Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T19:38:29.208Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The performance of two breeds given different amounts and sources of protein in a high-molasses diet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

T. R. Preston ,
M. B. Willis  and
A. Elías
T. R. Preston
Affiliation:
Instituto de Ciencia Animal, Apartado 24, San José de las Lajas, Habana, Cuba
M. B. Willis
Affiliation:
Instituto de Ciencia Animal, Apartado 24, San José de las Lajas, Habana, Cuba
A. Elías
Affiliation:
Instituto de Ciencia Animal, Apartado 24, San José de las Lajas, Habana, Cuba
Get access

Summary

On a fattening diet in which final molasses supplied from 68 to 76% of the metabolizable energy and napier grass some 10%, the treatments in a 2 × 2 × 3 factorial design were breed (Brahman or Brown Swiss × Brahman), source of supplementary protein (fish meal or poultry waste) and protein level (low, medium or high—replacing urea). Mean daily gains to 404 kg live weight were better for the crossbreds (0·89 compared with 0·77 kg), as was conversion rate in terms of Meal ME per kg gain (25·6 compared with 29·5); fish meal improved gains by 44% and conversion rate by 39% as compared with poultry waste when the two supplements were fed at levels designed to equate N intakes from this source. The superiority of the crossbreds was only apparent on the fish meal diets where they averaged 1·19 compared with 0·94 kg/day for the Brahmans. Daily N × 6·25 intakes decreased from 3·8 g/kg live weight on the low level of poultry waste to 2·9 on the high level due to low palatability of this material. On this treatment (poultry waste), daily gain (kg) was significantly related (b = 0·119±0·031; P<0·01) to N×6·25 intake (g) per unit live weight (kg). Commercial half carcass dissection showed the crossbreds to have significantly more edible meat, more bone and less e×cess fat than Brahmans. Protein source had no effect on carcass composition.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , August 1970 , pp. 457 - 464
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1970

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
Bratzler, J. W. and Long, T. A. 1968. Digestion of hydrolysed and cooked poultry waste by ruminants. J. Anim. Sci. 27: 1509 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Chalupa, W. 1968. Problems in feeding urea to ruminants. J. Anim. Sci. 27: 207–219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Long, T. A., Frear, D. E. H., Rugh, M. and Miller, J. 1968. Effect of source of nitrogen on feedlot performance of steers. J. Anim. Sci. 27: 1509 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
National Research Council. 1964. Feed composition. Publ. 1232. National Academy of Science, Nat. Res. Council, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Preston, T. R., Elías, A., Willis, M. B. and Sutherland, T. M. 1967a. Intensive beef production from molasses and urea. Nature, Lond. 216: 721–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preston, T. R., Willis, M. B. and Elías, A. 1967b. Intensive beef production from sugar cane. I. Different levels of urea in molasses given ad libitum to fattening bulls as a supplement to a grain diet. Rev. Cubana Cienc. Agric. (Eng. ed.) 1: 33–40.Google Scholar
Preston, T. R. and Willis, M. B. 1969. Sugar cane as an energy source for livestock. Outlook on Agriculture, 6: 29–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quintana, F. O. 1968. Un sistema para producir carne de ganado vacuno en las actuates condiciones cubanas (1967). Thesis Ing. Agron., Univ. Habana.Google Scholar
Rusnak, J. J., Long, T. A. and King, T. B. 1966. Hydrolysed poultry waste as a feed for cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 25: 909 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. 1956. Statistical Methods. (5th ed.) Iowa State College Press, Ames, Ia.Google Scholar
Willis, M. B. and Preston, T. R. 1967. Some aspects of performance testing in the Charolais breed. Rev. Cubana Cienc. Agric. (Eng. ed.) 1: 21–32.Google Scholar
Willis, M. B. and Preston, T. R. 1968. The performance of different breeds of beef cattle in Cuba. Anim. Prod. 10: 77–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willis, M. B. and Preston, T. R. 1969. The effect of using Brown Swiss, Charolais, Criollo and Holstein on Brahman cows: Growth and carcass composition. Anim. Prod. 11: 277–278 (Abstr.).Google Scholar