Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T23:56:03.761Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Milk production from diets of silage and dried forage. 3. Effect of formalin-treated ryegrass silage of high digestibility given ad libitum with and without urea

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

J. C. Tayler ,
K. Aston  and
S. R. Daley
J. C. Tayler
Affiliation:
Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
K. Aston
Affiliation:
Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
S. R. Daley
Affiliation:
Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
Get access

Abstract

1. Young adult and adult lactating British Friesian female cattle (heifers and cows) were individually fed ad libitum on perennial ryegrass silage (F) made with an additive of formic acid (3·41 of 85% acid/t fresh grass) or on a silage (FF) made from the same crop with an additive of 9·01/t of a mixture of equal volumes of formic acid and formalin (35% w/w solution of formaldehyde). Silage F was supplemented with a concentrate containing 50% dried grass and 50% barley at a low (L) or high (H) level of feeding; silage FF was supplemented with the same concentrate at the lower level only, either with urea at 2·0% of the silage DM (FFLU) or without urea (FFL).

2. Silage F had a lower pH (P< 0·001) and contained more lactic, acetic and total fermentation acids (P><0·001). The DOMD in vivo of the diet was lower (by up to 3 units) for treatment FFL than for the other treatments (P<0·05 in weeks 17 and 18).

3. Over weeks 4 to 18 of lactation the mean dry-matter intakes (DMI) of silage on treatments FL and FFL were similar, but silage DMI was 12 to 13% greater on treatment FFLU than on FL or FFL (P<0·05). Digestible OM intake was greater with FFLU than with FFL (P<0·01) and with FL (P<0·05).

4. Milk yields did not differ significantly between treatments and metabolic blood profiles were normal.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , April 1979 , pp. 171 - 181
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1979

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

REFERENCES

Agricultural Research Council. 1965. The Nutrient Requirements of Farm Livestock, No. 2, Ruminants. Agricultural Research Council, London.Google Scholar
Baevre, L., Saue, O. and Nedkvitne, J. J. 1974. The effects of formaldehyde containing additives on the feeding value of silage. Proc. 3rd Silage Conf., Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Barry, T. N. 1976. The effectiveness of formaldehyde treatment in protecting dietary protein from rumen microbial degradation. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 35: 221–229.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beever, D. E., Thomson, D. J., Cammell, S. B. and Harrison, D. G. 1977. The digestion by sheep of silages made with and without the addition of formaldehyde. J. agric. Set, Camb. 88: 61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buttery, P. J. and Lewis, D. 1976. Nitrogen metabolism in the ruminant. Proc. int. Symp. Nuclear Techniques in Animal Production and Health as related to the Soil-Plant System Intemak. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.Google Scholar
Demarquilly, C. 1973. Chemical composition, fermentation characteristics, digestibility and intake of silages: modifications in comparison with the fresh forage. Annls Zootech. 22: 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demarquilly, C. and Dulphy, J. P. 1976. Effects of ensiling on voluntary intake of different crops harvested at various stages of growth. In The Nutritional Efficiency of Beef Production (ed. Tayler, J. C. and Wilkinson, J. M.). Commission of the European Communities, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
Harrison, D. G., Beever, D. E. and Thomson, D. J. 1975. Factors influencing the synthesis of microbial protein during ruminant digestion. A. Rep. GrassldRes. Inst., Hurley, 1974, p. 70.Google Scholar
Lonsdale, C. R., Thomas, C. and Haines, M. J. 1977. The effect of urea on the voluntary intake by calves of silages preserved with formaldehyde and formic acid. J. Br. Grassld Soc. 32: 171–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLeod, D. S., Wilkins, R. J. and Raymond, W. F. 1970. The voluntary intake by sheep and cattle of silage differing in free-acid content. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 75: 311–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehrez, A. Z. and Ørskov, E. R. 1977. A study of the artificial fibre bag technique for determining the digestibility of feeds in the rumen. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 88: 645–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, E. L. 1973. Evaluation of foods as sources of nitrogen and amino acids. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 32: 79–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland and Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland. 1975. Energy allowances and feeding systems for ruminants. Technical Bulletin No. 33, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Roy, J. B., Balch, C. C., Miller, E. L., Ørskov, E. R. and Smith, R. H. 1977. Calculation of the N-requirement for ruminants from nitrogen metabolism studies. Proc. 2nd int. Symp. Protein Metabolism and Nutrition, Flevohov, Netherlands, pp. 126–129.Google Scholar
Tayler, J. C. and Aston, K. 1976a. Milk production from diets of silage and dried forage. 1. Effect of pelleting dried grass supplements and the inclusion of barley in the pellet with grass silage fed ad libitum. Anim. Prod. 23: 197–209.Google Scholar
Tayler, J. C. and Aston, K. 1976b. Milk production from diets of silage and dried forage. 2. Effect of ensiling ryegrass cut at two levels of digestibility and fed ad libitum with supplements of dried grass pellets. Anim. Prod. 23: 211–221.Google Scholar
Tayler, J. C. and Aston, K. 1976C. Effect of formalin-treated ryegrass silage with and without urea on voluntary intake and milk production. Anim. Prod. 22: 154 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Tayler, J. C. and Gibbs, B. G. 1976. A. Rep. Grassld Res. Inst., Hurley, 1975.Google Scholar
Tayler, J. C. and Wilkins, R. J. 1976. Conserved forage — complement or competitor to concentrates. In Principles of Cattle Production (ed. Swan, H. and Broster, W. H.), pp. 343–364. Butterworth, London.Google Scholar
Tukey, J. W. 1953. The Problems of Multiple Comparisons. Princeton Univ.Google Scholar
Valentine, S. C. and Radcliffe, J. C. 1975. The nutritive value for dairy cows of silage made from formaldehyde-treated herbage. Aust. J. agric. Res. 26: 769–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkins, R. J., Hutchison, K. J., Wilson, R. F. and Harris, C. E. 1971. The voluntary intake of silage by sheep. 1. Inter-relationships between silage composition and intake. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 77: 531–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkins, R. J., Wilson, R. F. and Cook, J. E. 1974a. Restriction of fermentation during ensilage: the nutritive value of silages made with the addition of formaldehyde. Proc. 12th int. Grassld Congr., Moscow.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkins, R. J., Wilson, R. F. and Woolford, M. K. 1974b. The effects of formaldehyde on silage fermentation. Proc. 5th Gen. Meet. Eur. Grassld Fedn, Uppsala, 1973.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, J. M., Wilson, R. F. and Barry, T. 1976. Factors affecting the nutritive value of silage. Outl. Agric. 9: 3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar