Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T11:42:29.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The use of coarse maize silage as a dietary source of roughage for finishing Limousin bulls: effects on growth performance, feeding behaviour and meat quality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

G. Cozzi ,
F. Gottardo  and
I. Andrighetto
G. Cozzi*
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Scienze Zootecniche, Universita degli Studi di Padova, Viale dell'Università16 Agripolis 35020 Legnaro (PD), Italy
F. Gottardo
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Scienze Zootecniche, Universita degli Studi di Padova, Viale dell'Università16 Agripolis 35020 Legnaro (PD), Italy
I. Andrighetto
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Scienze Zootecniche, Universita degli Studi di Padova, Viale dell'Università16 Agripolis 35020 Legnaro (PD), Italy
*
†Email address: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Two isonitrogenous, isocaloric and isofibrous diets for finishing beef cattle differing only in their roughage constituents were compared in a feeding trial with Limousin bulls. A control maize silage (chop length = 9 mm) and wheat straw were the roughage sources of the former diet representing 0·23 and 0·09 of the dietary dry matter (DM) respectively. These roughage sources were fully replaced in the latter by the inclusion of a coarsely chopped maize silage (19 mm) at a level of 0·45 of the total dietary DM. Two balanced groups of 20 Limousin bulls (425·8 ± 20·3 kg live weight) each allotted in four pens were given the two diets ad libitum for a finishing period of 138 days. The different dietary roughages did not affect either bull growth performance (average daily gain = 1·39 ± 0·25 kg/day) or food conversion ratio. However, the diet containing the coarse silage significantly (P < 0·05) reduced the intake of both DM (8·30 v. 9·02 kg/day) and neutral-detergent fibre (NDF) (2·64 v. 2·92 kg/day). Although total ruminating time was similar for both diets, bulls given the coarse maize silage diet spent more time ruminating 1 kg of DM or NDF, probably due to the higher percentage of dietary forage NDF. No food selection activity towards specific chemical constituents was observed in either diet. Slaughter measurements and meat quality were satisfactory and unaffected by the type of dietary roughage. Based on cattle growth performance, feeding behaviour, and meat quality, the use of coarse maize silage as a dietary source of roughage can be considered a feasible alternative in beef cattle finishing.

Keywords

beef cattlefeeding behaviourgrowth ratemeat qualityroughage
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 80 , Issue 1 , February 2005 , pp. 111 - 118
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2005

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

Andersen, H. R., Jensen, L. R., Munksgaard, L. and Ingvartsen, K. L. 1997. Influence of floor space allowance and access to feed trough on the production of calves and young bulls and on carcass and meat quality of young bulls. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica-Section A 47: 48–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1990. Official methods of analysis, 15th edition. AOAC, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Berzaghi, P., Cozzi, G., Gottardo, F. and Andrighetto, I. 2001. Interaction between chopping length of corn silage and long hay on chewing activity of dry cows. Journal of Dairy Science 84: (suppl. 1) 316 (abstr. ).Google Scholar
Boccard, R., Buchter, L., Casteels, E., Cosentino, E., Dransfield, E., Hood, D. E., Joseph, R. L., McDougall, D. B., Rhodes, D. N., Shön, I., Timbergen, B. J. and Touraille, C. 1981. Procedures for measuring meat quality characteristics in beef production experiments. Report of a working group in the Commission of the European Communities (CEC) beef production research programme. Livestock Production Science 8: 385–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brabander de, D. L., Boever de, J. L., Vanacker, J. M., Boucqué, CH. V. and Bottermann, S. M. 1999. Evaluation of physical structure in dairy cattle nutrition. In Recent advances in animal nutrition(ed. Garnsworthy, P. C. and Wiseman, J.). pp. 111–145. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham.Google Scholar
Burato, G. M., Cozzi, G., Berzaghi, P., Gottardo, F., Mirisola, M. and Andrighetto, I. 2001. Effect of corn silage chopping length on feed quality, feeding behaviour and production of lactating cows. Proceedings of the XIV congress of the Italian Scientific Association of Animal Production, Florence, pp. 216–218.Google Scholar
Campeneere de, S., Fiems, L. O., Bosschere de, H., Boever de, J. L. and Ducatelle, R. 2002a. The effect of physical structure in maize silage-based diets for beef bulls. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 86: 174–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campeneere de, S., Fiems, L. O., Bosschere de, H., Vanacker, J. M. and Ducatelle, R. 2002b. Minimal dietary physical structure level for Belgian Blue double-muscled finishing bulls. Animal Research 51: 51–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, C. P., Marshall, S. A., Mandell, I. B. and Wilton, J. W. 1992. Effects of source of dietary neutral detergent fiber on chewing behavior in beef cattle fed pelleted concentrates with or without supplemental roughage. Journal of Animal Science 70: 894–903.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Canale, A., Valenti, M. E. and Ciotti, A. 1984. Determination of volatile carboxilic acids (C1-C5i) and lactic acid in aqueous acid extracts of silage by high performance liquid chromatography. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 35: 1178–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gottardo, F., Ricci, R., Preciso, S., Ravarotto, L. and Cozzi, G. 2004. Effect of the manger space on welfare and meat quality of beef cattle. Livestock Production Science 83: 277–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Institute National de la Recherche Agronomique. 1988. Alimentation des bovins, ovins et caprins. INRA, Paris.Google Scholar
Institute National de la Recherche Agronomique. 2001. French cattle breeds. http: //www. inapg. inra. fr/dsa/especes/bovins/limousin.htmGoogle Scholar
Joseph, R. L. 1979. Recommended method for assessment of tenderness. In The future of beef production in the European Community(ed. Bowman, J. C. and Susmel, P.), pp. 596–606. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lammers, B. P., Buckmaster, D. R. and Heinrichs, A. J. 1996. A simple method for the analysis of particle sizes of forage and total mixed rations. Journal of Dairy Science 79: 922–928.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Longenbach, J. I., Heinrichs, A. J. and Graves, R. E. 1999. Feed bunk length requirements for Holstein dairy heifers. Journal of Dairy Science 82: 99–109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDonald, P., Henderson, A. R. and Heron, S. J. E. 1991. The biochemistry of silage, second edition. Chalcombe Publications, Marlow.Google Scholar
Maekawa, M., Beauchemin, K. A. and Christensen, D. A. 2002. Chewing activity, saliva production and ruminal pH of primiparous and multiparous lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 85: 1176–1182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, P. and Bateson, P. 1993. Measuring behaviour, an introductory guide. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mertens, D. R. 1992. Nonstructural and structural carbohydrates. In Large dairy herd management(ed. Van Horn, H. H. and Wilcox, C. J.), pp. 219–235. American Dairy Science Association, Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
National Research Council. 2000. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle, seventh revised edition. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Office National Interprofessionnel des Viandes, de l'Elevage et de l'Aviculture. 1984. Coupes et découpes. OFIVAL, Paris.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. C., Steen, R. W. J., Moore, C. A. and Moss, B. W. 2000. Effects of the ratio of silage to concentrates in the diet on the performance and carcass composition of continental bulls. Animal Science 70: 171–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauvant, D., Meschy, F. and Mertens, D. R. 1999. Les composantes de l'acidose ruminale et les effects acidogènes des rations. INRA Productions Animales 12: 49–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare. 2001. The welfare of cattle kept for beef production. http: //europa.eu. int/comm/food/fs/sc/scah/out54_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1989. User's guide: statistics, version 6. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J., Robertson, J. B. and Lewis, B. A. 1991. Method for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74: 3583–3597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed