Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T15:34:15.834Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of fertiliser nitrogen and herbage dry-matter content on herbage intake and digestibility in bullocks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

J. C. Holmes  and
R. W. Lang
J. C. Holmes
Affiliation:
The Edinburgh School of Agriculture, West Mains Road, Edinburgh 9
R. W. Lang
Affiliation:
The Edinburgh School of Agriculture, West Mains Road, Edinburgh 9
Get access

Summary

1. Two experiments were conducted, the first during May, July and August, 1958, and the second during August 1960. The first experiment measured the intake and digestive efficiency of cattle fed on fresh cut herbage from low-and high-nitrogen manuring treatments with and without irrigation. The second experiment tested the effect of water added to fresh cut herbage on the intake of cattle.

2. Rainfall during the summer of the first experiment was high and irrigation had no effect on any of the criteria used.

3. Although the dry-matter content of the fresh herbage from the high nitrogen treatment was consistently lower than that from the low nitrogen treatment (16·6% compared with 19·7% on average when free of surface moisture) the dry-matter intake was the same at 1·97 lb. dry matter per 100 lb. live-weight, on both herbages.

4. The average digestibility of the high and low nitrogen treated herbage was 77·6% and 75·4%, the difference being significant. No scouring occurred. Digestibility was 78·9% in May, 76·1% in July and 74·5% in August (average of N levels).

5. Rain water carried on the leaf surface was shown to have no effect on dry-matter intake.

6. It is concluded that the dry-matter intake of cattle feeding on fresh herbage is unlikely to be restricted either by a high internal water content in the herbage or by rain water on the leaf surface.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , February 1963 , pp. 17 - 26
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1963

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

Baker, G. N. & Baker, M. L., 1952. The use of various pastures in producing finished yearling steers. Bull. Nebr. agric. Exp. Sta. no. 414.Google Scholar
Blaser, R. E., Hammes, R. C. Jr, Bryant, H. T., Kincaid, C. M., Skrdla, W. H., Taylor, T. H. & Griffeth, W. L., 1956. The value of forage species and mixtures for fattening steers. Agron.J., 48: 508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L., Wainman, F. W. & Wilson, R. S., 1961. The regulation of food intake by sheep. Anim. Prod., 3: 51.Google Scholar
Donald, C. M., 1941. Pastures and Pasture Research. University of Sydney Publication.Google Scholar
Duckworth, J. E. & Shirlaw, D. W., 1958. A study of factors affecting feed intake and the eating behaviour of cattle. Anim. Behav., 6: 147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellison, W., 1949. Grassland management and the animal. Farming, Norwich, 3: 18.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. C., 1961. Beef production from the grazing ley as influenced by the application of nitrogen fertilizer. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Ittner, N. R., Lofgreen, G. P. & Meyer, J. H., 1954. A study of pasturing and soiling alfalfa with beef steers. J. Anim. Sci., 13: 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minson, D. J., Raymond, W. F. & Harris, C. E., 1960. Studies in the digestibility of herbage. VIII. The digestibility of S 37 cocksfoot, S 23 ryegrass and S 24 ryegrass. J. Brit. Grassl. Soc., 15: 174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, L. A., Thomas, J. W. & Sykes, J. F., 1960. The acceptability of grass/legume silage by dairy cattle. Proc. VIIIth int. Grassl. Congr., Reading, U.K., p. 701.Google Scholar
MacLusky, D. S., 1955. The quantities of herbage eaten by grazing dairy cows. Proc. Brit. Soc. Anim. Prod., 1955, p. 45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, W. F. & Minson, D. J., 1955. The use of chromic oxide for estimating the faecal production of grazing animals. J. Brit. Grassl. Soc., 10: 282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheehy, E. J., 1927. The correlation of nutritive values with dry matter content of pastures. Sci. Proc. R. Dublin Soc., 18 (N.S.): 389.Google Scholar
Sheehy, E. J., 1932. Factors which determine the nutritive value (stock carrying and fattening capacity) of untreated natural pastures. Sci. Proc. R. Dublin Soc., 20 (N.S.): 325.Google Scholar
Stapledon, Sir R. G., 1948. Pastures old and new, the animal's point of view. J. Minist. Agric., 55: 231.Google Scholar
Sullivan, E. F., Phillips, P. J. Jr, Washko, J. B., Miller, R. C., Kean, G. R. & Haskins, A. L., 1959. A comparison of nitrogen fertilized grass and grass-legume pasturage on the performance of yearling steers with and without stilbestrol and grain feeding 1957-58. Progr. Rep. Perm, agric. Exp. Sta., no. 211.Google Scholar
Tribe, D. E. & Gordon, J. G., 1952. The nutritive value of weeds and coarse herbage (browse) for young cattle grazing a temporary pasture. Emp. J. exp. Agric., 20: 240.Google Scholar
Van Keuren, R. W. & Heinemann, W. W., 1958. A comparison of grass-legume mixtures and grass under irrigation as pastures for yearling steers. Agron. J., 50: 85.Google Scholar