Title: Voluntary consumption by cattle and nutrient content of silages made from some typical Florida forages
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00091672/00001
 Material Information
Title: Voluntary consumption by cattle and nutrient content of silages made from some typical Florida forages
Alternate Title: Dairy science mimeo report 63-1 ; Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Wing, J. M.
Becker, R. B.
Publisher: Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: July 18, 1962
Copyright Date: 1962
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00091672
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: 316332856 - OCLC

Full Text


S3-1 FLORIDA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS
Gainesville, Florida

Dairy Science Mimeo Report 63-1
July 18, 1962

Voluntary Consumption by Cattle and Nutrient Content of Silages
Made from Some Typical Florida Forages

J. M. Wing and R. B. Becker

SUMMARY

Renewed interest in grassland farming generally has stimulated
interest in silage for two reasons: an over-abundance of herbage occurs
often at certain seasons, usually at a time when weather conditions
are unfavorable for making hay, and the quality and quantity of forage
are inadequate during the fall and winter months, making supplementary
roughage desirable.

Silage has been made in the United States since 1876 and consider-
able research into methods and materials for ensiling forages has
been accomplished. Little information is available, however, to show
how silage can be used to best advantage. The present work was under-
taken to determine the voluntary intake and digestibility of various
silages by cattle.

From 1953 through 1958, pit silos which were 8-feet deep and 4-
feet in diameter were used. They were sealed by placing a layer of
two-ply roofing paper or polyvinyl film over the top and weighting
with a heavy layer of soil. In 1959, a change was made to larger silos
constructed from canvas treated with polyvinyl. They were 10-feet in
diameter and 5-feet high, holding approximately six tons of most of the
silages studied. A liner of either polyethylene or polyvinyl film
was placed inside the silo and allowed to come above the contents where
it was gathered and tied. This provided an effective seal for keeping
spoilage to a minimum although leakage occurred occasionally during
heavy rains.

An attempt was made to investigate forage crops which would be
typical for most of Florida. For each trial one silo was filled with
a plain forage for comparison with silage made with different preserva-
tives. In some cases the forage was mowed with a sickle bar machine
and allowed to wilt in the swath. Usually, however, the herbage was
cut with a field chopper, transported immediately, and weighed into
the silo. Preservatives were added and the forages were
tramping. Ten kilograms of fresh forage were placed a 4,
1/2, and 3/4 of the depth of the silos in bags of mo uslin o
fiberglass mesh. Preservatives were used in sample b .gat the same
rate as in the silos. A(Q n
\ y7G'

A \ N





-2-


A minimum of 45 days following filling were allowed for the
ensiling process to be completed. The silages then were fed once
daily to large heifers or dry cows confined in a dry lot with free
access to water and mineral supplements. As the sample bags were
uncovered they were dried, the entire contents ground, and analyzed
chemically. Samples of feed and feces were analyzed for a determina-
tion of the digestibility of the silages. The rates of consumption
and digestibility are presented in Table 1.

When used in connection with feeding standards, this information
should facilitate the formulation and feeding rations to various
classes of cattle. Since the amount of total digestible nutrients and
digestible crude proteins which might be expected from silages of
this type can be determined from the table, it should then be possible
to determine the type and amount of supplementary feeds for best
results. Of course there will be individual variations.

It must be remembered also that the experimental animals were not
producing milk and were fed only the silages. Some adjustment in
consumption rates may be necessary, especially as they apply to lac-
tating animals. The differences should be expected to be small, however,
because both the requirements for feed and its supply from other sources
will increase as milk is produced. Hence the requirement for, and
consumption of, silages is not expected to change appreciably.

The results of this work would seem to justify the following
recommendations:

1. All the forages investigated are recommended for silage where
adapted.
2. Forage plants in immature stages appeared to be higher in
productive nutrients on the dry matter basis than more mature forages
of all the varieties studied.
3. Absorptive concentrates such as citrus pulp and ground snapped
corn may be used as preservatives at the rate of 150 lb. per ton of
fresh forage.
4. Sodium metabisulfite appears to be a very good silage preserva-
tive. However, caution should be exercised when this preservative is
used. When it contacts moisture, fumes are quite corrosive and must
not be allowed to contact either machinery or workmen.
5. Antibiotics at the rate of 5 grams per ton appear to enhance
the aroma of silage though they had little effect on the nutrient
content under conditions of this work.
.6. An airtight seal, such as a polyvinyl plastic cover, appears
to be desirable in all cases whether preservatives are used or not.
7. It is suggested that the table be consulted when any of the
silages are being used. The supplementary concentrate should supply
the additional digestible protein and total digestible nutrients
necessary to meet the requirements of the animal. These will vary
considerably according to the type of silage used.






TABLE 1. Consumption and utilization of silage.


Dry Digestibility
Animals matter of dry matter


TDN
Dry Fresh
basis basis


Digestible protein
Dry Fresh
basis basis


Intake/1000 lb. body wt.
Forage D.M, TDN DCP


(no.) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)


(%) (lb.) (lb.) (lb.) (lb.)


Alfalfa, plain

Alfalfa plus 150 lb./ton
ground snapped corn

Alfalfa plus 150 lb.
citrus pulp/ton

Alfalfa plus 8 lb,/ton
sodium metabisulfite

Hairy indigo, plain

Hairy indigo with 150 lb.
per ton citrus pulp
Oats, plain

Oats plus 150 lb. citrus
pulp per ton
Oats plus 250 lb./ton
citrus pulp
Oats plus 5 gm./ton zinc
bacitracin

Oats plus 150 lb./ton
ground snapped corn


4 15.1


4 21.1

4 21.8


4 18.2


4 24.2

4 28.4

3 18.8

4 25.6

4 24.9

4 21.7


4 13.6


59.3
.10*

57.5
2.10*
58.5
2.19*

60.8


56.6
3.22*
54.9
1.10*
77.1
1.95*
65.5
4.57*
61.5
3,44*
73.9
.10*


58.5 8.8 4.1
.88* .01* .15*


53.8 11.4
.17* .10*
57.8 12.6
2.79* .41*

60.0 10.9
.11* .12*

56.1 13.6
3.14* .25*
54.5 15,5
.14* .10*
74.6 14.0
1.42* 3.75*
63.3 16.2
5.17* 1.52*
63.3 15.8
4.40* 1.25*
72.3 16.1
.10* .10*


8.6
2.0*
7.1
.82*


.63
.01*

1.9
.10*
1.3
.22*


62.2 9.4 5.5 .39
.24* .01"

70.8 14.9 8.1 1.3
.10* .17*
81.1 17.6 10.2 1.0
.14* .10*


67.0 12.2


2.6
.23*
4.9
1.0*
9.1
.10*
8.2
1.74*
8.6
.22*
4.4
.11*


65.0 64.3 8.8 8.7


.63

1.4
.10*
1.7
.10*
2.1
.10*
2.2
.01*
.75
1.53*


7.3
.11*


64.5 15.6 8.7 .40
.14* .01*
81.3 23.1 12.5 1.15
.30* .10*
55.9 10.5 7.8 .96
.01* .01*
55.6 14.2 9.0 1.2
.28* .10*
39.4 9.8 6.2 .85
.10* .01*


92.2 20.0 14.9
.62*


1.2 80.8 11.0 7.1 .95


Silage


--







Dry Digestibility
Animals matter of dry matter


TDN
Dry Fresh
basis basis


Digestible
Dry
basis


protein
Fresh
basis


Forage D.M.


(no.) (%)


(%) (%)


Pangola plain, wilted

Pangola wilted plus 150
lb./ton citrus pulp

Pangola wilted plus 250
lb/ton citrus pulp
Pangola plain


Pangola plus 150 lb./ton
citrus pulp

Pangola plus 8 lb./ton
sodium metabisulfite
Pangola plus 250 lb./ton
citrus pulp

Pearlmillet plain

Pearlmillet plus 150 lb.
per ton ground snapped
corn
Pearlmillet plus 300 lb.
per ton citrus pulp


Sart Sargo


4 32.2

4 32.4


30.5


4 18.8


4 25.6


4 25.0

4 30.5


4 11.8


15.5


20.6


4 23.6


71.2
4.18*
64.7
1.30*

64.3
3.30*
66.3
2.28*

68.6
4.35*

68.7
2.65*
64.3
3.30*

57.2
.29*
54.7
.40*

53.3
.41*

74.5
.69*


52.5 16.9
4.68* 3.03*
63.7 20.6
.10* .29*

61.8 18.8
3.55* 1.23*
65.2 12.3
2.58* .10*

67.4 17.3
3.86* .28*

62.1 15.5
5.39* 1.56*
61.8 18.8
3.55* 2.23*


58.0 18.7 9.8
1.73*


8.5
1.91*

7.5
.24*
7.8
.10*

8.3
.11*

8.9
.27*
7.5
.22*


56.6 6.7 8.9
.11* .01* .04*
57.0 8.8 6.1
1.1* .01* 1.4*

53.5 11.0 5.0
1.3* .02* 1.5*


73.3 17.3
2.30* .28*


6.8
.24*


2.7
.11*

2.3
.12*
1.4
.25*

2.1
.15*

2.2
.02*
2.3
.11*

1.1
.01*
.94
.32*

1.0
.31*

1.7
.19*


40.0 12.9 8.3 1.09
.10* .02*

43.0 13.1 8.1 .98
.18* .10*
59.6 11.2 7.3 .85
.17* .02*

54.2 13.9 9.4 1.15
.10* .04*

52.2 13.0 8.1 1.16
.25* .01*
52.0 15.8 9.8 1.18
.10* .10*

79.1 9.4 5.3 .84
.01* .02*
81.2 12.6 7.1 .76
.01* .01*

81.0 16.7 8.9 .84
.02* .02*

50.1 11.8 8.7 .85
.10* .10*


Silage


TDN DCP


Intake/1000 lb. body wt.


(%) (lb.) (lb.) (lb.) (lb.)







Dry Digestibility
Animals matter of dry matter


TDN
Dry Fresh
basis basis


Digestible protein
Dry Fresh
basis basis


Intake/1000 lb. body wt.
Forage D.M. TDN DCP


(no.) (%)


(%)


(%) (%) (%)


(%) (lb.)


(lb.) (lb.) (lb.)


Soybeans plain


Soybeans plus 150 lb.
per ton citrus pulp

Soybeans plus 8 lb.
per ton sodium meta-
bisulfite

Sweet lupine plain


Sweet lupine plus 125
lb./ton citrus pulp

Sweet lupine plus 7 lb.
per ton sodium meta-
bisulfite


16.9


20.2


4 17.3


19.3


4 20.8


4 19.5


53.5
1.30*

53.6


53.3
.30*


57.2
2.81*

53.7
.19*

59.9
2.60*


53.1 9.0
.10* .11*

53.2 10.7


52.9 9.2
1.48* .10*


56.1 10.71
2.91* 1.40*

53.0 11.1
.10* .10*


4.8
.22*

6.5


5.0
.01*


4.8
.20*

4.9
.07*


59.1 11.5 10.9
2.38* .24* .32*


.93
.03*

1.1


1.9"


.8
.10*


1.0
.02*

2.2
.13*


70.8 11.9 6.4 .65
.02* .02*

72.0 14.6 7.7 .95


73.9 12.8 6.8 1.38
.01* .01*


66.1 12.8 7.1 .51
.19* .02*

81.5 16.9 9.0 .84
.01* .02*

67.6 13.2 7.8 1.48
.17* .02*


* Standard deviation.


Silage




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs