Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pjpqr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-14T14:57:46.258Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of date of cut and barley substitution on gain and on the efficiency of utilization of grass silage by growing cattle

1. Gains in live weight and its components

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

C. Thomas ,
B. G. Gibbs ,
D. E. Beever  and
B. R. Thurnham
C. Thomas
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute for Grassland and Animal Production, Animal and Grassland Research Station, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 SLR
B. G. Gibbs
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute for Grassland and Animal Production, Animal and Grassland Research Station, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 SLR
D. E. Beever
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute for Grassland and Animal Production, Animal and Grassland Research Station, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 SLR
B. R. Thurnham
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute for Grassland and Animal Production, Animal and Grassland Research Station, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 SLR
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. A primary growth of perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) was cut early or late to produce silages of high and low digestibility. The crops were wilted for 2–4 h and preserved with formic acid at 2.4 litres/t fresh weight. The resulting silages were well preserved with a pH of 3.9 and 3.8, lactic acid content of 108 and 73 g/kg dry matter (DM) and total nitrogen content of 24.6 and 18.4 g/kg DM for early- and late-cut silage respectively.

2. Forty-two British Friesian male castrates (steers) initially 12 months of age and 305 kg live weight (LW) were used, of which ten were slaughtered at the start of the experiment. The remaining steers were divided into four groups of eight animals and were given the early-cut silage alone (H) or the late-cut silage alone (L) or with barley at either 280 (LCI) or 560 (LC2) g DM/kg total DM. The intake of total DM was restricted to a daily allowance of 18 g DM/kg LW and the steers were slaughtered in two groups after 119 and 140 d on experiment.

3. Both earlier cutting of herbage and substitution of late-cut silage with barley significantly (P <0.001) increased the apparent digestibility of gross energy (H0.748, L0.619, LC10.668, LC20.705), whereas earlier cutting increased the digestibility of acid-detergent fibre from 0.638 (L) to 0.777 (H) and substitution with barley resulted in a significant (P <0.001) depression to 0.595 (LCI) and 0.519 (LC2). Substitution of late-cut silage with barley significantly (P <0.001) increased metabolizable energy (ME) intake from 58.9 (L) to 69.5 MJ/d (LC2) and crude protein (N × 6.25; CP) intake from 688 (L) to 779 g/d (LC2), but the highest intakes of ME and CP (73.5 MJ/d and 952 g/d respectively) were achieved with the early-cut silage.

4. Earlier cutting resulted in significant (P <0.001) increases in body-weight gain from 292 to 696 g/d, fat gain from 121 to 260 g/d, protein gain from 31.1 to 86.9 g/d and energy retention from 5.5 to 12.2 MJ/d for silages L and H respectively. However, substitution of the late-cut silage with barley increased gains to a greater extent. Thus, empty-body gain was increased to 552 and 800 g/d, fat gain to 189 and 302 g/d, protein gain to 76 and 116 g/d and energy retention to 9.2 and 14.6 MJ/d for diets LCI and LC2 respectively. The difference in gains between diets H and LC2 achieved significance (P <0.05) for all components except fat.

5. It is concluded that although earlier cutting of herbage for silage results in increased gains of protein and energy, the amounts retained are less than those from a similar increment of ME and CP achieved by substituting a late-cut silage with barley.

Type
General Nutrition papers
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 60 , Issue 2 , September 1988 , pp. 297 - 306
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1988

References

Agricultural Research Council (1965). The Nutrient Requirements of Farm Livestock no. 2, Ruminants. London: Agricultural Research Council.Google Scholar
Agricultural Research Council (1980). The Nutrient Requirements of Ruminant Livestock. Slough: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
Association of, Official Agricultural Chemists (1965). Methods of Analysis, 10th ed. Washington DC: AOAC.Google Scholar
Beever, D. E., Cammell, S. B., Thomas, C., Spooner, M. C., Haines, M. J. & Gale, D. L. (1988). British Journal of Nutrition 60, 307–319.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. & Wilson, R. S. (1963). Animal Production 5, 27–42.Google Scholar
Corrall, A. J., Morrison, J. & Young, J. W. O. (1982). In Milk from Grass, pp. 1–19 [Thomas, C., Young, J. W. O., editors]. Hurley, Maidenhead: Imperial Chemical Industries, Grassland Research Institute.Google Scholar
Dewar, W. A. & McDonald, P. (1961). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 12, 790–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flynn, A. V. (1974). An Foras Taluntais. Animal Production Research Report, pp. 31–32.Google Scholar
Leaver, J. D. (1973). Animal Production 17, 43–52.Google Scholar
Lonsdale, C. R. (1976). The effect of season of harvest on the utilisation by growing cattle of dried grass given alone or as a supplement to silage. PhD Thesis, University of Reading.Google Scholar
McCarrick, R. B. (1965). Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 4, 161–178.Google Scholar
McCarrick, R. B. (1966). Proceedings of the 10th International Grassland Congress, Helsinki, pp. 575–580.Google Scholar
Osbourn, D. F., Terry, R. A., Cammell, S. B. & Outen, G. E. (1970). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 29, 12A–13A.Google Scholar
Raymond, W. F. (1969). In Advances in Agronomy, Vol. 21, pp. 1–108 [Brady, N. C., editor]. New York and London; Academic Press.Google Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. (1984). Animal Production 38, 171–179.Google Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. & McIlmoyle, W. A. (1982). Animal Production 35, 245–252.Google Scholar
Terry, R. A. & Osbourn, D. F. (1980). In Forage Conservation in the 80's. Occasional Symposium no. 11, British Grassland Society, pp. 315–318. [Thomas, C., editor]. Hurley, Maidenhead: British Grassland Society.Google Scholar
Terry, R. A., Osbourn, D. F., Cammell, S. B. & Fenlon, J. (1983). Proceedings of the 5th General Meeting of the European Grassland Federation, Uppsala, pp. 19–25.Google Scholar
Terry, R. A., Tilley, J. M. A. & Outen, G. E. (1969). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 20, 317–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, C., Gibbs, B. G., Aston, K. & Tayler, J. C. (1980). In Forage Conservation in the 80's. Occasional Symposium no. 11, British Grassland Society, pp. 383–387 [Thomas, C., editor]. Hurley, Maidenhead: British Grassland Society.Google Scholar
Thomas, C., Gibbs, B. G. & Tayler, J. C. (1981). Animal Production 32, 149–153.Google Scholar
Thomas, C. & Thomas, P. C. (1985). In Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition-1985, pp. 223–256 [W. Haresign, editor]. London: Butterworths.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vadiveloo, J. & Holmes, W. (1979). Animal Production 29, 121–129.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. & Wine, R. H. (1967). Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists 50, 50–55.Google Scholar
Woodward, C. J. H., Trayhurn, P. & James, W. P. T. (1976). British Journal of Nutrition 36, 567–570.Google Scholar