Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T22:49:13.877Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of silage additives on intake, live-weight gain and carcass traits of growing and finishing dairy bulls fed pre-wilted grass silage and barley grain-based ration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2017

A. HUUSKONEN ,
A. SEPPÄLÄ  and
M. RINNE
A. HUUSKONEN*
Affiliation:
Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Green Technology, Tutkimusasemantie 15, FI-92400 Ruukki, Finland
A. SEPPÄLÄ
Affiliation:
Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Green Technology, Humppilantie 14, FI-31600 Jokioinen, Finland
M. RINNE
Affiliation:
Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Green Technology, Humppilantie 14, FI-31600 Jokioinen, Finland
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The effects of silage additives on performance of dairy bulls were determined in a feeding trial using 45 Nordic Red and 45 Holstein bulls. Both breeds were allotted randomly to three treatments: (1) timothy silage (TS) without additives + barley (CON); (2) TS with sodium benzoate, potassium sorbate and sodium nitrate-based additive + barley (SALT); and (3) TS with a mixture of mostly formic acid and propionic acid-based additive + barley (ACID). The bulls were fed total mixed rations ad libitum. During the experimental period of 259 days, the average dry matter intake was 10·1 kg/d and there was no difference among the treatments. The average live-weight gain (LWG) and carcass gain was 1363 and 741 g/d, respectively. There were no treatment differences in the carcass gain but LWG of the CON bulls was 5% higher compared with the SALT and ACID bulls. Carcass conformation score of the SALT and ACID bulls was 6% higher compared with the CON bulls. The experiment demonstrated that there was only a slight benefit from silage additives in animal performance when silage dry matter was 350–400 g/kg and silage was ensiled in round bales.

Type
Animal Research Papers
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 155 , Issue 8 , October 2017 , pp. 1342 - 1352
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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.)

Footnotes

†

Current address: Eastman Chemical Company, Typpitie 1, FI-90620 Oulu, Finland

References

Agnew, R. E. & Carson, M. T. (2000). The effect of a silage additive and level of concentrate supplementation on silage intake, animal performance and carcass characteristics of finishing beef cattle. Grass and Forage Science 55, 114–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
AOAC (1990). Official Methods of Analysis. Arlington, Virginia, USA: Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Inc.Google Scholar
DeVries, T. J., von Keyserlingk, M. A. G., Weary, D. M. & Beauchemin, K. A. (2003). Technical note: validation of a system for monitoring feeding behavior of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 3571–3574.Google Scholar
EC (2006). Council regulation (EC) No 1183/2006 of 24 July 2006 concerning the community scale for the classification of carcasses of adult bovine animals. Official Journal of the European Union L 214, 1–6.Google Scholar
Haacker, K., Block, H. J. & Weissbach, F. (1983). Zur kolorimetrischen Milchsäurebestimmung in Silagen mit p-Hydroxydiphenyl. [On the colorimetric determination of lactic acid in silages with p-hydroxydiphenyl]. Archiv für Tierernährung 33, 505–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heikkilä, T., Toivonen, V. & Tupasela, T. (1997). Effect of additives on big bale silage quality and milk production. In Book of Abstracts of the 48th Annual Meeting of the European Association of Animal Production (Ed. van Arendonk, J. A. M), p. 119. Vienna, Austria: Wageningen Pers.Google Scholar
Heikkilä, T., Saarisalo, E., Taimisto, A-M. & Jaakkola, S. (2010). Effects of dry matter and additive on wilted bale silage quality and milk production. Grassland Science in Europe 15, 500–502.Google Scholar
Huhtanen, P., Khalili, H., Nousiainen, J. I., Rinne, M., Jaakkola, S., Heikkilä, T. & Nousiainen, J. (2002). Prediction of the relative intake potential of grass silage by dairy cows. Livestock Production Science 73, 111–130.Google Scholar
Huhtanen, P., Nousiainen, J. & Rinne, M. (2006). Recent developments in forage evaluation with special reference to practical applications. Agricultural and Food Science 15, 293–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huhtanen, P., Rinne, M. & Nousiainen, J. (2007). Evaluation of the factors affecting silage intake of dairy cows; a revision of the relative silage dry matter intake index. Animal 1, 758–770.Google Scholar
Huhtanen, P., Jaakkola, S. & Nousiainen, J. (2013). An overview of silage research in Finland: from ensiling innovation to advances in dairy cow feeding. Agricultural and Food Science 22, 35–56.Google Scholar
Huhtanen, P. J., Blauwiekel, R. & Saastamoinen, I. (1998). Effects of intraruminal infusions of propionate and butyrate with two different protein supplements on milk production and blood metabolites in dairy cows receiving grass silage based diet. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 77, 213–222.Google Scholar
Huida, L., Väätäinen, H. & Lampila, M. (1986). Comparison of dry matter contents in grass silage as determined by oven drying and gas chromatographic water analysis. Annales Agriculturae Fenniae 25, 215–230.Google Scholar
Huuskonen, A. (2014). A comparison of Nordic Red, Holstein-Friesian and Finnish native cattle bulls for beef production and carcass traits. Agricultural and Food Science 23, 159–164.Google Scholar
Huuskonen, A. & Huhtanen, P. (2015). The development of a model to predict BW gain of growing cattle fed grass silage-based diets. Animal 9, 1329–1340.Google Scholar
Huuskonen, A., Huhtanen, P. & Joki-Tokola, E. (2013 a). The development of a model to predict feed intake by growing cattle. Livestock Science 158, 74–83.Google Scholar
Huuskonen, A., Pesonen, M., Kämäräinen, H. & Kauppinen, R. (2013 b). A comparison of the growth and carcass traits between dairy and dairy × beef breed crossbred heifers reared for beef production. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences 22, 188–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huuskonen, A., Pesonen, M., Kämäräinen, H. & Kauppinen, R. (2013 c). A comparison of purebred Holstein-Friesian and Holstein-Friesian × beef breed bulls for beef production and carcass traits. Agricultural and Food Science 22, 262–271.Google Scholar
Huuskonen, A., Huhtanen, P. & Joki-Tokola, E. (2014). Evaluation of protein supplementation for growing cattle fed grass silage-based diets: a meta-analysis. Animal 8, 1653–1662.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huuskonen, A., Pesonen, M. & Honkavaara, M. (2017). Effects of replacing timothy silage by alsike clover silage on performance, carcass traits and meat quality of finishing Aberdeen Angus and Nordic Red bulls. Grass and Forage Science 72, 220–233.Google Scholar
Jaakkola, S., Kaunisto, V. & Huhtanen, P. (2006). Volatile fatty acid proportions and microbial protein synthesis in the rumen of cattle receiving grass silage ensiled with different rates of formic acid. Grass and Forage Science 61, 282–292.Google Scholar
Jaakkola, S., Saarisalo, E. & Heikkilä, T. (2010). Aerobic stability and fermentation quality of round bale silage treated with inoculants or propionic acid. Grassland Science in Europe 15, 503–505.Google Scholar
Keady, T. W. J. & Steen, R. W. J. (1994). Effects of treating low dry-matter grass with a bacterial inoculant on the intake and performance of beef cattle and studies on its mode of action. Grass and Forage Science 49, 438–446.Google Scholar
Keady, T. W. J. & Steen, R. W. J. (1995). The effects of treating low dry-matter, low digestibility grass with a bacterial inoculant on the intake and performance of beef cattle, and studies on its mode of action. Grass and Forage Science 50, 217–226.Google Scholar
Keane, M. G. & Allen, P. (1998). Effects of production system intensity on performance, carcass composition and meat quality of beef cattle. Livestock Production Science 56, 203–214.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Cook, G. L. & Southgate, J. R. (1988). Evaluation of British Friesian, Canadian Holstein and beef breed × British Friesian steers slaughtered over a commercial range of fatness from 16-month and 24-month beef production systems. 2. Carcass characteristics, and rate and efficiency of lean gain. Animal Production 46, 365–378.Google Scholar
Knicky, M. & Spörndly, R. (2009). Sodium benzoate, potassium sorbate and sodium nitrite as silage additives. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 89, 2659–2667.Google Scholar
Knicky, M. & Spörndly, R. (2011). The ensiling capability of a mixture of sodium benzoate, potassium sorbate, and sodium nitrite. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 824–831.Google Scholar
Krizsan, S. J. & Randby, Å. T. (2007). The effect of fermentation quality on the voluntary intake of grass silage by growing cattle fed silage as the sole feed. Journal of Animal Science 85, 984–996.Google Scholar
Luke (2017). Feed Tables and Nutrient Requirements. Helsinki, Finland: Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke). Available from: https://portal.mtt.fi/portal/page/portal/Rehutaulukot/feed_tables_english (verified 5 June 2017).Google Scholar
MAFF (1984). Energy Allowances and Feeding Systems for Ruminants. ADAS Reference book 433. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
McCullough, H. (1967). The determination of ammonia in whole blood by direct colorimetric method. Clinica Chimica Acta 17, 297–304.Google Scholar
Mendes, E. D. M., Carstens, G. E., Tedeschi, L. O., Pinchak, W. E. & Friend, T. H. (2011). Validation of a system for monitoring feeding behavior in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 89, 2904–2910.Google Scholar
O'Kiely, P & Moloney, A. P. (1994). Silage characteristics and performance of cattle offered grass silage made without an additive, with formic acid or with a partially neutralised blend of aliphatic organic acids. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 33, 25–39.Google Scholar
Rinne, M., Kuoppala, K., Mäki, M., Seppälä, A. & Jalava, T. (2016). Effects of seven formic acid based additives on grass silage fermentation and aerobic stability. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference: Forage Conservation (Ed. Rajčáková, L.), pp. 115–116. Lužianky, Slovak Republic: National Agricultural and Food Centre (NPPC).Google Scholar
Seppälä, A., Tsitko, I., Ervasti, S., Miettinen, H., Salakka, A. & Rinne, M. (2013). The role of additives when ensiling red clover-grass mixture for biogas production. Grassland Science in Europe 18, 563–565.Google Scholar
Seppälä, A., Heikkilä, T., Mäki, M. & Rinne, M. (2016). Effects of additives on the fermentation and aerobic stability of grass silages and total mixed rations. Grass and Forage Science 71, 458–471.Google Scholar
Somogyi, M. (1945). A new reagent for the determination of sugars. Journal of Biological Chemistry 160, 61–68.Google Scholar
Steen, R. W. J., Gordon, F. J., Dawson, L. E. R., Park, R. S., Mayne, C. S., Agnew, R. E., Kilpatrick, D. J. & Porter, M. G. (1998). Factors affecting the intake of grass silage by cattle and prediction of silage intake. Animal Science 66, 115–127.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J., Robertson, J. B. & Lewis, B. A. (1991). Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3583–3597.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, J. M. & Davies, D. R. (2013). The aerobic stability of silage: key findings and recent developments. Grass and Forage Science 68, 1–19.Google Scholar
Winters, A. L., Fychan, R. & Jones, R. (2001). Effect of formic acid and a bacterial inoculant on the amino acid composition of grass silage and on animal performance. Grass and Forage Science 56, 181–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar