Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T13:32:18.589Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The efficiency of energy utilization in growing cattle consuming fresh perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne cv. Melle) or white clover (Trifolium repens cv. Blanca)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

S. B. Cammell ,
D. J. Thomson ,
D. E. Beever ,
M. J. Haines ,
M. S. Dhanoa  and
M. C. Spooner
S. B. Cammell
Affiliation:
The Grassland Research Institute,*Hurley, Near Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
D. J. Thomson
Affiliation:
The Grassland Research Institute,*Hurley, Near Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
D. E. Beever
Affiliation:
The Grassland Research Institute,*Hurley, Near Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
M. J. Haines
Affiliation:
The Grassland Research Institute,*Hurley, Near Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
M. S. Dhanoa
Affiliation:
The Grassland Research Institute,*Hurley, Near Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
M. C. Spooner
Affiliation:
The Grassland Research Institute,*Hurley, Near Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. Twenty Friesian steers (225 kg live weight) were fed on mid- (M) (June-July) and late- (L) (August- September) season crops of either fresh perennial ryegrass (Loliumperenne cv. Melle) (G) or white clover (Trifolium repens cv. Blanca) (C). Each of the forage diets was offered at three restricted planes of nutrition above main- tenance to compare the effect of forage species on the efficiency of energy utilization. All diets were harvested daily from swards of regrowth forage of intended equivalent digestibility.

2. Faecal and urine excretions were measured for 7 and 5 d respectively, followed by two consecutive 24 h measurements of methane, carbon dioxide and oxygen exchange in open-circuit respiration chambers.

3. The apparent digestibility of the energy in perennial ryegrass (0.759) was marginally higher (P < 0.01) than that in white clover (0.748);the mid- and late-season forages were of similar (P > 0.05)digestibilities. Metabolizable energy (ME):digestible energy (DE) in diet G (0.837) was significantly (P < 0,001) different from that in diet C (0.812). The partition of energy losses when expressed as MJ/GJ gross energy intake (GEI) indicated that energy lost as methane was not significantly different (P > 0.05) either between forages (G 62.8, C 63.4) or between seasons (M 63.2, L 63.1). Energy excretion in urine was higher for cattle fed on diet C (77.5) compared with diet G (60.5)(P < 0.001). Heat production was similar (P 0.05) between forages (G 480, C 478), but lower (P < 0.01) for L (471) compared with M(486). Energy retention (by difference) was lower (P < 0.001) for diet C (132) than G (156) and for M (138) than L (149) (P < 0.05).

4. Parallel-line analysis of unscaled ME intake (MEI) in relation to retained energy (RE; MJ/d) indicated that the efficiency of utilization (kr) was similar (P > 0.05) between perennial ryegrass (0.42) and white clover (0.46). Linear extrapolation of the values to zero energy retention indicated that maintenance requirements of ME (Em MJ/d) were 23.3 for diet G and 28.8 for diet C. The extrapolated Emwhen expressed in relation to a measured fasting heat production (FHP) of 22.8 (MJ/d) resulted in a derived efficiency of utilization of ME for maintenance (km) of 0.97 (G) and 0.79 (C), suggesting an underestimate of Em for diet G.

5. Asymptotic exponential curves (representing the law ofdiminishing returns) were fitted to the unscaled values, ME1 and RE (MJ/d), and extrapolated to zero energy retention and zero energy intake. The derived estimates of FHP (MJ/d) 18.0 (G) and 22.0 (C) were not significantly different (P > 0.05) from the observed value of 22.8 MJ/d. Using the measured FHP as additional data points, the exponential model accounted for significantly more variance (P < 0,001) compared with the linear regression method of analysis. Exponential analysis resulted in estimates of Em (MJ/d) of 29.04 for diet G and 31.80 for C. The k, for each forage was calculated, assuming linearity of response, as 0.78 (G) and 0.72 (C). The calculation of k, at fixed positions on the exponential curve related to ME1 (expressed as multiples of Em)indicated that above 1.65 Em, kt was significantly higher for C than G (P < 0.05). With increasing plane of nutrition kf declined from 0.53 to 0.29 (G) and 0.55 to 0.36 (C) over the ME1 range measured during the experiment.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 55 , Issue 3 , May 1986 , pp. 669 - 680
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1986

References

REFERENCES

Agricultural Research Council (1980). The Nutrient Requirements of Farm Livestock no. 2. Ruminants. Farnham Royal: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
Beever, D. E., Thomson, D. J., Ulyatt, M. J., Cammell, S. B., Austin, A. R. & Spooner, M. C. (1985). British Journal of Nutrition 54, 763–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. (1962). The Energy Metabolism of Ruminants. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. & Boyne, A. W. (1970). In Energy Metabolism of Farm Animals, European Association for Animal Production Publication no. 13, pp. 9– 13 [ Schurch, A. and Wenk, C. editors]. Vitznau, Switzerland: Juris Verlagzurich.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. & Boyne, A. W. (1978). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 90, 47–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. & Graham, N. McC. (1955). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 46, 292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brierem, K. (1953). Tid Sskrift For Det Norske Landbruk 60, 25.Google Scholar
Brouwer, E. (1965). In Energy Metabolism, European Association for Animal Production Publication no. 11, pp. 441–443 [ Blaxter, K. L. editor]. London & New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cammell, S. B. (1977). Technical Report no. 24. Hurley: Grassland Research Institute.Google Scholar
Cammell, S. B., Beever, D. E., Skelton, K. V. & Spooner, M. C. (1981). Laboratory Practice 30, 115–119.Google Scholar
Cammell, S. B., Beever, D. E., Thomson, D. J., Austin, A. R., Losada, H. R., Evans, R. T., Spooner, M. C. & Terry, R. A. (1983). Animal Production 36, 501.Google Scholar
Corbett, J. L., Langlands, J. P., McDonald, I. & Pullar, J. D. (1966). Animal Production 8, 13–27.Google Scholar
Efron, B. (1979). Annals of Statistics 7, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibb, M. J. & Treacher, T. T. (1983). Animal Production 37, 433–440.Google Scholar
Gill, E. M., Black, J. L., Thornley, J. H. M., Oldham, J. D. & Beever, D. E. (1984). British Journal of Nutrition 52, 621–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joyce, J. P. & Newth, R. P. (1967). Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 27, 166–180.Google Scholar
Lonsdale, C. R. & Tayler, J. C. (1971). Animal Production 13, 384.Google Scholar
MacRae, J. C. & Ulyatt, M. J. (1974). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 82, 309–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neal, H. D. St. C., Thomas, C. & Cobby, J. M. (1984). Journal of Agricultural Science 103, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rae, A. J., Brougham, B. W., Glenday, A. C. & Butler, G. W. (1963). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 61, 187–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rattray, P. V. & Joyce, J. P. (1974). New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 17, 401–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, G. L., Porter, R. H. D. & Robinson, I. (1979). Dairy Production Research Report, pp. 59–60. Victoria, Australia: Department of Agriculture, Division of Animal Research.Google Scholar
Siddons, R. C. & Paradine, J. (1981). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 32, 973–981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, D. J. (1979). In Changes in Sward Composition and Productivity, British Grassland Society, Occasional Symposium No. 10, pp. 101–109 [Charles, A. H. and Haggar, R. J. editors]. York: British Grassland Society.Google Scholar
Thomson, D. J., Beever, D. E., Haines, J. J., Cammell, S. B., Evans, R. T., Dhanoa, M. S. & Austin, A. R. (1985). Journal of Dairy Research 52, 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, D. J., Haines, M. J., Austin, A. R., Cammell, S. B., Beever, D. E., Dhanoa, M. S. & Barnes, R. L. (1983). Animal Production 36, 501.Google Scholar
Tilley, J. M. A. & Terry, R. A. (1963). Journal of the British Grassland Society 18, 104–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulyatt, M. J., Beever, D. E., Thornson, D. J., Evans, R. T. & Haines, M. J. (1980). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 39, 67A.Google Scholar
Ulyatt, M. J., Lancashire, J. A. & Jones, W. R. (1977). Proceedings of the New Zealand Grassland Association 38, 107–118.Google Scholar
Van Es, A. J. H. (1961). Verslagen van Landbouwkundige Onderzoekingen 67, 5.Google Scholar
Vercoe, J. E. & Frisch, J. E. (1974). In Energy Metabolism of Farm Animals, European Association for Animal Production Publication no. 14, pp. 131–134 [ Menke, K. H.Lantzsch, H -J. and Reichl, J. R. editors]. Hohenheim: Universitat Hohenheim Dokumentationsstelle.Google Scholar
Webster, A. J. F. (1978). World Review of Nutrition and Dietetics 30, 189–226.Google Scholar
Webster, A. J. F., Brockway, J. & Smith, J. S. (1974). Animal Production 19, 127–139.Google Scholar