Hostname: page-component-6d856f89d9-gndc8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T05:23:10.392Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effects of the ratio of silage to concentrates in the diet on the performance and carcass composition of continental bulls

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

D. C. Patterson
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co. Down BT26 6DR
R. W. J. Steen
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co. Down BT26 6DR
C. A. Moore
Affiliation:
Greenmount College of Agriculture and Horticulture, 22 Greenmount Road, Antrim, Co. Antrim BT41 4PU
B. W. Moss
Affiliation:
Food Science and Microbiology Division, Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, Newforge Lane, Belfast BT9 5PX
Get access

Abstract

A total of 45 continental bulls (1/2 Blonde d'Aquitaine/3/8 Charolais) were used in a continuous design randomized-block experiment, to examine the effects of the ratio of silage to concentrates in the diet on growth and carcass parameters. The proportions of concentrates in the five diets were 0·26, 0·40, 0·55, 0·68 and 0·75 (DM basis). The basal diet was grass silage with D value 730 g/kg and ammonia nitrogen per unit total nitrogen 86 g/kg. The mean initial and final live weights were 467 and 651 kg respectively, with a mean carcass weight of 384 kg. The digestibility of energy was not affected by the proportion of concentrates in the diet. The rates of live weight, carcass and separable lean tissue gain tended to reach a plateau at the higher concentrate proportions, while the rate of separable fat tissue gain increased linearly with increase in concentrate proportion. The separable lean content of the carcass was linearly and negatively related to the proportion of concentrates, with a predicted decrease of’10 g/kg for an increase in concentrate proportion of 0·16. Separable fat content was also linearly related to the proportion of concentrates, with a predicted increase of 10 g/kg for each 0·196 increase in proportion of concentrates. The absence of any effect of concentrate proportion on the content of saleable meat in the carcass was considered to reflect the high growth potential of the animals. An important conclusion was that 0·99 of the asymptote value for lean tissue gain was attained at a concentrate proportion of 0·52 and that 0·95 of the maximum rate of gain was obtained at the relatively low concentrate proportion of 0·39, therefore indicating that finishing bulls of this type can perform to a high level on diets which are predominately based on grass silage.

Type
Ruminant nutrition, behaviour and production
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2000

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 Research Council. 1965. Recommended procedures for use in the measurement of beef cattle and carcasses. Agricultural Research Council, London.Google Scholar
Drennan, M. J. 1975. Winter feeding of cattle. Irish Grassland and Animal Production Association Journal 10: 7181.Google Scholar
Drennan, M. J. and Keane, M. G. 1987a. Responses to supplementary concentrates for finishing steers fed silage. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 26: 115127.Google Scholar
Drennan, M. J. and Keane, M. G. 1987b. Concentrate feeding levels for unimplanted and implanted finishing steers fed silage. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 26: 129137.Google Scholar
Geay, Y., Robelin, J. and Beranger, C. 1976. Influence of feeding level on liveweight gain and carcass composition in young bulls of different breeds. Annales de Zootechnie 25: 287298.Google Scholar
GENSTAT 5 Committee. 1993. GENSTAT 5. Clardendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Keane, M. G. 1993. Exploitation of beef breed differences. Irish Grassland and Animal Production Association Journal 27: 7880.Google Scholar
Keane, M. G. 1994. Productivity and carcass composition of Friesian, Meuse-Rhine-Issel (MRI) x Friesian and Belgian Blue X Friesian steers. Animal Production 59: 197208.Google Scholar
Keane, M. G., More, O’FerrallG. J. and Connolly, J. 1989. Growth and carcass composition of Friesian, Limousin X Friesian and Blonde d’Aquitaine X Friesian steers. Animal Production 48: 353365.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Cuthbertson, A. and Harrington, G. 1982. Beef carcass grading and classification. In Carcass evaluation in livestock breeding, production and marketing, pp. 163202. Granada, St Albans.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 35: 201211.Google Scholar
More, O’Ferrall G. J. and Keane, M. G. 1990. A comparison for live weight and carcass production of Charoláis, Hereford and Friesian steer progeny from Friesian cows finished on two energy levels and serially slaughtered. Animal Production 50: 1928.Google Scholar
Moss, B. W., Gault, N. F. S., McCaughey, W. J., McLauchlan, W. and Kilpatrick, D. J. 1993. Effect of surgical and immunocastration of beef cattle on carcass quality. In Safety and quality of food from animals (ed. Wood, J. D. and Lawrence, T. L. J.), British Society of Animal Production occasional publication no. 17, pp. 8792.Google Scholar
Patterson, D.C, Moore, C. A. and Steen, R. W. J. 1994. The effects of plane nutrition and slaughter weight on the performance and carcass composition of continental beef bulls given high forage diets. Animal Production 58: 4147.Google Scholar
Patterson, D.C and Steen, R. W. J. 1995. Growth and development in beef cattle. 2. Direct and residual effects of plane of nutrition during early life on the chemical composition of body components. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 124: 101111.Google Scholar
Price, M. A., Jones, D. M., Mathison, G. W. and Berg, R. T. 1980. The effects of increasing dietary roughage level and slaughter weight on the feedlot performance and carcass characteristics of bulls and steers. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 60: 345358.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: 171179.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: 8189.Google Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. 1992. The effects of plane of nutrition and forage: concentrate ratio on the performance and carcass composition of steers. Animal Production 54: 450 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. 1994. Effects of forage: concentrate ratio in the diet and restricted dry-matter intake on the performance and carcass composition of steers. Animal Production 58: 443 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. 1995. The effect of plane of nutrition and slaughter weight on growth and food efficiency in bulls, steers and heifers of three breed crosses. Livestock Production Science 42: 111.Google Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. 1998. A comparison of high forage and high concentrate diets for beef cattle. In The 71st annual report of the Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, pp. 3041.Google Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. and Kilpatrick, D. J. 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: 205213.Google Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. and Kilpatrick, D. J. 1998. Effects of pasture grazing or storage feeding and concentrate input between 5-5 and 11 months of age on the performance and carcass composition of bulls and on subsequent growth and carcass composition at 620 kg live weight. Animal Science 66: 129141.Google Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. and Robson, A. E. 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, Cambridge 125: 125135.Google Scholar