Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T19:00:06.760Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of frequency of harvesting grass for silage and level of concentrate supplementation on the intake and performance of beef cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

R. W. J. Steen  and
W. A. McIlmoyle
R. W. J. Steen
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co. Down BT26 6DP
W. A. McIlmoyle
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co. Down BT26 6DP
Get access

Abstract

A randomized-block experiment has been carried out over 2 consecutive years to examine the effects of frequency of harvesting grass for silage, and level of concentrate supplementation, on the intake and performance of beef cattle. Swards of S24 perennial ryegrass were harvested at 6-, 9- and 12-week intervals throughout the growing season, commencing on 14 May, 4 June and 25 June respectively. The three silages were offered ad libitum with 0, 1, 2 or 3 kg per head per day of cereal-based concentrates to 84 Hereford-cross suckled calves (mean initial live weight 313 kg) in a 3 × 4 factorial design experiment in each year. The treatments were imposed for a mean period of 100 days. The digestible organic matter in the dry-matter values of the silages harvested at 6-, 9- and 12-week intervals were 0·684, 0·646 and 0·607 respectively. The mean silage dry-matter intakes and live-weight gains for the silages harvested at 6-, 9- and 12-week intervals were 4·75, 4·70 and 4·74 (s.e. 0·08) kg/day, and 0·75, 0·67 and 0·52 (s.e. 0·020) kg/day, respectively. The mean silage dry-matter intakes and live-weight gains for the supplement at 0, 1, 2 and 3kg/day were 5·23, 4·79, 4·72 and 4·17 (s.e. 009)kg/day, and 0·38, 0·57, 0·75 and 0·88 (s.e. 0·023) kg/day, respectively. There was a significant interaction between cutting interval and level of supplementation for live-weight gain, the response to supplementation declining as silage digestibility increased.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 35 , Issue 2 , October 1982 , pp. 245 - 252
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1982

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

Alder, F. E., McLeod, D. St L. and Gibbs, B. G. 1969. Comparative feeding value of silages made from wilted and unwilted grass and grass/clover herbage. J. Br. Grassld Soc. 24: 199–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartholomew, P. W. 1975. Effects of defoliation and nitrogen treatment on total and seasonal production of grass. 48th A. Rep. agric. Res. Inst. Nth. Ire., 1974–1975, pp. 24–29.Google Scholar
Blaxter, Sir Kenneth. 1980. Further developments of the metabolizable energy system for ruminants. In Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition — 1979 (ed. Haresign, W. and Lewis, D.), pp. 79–91. Butterworth, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camlin, M. S. and Stewart, R. H. 1976. The assessment of persistence and its application to the evaluation of early perennial ryegrass cultivars. J. Br. Grassld Soc. 31: 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flynn, A. V. 1974. Supplementing early and late cut silages with barley for store cattle. An Foras Taluntais Anim. Prod. Res. Rep., pp. 31–32.Google Scholar
Gordon, F. J. 1980. The effect of interval between harvests and wilting of herbage for silage on milk production. In Forage Conservation in the 80's (ed. Thomas, C.), Occ. Symp. Br. Grassld Soc, No. 11, pp. 379–382.Google Scholar
Hinks, C. E., Edwards, I. E. and Henderson, A. R. 1976. Beef production from formic acid-treated and wilted silages. Anim. Prod. 22: 217–223.Google Scholar
Leaver, J. D. 1973. Rearing of dairy cattle. 4. Effect of concentrate supplementation on the live-weight gain and feed intake of calves offered roughages ad libitum. Anim. Prod. 17: 43–52.Google Scholar
McCarrick, R. B. 1965. Effects of stage of growth and method of herbage conservation on performance of weanling cattle. Ir. J. agric. Res. 4: 161–178.Google Scholar
McIlmoyle, W. A. 1976. Silage for beef production. Occ. Publ. Agric. Res. Inst. Nth. Ire.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. Tech. Bull. 33. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Morgan, D. E. and Barber, W. P. 1980. The adviser's approach to predicting the metabolizable energy value of feeds for ruminants. In Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition — 1979 (ed. Haresign, W. and Lewis, D.), pp. 93–106. Butterworth, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murdoch, J. C. 1964. Some factors affecting the intake of roughage by sheep. J. Br. Grassld Soc. 19: 316–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. and McIlmoyle, W. A. 1982a. An evaluation of red clover silage for beef production. Anim. iW. 34: 95–101.Google Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. and McIlmoyle, W. A. 1982b. Effect of animal size on the response in the performance of beef cattle to an improvement in silage quality. Anim. Prod. 34: 301–308.Google Scholar
Strickland, M. J. and Jackson, M. V. 1969. Effect of date of cut on yield and quality of hay for beef production; Part II, Liveweight gains by bullocks. Expl. Husb., No. 18, pp. 74–86.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
Thomas, C., Gibbs, B. G., Aston, K. and Tayler, J. C. 1980. Some factors influencing the performance of beef cattle given silage. In Forage Conservation in the 80's (ed. Thomas, C.), Occ. Symp. Br. Grassld Soc, No. 11, pp. 383–387.Google Scholar
Vadiveloo, J. and Holmes, W. 1979. The effects of forage digestibility and concentrate supplementation on the nutritive value of the diet and performance of finishing cattle. Anim. Prod. 29: 121–129.Google Scholar