decline in these production measurements was associated with declines in the apparent digestibility of D.M., organic matter (OM), N and energy with increasing level of formaldehyde application, although there was no effect of formaldehyde on cellulose digestibility. Urea supplementation tended to increase intake and live-weight gain at formaldehyde levels greater than 34 g/kg CP, and apart from the expected increase in N digestibility, did not affect the digestibility of other dietary components. As urea supplementation did not overcome the adverse effects of high levels of formaldehyde application on intake, live-weight gain and digestibility, it appears that the supply of rumen-degradable N was not the major limiting factor on these diets.

N retention followed a quadratic trend with level of formaldehyde application, increasing at intermediate levels (30–50 g/kg CP) and then declining markedly at the highest level of application. A similar trend was evident when N retention was expressed as a proportion of live-weight gain, suggesting possible formaldehyde effects on carcass composition. However, carcass composition data did not confirm any formaldehyde effect. Urea supplementation did not affect N retention, and N balance data indicated poor utilization of the supplementary urea N.

When considering the use of formaldehyde, relative to a formic acid control, in additives applied to red olover at ensiling, these data demonstrate little advantage in favour of formaldehyde and serious disadvantages when large quantities of formaldehyde are applied.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 97 , Issue 1 , August 1981 , pp. 1 - 11
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981

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. London: Agricultural Research Council.Google Scholar
Barry, T. N. (1976). The effectiveness of formaldehyde treatment in protecting dietary protein from rumen microbial degradation. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 35, 221–229.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beever, D. E. & Thomson, D. J. (1977). The potential of protected proteins in ruminant nutrition. In Nutrition Conference for Feed Manufacturers 11, University of Nottingham (ed. Haresign, W. and Lewis, D.), pp. 66–82. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Broadbent, P. J., McIntosh, J. A. R. & Spence, A. (1970). The evaluation of a device for feeding group housed animals individually. Animal Production 12, 245–252.Google Scholar
Brown, D. C. & Valentine, S. C. (1972). Formaldehyde as a silage additive. 1. The chemical composition and nutritive value of frozen lucerne, lucerne silage and formaldehyde-treated lucerne silage. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 23, 1093—1100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crampton, E. W. & Maynard, L. A. (1938). The relation of cellulose and lignin content to the nutritive value of animal feeds. Journal of Nutrition 15, 383–395.CrossRefGoogle 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
Dewar, W. A. & McDonald, P. (1961). Determination of dry matter in silage by distillation with toluene. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 12, 790–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinks, G. E. & Henderson, A. R. (1977). Beef production from additive-treated silages. Animal Production 25, 53–60.Google Scholar
Kaiser, A. G. (1979). The effects of formaldehyde application at ensiling on the utilization of silage by young growing cattle. Ph.D. thesis, University of Reading.Google 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. (In the Press.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lancaster, R. J. & Brunswick, L. F. C. (1977). Comparison of formic acid with a formaldehyde and formic acid mixture as additives for lucerne silage. New Zealand Journal of Experimental Agriculture 5, 113–114.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, University of Reading.Google Scholar
Lonsdale, C. R. & Tayler, J. C. (1975). The efficiency of utilization of digested nutrients by calves. Annual Report of the Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, 1974, pp. 71–72.Google Scholar
Lonsdale, C. R., Thomas, C. & Haines, M. J. (1977). The effect of urea on the voluntary intake by calves of silage preserved with formaldehyde and formic aoid. Journal of the British Grassland Society 32, 171–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, P., Henderson, A. R. & Ralton, I. (1973). Energy changes during ensilage. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 24, 827–834.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roskilly, T. F. M. (1975). Studies on the effects of chemioal additives and feed supplements on the voluntary intake and nitrogen utilization of grass silages by growing animals. Ph.D. thesis, University of Wales (Bangor).Google Scholar
Tayler, J. C., Aston, K. & Daley, S. R. (1979). Milk production from diets of silage and dried forage. 3. Effect of formalin-treated ryegrass silage of high digestibility given ad libitum with and without urea. Animal Production 28, 171–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tayler, J. C., Aston, K. & Gibbs, B. G. (1977). Evaluation of the conserved products of grasses and legumes and their use with other feeds for beef production. Annual Report of the Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, 1976, pp. 94–97.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
Tilley, J. M. A. & Terry, R. A. (1963). A two-stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Journal of the British Grassland Society 18, 104–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldo, D. R. (1978). The use of direct acidification in silage production. In Fermentation of Silage – A Review (ed. McCullough, M. E.), pp. 117–179. West Des Moines, Iowa: National Feed Ingredients Association.Google Scholar
Waldo, D. R., Keys, J. E. Jr, & Gordon, C. H. (1975). Paraformaldehyde compared with formic acid as a direct-cut silage preservative. Journal of Dairy Science 58, 922–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkins, R. J. (1978). Ensiled forages and their utilization by ruminants. Proceedings ofths 3rd World Congress on Animal Feeding, Madrid 7, 403–412.Google Scholar
Wilkins, R. J., Wilson, R. F. & Cook, J. E. (1975). Bestriction of fermentation during ensilage: the nutritive value of silage made with the addition of formaldehyde. Proceedings of the 12th International Grassland Congress, Moscow 3, 674–690.Google Scholar
Wilkins, R. J., Wilson, R. F. & Woolford, M. K. (1974). The effects of formaldehyde on silage fermentation. Vaxtodling 29, 197–201.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, J. M., Wilson, B. F. & Barry, T. N. (1976). Factors affecting the nutritive value of silage. Outlook on Agriculture 9, 3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, D. R. & Pomeroy, R. W. (1976). Anatomical dissection and tissue separation: techniques and grouping of tissues. In Criteria and Methods for Assessment of Carcass and Meat Characteristics in Beef Production Experiments (ed. Fisher, A. V., Tayler, J. C., Boer, H. de and Boogaert, D. H. van Adrichem), pp. 157–169. Luxembourg: Commission of the European Communities.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. F. & Wilkins, R. J. (1978). Paraformaldehyde as a silage additive. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 91, 23–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar