Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T19:37:23.215Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cereal straw in diets for beef cattle: effects of pattern of growth and diet formulation on growth rate and food conversion efficiency

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

A. Macdearmid ,
P. E. V. Williams  and
A. C. Brewer
A. Macdearmid
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Greenburn Road, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
P. E. V. Williams
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Greenburn Road, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
A. C. Brewer
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Greenburn Road, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
Get access

Abstract

Five groups of Hereford × Friesian steers (initial weight 340 kg) were given either a diet of rolled barley and ammonia-treated barley straw (AS) in the ratio 60: 40 ad libitum (ASB) to support continuous growth, or were offered over a 143-day period diets of either (i) AS alone (diet AS) (ii) untreated straw (US) plus cassava (diet USC) (iii) US plus grass silage (diet USS) or US plus fish meal (0·27 kg fish meal per day) (diet USF). Both the AS and US were offered ad libitum and allowances of cassava and silage adjusted to allow the USC and USS steers to match the growth of AS steers. Steers i n the restricted groups (AS, USC, USS and USF) were then given freshly cut grass ad libitum until they reached slaughter weight; some steers required additional hay and barley to reach slaughter weight. Steers in group ASB consumed 7·4 kg dry matter (DM), gained 1·16 kg live weight per day taking 112 days to achieve the 455 kg slaughter weight. AS, USC and USS animals maintained body weight over the restricted period, whereas the USF group tended to lose weight and daily DM intakes were 4·63 kg AS (AS steers); 3·81 kg US plus 0·95 kg cassava (USC steers); 0·86 kg US plus 3·31 kg silage (USS steers); 3·5 kg US plus 0·27 kg fish meal (USF steers). When grass or grass followed by barley plus hay was given the live-weight gains of the previously restricted cattle did not differ (mean 1·0 (s.e. 0·10) kg/day). AS provided proportionately 0·30 of the metabolizable energy used to produce growth rates in excess of 10 kg/day or if given as the sole food maintained cattle without supplementation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , August 1987 , pp. 29 - 36
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1987

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

Crichton, J. A., Aitken, J. N. and Boyne, A. W. 1959. The effect of plane of nutrition during rearing on growth, production, reproduction and health of dairy cattle. 1. Growth to 24 months. Animal Production 1: 145–162.Google Scholar
Fattet, I., Hovell, F. D. DeB., Ørskov, E. R., Kyle, D. J., Pennie, K. and Smart, R. I. 1984. Undernutrition in sheep. The effect of supplementation with protein on protein accretion. British Journal of Nutrition 52: 561–574.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Istasse, L. and Ørskov, E. R. 1983. The correlation between extent of pH depression and degradability of washed hay in sheep given hay and concentrate. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 42: 32A (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Ledger, H. P., Gilliver, B. and Robb, J. M. 1973. An examination of sample joint dissection and specific gravity techniques for assessing the carcass composition of steers slaughtered in commercial abattoirs. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 80: 381–392.Google Scholar
Little, D. A. and Sandland, R. L. 1975. Studies on the distribution of the body fat in sheep during continuous growth, and following nutritional restriction and rehabilitation. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 26: 363–374.Google Scholar
MacDearmid, A. and Williams, P. E. V. 1984. Associative effects of silage and straw in mixed diets. Proceedings of the Seventh Silage Conference, Belfast, pp. 25–26.Google Scholar
MacDearmid, A., Williams, P. E. V. and Innes, G. M. 1983. Turnips with chemically-treated straw for beef production. 1. The effects on the growth of steers. Animal Production 37: 97–104.Google Scholar
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 33. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Mould, F. L., Ørskov, E. R. and Mann, S. O. 1983. Associative effects of mixed feeds. 1. Effects of type and level of supplementation and the influence of the rumen fluid pH on cellulolysis in vivo and dry matter digestion of various roughages. Animal Feed Science and Technology 10: 15–30.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Tait, C. A. G. and Reid, G. W. 1981. Utilization of ammonia- or urea-treated barley straw as the only feed for dairy heifers. Animal Production 32: 388 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Scottish Agricultural Colleges. 1984. Farm Management Handbook 1984–85 (ed. Mordaunt, F. O.). Scottish Agricultural Colleges, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Turgeon, O. A. Jr, Brink, D. R., Bartle, S. J., Klopfenstein, T. J. and Ferrell, C. L. 1986. Effects of growth rate and compensatory growth on body composition in lambs. Journal of Animal Science 63: 770–780.Google Scholar
Wainman, F. W., Dewey, P. J. S. and Boyne, A. W. 1978. Feedingstuffs Evaluation Unit 2nd Report. Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Wainman, F. W., Dewey, P. J. S. and Brewer, A. C. 1984. Feedingstuffs Evaluation Unit 4th Report. Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Williams, P. E. V. 1983. Digestibility studies on ammonia-treated straw. Animal Feed Science and Technology 10: 213–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, P. E. V. and MacDearmid, A. 1983. Effects of overwintering plane of nutrition on subsequent growth at grass of beef steers. Animal Production 36: 515 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Williams, P. E. V. and MacDearmid, A. 1987. Effects of a period of severely restricted food intake and growth on subsequent appetite, growth and nitrogen balance of Friesian steers. Animal Production 44: 474 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Williams, P. E. V., MacDearmind, A., Innes, G. M. and Brewer, A. 1983. Turnips with chemically treated straw for beef production. 2. Effect of turnips on the degradability of straw in the rumen. Animal Production 37: 189–194.Google Scholar