Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T11:36:40.521Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of two-cut and three-cut systems of silage making for beef cattle using two cultivars of perennial ryegrass

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
Get access

Abstract

Two randomized-block experiments have been carried out to examine the effects of increasing the digestibility of grass silage offered to beef cattle by harvesting three crops of grass after shorter growth intervals rather than two crops after longer growth intervals. In experiment 1 early-cut silages were harvested on 1 June, 16 July and 24 August, and late-cut silages on 20 June and 22 August 1979. In experiment 2 the early-cut silages were harvested on 19 May, 2 July and 20 August, and the late-cut silages on 5 June and 12 August 1980. Early- and late-cut silages were made from each of two cultivars of perennial ryegrass (cultivars Cropper and Talbot). The silages were unwilted and had formic acid applied at 2.5 1/t fresh crop.

In experiment 1 the silages were offered ad libitum, both unsupplemented and supplemented with 2·2 kg concentrates per head daily, to 88 cattle of mixed beef breeds and mean initial live weight 337 kg, in a 2 × 2 × 2 factorial design. In experiment 2 the silages were offered ad libitum and supplemented with 2·4 kg of concentrates per head daily to 56 Charolais × (Aberdeen Angus × Friesian) cattle of mean initial live weight 351 kg, in a 2 × 2 factorial design. Grass cultivar did not significantly affect silage intake or animal performance but intake, live-weight gain and carcass gain were significantly higher for the early-cut than for the late-cut silages in both experiments. In experiment 1 silage dry-matter intakes were 6·33, 5·12, 5·80 and 4·67 (s.e. 0·124) kg/day; live-weight gains were 0·72, 0·89, 0·47 and 0·76 (s.e. 0·029) kg/day; and carcass gains were 0·46, 0·60, 0·27 and 0·48 (s.e. 0·016) kg/day, for the unsupplemented and supplemented early-cut silages, and the unsupplemented and supplemented late-cut silages, respectively. In experiment 2 silage dry-matter intakes were 5·49 and 4·95 (s.e. 0·056) kg/day; live-weight gains Were 0·95 and 0·76 (s.e. 0·033) kg/day; and carcass gains were 0·67 and 0·50 (s.e. 0·17) kg/day, for the early- and late-cut silages, respectively.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 38 , Issue 2 , April 1984 , pp. 171 - 179
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1984

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

Bartholomew, P. W. 1975. Effect of defoliation and nitrogen treatment on total and seasonal production of grass. 48th A. Rep. agric. Res. Inst. Nth Ire., 1974–1975, pp. 24–29.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. and Clapperton, J. L. 1965. Prediction of the amount of methane produced by ruminants. Br. J. Nutr. 19: 511–522.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blaxter, K. L. and Wilson, R. S. 1962. The voluntary intake of roughages by steers. Anim. Prod. 4: 351–358.Google Scholar
Collins, D. P. and McCarrick, R. B. 1969. The effect of time and frequency of cutting on total and seasonal production of herbage. Ir.J. agric. Res. 8: 29–40.Google Scholar
Flynn, A. V. 1974. Supplementing early- and late-cut silages with barley for store cattle. An Foras Talúntais Anim. Prod. Res. Rep., pp 31–32.Google Scholar
Harkess, R. D. and Alexander, R. H. 1969. The digestibility and productivity of selected herbage varieties. J. Br. Grassld Soc. 24: 282–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holliday, R. and Wilman, D. 1965. The effect of fertilizer nitrogen and frequency of defoliation on yield of grassland herbage. J. Br. Grassld Soc. 20: 32–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarrick, R. B. 1965. Effects of stage of growth and method of herbage conservation on performance of weanling cattle. lr. J. agric. Res. 4: 161–178.Google Scholar
McCarrick, R. B. 1966. Effect of method of grass conservation and herbage maturity on performance and body composition of beef cattle. Proc. 10th int. Grassld Congr., Helsinki, pp. 575–580.Google Scholar
Minson, D. J., Raymond, W. F. and Harris, C. E. 1960. Studies in the digestibility of herbage. VIII. The digestibility of S37 cocksfoot, S23 ryegrass and S24 ryegrass. J. Br. Grassld Soc. 15: 174–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moisey, F. R. and Leaver, J. D. 1979. A comparison of a three- with a two-cut silage system for dairy cattle. Anim. Prod. 28: 422 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Reid, D. 1966. Studies on the cutting management of grass-clover swards. IV. The effects of close and lax cutting on the yields of herbage from swards cut at different frequencies. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 66: 101–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, D. 1968. Studies on the cutting management of grass-clover swards. VI. The effect of different closeness and frequency of cutting treatments on the yield and quality of herbage from a cocksfoot/white clover sward. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 70: 59–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. 1982. The effect of digestibility of grass silage on the intake and performance of beef cattle. 55th A. Rep. agric. Res. Inst. Nth Ire., 1981–1982, pp. 38–44.Google Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. 1983. The effect of cutting frequency on the yield of grass for silage and the performance of beef cattle. lr. Grassld Anim. Prod. Ass. J. 17: 110 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. 1984. The effect of wilting grass prior to ensilage and monensin sodium on the intake and performance of beef cattle. Grass & Forage Sci. In press.Google Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. and McIlmoyle, W. A. 1982a. Effect of animal size on the response in the performance of beef cattle to an improvement in silage quality. Anim. Prod. 34: 301–308.Google Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. and McIlmoyle, W. A. 1982b. The effect of frequency of harvesting grass for silage and level of concentrate supplementation on the intake and performance of beef cattle. Anim. Prod. 35: 245–252.Google Scholar
Strickland, M. J. and Jackson, M. V. 1969. Effect of date of cut on yield and quality of hay for beef production; Part II. Liveweight gains by bullocks. Expl Husb. No. 18, pp. 74–86.Google Scholar
Swift, G. and Edwards, R. A. 1975. Ear emergence, yield and quality of grass varieties. A. Rep. Edinb. Sch. Agric., pp. 82–83.Google Scholar
Tas, M. V. and Bee, R. 1980. Liveweight gains of beef cattle fed on early cut hay or silage, or hays cut at different stages of growth. In Forage Conservation in the 80's (ed. Thomas, C.), Occ. Symp. Br. Grassld Soc, No. 11, pp. 369–371.Google Scholar
Thomas, C., Gibbs, B. G., Aston, K. and Tayler, J. C. 1980. Some factors influencing the performance of beef cattle given silage. In Forage Conservation in the 80's (ed. Thomas, C.), Occ. Symp. Br. Grassld Soc, No. 11, pp. 383–387.Google Scholar
Thomas, C., Gibbs, B. G. and Tayler, J. C. 1981. Beef production from silage. 2. The performance of beef cattle given silages of either perennial ryegrass or red clover. Anim. Prod. 32: 149–153.Google Scholar
Vadiveloo, J. and Holmes, W. 1979. The effects of forage digestibility and concentrate supplementation on the nutritive value of the diet and performance of finishing cattle. Anim. Prod. 29: 121–129.Google Scholar