• Login
    View Item 
    •   T-Stór
    • Teagasc End-of-Project Reports
    • AGRIP End of Project Reports
    • View Item
    •   T-Stór
    • Teagasc End-of-Project Reports
    • AGRIP End of Project Reports
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

    All of T-StórCommunitiesPublication DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsFunderThis CollectionPublication DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsFunderProfilesView

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    Information

    Deposit AgreementLicense

    Statistics

    Most Popular ItemsStatistics by CountryMost Popular Authors

    Concentrate Supplementation of Pasture for Beef Production

    • CSV
    • RefMan
    • EndNote
    • BibTex
    • RefWorks
    Thumbnail
    Name:
    eopr-4373.pdf
    Size:
    143.1Kb
    Format:
    PDF
    Download
    Author
    French, Padraig
    O'Riordan, Edward G.
    O'Kiely, Padraig
    Moloney, Aidan P
    Keyword
    Beef production
    Concentrate supplementation
    Grass
    Growth
    Date
    2001-03-01
    
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Statistics
    Display Item Statistics
    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/11019/1394
    Citation
    French, P., O'Riordan, E.G., O'Kiely, P., Moloney, A.P., Concentrate Supplementation of Pasture for Beef Production, End of Proejct Reports, Teagasc, 2001
    Abstract
    * Unsupplemented cattle offered a high grass allowance (18 kg (DM)/head/day), achieved 0.97 of the DM intake of a positive control offered concentrates ad-libitium. At a low grass allowance (6 kg/DM/head/day), there was no effect of supplementary concentrates on grass intake. At a medium (12 kg/DM/head/day), and high grass allowance, supplementary concentrates reduced grass intake by 0.43 and 0.81 kg/DM respectively per kg/DM concentrate offered. * Supplementary concentrates increased complete diet digestibility even though offering supplementary concentrates also increased total DM intake. Complete diet digestibility was higher than the additive values of the grass and concentrates. This would imply that the supplementary concentrates increased the grass DM digestibility. * Increasing the grass allowance increased plasma urea concentration; supplementary concentrates increased total dietary nitrogen intake and reduced plasma urea concentration. These findings suggest that the concentrate supplement enabled greater utilisation by rumen micro-organisms of the degradable nitrogen supplied by the grass. * Supplementing with concentrates increased carcass growth by 116 g/kg concentrate DM eaten whereas increasing the grass allowance increased carcass growth by 38 g/kg/DM grass eaten. The carcass weight response to concentrates of grazing animals was twice that of animals offered concentrates ad-libitum which gained 57 g carcass per kg concentrate DM eaten. * The relationship between carcass gain (Y) (kg/day) and supplementary concentrates (X) (kg/day) was quadratic (P< 0.001) and was best described by the equation: Y = -0.0099X2 + 0.1364X + 0.2459 (R2 = 0.60). The relationship between carcass gain (Y) (kg day-1) and grass intake (X) was also quadratic (P< 0.01) and was best described by the equation: Y = -43X2 + 275X + 133 (R2 = 0.48). Although there was a much larger (double) carcass growth response to supplementary concentrates than to additional grass DM eaten, increasing grass intake significantly increased carcass fat scores whereas offering supplementary concentrates did not. This would imply that relative to concentrates, autumn grass led to a change in the partitioning of energy from muscle towards subcutaneous fat. * As a strategy for increasing the performance of cattle grazing the type of autumn grass used in this study, offering supplementary concentrates offers more scope to improve animal performance than altering grass allowance. * The carbohydrate source of the three concentrates formulated to differ in rate of degradability did not alter rumen fluid pH, volatile fatty acid (VFA) concentration or the rate of grass DM or N degradation when grass supply was considered to be limiting or liberal. The autumn grass was apparently capable of buffering the effects of concentrate DM degradation rate which varied by up to two fold. * The rumen fluid parameters were more influenced by the pat-tern of grass intake than type of concentrate offered. Hence, there was no effect of concentrate type on animal performance.
    Collections
    AGRIP End of Project Reports

    entitlement

     
    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2017  DuraSpace
    Quick Guide | Contact Us | Send Feedback
    Open Repository is a service operated by 
    Atmire NV
     

    Export search results

    The export option will allow you to export the current search results of the entered query to a file. Different formats are available for download. To export the items, click on the button corresponding with the preferred download format.

    By default, clicking on the export buttons will result in a download of the allowed maximum amount of items.

    To select a subset of the search results, click "Selective Export" button and make a selection of the items you want to export. The amount of items that can be exported at once is similarly restricted as the full export.

    After making a selection, click one of the export format buttons. The amount of items that will be exported is indicated in the bubble next to export format.