Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T08:44:33.848Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of mechanical treatment of silage on intake and production of sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

S. M. Apolant  and
D. M. B. Chestnutt
S. M. Apolant
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co. Down
D. M. B. Chestnutt
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co. Down
Get access

Abstract

Over a period of 3 years, silages subjected to various mechanical treatments by the use of conventional silage harvesters were offered ad libitum to pregnant ewes and to castrated male lambs and the effects on intake and productivity were measured. The intake of silage made from grass harvested with a precision-chop harvester was substantially greater than the intake of silage made with other types of harvester (especially, a flail harvester), causing a lower degree of comminution.

Mean daily silage dry-matter intake of ewes was 0·99 kg and 1·28 kg in mid-pregnancy, and 0·85 kg and 1·10 kg in late pregnancy with flail-harvested and precision-chop silages respectively. Silage was supplemented with various levels of concentrate in late pregnancy and an increasing level of concentrates did not reduce silage intake. In early lactation, when 800 g concentrate was given daily, ewes consumed 1·00 kg flail-harvested silage and 1·39 kg precision-chop silage. Compared with flail-harvested silage, precision-chop silage increased ewe body weight immediately post lambing by 5·1 kg, lamb birth weight by 0·27 kg and lamb growth rate by 58 g/day. Increases in intake of precision-chop silages by hoggets were on average greater, though more variable, than by ewes and were reflected in increased carcass weight.

The reason for the increased intake of the finely-chopped silage was examined. It would appear that the major factor is the physical size of particle involved though there was some evidence that improved fermentation resulting from finer chopping may have been partly responsible for increased intake.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , April 1985 , pp. 287 - 296
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1985

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

Anderson, Kathleen J. 1956. Microbiology of silage. Nature, Land. 177: 96–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deswysen, A., Vanbelle, M. and Focant, M. 1978. The effect of silage chop length on the voluntary intake and rumination behaviour in sheep. J. Br. Grassld Soc. 33: 107–115.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dulphy, J. P. and Demarouilly, C. 1972. [Effect of type of harvester on the feeding value of silage. 1. Preliminary results.] Annls Zootech. 21: 163–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dulphy, J. P. and Demarouilly, C. 1973. [Effect of type of forage harvester and chopping fineness on the feeding value of silage.] Annls Zootech. 22: 199–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenhalgh, J. F. D. and Wainman, F. W. 1972. The nutritive value of processed roughages for fattening cattle and sheep. Proc. Br. Soc. Anim. Prod. (New Ser.), pp. 61–72.Google Scholar
Marsh, R. 1978. A review of the effects of mechanical treatment of forages on fermentation in the silo and on the feeding value of the silages. N.Z. J. Exp. Agric. 6: 271–278.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1981. Feeding the Ewe. Sheep Improvement Services, Meat and Livestock Commission, Bletchley, Milton Keynes.Google Scholar
Murdoch, J. C. 1964. Some factors affecting the intake of roughage by sheep. J. Br. Grassld Soc. 19: 316–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murdoch, J. C. 1965. The effect of length of silage on its voluntary intake by cattle J. Br. Grassld Soc. 20: 54–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murdoch, J. C., Baichil, A., Holdsworth, Muriel C. and Wood, Marion. 1955. The effect of chopping, lacerating and wilting of herbage on the chemical composition of silage J. Br. Grassld Soc. 10: 181–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, J. J. 1977. The influence of maternal nutrition on ovine foetal growth. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 36: 9–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robinson, J. J., Foster, W. H. and Forbes, T. J. 1968. An assessment of the variation in milk yield of ewes determined by the lamb suckling technique. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 70: 187–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, J. J., McDonald, I., Fraser, C. and Crofts, R. M. J. 1977. Studies on reproduction in prolific ewes. 1. Growth of the products of conception. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 88: 539–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russel, A. J. F., Doney, J. M. and Gunn, R. G. 1969. Subjective assessments of body fat in live sheep. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 72: 451–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheehan, W. and Lawlor, M. J. 1972. Energy supplementation of silage for ewes in late pregnancy. Anim. Prod. 15: 29–37.Google Scholar
Stirling, A. C. 1951. Bacterial changes in experimental laboratory silage. Proc. Soc. appl. Bad. 14: 151–156.Google Scholar
Wieringa, G. W. 1959. Some factors affecting silage fermentation. 1. Influence of laceration and storage temperature. Neth. J. agric. Sci. 7: 134–137.Google Scholar