Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T15:44:48.168Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of stage of harvest and fineness of chopping on the voluntary intake and digestibility of maize silage by young beef cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

J. M. Wilkinson ,
Ines M. Penning  and
D. F. Osbourn
J. M. Wilkinson
Affiliation:
The Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire, SL6 5LR
Ines M. Penning
Affiliation:
The Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire, SL6 5LR
D. F. Osbourn
Affiliation:
The Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire, SL6 5LR
Get access

Abstract

Whole-crop maize was harvested at 20% (L), 29% (M) and 38% (H) dry-matter (DM) content, chopped to 7·67 mm (F) or 33·3 mm (C) average particle length and ensiled. The six silages were offered ad libitum to 36 entire male calves (initially 96 kg live weight), together with supplements of urea and dried ryegrass, for 42 days. Voluntary intake and the apparent digestibility of the diets were measured. Intake of DM was not affected by the DM content of the silages, but was higher for F than C by 6·6% (P<0·01). Apparent digestibility of DM, organic matter and cell walls decreased with increasing silage DM content (P<0·001) and was higher for F than C (P < 0·01).

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , April 1978 , pp. 143 - 150
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1978

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

Andrieu, J. and Demarquilly, C. 1974. [Feeding value of maize forage. II. Effect of growth stage, variety, crop density, artificial ear enrichment, and urea addition on digestibility and voluntary intake of maize silage.] Annls Zootech. 23: 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Association of Official Agricultural Chemists. 1965. Official Methods of Analysis, 10th ed. Association of Official Chemists, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Demarquilly, C. 1969. [Feeding value of maize forage. I. Chemical composition and digestibility of standing maize.] Annls Zootech. 18: 17–32.CrossRefGoogle 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
Dulphy, J. P., Bechet, G. and Thomson, E. 1975. [Influence of the physical structure and quality of conservation of grass silages on their voluntary intake by sheep.] Annls Zootech. 24: 81–94. 26/2—DCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dulphy, J. P. and Demarquilly, C. 1975. [Influence of the type of forage harvester on the silage intake level and the performance of dairy cows.] Annls Zootech. 24: 363–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goering, H. K. and Van soest, P. J. 1970. Forage Fibre Analysis. Handbook No. 379, USDA Agric. Res. Service.Google Scholar
Gross, F. 1970. [Effect of time of harvest on the feeding value of maizesilage.] Wirtschaft-seigene Futter 16: 306–336.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. R., Balwani, T. L., Johnson, L. J., McClure, K. E. and Dehority, B. A. 1966a. Corn plant maturity. II. Effect on in vitro cellulose digestibility and soluble carbohydrate content. J. Anim. Sci. 25: 617–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, R. R., McClure, K. E., Johnson, L. J., Klosterman, E. W. and Triplett, G. B. 1966b. Corn plant maturity. I. Changes in dry matter and protein distribution in corn plants. Agron. J. 58: 151–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jorgensen, N. A. and Crawley, J. W. 1972. Corn silage for Wisconsin Cattle. Publn A 1178, Co-operative Extension Programs, Univ. Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Malterre, C. 1976. Different ways of using the maize crop for beef production. In Improving the Nutritional Efficiency of Beef Production (ed. Tayler, J. C. and Wilkinson, J. M.) Publn 5448e, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.Google Scholar
Messer, H. J. M. and Hawkins, J. C. 1977. The influence of moisture content and chop length of forage maize on silage bulk density and the pressure on bunker silo walls. J. agric. Engng Res. 22: 175–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osbourn, D. F., Terry, R. A., Outen, G. E. and Cammell, S. B. 1976. The significance of a determination of cell walls as the rational basis for the nutritive evaluation of forages. Proc. XII int. Grassld Congr., Moscow, 1974, pp. 374–380.Google Scholar
Penning, Ines M., Wilkinson, J. M. and Osbourn, D. F. 1976. Effect of stage of maturity and fineness of chopping on the nutritive value of maize silage. Anim. Prod. 22: 153–154 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Terry, R. A. and Outen, G. E. 1973. The determination of cell-wall constituents in barley and maize. Chem. Ind. (Dec), pp. 1116–1117.Google Scholar
Thomas, C., Wilkinson, J. M. and Tayler, J. C. 1975a. The utilization of maize silage for intensive beef production. I. The effect of level and source of supplementary nitrogen on the utilization of maize silage by cattle of different ages. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 84: 353–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, C., Wilson, R. F., Wilkins, R. J. and Wilkinson, J. M. 1975b. The utilization of maize silage for intensive beef production. II. The effect of urea on silage fermentation and on the voluntary intake and performance of young cattle fed maize silage-based diets. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 84: 365–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, A. J. and Rogers, H. H. 1968. Yield and quality components in maize grown for silage. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 71: 393–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van soest, P. J. and Moore, L. A. 1965. New chemical methods for analysis of forages for the purpose of predicting nutritive value. Proc. IX int. Grassld Congr., Sao Paulo, Brazil, pp. 783–786.Google Scholar
Wilkins, R. J. and Cook, J. E. 1971. Maize ensiled at different dates and fed to sheep. Bull. Maize Devt Ass. 31: 5–6.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, J. M. and Osbourn, D. F. 1976. Objectives in breeding forage maize for improved nutritive value. Proc. 8th int. Congr. Maize and Sorghum Sect. Eucarpia, Versailles, France, pp. 601–639.Google Scholar
Wilson, G. F., Adeeb, N. N. and Campling, R. C. 1973. The apparent digestibility of maize grain when given in various physical forms to adult sheep and cattle. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 80: 259–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmer, E. 1976. Efficiency of harvesting and conservation. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 1: 289–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar