Feeding value for finishing beef steers of wheat grain conserved by different techniques

Stacey, Pamela; O’Kiely, P.; Moloney, A.P.; O’Mara, F.P.

doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2006.07.016

Cited by 1 publication

(8 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the current study, no differences were observed in DMI among the crimped grain treatments. In earlier experiments with separate feeding Stacey et al (2007) and Keady et al (2008) observed that steers fed with urea-treated wheat had 14-17% higher silage DMI compared to steers fed with acid-treated wheat. Keady et al (2008) found 7% higher total DMI in urea treatment relative to acid treatment and speculated that the increased intake due to urea treatment was probably associated with changed rumen fermentation patterns.…”

Section: Effects Of Grain Preservation Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…Huhtanen (1984a) observed that the animals fed with high moisture ensiled barley (DM content 574 g/kg) consumed their concentrate faster than those fed with dried barley (DM content 874 g/kg) whereas the groups showed no significant differences in gain, feed conversion or carcase characteristics. Stacey et al (2007) found that beef steers offered urea-treated whole grain wheat (DM content 746 g/kg) had lower live weight (LW) gain (LWG) and carcase gain than steers offered acid-treated crimped wheat (DM content 705 g/kg) or propionic acid-treated whole grain wheat (DM content 849 g/kg) although urea-treated grain contained more crude protein (CP) compared to other treatments. Stacey et al (2007) concluded that the urea treatment as used in their study was not satisfactory due to the high loss of apparently undigested whole wheat grains through the animals.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Stacey et al (2007) found that beef steers offered urea-treated whole grain wheat (DM content 746 g/kg) had lower live weight (LW) gain (LWG) and carcase gain than steers offered acid-treated crimped wheat (DM content 705 g/kg) or propionic acid-treated whole grain wheat (DM content 849 g/kg) although urea-treated grain contained more crude protein (CP) compared to other treatments. Stacey et al (2007) concluded that the urea treatment as used in their study was not satisfactory due to the high loss of apparently undigested whole wheat grains through the animals. However, in farming practice such grain would have to undergo a processing such as rolling or crimping.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In earlier studies, high moisture grain has been fed successfully to cattle (e.g. Flipot and Pelletier, 1980; Gibson et al ., 1988; Stacey et al ., 2007) but the results have been partly contradictory. Similar gain and feed efficiency were observed when dry barley (DM at harvesting 866 g/kg) and high moisture barley (DM at harvesting 748–778 g/kg) were fed ad libitum with alfalfa-timothy silage to dairy steers but the steers fed with high moisture barley tended to have higher DM intake (DMI) than those fed with dried barley (Flipot and Pelletier, 1980).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Stacey et al . (2007) found that beef steers offered urea-treated whole grain wheat (DM content 746 g/kg) had lower live weight (LW) gain (LWG) and carcase gain than steers offered acid-treated crimped wheat (DM content 705 g/kg) or propionic acid-treated whole grain wheat (DM content 849 g/kg) although urea-treated grain contained more crude protein (CP) compared to other treatments. Stacey et al .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Effects of different barley grain preservation techniques on intake, growth and carcase traits of finishing dairy bulls fed grass silage-based rations

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of different barley grain preservation techniques on intake, growth and carcase traits of dairy bulls were determined in a feeding trial using 52 Holstein and 48 Nordic Red bulls which were allotted to four feeding treatments (five pens and 25 bulls per treatment). Spring barley was harvested with a conventional combine harvester and four different preservation techniques formed the four experimental treatments. Dry grain (DG) was dried to the targeted dry matter (DM) concentration of 870–880 g/kg and rolled within 7 days prior to feeding. High moisture grain treated with a formic acid-based additive (FA) was harvested and crimped on the targeted DM content of 700 g/kg. Low moisture grain treated with a urea-based additive (UR) and low moisture grain treated with a propionic acid-based additive (PA) were harvested and crimped on the targeted DM content of 800 g/kg. The bulls were fed with total mixed ration ad libitum. On DM basis, the diets included grass silage (500 g/kg), barley grain (485 g/kg) and a mineral–vitamin mixture (15 g/kg). Daily DM intake (DMI) and live weight gain were 6% higher when crimped grains were used instead of DG (P < 0.05). There were no observed significant differences in DMI, gain or carcase traits between high moisture and low moisture crimped grain treatments or between UR and PA. The current results show that producers have the option to vary grain preservation system without major changes to growth performance or carcase traits.

show abstract

Section: Effects Of Grain Preservation Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 90%