Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T01:58:47.509Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Performance of Hereford bulls offered diets based on whole crop silages with or without protein inclusion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2017

M. Pesonen ,
E. Joki-Tokola  and
A. Huuskonen
M. Pesonen*
Affiliation:
Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Green Technology, Tutkimusasemantie 15, FI-92400 Ruukki, Finland
E. Joki-Tokola
Affiliation:
Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Green Technology, Tutkimusasemantie 15, FI-92400 Ruukki, Finland
A. Huuskonen
Affiliation:
Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Green Technology, Tutkimusasemantie 15, FI-92400 Ruukki, Finland
*
†E-mail: maiju.pesonen@luke.fi
Get access

Abstract

An experiment with 30 Hereford growing bulls was designed to study the effects of (1) forage type and (2) inclusion of rapeseed meal (RSM) in the barley-based concentrate. The three forage types were grass silage (GS), whole crop barley silage harvested at the milk stage (BSM) or at the dough stage (BSD). The concentrate used was rolled barley alone or barley plus RSM. Mean total dry matter (DM) intakes for the GS, BSM and BSD bulls were 9.04, 8.74 and 9.46 kg/day, and carcass gains were 883, 770 and 867 g/day, respectively. Both DM intake and carcass gain were significantly higher in the BSD bulls compared with the BSM bulls. Mean carcass weights of the GS, BSM and BSD bulls were 395, 369 and 392 kg, respectively, and tended to be lower in the BSM bulls. Forage type and RSM had no effects on the carcass conformation or fat score. Rapeseed meal supplementation increased total DM intake (+10%, P<0.01), carcass gain (+14%, P<0.001) and carcass weight (+8%, P<0.01) of the bulls. Overall, GS could be totally replaced by whole crop barley silage in the diet of growing bulls when the concentrate constitutes 0.4 of the diet, but whole crop barley silage should be harvested at the dough stage instead of the milk stage.

Keywords

beef productioncarcass characteristicsfeed intakegrowthwhole crop silages
Type
Full Paper
Information
Advances in Animal Biosciences , Volume 8 , Supplement s1: Improving the quality and sustainability of beef production , October 2017 , pp. s10 - s14
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2017 

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

EC 2006. Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2006 of 24 July 2006 concerning the Community scale for the classification of carcasses of adult bovine animals. The Official Journal of the European Union 214, 1–6.Google Scholar
Huhtanen, P, Rinne, M and Nousiainen, J 2007. Evaluation of the factors affecting silage intake of dairy cows; a revision of the relative silage dry matter intake index. Animal 1, 758–770.Google Scholar
Huhtanen, P, Rinne, M and Nousiainen, J 2008. Evaluation of the concentrate factors affecting silage intake of dairy cows: a development of the relative total diet intake index. Animal 2, 942–953.Google Scholar
Huuskonen, A 2013. Performance of growing and finishing dairy bulls offered diets based on whole-crop barley silage with or without protein supplementation relative to a grass silage-based diet. Agricultural and Food Science 22, 424–434.Google Scholar
Huuskonen, A, Huhtanen, P and Joki-Tokola, E 2013. The development of a model to predict feed intake by growing cattle. Livestock Science 158, 74–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huuskonen, A, Huhtanen, P and Joki-Tokola, E. 2014. Evaluation of protein supplementation for growing cattle fed grass silage-based diets: a meta-analysis. Animal 8, 1653–1662.Google Scholar
Huuskonen, A, Pesonen, M and Honkavaara, M 2016. Performance and meat quality of Nordic Red and Aberdeen Angus bulls offered faba bean or field pea based whole crop legume-cereal silages. Agricultural and Food Science 25, 1–12.Google Scholar
Keady, TWJ, Hanrahan, JP, Marley, CL and Scollan, ND 2013. Production and utilization of ensiled forages by beef cattle, dairy cows, pregnant ewes and finishing lambs: a review. Agricultural and Food Science 22, 70–92.Google Scholar
Luke 2017. Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke). Retrieved on 24 January 2017 from http://www.luke.fi/feedtables Google Scholar
MAFF 1984. Energy allowances and feeding systems for ruminants. Reference Book 433. Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, London, UK.Google Scholar
Van Keulen, J and Young, BA 1977. Evaluation of acid-insoluble ash as a marker in ruminant digestibility studies. Journal Animal Science 44, 282–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zadoks, JC, Chang, TT and Konzak, CF 1974. A decimal code for the growth stages of cereals. Weed Research 14, 415–421.Google Scholar