Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T02:14:26.763Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of level of protein supplementation on the performance and carcass composition of young bulls given 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 have been carried out to examine the effects of the level of protein supplementation given with grass silage-based diets on the performance and carcass composition of bulls, and to compare diets based on silage and dried forage. The five treatments used consisted of grass silage offered ad libitum and supplemented with 2·5 kg dry matter (DM) of barley-based concentrates containing (1) zero (2) 200 (3) 400 and (4) 600 g soya-bean meal per kg and (5) artificially dried grass and hay supplemented with 3·2 kg concentrate DM. The silages used in both experiments were well preserved, containing on average 200 g DM per kg; 140 g crude protein (CP) per kg DM; 63 g ammonia-nitrogen per kg total N and 731 g digestible organic matter per kg DM. The bulls were of late-maturing breed type and were initially 12 months old and 412 and 405 kg live weight in experiments 1 and 2 respectively. For treatments 1, 2, 4 and 5 in experiment 1 respectively (treatment 3 was not used) total DM intakes were 8·3, 8·3, 81 and 110 (s.e. 0·21) kg/day; CP intakes 1063, 1271, 1664 and 1539g/day; metabolizable energy intakes (MEI) 98, 99, 96 and 87 MJ/day; carcass weights 317, 316, 317 and 316 (s.e. 3·2) kg; carcass saleable meat concentrations 714, 712, 718 and 716 (s.e. 5·8) g/kg and carcass fat trims 73, 81, 73 and 68 (s.e. 3·9) g/kg. In experiment 2 for treatments 1 to 5 respectively total DM intakes were 8·3, 8·5, 8·3, 8·4 and 11·2 (s.e. 0·26) kg/day; CP intakes were 1090, 1329, 1504, 1720 and 1561 g/day; MEI 102, 106, 103, 103 and 94 MJ/day; carcass weights 318, 331, 330, 327 and 321 (s.e. 3·3) kg; carcass saleable meat concentrations 726, 721, 725, 721 and 732 (s.e. 60) g/kg and fat trims 71, 77, 78, 80 and 64 (s.e. 4·5) g/kg. It is concluded that protein supplementation of a silage-based diet did not affect performance or carcass fatness in experiment 1 or carcass fatness in experiment 2, but including 200 or 400 g soya-bean meal per kg concentrate increased performance in experiment 2. Animals given silage produced fatter carcasses than those given dried forage in experiment 2 but not in experiment 1.

Keywords

beef cattleprotein supplementssilage
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 52 , Issue 3 , June 1991 , pp. 465 - 475
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1991

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

Agricultural Research Council. 1965. Recommended Procedures for Use in the Measurement of Beef Cattle and Carcasses. Agricultural Research Council, London.Google Scholar
Agricultural Research Council. 1980. The Nutrient Requirements of Ruminant Livestock. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough.Google Scholar
Beever, D. E., Cammell, S. B., Thomas, C., Spooner, M. C., Haines, M. J. and Gale, D. L. 1988. 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. British Journal of Nutrition 60: 307–319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drennan, M. J. 1973. Supplementation of silage with protein for beef cattle. Irish Grassland and Animal Production Association Journal 8: 32–41.Google Scholar
Drennan, M. J. 1983. Supplementary concentrates for young fattening bulls fed silage. An Foras Taluntais, Animal Production Research Report, pp. 13–14.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
Kempster, A. J., Cuthbertson, A. and Harrington, G. 1982. Beef Carcase Grading and Classification. In Carcase Evaluation in Livestock Breeding, Production and Marketing, pp. 163–201. Granada, London.Google Scholar
Kirby, P. S., Chalmers, A. J. and Hannam, D. A. R. 1983. Fish meal supplementation of grass silage diets for fattening British Friesian steers. Animal Production 36: 538 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Kirby, P. S., Outhwaite, J. R. and Jones, T. O. 1984. A comparison of two types of fish meal as protein supplements for finishing British Friesian steers given grass silage ad libitum. Animal Production 38: 551 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Lonsdale, C. R. 1976. The effect of season of harvest on the utilization by young growing beef cattle of dried grass given alone or as a supplement to silage. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Reading.Google Scholar
Lowman, B. G., Neilson, D. R. and Hunter, E. A. 1985. The effect of growth promoters on fattening cattle: growth, intake and carcass composition. Animal Production 40: 538 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
McCarrick, R. B. 1966. Effect of method of grass conservation and herbage maturity on performance and body composition of beef cattle. Proceedings of the 10th International Grassland Congress, Helsinki, pp. 575–580.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: 201–211.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ørskov, E. R., McDonald, I., Grubb, D. A. and Pennie, K. 1976. The nutrition of the early weaned lamb. IV. Effects on growth rate, food utilization and body composition of changing from a low to a high protein diet. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 86: 411–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robson, A. E. and Steen, R. W. J. 1989. The effects of forage: concentrate ratio and protein supplementation for finishing beef heifers. Animal Production 48: 618 (Abstr.).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. 1988a. Factors affecting the utilization of grass silage for beef production. In Efficient Beef Production from Grass (ed. Frame, J.), Occasional Publication No. 22, British Grassland Society, pp. 129–139.Google Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. 1988b. The effect of supplementing silage-based diets with soya bean and fish meals for finishing beef cattle. Animal Production 46: 43–51.Google Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. 1988c. The effect of implantation with hormonal growth promoters on the response in the performance of beef cattle to protein supplementation of a silage-based diet. Animal Production 47: 21–28.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. 1991. The effects of level of protein supplementation given with grass silage, and a comparison of silage and dried forage for finishing beef cattle. Animal Production In press.Google Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. and Moore, C. A. 1988. A comparison of silage-based and dried forage-based diets for finishing beef cattle. Animal Production 47: 29–37.Google Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. and Moore, C. A. 1989. A comparison of silage-based and dried forage-based diets, and the effect of protein supplementation of a silage-based diet for finishing beef cattle. Animal Production 49: 233–240.Google Scholar
Thomas, P. C. 1982. Utilization of conserved forage. In Forage Protein in Ruminant Animal Production (ed. Thompson, D. J., Beever, D. E. and Gunn, R. G.), Occasional Publication of the 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