Feeding Value Of Maize Research Articles

Comparative effects of processing methods on the feeding value of maize in feedlot cattle

The primary reason for processing maize is to enhance feeding value. Total tract starch digestion is similar for coarsely processed (dry rolled, cracked) dry maize. Enhancements in starch digestion due to dry rolling maize v. feeding maize whole may be greater in light-weight calves than in yearlings, and when DM intake is restricted (<1·5% of body weight). The net energy (NE) maintain (NEm) and NE gain (NEg) values for whole maize are 8·83 and 6·02MJ (2·11 and 1·44Mcal)/kg, respectively. Compared with conventional dry processing (i.e. coarse rolled, cracked), finely processing maize may increase the initial rate of digestion, but does not improve total tract starch digestion. Tempering before rolling (without the addition of steam) may enhance the growth performance response and the NE value of maize. Average total tract starch digestion is similar for high-moisture and steam-flaked maize. However, the proportion of starch digested ruminally is greater (about 8%) for high-moisture maize. The growth performance response of feedlot cattle to the feeding of high-moisture maize is highly variable. Although the NEm and NEg value of whole high-moisture maize was slightly less than that of dry processed maize (averaging 9·04 and 6·44MJ (2·16 and 1·54Mcal)/kg, respectively), grinding or rolling high-moisture maize before ensiling increased (6%) its NE value. Substituting steam-flaked maize for dry processed maize increases average daily gain (6·3%) and decreases DM intake (5%). The comparative NEm and NEg values for steam-flaked maize at optimal processing (density=0·34kg/l) are 10·04 and 7·07MJ (2·40 and 1·69Mcal)/kg, respectively. These NE values are greater (3%) than current tabular values (National Research Council, 2000), being more consistent with earlier standards (National Research Council, 1984). When maize is the primary or sole source of starch in the diet, concentration of starch in faeces (faecal starch, % of DM) of feedlot steers can serve as an indicator of total tract starch digestion, and, hence, the feeding value of maize.

Factors effecting the feeding value of maize and grass silage in late lactation dairy cows

Higher dry matter intakes (DMI) have been reported in dairy cows fed maize silage than in dairy cows fed grass silage. The objective of this experiment was to investigate this phenomenon by the measurement of digestibility and the determination of rumen outflow rates for both forages. The response in milk production of late lactation dairy cows to grass or maize silage was also measured.Fourteen late lactation multiparous dairy cows (n = 7) were fed diets containing either grass silage (GS) (DM: 197g/kg; pH: 4.05; NDF: 642g/kg DM) or high starch maize silage (MS) (DM: 339g/kg; pH: 3.94; starch: 360g/kg DM; NDF: 442g/kg DM) ad-libitum plus 4kgs/hd/day of a dairy concentrate (233g CP/kg DM). Urea (460g N/kg DM) was used as a source of degradable protein (10g/kg DM) for the MS diet which also included straw (40g/kg DM). Dietary NDF equalled 542 and 423g/kg DM for the GS and MS diet.

The feeding value of maize: a review

The feeding value of maize: a review

A comparison of the feeding value of maize and sorghum for fattening pigs

Six comparable groups, each of 4 castrate pigs, were used to compare the feed value of maize and sorghum as estimated by live-weight gain, food conversion efficiency, slaughter quality and ham composition.The maize ration contained 40% yellow maize and the sorghum ration 40% Sorghum vulgare subglabrescens, all other ingredients being the same for both diets.No statistically significant differences were found between the maize and sorghum pigs with regard to the criteria mentioned.It is concluded that no difference exists between the feed value of the maize and the sorghum used. This result is in better agreement with the net energy values of maize and sorghum as calculated by the formula of Hoff-mann and digestion coefficients for pigs, than with “classical” starch equivalents.