Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T12:55:49.692Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Maize silage, grain sorghum silage and forage sorghum silage in diets with different proportions of concentrate for the finishing of weaner lambs.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

J. W. Cilliers ,
H. J. Cilliers  and
W. R. L. Nel
J. W. Cilliers
Affiliation:
North West Agricultural Development Institute, Private Bag X804, Potchefstroom 2520, South Africa
H. J. Cilliers
Affiliation:
North West Agricultural Development Institute, Private Bag X804, Potchefstroom 2520, South Africa
W. R. L. Nel
Affiliation:
North West Agricultural Development Institute, Private Bag X804, Potchefstroom 2520, South Africa
Get access

Abstract

The potential of diets, based on maize silage (M), non-bird-resistant grain sorghum silage (NBRGS), bird-resistant grain sorghum silage (BRGS) and forage sorghum silage (FS), in different proportions with concentrate for each silage, was evaluated for the finishing of weaner lambs. On a dry basis the ratios of silage: concentrate were 70: 30, 60:40, 50:50, 40: 60 and 30: 70 respectively for each of the silages. The concentrate mixtures were composed of different quantities of maize meal and soya-bean oilcake meal in order to balance the crude protein contents of the different diets used from weaning to 35 kg live weight and from 35 kg live weight to slaughter at 140 and 110 g/kg respectively.

Better apparent digestibilities of dry matter, crude protein and acid-detergent fibre as well as food conversion to live weight were found for diets with M or NBRGS as roughage sources compared with those with BRGS and FS as roughage sources. At the lower levels of concentrate inclusion in the diets the dressing proportions, carcass grades and food conversion to carcass weight for the diets with M and NBRGS as roughage sources were also better than were those with BRGS and FS as roughage sources. Although higher levels of concentrate inclusion in the diets to a large extent rectified these biological disadvantages of the diets based on BRGS and FS, they will also cause a rise in the price of the diet.

Keywords

concentratesfinishinglambsmaize silagesorghum silage
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 66 , Issue 1 , February 1998 , pp. 189 - 196
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1998

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

Black, J. R., Ely, L. O., McCullough, M. E. and Sudweeks, E. M. 1980. Effect of stage of maturity and silage additives upon the yield of grass and digestible energy in sorghum silage Journal of Animal Science 50: 617–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boshoff, P. J., Oosthuysen, D. and Van der Rheede, H. A. 1977. Energy supplementatio n to maize silage for slaughter lamb production. South African Journal of Animal Science 7: 21–24.Google Scholar
Browning, C. B. and Lusk, J. W. 1966. Comparison of feeding value of corn and grain sorghum silages on the basis of milk production and digestibility Journal of Dairy Science 49: 1511–1514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cilliers, J. W. 1984. Meat production from unfertilized and fertilized Cymbopogon — Themeda summer veld. Ph.D. (Agric.) thesis, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa.Google Scholar
Clare, N. T. and Stevenson, A. E. 1964. Measurement of feed intake by grazing cattle and sheep. ×. Determination of nitrogen in faeces and feeds using an auto analyzer. New Zealand Journal ofAgricultural Research 7: 198–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, D. G. 1971. Relationships between tannin content and forage digestibility in sorghum Agronomy Journal 63: 500–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Brouwer, C. H. M., Van der Mervve, H. J. and Snyman, L. D. 1991. A laboratory study of the composition and fermentation of various crop silages South African Journal of Animal Science 21: 21–27.Google Scholar
Fox, D. G., Klosterman, E. W., Newland, H. W. and Johnson, R. R. 1970. Net energy of corn and bird resistant grain sorghum rations for steers when fed as grain or silage. Journal of Animal Science 30: 303–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groenewald, J. W. and Boyazoglu, P. A. 1980. Animal nutrition. J. L. van Schaik (Pty.) Ltd, Pretoria.Google Scholar
MacVicar, C. N., De Villiers, J. M., Loxton, R. F., Verster, E., Lambrechts, J. J. N., Merryweather, F. R., Le Roux, J., Van Rooyen, T. H. and Harmse, H. J. von M. 1977. Soil classification: a binomial system for South Africa. Department of Agriculture, Pretoria, Scientific Bulletin 390.Google Scholar
Owen, F. G., Kuiken, J. R. and Webster, D. J. 1962. Value of sterile forage sorghum hybrids as silages for lactating cows Journal of Dairy Science 45: 55–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schutte, A. R. 1994. Finishing systems for beef steers. Ph.D. (Agric.) thesis, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa.Google Scholar
Statistical Graphics Corporation. 1993. Statgraphics, version 7. Statistical graphics system. Manugistics Inc., Cambridge.Google Scholar
Van der Merwe, H. J., Van Schalkwyk, A. P. and Van Rensburg, L. J. J. 1978. Different ratios of silage and concentrate for fattening weaner calves South African Journal of Animal Science 8: 137–142.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. 1963. Use of detergents in the analysis of fibrous feeds. II. A rapid method for the determination of fibre and lignin. Journal of the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists 46: 829–835.Google Scholar