Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T15:41:46.875Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A comparison of wheat and barley as supplements to grass silage for finishing beef cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

R. W. J. Steen
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co. Down BT26 6DR
Get access

Abstract

Two randomized-block experiments were carried out to examine the relative value of wheat and barley as supplements to grass silage for finishing beef cattle. In each experiment unwilted, formic acid-treated silage was offered ad libitum and supplemented with 500 g soya-bean meal and 50 g minerals and vitamins to 44 12-month-old bulls for 157 and 172 days in experiments 1 and 2 respectively. Twelve of the animals also received 2·5 kg rolled spring barley (LB), 12 received 4·0 kg barley (HB) and 20 received 3·25 kg rolled wheat (W). For experiments 1 and 2 respectively the barley contained 796 and 787 g dry matter (DM) per kg; 118 and 105 g crude protein (CP) per kg DM; 47 and 57 g crude fibre per kg DM; the wheat contained 845 and 800 g DM per kg; 112 and 116 g CP per kg DM; 23 and 25 g crude fibre per kg DM; and the silages contained 190 and 177 g DM per kg; 153 and 176 g CP per kg DM; 80 and 104 g ammonia-nitrogen per kg total nitrogen. On average over the two experiments, for treatments LB, HB and W respectively, silage DM intakes were 5·4, 4·7 (s.e. 0·14) and 4·9 (s.e. 0·11) kg/day; total DM intakes 7·9, 8·3 (s.e. 0·14) and 8·1 (s.e. 0·11) kg/day; metabolizable energy intakes 91·4, 97·8 and 94·2 MJ/day; live-weight gains 1·04,1·19 (s.e. 0·029) and 1·10 (s.e. 0·023) kg/day and carcass gams 0·65, 0·77 (s.e. 0·017) and 0·70 (s.e. 0·013) kg/day. It is concluded that the feeding value of wheat was proportionately 0·98 of that of barley for finishing beef cattle when given as a supplement to grass silage, and that the type of cereal offered did not affect silage intake or carcass composition.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1993

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

Agricultural Research Council. 1965. Recommended procedures for use in the measurement of beef cattle and carcasses. Agricultural Research Council, London.Google Scholar
Agricultural Research Council. 1980. Nutrient requirements of Ruminant Livestock. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough.Google Scholar
Bligh, E. G. and Dyer, W. J. 1959. A rapid method of total lipid extraction and purification. Canadian journal of Biochemistry and Physiology 37: 911917.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kempster, A. J., Cuthbertson, A. and Harrington, G. 1982. Beef carcase grading and classification. In Carcass evaluation in livestock breeding, production and marketing, pp. 163210. Granada, St Albans.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food. 1986. Feed composition. UK tables of feed composition and nutritive value for ruminants.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 1990a. Statistics, June 1989. Agricultural returns for the United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 1990b. UK tables of nutritive value and chemical composition of feedstuffs.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland and Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland. 1984. Energy allowances and feeding systems for ruminants. Reference book 433. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Moran, J. B. 1986. Cereal grains in complete diets for dairy cows: a comparison of rolled barley, wheat and oats and of three methods of processing oats. Animal Production 43: 2736.Google Scholar
Morris, J. B. and Moir, K. W. 1964. Methods of determining the chemical composition of dead animals. In Carcass composition and appraisal of meat animals (ed. Tribe, D. E.), pp. 2.12.22. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. 1975. Manipulation of rumen fermentation for maximum food utilization. World Review of Nutrition and Diet 22: 151182.Google ScholarPubMed
Steen, R. W. J. 1984. A comparison of two-cut and three-cut systems of silage making for beef cattle using two cultivars of perennial ryegrass. Animal Production 38: 171179.Google Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. 1988. Factors affecting the utilization of grass silage for beef production. In Efficient beef production from grass (ed. Frame, J.), Occasional publication no. 22, British Grassland Society, pp. 129139.Google Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. 1989. A comparison of soya-bean, sunflower and fish meals as protein supplements for yearling cattle offered silage-based diets. Animal Production 48: 8189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. 1991. The effect of level of protein supplementation on the performance and carcass composition of young bulls given grass silage ad libitum. Animal Production 52: 465475.Google Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. 1992. The effects of plane of nutrition and slaughter weight on performance and carcass composition of beef cattle. Animal Production 54: 466 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Thomas, O. O. and Geissler, B. R. 1968. Substitution of wheat for barley in cattle fattening rations. Journal of Animal Science 27: 1115 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Tommervik, R. S. and Waldern, D. E. 1969. Comparative feeding value of wheat, corn, barley, milo, oats and a mixed concentrate ration for lactating cows. Journal of Dairy Science 52: 6873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar