Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T16:22:32.267Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An intensive system of beef production from maize silage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

J. M. Wilkinson and
Ines M. Penning
J. M. Wilkinson
Affiliation:
The Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire
Ines M. Penning
Affiliation:
The Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire
Get access

Summary

Thirty-six British Friesian entire male calves were reared from 100 kg live weight (LW) to slaughter at 450 kg LW. They were offered maize silage ad libitum plus supplements of minerals and a protein concentrate or urea in three treatment diets: protein concentrate (P), urea (U) and (P/U) in which protein and urea each provided 50% of the supplementary N up to 200 kg LW followed by urea alone. Levels of N × 6·25 in the diet dry matter (DM) were 16% from 100 to 200 kg LW, 14% from 200 kg to 300 kg, and 12% thereafter. Barley was given to all the cattle over 12 mo of age at 1% of LW daily.

Live-weight gain in the 280-day period prior to the introduction of barley averaged 899, 684 and 580 (±31·0) g/day for P, P/U and U, respectively, and was greater for P than for the other two treatments (P<0·05). After the introduction of barley, gains were similar between treatments, averaging 1275, 1333 and 1270 (±43·2) g/day, resulting in mean ages at slaughter of 15, 16·5 and 17 mo for P, P/U and U, respectively.

Substitution of protein concentrate by urea was reflected in a reduced content of metabolizable energy (ME) in the diet and a reduced intake of DM and ME in period 1. Although the contents of ME in the diets were similar in period 2, when barley was given to the cattle, there was little evidence of compensatory growth in treatment P/U and U compared with treatment P. Live-weight gains predicted from ME intake showed good agreement with actual gains. However, reduced intakes and gains by treatments P/U and U compared with treatment P meant that the target weight and age at slaughter of 450 kg and 15 mo of age was met only by treatment P. For the complete system the cattle consumed an average of 2·3 t DM per head of which maize silage DM comprised 78%. Efficiency of feed use averaged 15·5 kg live-weight gain per 100 kg total DM eaten.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , October 1976, pp. 181 - 190
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1976

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Agricultural Research Council. 1965. The Nutrient Requirements of Farm Livestock. No. 2, Ruminants. Agricultural Research Council, London.Google Scholar
Demarquilly, C., Haurez, P. L., Journet, M., Lelong, C. and Malterre, C. 1971. [The whole maize plant, composition, nutritive value and utilisation by cattle.] Bull. Tech. Inf. Nos. 264–265: 1001–1018.Google Scholar
Essig, H. W. 1968. Urea-limestone-treated silage for beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 27: 730–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fekete, J. (ed.) 1974. [Use of silage made from whole-crop maize by young cattle.] Perspectives Inst. Tech. Cereales Fourrages, Paris. No. 2.Google Scholar
Malterre, C., Lelong, C. and Haurez, P. L. 1971. [Use of maize silage by growing beef cattle.] Bull. Tech. Cent. Rech. Zootech. Vet. (INRA) 6: 253–277.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1974a. Beef carcase classification. Beef Improvement Services. Newsletter No. 21. Meat and Livestock Commission, Bletchley, Bucks.Google Scholar
Meat and livestock commission. 1974b. Results for grass/cereal systems–cattle slaughtered spring/summer 1974. Beef Improvement Services, November 1974. Meat and Livestock Commission, Bletchley, Bucks.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1975. Results for cereal beef and calf rearing units—cattle sold July to end of December 1974. Beef Improvement Services, March 1975. Meat and Livestock Commission, Bletchley, Bucks.Google Scholar
Ruppert, W., Steinhauser, H. and Walter, K. 1970. [The use of maize silage for fattening young bulls.] Das Wirtschaftseigene Futter 16: 59–75.Google Scholar
Terry, R. A., Osbourn, D. F., Cammell, S. B. and Fenlon, J. S. 1974. In vitro digestibility and the estimation of energy in herbage. Växtodling 28: 19–25.Google Scholar
Thomas, C. and Wilkinson, J. M. 1975. The utilization of maize silage for intensive beef production. 3. Nitrogen and acidity as factors affecting the nutritive value of ensiled maize. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 85: 255–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, C., Wilkinson, J. M. and Tayler, J. C. 1975a. The utilization of maize silage for intensive beef production. 1. The effect of level and source of supplementary nitrogen on the utilization of maize silage by cattle of different ages. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 84: 353–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, C., Wilson, R. F., Wilkins, R. J. and Wilkinson, J. M. 1975b. The utilization of maize silage for intensive beef production. 2. The effect of urea on silage fermentation and on the voluntary intake and performance of young cattle fed maize silage based diets. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 84: 365–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tukey, J. W. 1949. Comparing individual means in the analysis of variance. Biometrics 5: 99–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Webster, A. J. F., Brockway, J. M. and Smith, J. S. 1974. Prediction of the energy requirements for growth in beef cattle. 1. The irrelevance of fasting metabolism. Anim. Prod. 19: 127–139.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, J. M., Huber, J. T. and Henderson, H. E. 1976. Acidity and proteolysis as factors affecting the nutritive value of corn silage. J. Anim. Sci. 42: 208–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, J. M., Lonsdale, C. R. and Tayler, J. C. 1973. The growth of beef cattle fed on maize silage supplemented with dried lucerne, fishmeal or urea. J. Br. Grassld Soc. 28: 13–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, J. M. and Tayler, J. C. 1973. Beef Production from Grassland, pp. 25–27. Butterworth, London.Google Scholar