3.8 Article Proceedings Paper

Effect of forage/concentrate ratio and dietary coconut oil level on methane output and performance of finishing beef heifers

Journal

LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION SCIENCE
Volume 84, Issue 2, Pages 135-146

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.livprodsci.2003.09.010

Keywords

beef cattle; methane; diet; coconut oil; forage to concentrate ratio; performance

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Intake, animal performance and methane (CH4) output was investigated using 36 finishing Charolais cross heifers (mean starting weight 462 kg, S.D.+/-16) fed ad libitum over an 11-week period. Six dietary treatments were investigated in a randomised block design experiment with a factorial arrangement of treatments. The six experimental diets consisted of three forage/concentrate (F/C) ratios (0.65:0.35, 0.40:0.60 and 0.10:0.90) supplemented with two levels of coconut oil (0 or 350 g/ day). Rumen protozoa numbers were significantly (P<0.001) lower for diets containing coconut oil at the end of the trial. Reducing the F/C ratio resulted in significantly (P<0.001) increased rates of live weight gain (LWG) and carcass gain (CG), but coconut oil had no effect on animal performance. Methane output in litres per day was significantly modified (P<0.001) by both the F/C ratio and level of coconut oil. Maximal CH4 output was recorded on the 0.40:0.60 diet, with coconut oil reducing daily CH4 output regardless of the F/C ratio. Methane output per unit of animal product (per kg of LWG and carcass gain) was significantly reduced by lower F/C ratios and the dietary inclusion of coconut oil (P<0.001 and Pless than or equal to0.003, respectively). No significant (P>0.05) interaction between the F/C ratio and coconut oil level was identified although coconut oil significantly reduced dry matter intake (DMI), CH4 l/day and LWG on the 0.65:0.35 F/C ratio diet. (C) 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available