Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T15:19:37.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of silage from maize crops differing in maturity at harvest, grass silage feed value and concentrate feed level on performance of finishing lambs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2013

T. W. J. Keady  and
J. P. Hanrahan
T. W. J. Keady*
Affiliation:
Teagasc, Animal & Grassland Research & Innovation Centre, Mellows Campus, Athenry, Co., Galway, Ireland
J. P. Hanrahan
Affiliation:
Teagasc, Animal & Grassland Research & Innovation Centre, Mellows Campus, Athenry, Co., Galway, Ireland
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The effects of (i) medium and high feed value (MFV and HFV) maize silages and (ii) MFV and HFV grass silages, each in combination with a range of concentrate feed levels, on the performance of finishing lambs were evaluated using 280 Suffolk-X lambs (initial live weight 36.1 kg). The MFV and HFV maize silages represented crops with dry matter (DM) concentrations of 185 and 250 g/kg, respectively, at harvest, and had starch and metabolisable energy (ME) concentrations of 33 and 277 g/kg DM and 9.6 and 11.0 MJ/kg, respectively. HFV and MFV grass silages had DM and ME concentrations of 216 and 294 g/kg and 11.0 and 11.5 MJ/kg DM, respectively. A total of 13 treatments were involved. The four silages were offered ad libitum with daily concentrate supplements of 0.2, 0.5 or 0.8 kg per lamb. A final treatment consisted of concentrate offered ad libitum with 0.5 kg of the HFV grass silage daily. Increasing the feed value of grass silage increased (P < 0.001) forage intake, daily carcass and live weight gains, final live weight and carcass weight. Increasing maize silage feed value tended to increase (P = 0.07) daily carcass gain. Increasing concentrate feed level increased total food and ME intakes, and live weight and carcass gains. There was a significant interaction between silage feed value and the response to concentrate feed level. Relative to the HFV grass silage, the positive linear response to increasing concentrate feed level was greater with lambs offered the MFV grass silage for daily live weight gain (P < 0.001), daily carcass gain (P < 0.01) and final carcass weight (P < 0.01). Relative to the HFV maize silage, there was a greater response to increasing concentrate feed level from lambs offered the MFV maize silage in terms of daily carcass gain (P < 0.05) and daily live weight gain (P = 0.06). Forage type had no significant effect on the response to increased concentrate feed level. Relative to the MFV grass silage supplemented with 0.2 kg concentrate, the potential concentrate-sparing effect of the HFV grass silage, and the MFV and HFV maize silages was 0.41, 0.09 and 0.25 kg daily per lamb, respectively. It is concluded that increasing forage feed value increased forage intake and animal performance, and maize silage can replace MFV grass silage in the diet of finishing lambs as performance was equal to or better (depending on maturity of maize at harvest) than that for MFV grass silage.

Keywords

finishing lambsmaize silagegrass silageconcentrate feed levelforage feed value
Type
Nutrition
Information
animal , Volume 7 , Issue 7 , July 2013 , pp. 1088 - 1098
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2013 

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

Black, JL 1983. Growth and development of lambs. In Sheep production (ed. W Haresign), pp. 21–58. Butterworths, London, UK.Google Scholar
Breen, J, Hanrahan, K 2011. Situation and outlook for cattle. In Outlook 2011. Economic Prospects for Agriculture pp. 46–72. Teagasc, Ireland.Google Scholar
Castlejon, M, Leaver, JD 1994. Intake and digestibility of urea-treated whole crop wheat and liveweight gain by dairy heifers. Animal Feed Science and Technology 46, 119–130.Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, JJ 1987. Finishing store lambs on silage-based diets 4. Effects of stage of grass growth when ensiled and barley supplementation on silage intake and lamb performance. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 26, 139–152.Google Scholar
Givens, DI, Cottyn, BG, Dewey, PJS, Steg, A 1995. A comparison of the neutral detergent-cellulase method with other laboratory methods for predicting the digestibility in vivo of maize silages form three European countries. Animal Feed Science and Technology 54, 55–64.Google Scholar
Keady, TWJ 2000. Beyond the science: what the farmer looks for in the production of silage. In Biotechnology in the feed industry (ed. TP Lyons and KA Jacques), pp. 439–452. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham, UK.Google Scholar
Keady, TWJ 2005. Ensiled maize and whole crop wheat forages for beef and dairy cattle: effects on animal performance. In Silage production and utilization (ed. RS Park and MD Stronge), pp. 65–82. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Keady, TWJ, Hanrahan, JP 2008. The effects of grass silage harvest systems, concentrate feed level and maize silage maturity and soyabean supplementation on ewe and subsequent lamb performance. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, Scarborough, England, p. 125.Google Scholar
Keady, TWJ, Hanrahan, JP 2009. The effects of maturity of maize at harvest and soyabean supplementation, grass silage feed value and concentrate feed level on ewe and subsequent lamb performance. Proceedings of the XV International Silage Conference, Southport, England, pp. 133–134.Google Scholar
Keady, TWJ, Hanrahan, JP 2010. An evaluation of the effect of grass silage and concentrate feed level on ewe and subsequent progeny performance and on the potential concentrate sparing effect. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, Belfast, Northern Ireland, p. 38.Google Scholar
Keady, TWJ, Hanrahan, JP 2012a. Effects of plane of nutrition during the rearing phase and pregnancy on the performance of ewes lambing at 2 years of age. Advances in Biosciences 3, 161.Google Scholar
Keady, TWJ, Hanrahan, JP 2012b. The effects of allowance and frequency of allocation of autumn-saved pasture, when offered to spring lambing ewes in mid pregnancy, on ewe and lamb performance and subsequent herbage yield. Livestock Science 143, 15–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keady, TWJ, Mayne, CS, Marsden, M 1998. The effects of concentrate energy source on silage intake and animal performance with lactating dairy cows offered a range of grass silages. Animal Science 66, 21–33.Google Scholar
Keady, TWJ, Mayne, CS, Fitzpatrick, DA 2000. Prediction of silage feeding value from the analysis of the herbage at ensiling and effects of nitrogen fertilizer, date of harvest and additive treatment on grass silage composition. Journal of Agricultural Science 134, 353–368.Google Scholar
Keady, TWJ, Mayne, CS, Kilpatrick, DJ 2003. The effect of maturity of maize silage at harvest on the performance of lactating dairy cows offered three contrasting grass silages. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, 126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keady, TWJ, Gordon, AW, Moss, BW 2012. Effects of replacing grass silage with maize silages differing in inclusion level and maturity on the performance, meat quality and concentrate sparing effect of beef cattle. Animal, published online – doi:10.1017/S1751731112002364Google ScholarPubMed
Keady, TWJ, Steen, RWJ, Kilpatrick, DJ, Mayne, CS 1994. Effects of inoculant treatment on silage fermentation, digestibility and intake by growing cattle. Grass and Forage Science 49, 284–294.Google Scholar
Keady, TWJ, Mayne, CS, Fitzpatrick, DA, Marsden, M 1999. The effects of energy source and level of digestible undegradable protein in concentrates on silage intake and performance of lactating dairy cows offered a range of grass silages. Animal Science 68, 763–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keady, TWJ, Kilpatrick, CM, Cushnahan, A, Murphy, JA 2002. The cost of producing and feeding forages. Proceedings of the XIII International Silage Conference, Auchincruive, Scotland, pp. 322–323.Google Scholar
Keady, TWJ, Mayne, CS, Offer, NW, Thomas, C 2004. Prediction of voluntary intake. InFeed into milk – a new applied feeding system for dairy cows (ed. C Thomas), pp. 1–10. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham, UK.Google Scholar
Keady, TWJ, Lively, FO, Kilpatrick, DJ, Moss, BW 2007. Effects of replacing grass silage with either maize or whole crop wheat silages on the performance and meat quality of beef cattle offered two levels of concentrate. Animal 1, 613–623.Google Scholar
Keady, TWJ, Lively, FO, Kilpatrick, DJ, Moss, BW 2008a. The effects of grain treatment, grain feed level, and grass silage feed value on the performance of, and meat quality from finishing beef cattle. Animal 2, 149–159.Google Scholar
Keady, TWJ, Kilpatrick, DJ, Mayne, CS, Gordon, FJ 2008b. Effects of replacing grass silage with maize silages, differing in maturity, on performance and potential concentrate sparing effect of dairy cows offered two feed value grass silages. Livestock Science 119, 1–11.Google Scholar
Keady, TWJ, Hanrahan, JP, Marley, CL, Scollan, ND 2012. Silage production – factors affecting the utilization of ensiled forages by beef cattle, dairy cows, pregnant ewes and finishing lambs. A review. Agricultural and Food Science (in press).Google Scholar
McNamee, BF, Kilpartick, DJ, Steen, RWJ, Gordon, FJ 2001. The prediction of grass silage intake by beef cattle receiving barley based supplements. Livestock Production Science 68, 25–30.Google Scholar
Park, RS, Agnew, RE, Gordon, FJ, Steen, RWJ 1998. The use of near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) on undried samples of grass silage to predict chemical composition and digestibility parameters. Animal Feed Science and Technology 72, 155–167.Google Scholar
Phipps, RH, Weller, RF, Smith, T, Fulford, J 1981. Protein studies on maize silage as a based ration for dairy cows. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 96, 283–290.Google Scholar
Phipps, RH, Sutton, JD, Beever, DE, Jones, AK 2000. The effect of crop maturity on the nutritional value of maize silage for lactating dairy cattle. 3 Food intake and milk production. Animal Science 71, 401–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, MG, Murray, RS 2001. The volatility of components of grass silage on oven-drying and inter-relationships between dry matter content estimated by different analytical methods. Grass and Forage Science 56, 405–411.Google Scholar
Reynolds, CK, Tyrrell, HF, Reynolds, PJ 1991. Effects of diet forage to concentrate ratio and intake on energy metabolism in growing beef heifers: net nutrient metabolism by visceral tissues. Journal of Nutrition 121, 1004–1015.Google Scholar
SAS Institute Inc. (SAS) 2000. SAS/STAT user's guide, Version 8. SAS, Cary, North Carolina, USA.Google Scholar
Steen, RWJ, Kilpatrick, DJ, Porter, MG 2002. Effects of the proportions of high or medium digestibility grass silage and concentrates in the diets of beef cattle on ADG, carcass composition and fatty acid composition of muscle. Grass and Forage Science 57, 279–291.Google Scholar
Steen, RWJ, Gordon, FJ, Dawson, LER, Park, RS, Mayne, CS, Agnew, RE, Kilpatrick, DJ, Porter, MG 1998. Factors affecting the intake of grass silage by cattle and prediction of silage intake. Animal Science 66, 115–127.Google Scholar