Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:28:18.209Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of rolled barley with citrus pulp as a supplement for growing cattle offered grass silage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2017

C. Lenehan ,
A. P. Moloney ,
E. G. O’Riordan ,
A. Kelly  and
M. McGee
C. Lenehan
Affiliation:
Teagasc Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Grange, Dunsany, Co. Meath, Ireland School of Agriculture, Food Science and Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
A. P. Moloney
Affiliation:
Teagasc Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Grange, Dunsany, Co. Meath, Ireland
E. G. O’Riordan
Affiliation:
Teagasc Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Grange, Dunsany, Co. Meath, Ireland
A. Kelly
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Food Science and Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
M. McGee*
Affiliation:
Teagasc Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Grange, Dunsany, Co. Meath, Ireland
*
†E-mail: mark.mcgee@teagasc.ie
Get access

Abstract

This study aimed to examine the effects of replacing rolled barley (high in starch) with citrus pulp (high in digestible fibre) in a supplement on intake and performance of young growing cattle offered grass silage ad libitum for 101 days. Weaned, early- and late-maturing breed, male suckled beef calves (n=120) were blocked by sire breed, gender and weight and from within block randomly assigned to one of two concentrate supplements based mainly on rolled barley (BAR) or citrus pulp (CIT) and formulated to have similar concentrations of true protein digestible in the small intestine. On day 87, blood samples were taken before and 2 h after feeding, and rumen fluid samples were collected 2 h post-feeding. Supplement type did not affect (P>0.05) grass silage intake, live weight gain, final live weight, ultrasonically assessed body composition or measurements of skeletal size. Rumen pH (6.64 v. 6.79), ammonia (51 v. 81 mg/l) and acetate-to-propionate ratio (2.7 v. 3.2) were lower (P<0.001) for CIT than BAR. In conclusion, citrus pulp can replace barley in concentrate supplements for growing cattle without negatively affecting performance.

Keywords

barleybeef cattlecitrus pulpconcentrate supplementationgrass silage
Type
Full Paper
Information
Advances in Animal Biosciences , Volume 8 , Supplement s1: Improving the quality and sustainability of beef production , October 2017 , pp. s33 - s37
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

Arthington, JD, Kunkle, WE and Martin, AM 2002. Citrus pulp for cattle. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice 18, 317–326.Google ScholarPubMed
Bampidis, VA and Robinson, PH 2006. Citrus by-products as ruminant feeds: a review. Animal Feed Science and Technology 128, 175–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conroy, SB, Drennan, MJ, Kenny, DA and McGee, M 2010. The relationship of various muscular and skeletal scores and ultrasound measurements in the live animal, and carcass classification scores with carcass composition and value of bulls. Livestock Science 127, 11–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finneran, E, Crosson, P, O Kiely, P, Shalloo, L, Forristal, D and Wallace, M 2012. Stochastic simulation of the cost of home-produced feeds for ruminant livestock systems. Journal of Agricultural Science-Cambridge 150, 123–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzsimons, C, Kenny, DA, Deighton, M, Fahey, AG and McGee, M 2013. Methane emissions and rumen fermentation variables of beef heifers differing in phenotypic residual feed intake. Journal of Animal Science 91, 5789–5800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González, LA, Manteca, X, Calsamiglia, S, Schwartzkopf-Genswein, KS and Ferret, A 2012. Ruminal acidosis in feedlot cattle: interplay between feed ingredients, rumen function and feeding behavior (a review). Animal Feed Science and Technology 172, 66–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique 2004. Tables of composition and nutritional value of feed materials. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands. 304pp.Google Scholar
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique 2010. Alimentation des bovins, ovins et caprins. Besoins des animaux – Valeurs des aliments: Tables INRA 2007, mise a jour 2010. Editions Quae, c/o INRA, Versailles, 312pp.Google Scholar
Keane, MG 2005. Comparison of sugar-beet pulp and barley with and without soya bean meal as supplements to silage for growing steers. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 1, 15–26.Google Scholar
Kyne, S, Drennan, MJ and Caffrey, PJ 2001. Influence of concentrate level during winter and date of turn out to pasture on the performance of cattle and the effect of grazing of silage ground on grass yield and quality. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 40, 23–32.Google Scholar
Lawrence, P, Kenny, DA, Earley, B, Crews, DH and McGee, M 2011. Grass silage intake, rumen and blood variables, ultrasonic and body measurements, feeding behavior, and activity in pregnant beef heifers differing in phenotypic residual feed intake. Journal of Animal Science 89, 3248–3261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food 1993. Prediction of the energy values of compound feeding stuffs for farm animals. PB 1285. MAFF Publications, Alnwick.Google Scholar
Marren, D, McGee, M, Moloney, AP, Kelly, AK and O’Riordan, EG 2013. Effect of growth rate during the first indoor winter on performance to slaughter of late-maturing weaned suckler bred bulls. Agricultural Research Forum, Tullamore, Ireland. p 34.Google Scholar
McGee, M 2005. Recent developments in feeding beef cattle on grass silage-based diets. In Silage production and utilisation (ed. RS Park and MD Stronge). Proceedings of the XIVth International Silage Conference, July 2005, Belfast, Northern Ireland, pp. 51–64. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGee, M, Drennan, MJ and Crosson, P 2014. Effect of concentrate feeding level in winter and turnout date to pasture in spring on biological and economical performance of weanling cattle in suckler beef production systems. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 53, 1–19.Google Scholar
O’Kiely, P 2011. Intake, growth and feed conversion efficiency of finishing beef cattle offered diets based on triticale, maize or grass silages, or ad libitum concentrate. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 50, 189–207.Google Scholar
O’Kiely, P and Moloney, AP 1994. Silage characteristics and performance of cattle offered grass silage made without an additive, with formic acid or with a partially neutralised blend of aliphatic organic acids. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 33, 25–39.Google Scholar
Owens, D, McGee, M, Boland, T and O’Kiely, P 2008. Intake, rumen fermentation and nutrient flow to the omasum in beef cattle fed grass silage fortified with sucrose and/or supplemented with concentrate. Animal Feed Science and Technology 144, 23–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesonen, M, Joki-Tokola, E. and Huuskonen, A. 2014. The effect of silage plant species, concentrate proportion and sugar beet pulp supplementation on the performance of growing and finishing crossbred bulls. Animal Production Science 54, 1703–1708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steen, RWJ 1995. A comparison of supplements to grass silage for beef cattle. British Society of Animal Science Winter Meeting, Scarborough, p. 166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar