Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:36:14.629Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of forage digestibility and concentrate supplementation on the nutritive value of the diet and performance of finishing cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

J. Vadiveloo  and
W. Holmes
J. Vadiveloo
Affiliation:
Wye College, University of London, Ashford, Kent
W. Holmes
Affiliation:
Wye College, University of London, Ashford, Kent
Get access

Abstract

Hays varying from 58 to 75% organic matter digestibility (OMD) were offered ad libitum to steers weighing approximately 400 kg, together with concentrates at rates varying from 0·0 to 8·5 g organic matter (OM)/kg live weight per day. Total digestible OM intake (DOMI) increased linearly by 0·75 g/g concentrate OM intake (OMI) for a hay of 58% OMD, but by only 0·26 to 0·36 g/g concentrate OMI for hays above 70% OMD. With hays above 70% OMD, supplementary feeding had little effect on the overall OMD of the diet but significantly depressed the cellulose digestibility of the diet. With the hays of lower digestibility, supplementary feeding increased the OMD of the diet by an average of 0·90% units/unit concentrate OMI, and had no significant effect on the cellulose digestibility of the diet. Live-weight gain increased with increasing digestibility of the hay and with increasing level of supplement.

In multiple regression equations, variations in hay digestibility and concentrate intake accounted for from 77 to 91% of the variation in hay intake, diet digestibility and total DOM intake.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , August 1979 , pp. 121 - 129
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1979

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

Andrews, R. P., Escuder-Volonte, J., Curran, M. K. and Holmes, W. 1972. The influence of supplements of energy and protein on the intake and performance of cattle fed on cereal straws. Anim. Prod. 15: 167–176.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. and Wilson, R. S. 1962. The voluntary intake of roughages by steers. Anim. Prod. 4: 351–358.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. and Wilson, R. S. 1963. The assessment of a crop husbandry technique in terms of animal production. Anim. Prod. 5: 27–42.Google 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
Crampton, E. W. and Maynard, L. A. 1938. The relation of cellulose and lignir content of the nutritive value of animal feeds. J. Nutr. 15: 383–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curran, M. K., Wimble, R. H. and Holmes, W. 1970. Prediction of the voluntary intake of food by dairy cows. 1. Stall-fed cows in late pregnancy and early lactation. Anim. Prod. 12: 195–212.Google Scholar
Forbes, T. J. and Renton, A. R. 1975. A comparison of two hays for beef production. J. Br. GrassldSoc. 30: 171–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golding, E. J., Moore, J. E., Franke, D. E. and Ruelke, O. C. 1976. Formulation of hay-grain diets for ruminants. II. Depression in voluntary intake of different quality forages by limited grain in sheep. J. Anim. Sci. 42: 717–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, J. O., Corrall, A. J. and Terry, R. A. 1971. Grass species and varieties. Relationships between stage of growth, yield and forage quality. Tech. Rep. No. 8, Grassld. Res. Inst., Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire.Google Scholar
Leaver, J. D. 1973. Rearing of dairy cattfe. 4. Effect of concentrate supplementation on the live-weight gain and feed intake of calves offered roughages ad libitum. Anim. Prod. 17: 43–52.Google Scholar
Mathieson, J. 1970. The automated estimation of chromic oxide. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 29: 30A–31A.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland and Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland. 1975. Energy allowances and feeding systems for ruminants. Tech. Bull. 33. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Murdoch, J. C. 1964. Some factors affecting the intake of roughage by sheep. J. Br. GrassldSoc. 19: 316–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osbourn, D. F., Terry, R. A., Cammell, S. B. and Outen, G. E. 1970. Some effects of feeding supplements of maize meal and sodium bicarbonate upon the digestion of forage cellulose by sheep. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 29: 12A–13A. (Abstr.).Google ScholarPubMed
Raymond, W. F. 1969. The nutritive value of forage crops. Adv. Agron. 21:1–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. and Cochran, W. G. 1967. Statistical Methods, pp. 436–438. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Ia.Google Scholar
Sullivan, J. T. 1962. Methods for the analysis of forage plants with particular reference to carbohydrate constituents. US Dept. Agric. Publ. CR-81-62.Google Scholar
Terry, R. A., Tilley, J. M. A. and Outen, G. E. 1969. Effect of pH on cellulose digestion under in vitro conditions. J. Sci. Fd Agric. 20: 317–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Topps, J. H., Reed, W. D. C. and Elliott, R. C. 1965. The effect of season and of supplementary feeding on the rumen contents of African cattle grazing subtropical herbage. II. pH values and concentration and proportions of volatile fatty acids. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 64: 397–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar