Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T19:39:44.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of soya-bean, sunflower and fish meals as protein supplements for yearling cattle offered grass silage-based diets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

R. W. J. Steen
R. W. J. Steen
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co. Down BT26 2DR
Get access

Abstract

Two experiments were carried out to examine the relative value of soya-bean, sunflower and fish meals as protein supplements for growing beef cattle offered grass silage ad libitum. In each experiment, well preserved grass silage (116 and 119 g crude protein (CP) per kg dry matter (DM) and 69 and 76 g ammonia-N per kg total N in experiments 1 and 2 respectively) was supplemented with (1) barley (107 g CP per kg DM), (2) barley/soya-bean meal (224 g CP per kg DM), (3) barley/sunflower meal (223 g CP per kg DM) and (4) barley/fish meal (218 g CP per kg DM). Each of the supplements was offered at a rate of 1·3 kg per head daily to 32 British Friesian castrated male cattle (mean initial live weight 334 kg) n i each experiment. The treatments were imposed for 118 and 134 days in experiments 1 and 2 respectively and the animals were slaughtered 8 months after the end of the treatment periods. On average over the two experiments for supplements 1 to 4 respectively, silage DM intakes were 6·2, 6·3, 6·3 and 6·2 (s.e. 0·053) kg/day; live-weight gains 0·69, 0·78, 0·71 and 0·80 (s.e. 0·039) kg/day; carcass weights 375, 377, 377 and 374 (s.e. 8·1) kg, carcass fat classification (1 = leanest, 5 = fattest); 3·5, 3·5, 3·4 and 3·6 (s.e. 0·14) and areas of m. longissimus dorsi 19·8, 19·9, 19·7 and 19·3 (s.e. 0·66) mnv/kg carcass weight. It is concluded that when part of a barley supplement given in addition to well preserved grass silage was replaced with soya-bean, sunflower or fish meals, silage intake was not affected. The inclusion of fish meal in the diet increased live-weight gain by HOg/day and the response to soya-bean meal was 0·78 of the response to fish meal per unit of crude protein. Sunflower meal did not affect performance. The treatments did not affect carcass weight or fatness 8 months after the end of the treatment periods.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 48 , Issue 1 , February 1989 , pp. 81 - 89
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1989

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. 1980. The Nutrient Requirements of Ruminant Livestock. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux. Slough.Google Scholar
Association of Official Agricultural Chemists. 1965. Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists. 10th ed., pp. 329, 22–021. Association of Official Agricultural Chemists, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Baker, R. D., Gibb, M. J. and Young, N. E. 1984. Fat and protein retention by steers on silage-based diets and subsequent performance at grass. Proceedings of the 7th Silage Conference, The Queen's University of Belfast, pp. 51–52.Google Scholar
Bp Nutrition. 1979. In facts, feed formulation data. Occasional Publication, BP Nutrition (UK) Limited.Google Scholar
Brady, C. J. 1960. Redistribution of nitrogen in grass and leguminous fodder plants during wilting and ensilage. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 11: 276–284.Google Scholar
Chalmers, J. S., Bax, J. A. and Offer, N. W. 1982. Protein supplementation of calves given grass silage ad libitum. Animal Production 34: 382 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Clancy, M. J. and Wilson, R. K. 1966. Development and application of a new chemical method for predicting the digestibility and intake of herbage samples. Proceedings of the 10th International Grassland Congress, Helsinki, pp. 445–452.Google Scholar
Coitrill, B. R., Beever, D. E., Austin, A. R. and Osbourn, D. F. 1982. The effect of protein- and nonprotein-nitrogen supplements to maize silage on total amino acid supply in young cattle. British Journal of Nutrition 48: 527–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cottrill, B. R. and Osbourn, D. F. 1977. The effect of source of nitrogen and energy supplementation on the utilization of maize silage by calves. Animal Production 24: 127 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Dewar, W. A. and McDonald, P. 1961. Determination of dry matter in silage by distillation with toluene. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 12: 790–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elsden, S. R. and Gibson, O. H. 1954. The estimation of lactic acid using seric sulphate. Biochemistry Journal 58: 154–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garstang, J. R. 1981. Silage supplements for calves. Animal Production 32: 355 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Gill, M. and Beever, D. E. 1982. The effect of protein supplementation on digestion and glucose metabolism i n young cattle fed on silage. British Journal of Nutrition 48: 37–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hannah Research Institute. 1987. Nutrition and metabolism of ruminant animals. Hannah Research 1986, pp. 34–37.Google Scholar
Hughes, J. and Chalmers, J. S. 1983. Protein supplementation of calves offered silage. Animal Production 36: 537 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Keane, M. G. and Drennan, M. J. 1980. Response of weanlings to low level protein supplementation. An Foras Taluntais, Animal Production Research Report, pp. 13–14.Google Scholar
Keane, M. G. and Drennan, M. J. 1981. Effects of protein supplementation on performance of silage-fed weanlings. An Foras Taluntais, Animal Production Research Report, pp. 10–11.Google Scholar
Keane, M. G. and Drennan, M. J. 1982. Response in silage fed weanlings to protein supplementation. An Foras Taluntais, Animal Production Research Report, pp. 5–6.Google Scholar
Kirby, P. S. and Chalmers, A. J. 1982. A comparison of extracted soya-bean meal and fish meal as protein supplements for growing beef cattle given grass silage ad libitum. Animal Production 34: 386 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Kirby, P. S., Chalmers, A. J. and Clark, W. A. 1983a. A comparison of formaldehyde-treated soya-bean meal and two types of fish meal as protein supplements for growing beef cattle given grass silage ad libitum. Animal Production 36: 538–539 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Kirby, P. S., Chalmers, A. J. and Hannam, D. A. R. 1983b. Fish meal supplementation of grass silage diets for fattening British Friesian steers. Animal Production 36: 538 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
McMurray, C. H., Logan, E. F., McParland, P. J., McRory, F. J. and O'neill, D. G. 1978. Sequential changes in some blood components in the normal neonatal calf. British Veterinary Journal 134: 590–597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Righton, A. M. 1981. Replacement of concentrates by fish meal for young cattle on a silage-based diet. Animal Production 32: 354 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. 1984. A comparison of two-cut and three-cut systems of silage making for beef cattle using two cultivars of perennial ryegrass. Animal Production 38: 171–179.Google Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. 1986. The effect of plane of nutrition and type of diet offered to yearling Friesian steers during a winter store period on subsequent performance. Animal Production 42: 29–37.Google Scholar
Thomas, P. C. and Chamberlain, D. G. 1982. The utilization of silage protein. In Forage Protein Conservation and Utilization, Commission of the European Communities Seminar, Dublin, pp. 121–145.Google Scholar
Unsworth, E. F. 1981. The composition and quaity of grass silages made in Northern Ireland — an analysis of seven years results (1973–1979). Record of Agricultural Research in Northern Ireland 29: 91–97.Google Scholar
Waterhouse, A., Laird, R. and Holliday, R. J. 1983. A response to protein supplementation of grass silage for growing and finishing cattle. Animal Production 36: 503 (Abstr.).Google Scholar