Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T02:30:53.011Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of energy sources and inclusion levels of concentrate in sugarcane silage-based diets of finishing Nellore young bulls: Feeding behaviour, performance and blood parameters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 September 2019

V. B. Ferrari ,
N. R. B. Cônsolo ,
R. T. Sousa ,
J. M. Souza ,
M. H. A. Santana  and
L. F. P. Silva Open the ORCID record for L. F. P. Silva [Opens in a new window]
V. B. Ferrari
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, School of Veterinary Medicine, Universidade de São Paulo, Pirassununga, São Paulo, Brazil. 225, Duque de Caxias Norte, Pirassununga/SP, Zipcode 13.635-900, Brazil
N. R. B. Cônsolo
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, School of Veterinary Medicine, Universidade de São Paulo, Pirassununga, São Paulo, Brazil. 225, Duque de Caxias Norte, Pirassununga/SP, Zipcode 13.635-900, Brazil
R. T. Sousa
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, School of Veterinary Medicine, Universidade de São Paulo, Pirassununga, São Paulo, Brazil. 225, Duque de Caxias Norte, Pirassununga/SP, Zipcode 13.635-900, Brazil
J. M. Souza
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, School of Veterinary Medicine, Universidade de São Paulo, Pirassununga, São Paulo, Brazil. 225, Duque de Caxias Norte, Pirassununga/SP, Zipcode 13.635-900, Brazil
M. H. A. Santana
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Medicine, College of Animal Science and Food Engineering, Universidade de São Paulo, Pirassununga, São Paulo, Brazil. Address: 225, Duque de Caxias Norte, Pirassununga/SP, Zipcode 13.635-900, Brazil
L. F. P. Silva*
Affiliation:
The University of Queensland, 306 Carmody Road, Bld 80, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia
*
Author for correspondence: L. F. P. Silva, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Replacing ground maize (GM) with steam-rolled maize typically increases feed efficiency in maize-silage-based diets. However, little is known about optimal carbohydrate supplementation in sugarcane silage-based diets. The objective was to quantify the effect of partially replacing GM with steam-rolled maize (SRM) or pelleted citrus pulp (PCP) at two concentrate levels (600 or 800 g/kg DM) in sugarcane-based diets on feeding behaviour, performance and blood parameters of finishing Nellore bulls. One hundred and eight young bulls were allocated to 36 pens in a randomized block design and fed for 84 d. Feeding 800 g/kg concentrate decreased time spending eating and ruminating, but improved G:F ratio, hot carcass weight and carcass dressing, compared to 600 g/kg concentrate. Bulls fed SRM and PCP diets with 600 g/kg concentrate had lower intake compared to GM. Both final weight and average daily gain decreased when bulls were fed PCP and SRM with 600 g/kg concentrate compared to GM diets, and when fed with PCP and 800 g/kg concentrate. Substituting PCP for GM decreased gain efficiency, carcass weight, rumination time and intake efficiency, indicating that the bulls consumed less feed per hour spent eating. Substituting SRM for GM increased backfat thickness and blood urea concentration. In conclusion, the replacement of GM with PCP reduces intake and enhances selection against large particles, decreasing rumination, performance and final carcass weight and dressing. Replacement of GM with SRM increases blood urea and fat deposition, with no impact on performance.

Keywords

Beef cattlecarbohydrate sourcesintakesugarcane
Type
Animal Research Paper
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 157 , Issue 4 , May 2019 , pp. 350 - 356
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

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

Allen, MS (2000) Effects of diet on short-term regulation of feed intake by lactating dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 83, 1598–1624.Google Scholar
Allen, MS, Bradford, BJ and Oba, M (2009) Board-invited review: the hepatic oxidation theory of the control of feed intake and its application to ruminants. Journal of Animal Science 87, 3317–3334.Google Scholar
Amanlou, H, Farahani, TA and Farsuni, NE (2017) Effects of rumen undegradable protein supplementation on productive performance and indicators of protein and energy metabolism in Holstein fresh cows. Journal of Dairy Science 100, 3628–3640.Google Scholar
AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemists) (2000) Official Methods of Analysis, 17th Edn. Gaithersburg, MD, USA: AOAC.Google Scholar
Bampidis, VA and Robinson, PH (2006) Citrus by-products as ruminant feeds: A review. Animal Feed Science and Technology 128, 175–217.Google Scholar
Baumont, R (1996) Palatability and feeding behaviour in ruminants. A review. Annales de Zootechnie 45, 385–400.Google Scholar
Broderick, GA, Mertens, DR and Simons, R (2002) Efficacy of carbohydrate sources for milk production by cows fed diets based on alfalfa silage. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 1767–1776.Google Scholar
Bürger, PJ, Pereira, JC, Queiroz, AC, da Silva, JFC, Valadares Filho, SC, Cecon, PR and Casali, ADP (2000) Ingestive behaviour in Holstein calves fed diets with different concentrate levels. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 29, 236–242.Google Scholar
Carvalho, MV, Rodrigues, PHM, Lima, MLP, Anjos, IA, Landell, MGA, Santos, M and Silva, LFP (2010) Chemical composition and digestibility of sugarcane harvested at two periods of the year. Brazilian Journal of Veterinary Research and Animal Science 47, 298–306.Google Scholar
Cribbs, JT, Bernhard, BC, Young, TR, Jennings, MA, Sanchez, NCB, Carroll, JA, Callaway, TR, Schmidt, TB, Johnson, BJ and Rathmann, RJ (2015) Dehydrated citrus pulp alters feedlot performance of crossbred heifers during the receiving period and modulates serum metabolite concentrations before and after an endotoxin challenge. Journal of Animal Science 93, 5791–5800.Google Scholar
Giger-Reverdin, S, Duvaux-Ponter, C, Sauvant, D, Martin, O, do Prado, IN and Müller, R (2002) Intrinsic buffering capacity of feedstuffs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 96, 83–102.Google Scholar
Giuberti, G, Gallo, A, Masoero, F, Ferraretto, LF, Hoffman, PC and Shaver, RD (2014) Factors affecting starch utilization in large animal food production system: a review. Starch 66, 72–90.Google Scholar
Gouvêa, VN, Batistel, F, Souza, JD, Chagas, LJ, Sitta, C, Campanili, PRB, Galvani, DB, Pires, AV, Owens, FN and Santos, FAP (2016) Flint corn grain processing and citrus pulp level in finishing diets for feedlot cattle. Journal of Animal Science 94, 665–677.Google Scholar
Hall, MB and Eastridge, ML (2014) Invited review: carbohydrate and fat: considerations for energy and more. Professional Animal Science 30, 140–149.Google Scholar
Hall, MB, Larson, CC and Wilcox, CJ (2010) Carbohydrate source and protein degradability alter lactation, ruminal, and blood measures. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 311–322.Google Scholar
Heinrichs, J and Kononoff, PJ (2002) Evaluating Particle Size of Forages and TMRs using the New Penn State Forage Particle Separator. Report DAS 02-42. University Park, PA, USA: Pennsylvania State University, College of Agricultural Sciences, Cooperative Extension.Google Scholar
Larsen, M, Lapierre, H and Kristensen, NB (2014) Abomasal protein infusion in postpartum transition dairy cows: effect on performance and mammary metabolism. Journal of Dairy Science 97, 5608–5622.Google Scholar
Lawrence, TLJ and Fowler, VR (2002) Growth of Farm Animals, 3rd Edn. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.Google Scholar
Miranda, AS, Domingues, FN, Godoy, BS, Oaigen, RP, Rêgo, AC, Faturi, C, Corrêa, RP and Silva, F (2015) Production and chemical composition of three sugarcane cultivars grown under Af climate conditions. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 44, 384–389.Google Scholar
Nkrumah, JD, Okine, EK, Mathison, GW, Schmid, K, Li, C, Basarab, JA, Price, MA, Wang, Z and Moore, SS (2006) Relationships of feedlot feed efficiency, performance, and feeding behavior with metabolic rate, methane production, and energy partitioning in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 84, 145–153.Google Scholar
NRC (National Research Council) (2000) Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle, 7th Revised Edn. Washington, DC, USA: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Oni, AO, Onwuka, CFI, Oduguwa, OO, Onifade, OS and Arigbede, OM (2008) Utilization of citrus pulp based diets and Enterolobium cyclocarpum (JACQ. GRISEB) foliage by West African dwarf goats. Livestock Science 117, 184–191.Google Scholar
Owens, FN (2005) Impact of grain processing and quality on Holstein steer performance. In Tigner, R and Lehmkuhler, J (eds). Managing and marketing quality Holstein steers. Rochester, MN, USA: University of Minnesota, pp. 121–140.Google Scholar
Owens, FN and Basalan, M (2016) Ruminal fermentation. In Millen, D, De Beni Arrigoni, M and Lauritano Pacheco, R (eds), Rumenology. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, pp. 63–102.Google Scholar
Owens, FN and Gardner, PA (2000) A review of the impact of feedlot management and nutrition on carcass measurements of feedlot cattle. Journal of Animal Science 77, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas2000.00218812007700ES0034x.Google Scholar
Owens, FN and Zinn, R (1988) Protein metabolism of ruminant animals. In Church, DC (ed.), The Ruminant Animal: Digestive Physiology and Nutrition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall, pp. 145–171.Google Scholar
Owens, FN, Secrist, DS, Hill, WJ and Gill, DR (1997) The effect of grain source and grain processing on performance of feedlot cattle: a review. Journal of Animal Science 75, 868–879.Google Scholar
Pearce, KL, Pethick, DW and Masters, DG (2008) The effect of ingesting a saltbush and barley ration on the carcass and eating quality of sheepmeat. Meat Science 79, 344–354.Google Scholar
Pedroso, AF, Nussio, LG, Paziani, SF, Loures, DRS, Igarasi, MS, Coelho, RM, Packer, IH, Horii, J and Gomes, LH (2005) Fermentation and epiphytic microflora dynamics in sugar cane silage. Scientia Agricola 62, 427–432.Google Scholar
Prado, IN, Pinheiro, A, Alcalde, CR, Zeoula, L, Nascimento, WG and Souza, NE (2000) Substitution levels of corn by orange peel on performance and carcass traits of feedlot bulls. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 29, 2135–2141.Google Scholar
Santos, FAP and Pedroso, AM (2011) Protein metabolism. In Berchielli, TT, Pires, AV and Oliveira, SG (eds), Ruminant Nutrition, 2nd Edn. Jaboticabal, SP, Brazil: Funesp, pp. 239–263.Google Scholar
Santos, AS, Valadares Filho, SC, Detmann, E, Valadares, RFD, Ruas, JRM and Amaral, PM (2011) Different forage sources for F1 Holstein × Gir dairy cows. Livestock Science 142, 48–58.Google Scholar
Silveira, C, Oba, M, Yang, WZ and Beauchemin, KA (2007) Selection of barley grain affects ruminal fermentation, starch digestibility and productivity of lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 2860–2869.Google Scholar
Solaiman, S, Thomas, J, Dupre, Y, Min, BR, Gurung, N, Terrill, TH and Haenlein, GFW (2010) Effect of feeding sericea lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata) on growth performance, blood metabolites, and carcass characteristics of Kiko crossbred male kids. Small Ruminant Research 93, 149–156.Google Scholar
Theurer, CB, Huber, JT, Delgado-Elorduy, A and Wanderley, R (1999) Invited review: summary of steam-flaking corn or sorghum grain for lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 82, 1950–1959.Google Scholar
Van Soest, PJ and Robertson, JB (1985) Analysis of Forages and Fibrous Foods. Ithaca, NY, USA: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Van Soest, PJ, Robertson, JB and Lewis, BA (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
Waldo, DR (1986) Effect of forage quality on intake and forage-concentrate interactions. Journal of Dairy Science 69, 617–631.Google Scholar
Zebeli, Q, Ametaj, BN, Junck, B and Drochner, W (2009) Maize silage particle length modulates feeding patterns and milk composition in loose-housed lactating Holstein cows. Livestock Science 124, 33–40.Google Scholar