A COMPARISON OF TWO HAYS FOR BEEF PRODUCTION

A medium quality barn-dried hay and a poor quality field-cured hay were each supplemented with 3 levels of concentrate in the diet of young beef cattle, averaging 313 kg liveweight. The supplement was given on predetermined hay concentrate metabolizable energy (ME) ratios based on the determined ME of the hays and an assumed ME of 3·0 McalsAg DM for the supplement. The hay concentrate ratios used were 1:1, 1:2 and 1:3, the aim being to provide a reasonable rate of growth (0·7 kg/day) with the poorer hay. It was necessary to include urea in the concentrate mixtures used on the 1:1 and 1:2 ratios with the field-cured hay. The urea appeared to have an adverse effect on the intake and utilization of DM on the 1:1 ratio. The range of mean intakes of supplement DM was 3·02 to 4·41 kg/day for the barn-dried hay and 2·23 to 4·61 for the field-cured hay. Mean daily liveweight gains with the barn-dried hay were 0·76, 0·89 and 0·85 kg for the 1:1, 1:2 and 1:3 ratios, respectively, with no significant difference between ratios. The mean daily gains with the field-cured hay were 0·39, 0·77 and 0·75 for the three ratios, the mean gain on the 1:1 ratio being significantly lower than those of the other ratios. The ME conversion ratios were not significantly affected by either ratios or hay type, except on the 1:1 ratio with field-cured hay. There were significant differences between the barn-dried hay and field-cured hay diets in the digestibilities of DM, organic matter, crude protein and energy; the mean coefficients for DM being 74·5% and 65·6%, respectively.