Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-31T23:01:02.592Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of replacing grass silage with maize silages differing in inclusion level and maturity on the performance, meat quality and concentrate-sparing effect of beef cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2012

T. W. J. Keady ,
A. W. Gordon  and
B. W. Moss
T. W. J. Keady
Affiliation:
Beef Unit, Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, County Down BT26 6DR, UK Biometrics Division, Department of Agriculture and Rural Development for Northern Ireland, Newforge Lane, Belfast BT9 5PX, UK Faculty of Agriculture, The Queen's University of Belfast, Newforge Lane, Belfast BT9 5PX, UK
A. W. Gordon
Affiliation:
Biometrics Division, Department of Agriculture and Rural Development for Northern Ireland, Newforge Lane, Belfast BT9 5PX, UK
B. W. Moss
Affiliation:
Biometrics Division, Department of Agriculture and Rural Development for Northern Ireland, Newforge Lane, Belfast BT9 5PX, UK Faculty of Agriculture, The Queen's University of Belfast, Newforge Lane, Belfast BT9 5PX, UK
Get access

Abstract

The effects of maturity of maize at harvest, level of inclusion and potential interactions on the performance, carcass composition, meat quality and potential concentrate-sparing effect when offered to finishing beef cattle were studied. Two maize silages were ensiled that had dry matter (DM) concentrations of 217 and 304 g/kg and starch concentrations of 55 and 258 g/kg DM, respectively. Grass silage was offered as the sole forage supplemented with either 4 or 8 kg concentrate/steer daily or in addition with one of the two maize silages at a ratio 0.5 : 0.5, on a DM basis, maize silage : grass silage supplemented with 4 kg concentrate daily. The two maize silages were also offered as the sole forage supplemented with 4 kg concentrate/steer daily. The forages were offered ad libitum. The six diets were offered to 72 steers (initial live weight 522 s.d. 23.5 kg) for 146 days. There were significant interactions (P < 0.05) between maize maturity and inclusion level for food intake, fibre digestibility and daily gain. For the grass silage supplemented with 4 or 8 kg concentrate, and the maize silages with DM concentrations of 217 and 304 g/kg offered as 0.5 or 1.0 of the forage component of the diet, total DM intakes were 8.3, 9.8, 8.9, 8.2, 9.2 and 9.8 kg DM/day (s.e. 0.27); live-weight gains were 0.74, 1.17, 0.86, 0.71, 0.88 and 1.03 kg/day (s.e. 0.057); and carcass gains were 0.48, 0.73, 0.56, 0.46, 0.56 and 0.63 kg/day (s.e. 0.037), respectively. Increasing the level of concentrate (offered with grass silage), maize maturity and level of maize inclusion reduced (P < 0.05) fat b* (yellowness). The potential daily concentrate-sparing effect, as determined by carcass gain, for the maize silages with DM concentrations of 217 and 304 g/kg offered as 0.5 and 1.0 of the forage component of the diet were 1.3, −0.3, 1.3 and 2.4 kg fresh weight, respectively. It is concluded that the response, in animal performance, including maize silage is dependent on the stage of maturity and level of inclusion in the diet. Maize silage with a DM of 304 g/kg offered ad libitum increased carcass gain by 31%, because of a combination of increased metabolizable energy (ME) intake and improved efficiency of utilization of ME, and produced carcasses with whiter fat.

Keywords

beef cattlemaize silage maturitymaize inclusion levelmeat qualityconcentrate feed level
Type
Nutrition
Information
animal , Volume 7 , Issue 5 , May 2013 , pp. 768 - 777
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2012

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 and Food Research Council (AFRC) 1990. Technical committee on responses to nutrients, Report No. 5, Nutritive requirements of ruminant animals: energy. Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews (Series B) 60, 729–804.Google Scholar
Dunne, PG, Monahan, FJ, O'Mara, FP, Moloney, AP 2009. Colour of bovine subcutaneous adipose tissue: a review of contributory factors, associated with carcass and meat quality and its potential utility in authentication of dietary history. Meat Science 81, 28–45.Google Scholar
Fishell, VK, Aberle, ED, Judge, MD, Perry, TW 1985. Palatibility and muscle properties of beef as influenced by pre-slaughter growth rate. Journal of Animal Science 61, 151–157.Google Scholar
Gordon, FJ 1980. The effect of interval between harvests and wilting on silage for milk production. Animal Production 31, 35–41.Google Scholar
Keady, TWJ 2000. Beyond the science: what the farmer looks for in the production of silage. In Biotechnology in the feed industry. Proceedings of Alltech's 16th Annual Symposium, Lexington, Kentucky, USA (ed. TP Lyons and KA Jacques), pp 439–452. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham, UK.Google Scholar
Keady, TWJ 2005. Ensiled maize and whole crop wheat forages for beef and dairy cattle: effects on animal performance. In Silage production and utilization. Proceedings of the 14th International Silage Conference, Belfast, Northern Ireland, July 2006 (ed. RS Park and MD Stronge), pp 65–82. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Keady, TWJ, Hanrahan, JP 2013. Effects of silage from maize crops differing in maturity at harvest, grass silage feed value and concentrate feed level on performance of finishing lambs. Animal (submitted).Google Scholar
Keady, TWJ, Kilpatrick, DJ 2005. Prediction of carcass weight from live weight. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, York, UK, 179pp.Google Scholar
Keady, TWJ, Mayne, CS, Kilpatrick, DJ 2003. The effects of maturity of maize at harvest on the performance of lactating dairy cows offered three contrasting grass silages. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, p. 126.Google Scholar
Keady, TWJ, Mayne, CS, Marsden, M 1998. The effects of concentrate energy source on silage intake and animal performance with lactating dairy cows offered a range of grass silages. Animal Science 66, 21–33.Google Scholar
Keady, TWJ, Steen, RWJ, Kilpatrick, DJ, Mayne, CS 1994. Effects of inoculant treatment on silage fermentation, digestibility and intake by growing cattle. Grass and Forage Science 49, 284–294.Google Scholar
Keady, TWJ, Mayne, CS, Fitzpatrick, DA, Marsden, M 1999. The effects of energy source and level of digestible undegradable protein in concentrates on silage intake and performance of lactating dairy cows offered a range of grass silages. Animal Science 68, 763–777.Google Scholar
Keady, TWJ, Kilpatrick, CM, Cushnahan, A, Murphy, JA 2002. The cost of producing and feeding forages. Proceedings of the 13th International Silage Conference, Auchincruive, Scotland, pp. 322–323.Google Scholar
Keady, TWJ, Mayne, CS, Offer, NW, Thomas, C 2004. Prediction of voluntary intake. InFeed into milk – a new applied feeding system for dairy cows (ed. C Thomas), pp. 1–10. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham, UK.Google Scholar
Keady, TWJ, Lively, FO, Kilpatrick, DJ, Moss, BW 2007. Effects of replacing grass silage with either maize or whole crop wheat silages on the performance and meat quality of beef cattle offered two levels of concentrate. Animal 1, 613–623.Google Scholar
Keady, TWJ, Kilpatrick, DJ, Mayne, CS, Gordon, FJ 2008a. Effects of replacing grass silage with maize silages, differing in maturity, on performance and potential concentrate sparing effect of dairy cows offered two feed value grass silages. Livestock Science 119, 1–11.Google Scholar
Keady, TWJ, Lively, FO, Kilpatrick, DJ, Moss, BW 2008b. The effects of grain treatment, grain feed level, and grass silage feed value on the performance of, and meat quality from finishing beef cattle. Animal 2, 149–159.Google Scholar
Keane, MG, Drennan, MJ, Moloney, AP 2006. Comparison of supplementary concentrate levels with grass silage, separate or total mixed feeding, and duration of finishing in beef steers. Livestock Science 103, 169–180.Google Scholar
Kempster, AJ, Cuthbertson, A, Harrington, G 1982. Beef carcass grading and classification. In Carcass evaluation in livestock breeding, production and marketing, pp. 163–201. Granada, St. Albans.Google Scholar
Lively, FO, Keady, TWJ, Kilpatrick, DJ, Moss, BW 2005. Preliminary effects of altering plane of nutrition during different stages of the life cycle, and gender, on meat quality of beef cattle. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, York, UK, 174pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lively, FO, Keady, TWJ, Dawson, LER, Moss, BW, Kilpatrick, DJ 2008. The effects of forage: concentrate ratio on meat quality of bulls slaughtered at a range of liveweights. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, Scarborough, 51pp.Google Scholar
Lively, FO, Keady, TWJ, Moss, BW, Farmer, LJ, Gault, NFS, Tolland, ELC, Patterson, DCP, Gordon, AG 2006. The effect of beef genotype, pelvic hanging technique and aging period on the eating quality of some hindquarter muscles. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal. Science, York, UK, 20pp.Google Scholar
Phipps, RH, Sutton, JD, Beever, DE, Jones, AK 2000. The effect of crop maturity on the nutritional value of maize silage for lactating dairy cattle. 3. Food intake and milk production. Animal Science 71, 401–409.Google Scholar
Porter, MG, Murray, RS 2001. The volatility of components of grass silage on oven-drying and inter-relationships between dry matter content estimated by different analytical methods. Grass and Forage Science 56, 405–411.Google Scholar
Steen, RWJ, Kilpatrick, DJ 1995. Effects of plane of nutrition and slaughter weight on the carcass composition of serially slaughtered bulls, steers and heifers of three breed crosses. Livestock Production Science 43, 205–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steen, RWJ, Robson, AE 1995. Effects of forage to concentrate ratio in the diet and protein intake on the performance and carcass composition of beef heifers. Journal of Agricultural Science 125, 125–135.Google Scholar
Steen, RWJ, Kilpatrick, DJ 2000. The effects of the ratio of grass silage to concentrates in the diet and restricted dry matter intake on the performance and carcass composition of beef cattle. Livestock Production Science 62, 181–192.Google Scholar
Steen, RWJ, Kilpatrick, DJ, Porter, MG 2002. Effects of the proportions of high or medium digestibility grass silage and concentrates in the diets of beef cattle on ADG, carcass composition and fatty acid composition of muscle. Grass and Forage Science 57, 279–291.Google Scholar
Steen, RWJ, Gordon, FJ, Dawson, LER, Park, RS, Mayne, CS, Agnew, RE, Kilpatrick, DJ, Porter, MG 1998. Factors affecting the intake of grass silage by cattle and prediction of silage intake. Animal Science 66, 115–127.Google Scholar