Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-fwgfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T14:52:45.187Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of soya-bean meal, fish meal and maize gluten feed as protein sources for calves offered grass silage ad libitum

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

R. W. J. Steen
R. W. J. Steen
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co Down BT26 6DR
Get access

Abstract

Two experiments were carried out to evaluate extracted soya-bean meal, fish meal and maize gluten feed as protein supplements for calves offered grass silage ad libitum. The five treatments used in experiment 1 consisted of 1·4 kg per head daily of concentrate dry matter (DM) consisting of (g/kg) 50 molasses and 25 minerals and vitamins plus (1) 925 barley (B), (2) 700 B and 225 extracted soya-bean meal (SBM), (3) 785 B and 140 fish meal (FM), (4) 925 maize gluten feed (MGF) and (5) 2·25 kg DM per head daily of concentrate (1). Those used in experiment 2 consisted of 1·4 kg per head daily of concentrate DM consisting of (g/kg) (1) 1000 B, (2) 800 B and 200 SBM, (3) 860 B and 140 FM, (4) 1000 MGF and (5) 2·25 kg DM per head daily of B. In each experiment the diets were offered to 70 calves which were initially 131 and 130 kg live weight, for periods of 14 and 13 weeks in experiments 1 and 2 respectively. The silages contained 155 and 154 g crude protein (CP) per kg DM; 45 and 77 g ammonia-nitrogen per kg total nitrogen and 698 and 726 g digestible organic matter per kg DM in experiments 1 and 2. Concentrates 1 and 5 contained 104 to 110 g CP per kg DM and concentrates 2, 3 and 4 contained 195 to 204 g CP per kg DM in both experiments. For diets 1 to 5 respectively silage DM intakes were 2·31,2·50,2·53,2·59 and 1 -61 (s.e. 0·097) kg/day; live-weight gains were 0·84,0·98,1 -01, 0·88 and 0·95 (s.e. 0·032) kg/day in experiment 1 and 2·38, 2·53, 2·54, 2·82 and 1·77 (s.e. 0·045) kg/day and 0·90,1·04,1·03,1·05 and 0·99 (s.e. 0·038) kg/day for experiment 2. It is concluded that the use of soya-bean meal rather than fish meal did not affect silage intake or animal performance. Replacing mixtures of barley and soya-bean meal or barley and fish meal with an equal quantity of isonitrogenous maize gluten feed did not affect animal performance in one experiment but significantly reduced it in the other experiment.

Keywords

cattlegrass silageprotein sources
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 54 , Issue 3 , June 1992 , pp. 333 - 339
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1992

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

England, P. and Gill, M. 1985. The effect of fish meal and sucrose supplementation on the voluntary intake of grass silage and live-weight gain of young cattle. Animal Production 40: 259–265.Google Scholar
Garstang, J. R. 1981. Silage supplements for calves. Animal Production 32: 355 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Garstang, J. R., Thomas, C. and Gill, M. 1979. The effect of supplementation of grass silage with fish meal on intake and performance by British Friesian calves. Animal Production 28: 423 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Gill, M. and Beever, D. E. 1982. The effect of protein supplementation on digestion and glucose metabolism in young cattle fed on silage. British Journal of Nutrition 48: 37–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gill, M. and England, P. 1981. The effect of type of protein supplement on voluntary intake and nitrogen retention in calves given grass silage. Animal Production 32: 355 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Gill, M. and England, P. 1984. Effect of degradability of protein supplements on voluntary intake and nitrogen retention in young cattle fed grass silage. Animal Production 39: 31–36.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, E., Hildyard, N., Bunyard, P. and McCully, P. 1990. Imperiled planet, a guide to our endangered ecosystems. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
McDonald, P. and Edwards, R. A. 1976. The influence of conservation methods on digestion and utilization of forages by ruminants. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 201–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. 1975. Manipulation of rumen fermentation for maximum food utilization. World Review of Nutrition and Diet 2: 151–182.Google Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. 1984. A comparison of two-cut and three-cut systems of silage making for beef cattle using two cultivars of perennial ryegrass. Animal Production 38: 171–179.Google Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. 1988. The effect of additive treatment of grass silage and the food additive avoparcin on the response of calves to supplementation of silage-based diets with fish meal. Animal Production 47: 245–252.Google Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. 1989. A comparison of soya-bean, sunflower and fish meals as protein supplements for yearling cattle offered grass silage-based diets. Animal Production 48: 81–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steen, R. W. J., Unsworth, E. F., Gracey, H. I., Kennedy, S. J., Anderson, R. and Kilpatrick, D. J. 1989. Evaluation studies in the development of a commercial bacterial inoculant as an additive for grass silage. 3. Responses in growing cattle and interaction with protein supplementation. Grass and Forage Science 44: 381–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, P. C. 1982. Utilization of conserved forages1. In Forage protein in ruminant animal production (ed. Thomson, D. J., Beever, D. E. and Gunn, R. G.), occasional publication, British Society of Animal Production, no. 6, pp. 67–76.Google Scholar
Thomas, P. C. and Chamberlain, D. G. 1982. The utilization of silage protein. In Forage protein conservation and utilization, Commission of the European Communities seminar, Dublin, pp. 121–145.Google Scholar
Unsworth, E. F. 1981. The composition and quality of grass silage made in Northern Ireland—an analysis of seven years results (1973·1979). Record of Agricultural Research Northern Ireland 29: 91–97.Google Scholar