Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T08:26:19.780Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The relative value of concentrates and roughage for fattening cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

D. Levy  and
Z. Holzer
D. Levy
Affiliation:
The Volcani Institute of Agricultural Research, Bet Dagan, Israel
Z. Holzer
Affiliation:
The Volcani Institute of Agricultural Research, Bet Dagan, Israel
Get access

Summary

In three similar experiments, 2 or 3 kg of a commercial concentrate mixture, forming part of a high concentrate ration, were replaced by an equal weight of dry matter of one of four roughages: hay, straw, silage and green soilage.

The metabolizable energy content of the concentrate was 2-4 Mcal/kg. Expected daily gain was calculated according to the following energy systems: Scandinavian feed units (SFU), starch equivalent (SE), total digestible nutrients (TDN), the U.K. Agricultural Research Council system (ARC), and the U.S. National Research Council net energy system (NRC).

The replacement of 2 kg of concentrate significantly reduced daily gain only in the straw treatment. Reduction of the fat content of the carcasses was significant for all roughage treatments. The differences between the observed daily gain and the expected, as calculated by the SFU, SE and NRC systems, were highly significant, while those between the observed and those cal culated by the TDN and ARC systems were not significant. The TDN system overestimated the nutritional value of the roughages, while the SFU and SE systems underestimated it.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 13 , Issue 4 , November 1971 , pp. 569 - 579
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1971

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
Beardsley, D. W., McCormick, W. C. and Southwell, B. L. 1959. Steer performance on and rumen effects of different concentrate: roughage ratios in pelleted and unpelleted mixed fattening rations. J. Anim. Sci. 18: 1507 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Bondi, A. and Neumark, C. 1960-1961. [Table of composition of feeds for cattle and sheep.] Agricultural Calendar. Hassadeh Publ.Google Scholar
Breirem, K. 1955. Special problems in cattle feeding. Publ. FAO, Rome, No. 3: pp. 67–99.Google Scholar
Burroughs, W., Fowler, M. A. and Adeyanju, S. A. 1970. Net energy evaluation for beef cattle rations compared with evaluation by metabolizable energy measurements. J. Anim. Sci. 30: 450–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cmarik, G. F., WEBB, R. J. and a 1957. The response of fattening yearling steers self-fed complete pelleted rations of varying ratios of concentrate to roughage. J. Anim. Sci. 16: 1085 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Evans, R. E. 1960. Rations for livestock. Bull. Minist. Agric. Fish. Fd Lond., No. 48.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. 1957. Progress in Physiology of Farm Animals, Vol. 2. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Kay, M., MacDearmid, A. and MacLeod, N. A. 1970. Intensive beef production. 10. Replacement of cereals with chopped straw. Anim. Prod. 12: 261–266.Google Scholar
Levy, D. and Volcani, R. 1965. [The effect of different proportions of roughage and concentrates in the fattening ration on the rate of gain, feed conversion and body composition of Israeli-Friesian bull calves.] Bull. Volcani Inst. agric. Res., No. 84.Google Scholar
Lofgreen, G. P. 1950. Digestible protein, total digestible nutrients and net energy requirements for maintenance and gain of beef cattle. Mimeogr. Rep. Dept. Anim. Hush., Univ. of California, Davis.Google Scholar
Lofgreen, G. P. and Garret, W. N. 1968. A system for expressing net energy requirements and feed values for growing and finishing cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 27: 793–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCroskey, J., Pope, L. S., Walters, L. and Urban, K. 1958. Fattening steers and heifers on rations containing different levels of concentrates. Misc. Publ. Okla. agric. Exp. Stn, No. MP 51, pp. 116–121.Google Scholar
Morrison, F. B. 1959. Feeds and Feeding (22nd ed.). Morrison Publishing Co, Clinton, la.Google Scholar
Moulton, C. R., Trowbridge, P. F. and Haigh, L. D. 1921. Studies in animal nutrition. I. Changes in form and weight on different planes of nutrition. Bull. Mo. agric. Exp. Stn, No. 43.Google Scholar
Moulton, C. R., Trowbridge, P. F. and Haigh, L. D. 1922. III. Changes in chemical composition on different planes of nutrition. Bull. Mo. agric. Exp. Stn, No. 55.Google Scholar
National Research Council. 1964. Joint United States-Canadian Tables of Feed Composition. Publ. National Research Council, Washington, D.C., No. 1232.Google Scholar
National Research Council. 1970. Nutrient requirements of domestic animals, No. 4. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle. National Research Council, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Panish, D. F., Stanley, E. B. and Shillingburg, C. G. 1952. Effects of roughage levels on fattening cattle in Arizona. Bull. Ariz, agric. Exp. Stn, No. 272.Google Scholar
Pope, L. S., Henrickson, R. L. and Odells, G. 1958. Effect of rapid vs moderate rates of gain on feed efficiency and carcass composition of steer calves. Misc. Publ. Okla. agric. Exp. Stn., No. MP 51, pp. 82–87.Google Scholar
Richardson, D., Smith, E. F., Baker, F. H. and Cox, R. F. 1961. Effects of roughageconcentrate ratio in cattle fattening rations on gains, feed efficiency, digestion and carcass. J.Anim. Sci. 20: 316–318.Google Scholar