Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-pmsz9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-04T03:33:39.773Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Beef production from formic acid-treated and wilted silages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

C. E. Hinks ,
I. E. Edwards  and
A. R. Henderson
C. E. Hinks
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, University of Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
I. E. Edwards
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, University of Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
A. R. Henderson
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, University of Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
Get access

Summary

1. Herbage was ensiled, fresh at 17% DM or wilted to 32% DM, with and without the addition of formic acid (19·2 kg/tonne DM). The silages were fed individually ad libitum to 36 fifteen-month-old British Friesian steers of about 280 kg initial live weight (nine animals per treatment).

2. Wilting and the application of formic acid both inhibited fermentation, resulting in silages with higher levels of water-soluble carbohydrates, lower concentrations of volatile nitrogen and lower organic acid contents.

3. There were no significant dry matter × formic acid interactions in dry-matter intake or daily live-weight gain.

4. Treatment with formic acid did not enhance significantly either dry-matter intake or daily live-weight gain. Furthermore, it had little effect on digestibility, nitrogen retention or metabolizable energy (ME) concentration.

5. Wilting before ensiling increased dry-matter intake from 5·0 to 8·3 kg/head per day with consequent marked increases in ME intake, nitrogen retention and live-weight gain. Wilting, however, had little effect on digestibility, ME concentration, or the efficiency with which dietary nitrogen intake was retained.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , April 1976 , pp. 217 - 223
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1976

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Blaxter, K. L. and Clapperton, J.L. 1965. Prediction of theamount of methane produced by ruminants. Br. J. Nutr. 19: 511–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castle, M. E. and Watson, J. N. 1970a. Silage and milk production, a comparison between grass silages made with and without formic acid. J. Br. Grassld Soc. 25: 65–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castle, M. E. and Watson, J. N. 1970b. Silage and milk production, a comparison between wilted and unwilted grass silages made with and without formic acid. J. Br. Grassld Soc. 25: 278–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castle, M. E. and Watson, J. N. 1973. Silage and milk production, a comparison between wilted grass silages made with and without formic acid. J. Br. Grassld Soc. 28: 73–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clancy, M. J. and Wilson, R. K. 1966. Development and application of a new chemical method for predicting the digestibility and intake of herbage samples. In Proc. 10th int. Grassld Congr., Helsinki, pp. 445–452.Google Scholar
Derbyshire, J. C., Waldo, D. R. and Gordon, C. H. 1971. Dairy cattle performance on formic acid silages. J. Dairy Sci. 54: 805. (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Dewar, W. A. and McDonald, P. 1961. Determination of dry matter in silage by distillation with toluene. J. Sci. Fd Agric. 12: 790–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forbes, T. J. and Irwin, J. H. D. 1968. The use of barn-dried hay and silage in fattening young beef cattle. J. Br. Grassld Soc. 23: 299–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, J. B., Brown, S. M. and McCulloch, I. J. 1972. Silage for beef production. The effects of formic acid and molasses on nutrient losses and feeding value of direct ensiled autumn grass. Rec. agric. Res., Belfast 20: 45–51.Google Scholar
Jackson, N. and Forbes, T. J. 1970. The voluntary intake by cattle of four silages differing in dry matter content. Anim. Prod. 12: 591–599.Google Scholar
Lessard, J. R. and McDonald, P. 1966. A silica gel chromatographic procedure adapted to liquid-scintillation counting of 14C labelled organic acids from plant material and silage. J. Sci. Fd Agric. 17: 257–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, P. and Henderson, A. R. 1964. Determination of water-soluble carbohydrates in grass. J. Sci. Fd Agric. 15: 395–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, P., Stirling, A. C., Henderson, A. R., Dewar, W. A., Stark, G. H., Da Vie, W. G., MacPherson, H. T., Reid, A. M. and Slater, J. 1960. Studies on ensilage. Tech. Bull. Edinb. Sch. Agric, No. 24.Google Scholar
Murdoch, J. C. 1960. The effect of pre-wilting herbage on the composition of silage and its intake by cows. J. Br. Grassld Soc. 15: 70–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murdoch, J. C. 1961. A review of silage-making techniques. J. Br. Grassld Soc. 16: 253–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, W. F., Shepperson, G. and Waltham, R. 1972. Forage Conservation and Feeding. Farming Press, Ipswich.Google Scholar
Tayler, J. C. 1967. Nutritive value of conserved feeds for ruminants. In Fodder Conservation (ed. Wilkins, R. T.). Proc. Br. Grassld Soc. Occ. Symp., No. 3, pp. 29–38.Google Scholar
Valentine, S. C. and Brown, D. C. 1973. Formaldehyde as a silage additive. II. The chemical composition and nutritive value of lucerne hay, lucerne silage, and formaldehyde and formic acid-treated lucerne silates. Aust. J. agric. Res. 24: 939–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldo, D. R., Keys, J. E. and Gordon, C. H. 1973. Preservation efficiency and dairy heifer response from unwilted formic and wilted untreated silages. J. Dairy Sci. 56: 129–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldo, D. R., Keys, J. E., Smith, L. W. and Gordon, C. H. 1971. Effect of formic acid on recovery, intake, digestibility, and growth from unwilted silage. J. Dairy Sci. 54: 77–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldo, D. R., Smith, L. W. and Gordon, C. H. 1968. Formic acid silage versus untreated silage for growth. J. Dairy Sci. 51: 982. (Abstr.).Google Scholar