Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T05:16:36.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of date of cut and barley substitution on gain and on the efficiency of utilization of grass silage by growing cattle

2. Nutrient supply and energy partition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

D. E. Beever ,
S. B. Cammell ,
C. Thomas ,
M. C. Spooner ,
M. J. Haines  and
D. L. Gale
D. E. Beever
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute for Grassland and Animal Production, Animal and Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
S. B. Cammell
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute for Grassland and Animal Production, Animal and Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
C. Thomas
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute for Grassland and Animal Production, Animal and Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
M. C. Spooner
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute for Grassland and Animal Production, Animal and Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
M. J. Haines
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute for Grassland and Animal Production, Animal and Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
D. L. Gale
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute for Grassland and Animal Production, Animal and Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. The effect of harvesting date of perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) on the nutritive value of the resultant silage and the effect of substitution of late-cut silage with barley was examined in growing cattle. The diets comprised early-cut (H) and late-cut (L) silage offered alone or with 280 (LCI) or 560 (LC2) g rolled barley/kg total dry matter (DM) substituted for late-cut silage.

2. Both silages were prepared with the addition of formic acid (850 g/l; 2.4 litres/t fresh weight) to a partially wilted crop, and were judged to be well fermented (pH 3.9, 3.8) with lactic acid contents of 108 and 73 g/kg DM, total nitrogen contents of 24.6 and 18.4 g/kg DM and ammonia-N contents of 121 and 124 g/kg total N (values for early- and late-cut silages respectively).

3. Two experiments were conducted to measure duodenal non-NH3-N (NAN) supply in relation to N intake on the four diets (feeding level 18 g DM/kg live weight (LW)) and to examine the partition of the metabolizable energy (ME) supply from the four diets using open-circuit indirect calorimetry (three feeding levels, 14, 17 and 20 g DM/kg LW). The experiments were undertaken with eight and nine Friesian male castrates respectively with a mean starting weight of 300 kg and age 12 months. The animals used in Expt 1 had been previously fitted with cannulas into the dorsal rumen and the proximal duodenum.

4. NAN supply was significantly higher on diet H than all other diets which were similar irrespective of the level of barley inclusion. Mean ME contents (MJ/kg DM) of the two silages differed markedly (H 11.9, L 9.7) and barley addition (LCI and LC2) restored values to 10.7 and 11.1 MJ/kg DM respectively. Estimated NAN absorption in relation to energy supply was significantly higher for diet H (1.47 g/MJ ME) than for all other diets (mean 1.25 g/MJ ME).

5. Partition of ME supply using conventional linear analysis indicated dietary differences with respect to estimated ME for maintenance (L > H, LCI and LC2) and efficiency of utilization of ME supplied above maintenance (L > H, LCI and LC2), but difficulties in biological interpretation of these findings led to the use of exponential curve analysis. This provided an improved description of the findings, and whilst dietary differences were apparent, none were statistically significant. It was concluded that a single exponential equation could be used satisfactorily to describe all values.

6. The consequence of these findings in relation to the carcass retentions of energy. fat and protein reported by Thomas et al. (1988) is discussed and possible reasons for the discrepancies in energy retention measured by comparative slaughter balance and open-circuit indirect calorimetry are considered.

Type
General Nutrition papers
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 60 , Issue 2 , September 1988 , pp. 307 - 319
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1988

References

Agricultural Research Council (1980). The Nutrient Requirements of Farm Livestock no. 2, Ruminants. Farnham Royal: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
Agricultural Research Council (1984). The Nutrient Requirements of Farm Livestock no. 2, Ruminants, Suppl. no. 1. Farnham Royal: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
Beever, D. E. (1980). In Forage Conservation in the 80's. Proceedings of European Grassland Federation Meeting, Brighton. British Grassland Society Occasional Publication no. 11, pp. 131–143 [Thomas, C. editor]. Hurley, Maidenhead, British Grassland Society.Google Scholar
Beever, D. E., Cammell, S. B., Haines, M. J., Gale, D. L. & Thomas, C. (1984). Animal Production 37, 533.Google Scholar
Beever, D. E., Dhanoa, M. S., Losada, H. R., Evans, R. T., Cammell, S. B. & France, J. (1986 a). British Journal of Nutrition 56, 439–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beever, D. E., Kellaway, R. C., Thomas, D. J., MacRae, J. C., Evans, C. C. & Wallace, A. S. (1978). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 90, 157–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beever, D. E., Thomson, D. J., Cammell, S. B. & Harrison, D. G. (1977). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 88, 61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beever, D. E., Thomson, D. J., Pfefler, E. & Armstrong, D. G. (1971). Brirish Journal of Nutrition 26, 123–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beever, D. E., Thomson, D. J., Siddons, R. C. & Thomas, C. (1986 b). Journal of Dairy Science 69, 219.Google Scholar
Beever, D. E., Thomson, D. J., Ulyatt, M. J., Cammell, S. B., Austin, A. R. & Spooner, M. C. (1985). British Journal of Nutrition 54, 763–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bibby, J. & Tentenburg, H. (1977). Prediction and Improved Estimation in Linear Models. London: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Brouwer, E. (1965). In Energy Metabolism, European Association for Animal Production Publication no. II, pp. 441–443. [Blaxter, K. L., editor]. London and New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bull, L. S., Tyrrell, H. F. & Reid, J. T. (1976). Energy Metabolism of Farm Animals, European Association of Animal Production Publication no. 19, p. 137–140.Google Scholar
Cammell, S. B. (1977). Technical Report no. 24. Hurley, Maidenhead: Grassland Research Institute.Google Scholar
CammellS, B. S, B., Beever, D. E., Skelton, K. V. & Spooner, M. C. (1981). Laboratory Practice 30, 115–119.Google Scholar
Cammell, S. B., Thomson, D. J., Beever, D. E., Haines, M. J., Dhanoa, M. S. & Spooner, M. C. (1986). British Journal of Nutrition 55, 669–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, R. T., Hayes, D. G. & Beever, D. E. (1981 a). Laboratory Practice 30, 591–593.Google Scholar
Evans, R. T., Skelton, K. V. & Beever, D. E. (1981 b). Laboratory Practice 30, 997–1000.Google Scholar
Faichney, G. J. (1975). In Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminanl, pp. 277–291 [McDonald, I.W., Warner, A. C. I., editors]. Armidale, Australia: University of New England Publishing Unit.Google Scholar
Graham, N. McC. (1982). Energy Metabolism of Farm Animals, European Association of Animal Production Publication no. 29, pp. 108–111.Google Scholar
Graham, N. McC. & Searle, T. W. (1972). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 23, 97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogan, J. P. & Weston, R. H. (1970). In Physiology of Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant, pp. 474–485 [Phillipson, A. T., editor]. Newcastle upon Tyne: Oriel Press.Google Scholar
Kelly, N. C., Thomas, P. C. & Chamberlain, D. G. (1978). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 37, 34A.Google Scholar
Møller, P. D. & Thomson, K. V. (1977). Institut for Husdjurens Uffordring och vard, Rapport no. 54, pp. 27–54.Google Scholar
National Research Council (1970). Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle, 5th ed. Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Siddons, R. C., Evans, R. T. & Beever, D. E. (1979). British Journal of Nutrition 42, 535–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theil, H. (1966). Applied Economic Forecasting, Chapter 2. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Thomas, C., Gibbs, B. G., Beever, D. E. & Thurnham, B. R. (1988). British Journal of Nutrition 60, 297–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, D. J. & Beever, D. E. (1980). In Digestive Physiology and Metabolism in Ruminants, pp. 291–308. [Ruckebusch, Y., Thivend, P., editors.] Lancaster: MTP Press Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, D. J., Fenton, J. S. & Cammell, S. B. (1979). British Journal of Nutrition 41, 223–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, H. G. & Tayler, C. S. (1983). World Review of Nutrition and Dietetics 42, 135–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulyatt, M. J., Thomson, D. J., Beever, D. E., Evans, R. T. & Haines, M. J. (1988). Briti.sh Journal of Nutrition 60, I37–149.Google Scholar
Woodward, C. J. H., Trayhurn, P. & James, W. P. T. (1976). British Journal of Nutrition 36, 567–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar