Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-02T19:37:31.056Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An evaluation of red clover silage for beef production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

R. W. J. Steen  and
W. A. McIlmoyle
R. W. J. Steen
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co. Down
W. A. McIlmoyle
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co. Down
Get access

Abstract

Two experiments have been conducted to compare wilted, formic acid-treated red clover and unwilted, formic acid-treated grass silages for beef production, and to examine the effects of digestibility of red clover and level of concentrate supplementation on food intake and animal performance.

In experiment 1, 12 groups of four British Friesian steers (initial live weight 229 kg) were given red clover silages of high and low dry-matter digestibility (0·70 and 0·60 respectively) and grass silage (0·71) ad libitum for a period of 11 weeks. Silage dry-matter intake and live-weight gain for the steers given red clover of high digestibility, red clover of low digestibility and grass silages were 7·75, 0·89; 6·91, 0·69; and 5·59, 0·59 kg/day respectively.

In experiment 2, 12 groups of four British Friesian steers (initial live weight 332 kg) were given red clover silage with a dry-matter digestibility of 0·63 and grass silage with a value of 0·76 ad libitum, either unsupplemented or supplemented, with 2 kg/day of fortified barley per head for a period of 19 weeks. Silage dry-matter intake, live-weight gain and carcass gain were 8·52, 0·63, 0·32 and 6·98, 0·78, 0·43 kg/day for the unsupplemented and supplemented red clover silage treatments, and 6·82, 0·59, 0·31 and 5·75, 0·75, 0·44 kg/day for the unsupplemented and supplemented grass silage treatments respectively. The performance of the cattle offered red clover silage was similar to that of cattle offered grass silage of 0·12 higher digestibility, largely as the result of higher dry matter intakes achieved on red clover silage.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , February 1982 , pp. 95 - 101
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1982

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

Alder, F. E., McLeod, D. St L. and Gibbs, B. G. 1969. Comparative feeding value of silages made from wilted and unwilted grass and grass/clover herbage. J. Br. Grassld Soc. 24: 199–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campling, R. C. and Murdoch, J. C. 1966. The effect of concentrates on the voluntary intake of roughages by cows. J. Dairy Res. 33: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, D. P., Drennan, M. J. and Flynn, A. V. 1977. Potential of Irish grassland for beef production. Proc. Int. Meet. Anim. Prod. Temperate Grassld, Dublin, pp. 12–19.Google Scholar
Day, N., Harkess, R. D. and Harrison, D. M. 1978. A note on red clover silage for cattle finishing. Anim. Prod. 26: 97–100.Google Scholar
Dewar, W. A. and McDonald, P. 1961. Determination of dry matter in silage by distillation with toluene. J. Sci. Fd Agric. 12: 790–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flynn, V. 1978. The effect of ensiling on the beef production potential of grass. In Proc. 5th Silage Conf., Ayr, pp. 48–49.Google Scholar
Flynn, A. V. and Wilson, R. K. 1978.The relative importance of digestibility, ensiling, fermentation and dry matter content in limiting the utilization of silage by beef cattle. Proc. 7th Gen. Meet. Eur. Grassld Fed., Ghent, pp. 6.3–6.15.Google Scholar
Forbes, T. J. and Jackson, N. 1971. A study of the utilization of silages of different dry-matter content by young beef cattle with or without supplementary barley. J. Br. Grassld Soc. 26: 257–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frame, J. 1975. Productivity of tetraploid red clover. J. Br. Grassld Soc. 30: 89 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Frame, J., Harkess, R. D. and Hunt, I. V. 1974. Potentiality studies of red clover (Trifolium pratense L.). Proc. 13th Int. Grassld Congr., Moscow, Section 2, pp. 125–129.Google Scholar
Greenhalgh, J. F. D. and Reid, G. W. 1977. Zero grazing of clovers by beef cattle. Proc. Int. Meet. Anim. Prod. Temperate Grassld, Dublin, p. 139 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Greenhalgh, J. F. D. and Wainman, F. W. 1980. The utilisation of energy in conserved forages. In Forage Conservation in the 80's (ed. Thomas, C.), Occ. Symp. Br. Grassld Soc, No. 11, pp. 122–130.Google Scholar
Hinks, C. E., Edwards, I. E. and Henderson, A. R. 1976. Beef production from formic acid-treated and wilted silages. Anim. Prod. 22: 217–223.Google Scholar
McIlmoyle, W. A. 1976. Silage for beef production. Occ. Publ. Agric. Res. Inst. Nth. Ire.Google Scholar
Cilmoyle, W. A. 1978. The effect of level of supplementation and silage regrowth interval on the performance of beef cattle. Anim. Prod. 26: 361–362 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
MacKie, C. K. and Copeman, G. J. F. 1976. Development of the use of tetraploid red clover. J. Br. Grassld Soc 31: 43 (Abstr.).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. 1967. Factors affecting the voluntary intake of silage and hay. J. Br. Grassld Soc. 22: 95–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. 1980a. The effect of animal size on the response in animal performance to an improvement in silage quality. Anim. Prod. 30: 467 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. 1980b. The effect of wilting grass silage and monensin sodium on the intake and performance of beef cattle. Ir. Grassld Anim. Prod. Ass. J. 15: 102 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Tayler, J. C., Aston, K. and Gibbs, B. G. 1977. Evaluation of the conserved products of grasses and legumes and their use with other feeds for beef production. A. Rep. Grassld Res. Inst., 1976, pp. 94–97.Google Scholar
Tayler, J. C. and Wilkins, R. J. 1976. Conserved forage — complement or competitor to concentrates. In Principles of Cattle Production (ed. Swan, H. and Broster, W. H.), pp. 343–364. Butterworth, London.Google Scholar