The effects of concentrate energy source on silage intake and animal performance with lactating dairy cows offered a range of grass silages

et al. 2007

There is a paucity of data on the beef production potential of Norwegian Red (NOR) compared with 'modern' Holstein-Friesian (HF) cattle. The present study used a total of 64 bulls in a 2 3 2 factorial design study encompassing two breeds (HF and NOR) and two slaughter ages (485; E, and 610; L, days). The mean initial age and live weight of the HF bulls were 179 (s.d. 47.1) days and 203 (s.d. 64.0) kg, while the corresponding data for the NOR bulls were 176 (s.d. 39.7) days and 185 (s.d. 63.6) kg, respectively. Bulls were offered a 50 : 50 mixture (dry matter (DM) basis) of grass silage and concentrates. No breed 3 slaughter group interactions were recorded for any parameters evaluated (P . 0.05). HF bulls had higher (P , 0.001) DM intake and poorer (P , 0.01) efficiency of conversion of food to carcass gain than NOR bulls. HF bulls tended (P 5 0.07) to have a higher rate of live-weight gain and were heavier (P , 0.001) at slaughter than NOR bulls, though both carcass weight and rate of carcass gain did not differ between the breeds (P . 0.05). NOR bulls had higher (P , 0.001) dressing proportion and carcass conformation score than HF bulls, while breed of bull had no influence (P . 0.05) on carcass fat classification, depth of subcutaneous fat, marbling score or on the weight of fat in the internal depots. Daily food intakes did not differ (P . 0.05) across the two slaughter age groups, though efficiency of conversion of food to carcass gain was poorer (P , 0.05) in the L compared with E bulls. Rate of live-weight gain was lower (P , 0.01) for L bulls, although rate of carcass gain did not differ (P . 0.05) between the E and L bulls. Increasing age at slaughter increased (P , 0.01 or greater) dressing proportion, carcass fat class, depth of subcutaneous fat, marbling score and internal fat depots, but had no effect (P . 0.05) on the carcass conformation score. Instrumental measures of meat quality indicated that meat from NOR bulls was tougher (P , 0.01) than meat from HF bulls, while delaying slaughter increased (P , 0.001) a* and C* ab , and decreased (P , 0.01) h 0 , indicating improved redness. It is concluded that NOR bulls have higher food efficiency and produce more highly conformed carcasses than HF bulls, but HF bulls produce more tender meat.

“…Concentrates were sampled daily and bulked weekly for the determination of DM, N, ash, ADF and NDF concentrations. Chemical analyses were undertaken as described by Keady et al (1998 and.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beef production potential of Norwegian Red and Holstein-Friesian bulls slaughtered at two ages

Kirkland

Patterson

et al. 2007

“…Chemical composition of silage, concentrate, urine and faeces were determined as described by Keady et al (1998Keady et al ( , 1999.…”

Section: Measurementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Gordon

Moss

2013

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, 20.3, 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 cattle, maize silage maturity, maize inclusion level, meat quality, concentrate feed level ImplicationsThe response to maize silage inclusion in grass silage-based diets of beef cattle depends on maturity at harvest and level of inclusion in the diet. Maize silage with a dry matter concentration of 304 g/kg offered as the sole forage resulted in the highest level of performance because of a combination of increased forage intake and improved efficiency of utilization of metabolizable energy. Maturity of maize silage had no impact on animal performance when offered as 0.5 of the forage. Maize silage has a daily concentrate-sparing effect per steer of up to 2.4 kg. Therefore, increasing the inclusion of maize, harvested at the optimum stage of maturity, in the diet...

“…Chemical composition of silages, concentrate and soya bean meal was as described by Keady et al (1998 and1999). The DMD and ME concentrations of the grass silages and the ME concentration of the maize silages were predicted as described by Park et al (1998) and Givens et al (1995), respectively.…”

Section: Measurementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of silage from maize crops differing in maturity at harvest, grass silage feed value and concentrate feed level on performance of finishing lambs

Hanrahan

2013

The effects of (i) medium and high feed value (MFV and HFV) maize silages and (ii) MFV and HFV grass silages, each in combination with a range of concentrate feed levels, on the performance of finishing lambs were evaluated using 280 Suffolk-X lambs (initial live weight 36.1 kg). The MFV and HFV maize silages represented crops with dry matter (DM) concentrations of 185 and 250 g/kg, respectively, at harvest, and had starch and metabolisable energy (ME) concentrations of 33 and 277 g/kg DM and 9.6 and 11.0 MJ/kg, respectively. HFV and MFV grass silages had DM and ME concentrations of 216 and 294 g/kg and 11.0 and 11.5 MJ/kg DM, respectively. A total of 13 treatments were involved. The four silages were offered ad libitum with daily concentrate supplements of 0.2, 0.5 or 0.8 kg per lamb. A final treatment consisted of concentrate offered ad libitum with 0.5 kg of the HFV grass silage daily. Increasing the feed value of grass silage increased (P , 0.001) forage intake, daily carcass and live weight gains, final live weight and carcass weight. Increasing maize silage feed value tended to increase (P 5 0.07) daily carcass gain. Increasing concentrate feed level increased total food and ME intakes, and live weight and carcass gains. There was a significant interaction between silage feed value and the response to concentrate feed level. Relative to the HFV grass silage, the positive linear response to increasing concentrate feed level was greater with lambs offered the MFV grass silage for daily live weight gain (P , 0.001), daily carcass gain (P , 0.01) and final carcass weight (P , 0.01). Relative to the HFV maize silage, there was a greater response to increasing concentrate feed level from lambs offered the MFV maize silage in terms of daily carcass gain (P , 0.05) and daily live weight gain (P 5 0.06). Forage type had no significant effect on the response to increased concentrate feed level. Relative to the MFV grass silage supplemented with 0.2 kg concentrate, the potential concentrate-sparing effect of the HFV grass silage, and the MFV and HFV maize silages was 0.41, 0.09 and 0.25 kg daily per lamb, respectively. It is concluded that increasing forage feed value increased forage intake and animal performance, and maize silage can replace MFV grass silage in the diet of finishing lambs as performance was equal to or better (depending on maturity of maize at harvest) than that for MFV grass silage.