Lamb mortality is a key factor influencing ewe productivity and profitability. The current study investigated risk factors associated with and management practices implemented on sheep farms to reduce lamb mortality. A survey consisting of 13 multiple-part questions (57 separate questions) was administered to all sheep farmers participating in the Teagasc National Farm Survey, representative of the Irish national population of sheep farms. A total of 60% of respondents identify mating or lambing date, and this practice tended to be associated with reduced lamb mortality (1.2%, p = 0.08). Individual lambing pens were used by 88% of farmers, but 26% did not clean or disinfect them. A total of 79% and 9.5% of farmers applied iodine to all lambs’ navels and administered antibiotics to all lambs to treat and/or prevent diseases, respectively. Most farmers vaccinated their ewes (86%) and lambs (79%) against clostridial diseases and/or pasteurellosis; 13% vaccinated against abortion agents. Lamb mortality tended to be lower (Kruskal–Wallis (KW) = 2.749; p = 0.09) on farms that used stomach tubing, heat box, iodine, hospital, and individual pens compared with farms that do not implement all those practices. Predators, lamb birth weight, and diseases were perceived by respondents to be the three main causes of live-born lamb mortality. The gross margin is significantly higher on lowland farms by €37 per ewe compared with hill farms (Kruskal–Wallis (KW) = 4.056; p < 0.001). The combination of full-time farming and the use of hospital and individual pens improved gross margin (€18/ewe, p = 0.028). It is concluded that on-farm management practices affect both lamb mortality and flock gross margin.

The effects of maturity of maize at harvest, level of inclusion and potential interactions on the performance, carcass composition, meat quality and potential concentrate-sparing effect when offered to finishing beef cattle were studied. Two maize silages were ensiled that had dry matter (DM) concentrations of 217 and 304 g/kg and starch concentrations of 55 and 258 g/kg DM, respectively. Grass silage was offered as the sole forage supplemented with either 4 or 8 kg concentrate/steer daily or in addition with one of the two maize silages at a ratio 0.5 : 0.5, on a DM basis, maize silage : grass silage supplemented with 4 kg concentrate daily. The two maize silages were also offered as the sole forage supplemented with 4 kg concentrate/steer daily. The forages were offered ad libitum. The six diets were offered to 72 steers (initial live weight 522 s.d. 23.5 kg) for 146 days. There were significant interactions (P < 0.05) between maize maturity and inclusion level for food intake, fibre digestibility and daily gain. For the grass silage supplemented with 4 or 8 kg concentrate, and the maize silages with DM concentrations of 217 and 304 g/kg offered as 0.5 or 1.0 of the forage component of the diet, total DM intakes were 8.3, 9.8, 8.9, 8.2, 9.2 and 9.8 kg DM/day (s.e. 0.27); live-weight gains were 0.74, 1.17, 0.86, 0.71, 0.88 and 1.03 kg/day (s.e. 0.057); and carcass gains were 0.48, 0.73, 0.56, 0.46, 0.56 and 0.63 kg/day (s.e. 0.037), respectively. Increasing the level of concentrate (offered with grass silage), maize maturity and level of maize inclusion reduced (P < 0.05) fat b* (yellowness). The potential daily concentrate-sparing effect, as determined by carcass gain, for the maize silages with DM concentrations of 217 and 304 g/kg offered as 0.5 and 1.0 of the forage component of the diet were 1.3, -0.3, 1.3 and 2.4 kg fresh weight, respectively. It is concluded that the response, in animal performance, including maize silage is dependent on the stage of maturity and level of inclusion in the diet. Maize silage with a DM of 304 g/kg offered ad libitum increased carcass gain by 31%, because of a combination of increased metabolizable energy (ME) intake and improved efficiency of utilization of ME, and produced carcasses with whiter fat.

The effects of high and medium feed value grass silage or maize silage (MS), each offered with a range of concentrate feed levels, and ad libitum concentrate on the performance of finishing lambs, which were either shorn or unshorn, were evaluated. Three silages were used: 1 medium feed value (MFV) and 1 high feed value (HFV) grass silage (DM digestibility [DMD] of 71.3% and 74.5%, respectively) and 1 MS (DM and starch concentrations of 30.9% and 35.3% DM, respectively). The 3 silages were offered ad libitum with daily allowances of 0.4, 0.8, or 1.2 kg concentrate per lamb. Two additional treatments were: 1) MS supplemented with 0.4 kg of a low CP (LP) concentrate and 2) concentrate offered ad libitum with 0.5 kg/d of HFV grass silage. These 11 dietary treatments were offered to 264 crossbred Suffolk lambs (initial BW = 39.0 kg), half of which were unshorn and half of which were shorn, for a 54-d finishing period, resulting in 22 treatments. Shearing increased forage DMI (P < 0.001) but did not alter (P > 0.05) carcass weight, carcass gain, or ADG, and there was no interaction with dietary treatment. Reducing CP concentration of the concentrate offered with MS did not alter (P > 0.05) feed intake or lamb performance. Increasing concentrate feed level increased feed DMI and lamb performance (P < 0.001). The linear response in ADG to increased concentrate supplementation was greater (P = 0.012) for MFV than HFV grass silage, and a corresponding difference in carcass gain approached significance (P = 0.075). The linear response was greater for grass silage than for MS for ADG (P < 0.01) and carcass gain (P = 0.019). The response in lamb performance from increased concentrate supplementation was linear for HFV grass silage and MS but quadratic (P < 0.05) for the MFV grass silage, reflecting the large response for this silage when concentrate supplement was increased from 0.4 to 0.8 kg. Relative to the MFV grass silage supplemented with 0.8 kg concentrate, the potential concentrate-sparing effects of the HFV grass silage and MS were 0.16 and 0.32 kg concentrate per lamb daily, respectively. It is concluded that shearing lambs that are housed during finishing reduces the efficiency of the conversion of ME to carcass gain. Maize silage can replace HFV grass silage in the diet of finishing lambs. The total dietary protein concentration for finishing lambs can be reduced to 9% DM without adversely affecting carcass gain. Copyright © 2015. American Society of Animal Science .

The effects of (i) medium and high feed value (MFV and HFV) maize silages and (ii) MFV and HFV grass silages, each in combination with a range of concentrate feed levels, on the performance of finishing lambs were evaluated using 280 Suffolk-X lambs (initial live weight 36.1 kg). The MFV and HFV maize silages represented crops with dry matter (DM) concentrations of 185 and 250 g/kg, respectively, at harvest, and had starch and metabolisable energy (ME) concentrations of 33 and 277 g/kg DM and 9.6 and 11.0 MJ/kg, respectively. HFV and MFV grass silages had DM and ME concentrations of 216 and 294 g/kg and 11.0 and 11.5 MJ/kg DM, respectively. A total of 13 treatments were involved. The four silages were offered ad libitum with daily concentrate supplements of 0.2, 0.5 or 0.8 kg per lamb. A final treatment consisted of concentrate offered ad libitum with 0.5 kg of the HFV grass silage daily. Increasing the feed value of grass silage increased (P < 0.001) forage intake, daily carcass and live weight gains, final live weight and carcass weight. Increasing maize silage feed value tended to increase (P = 0.07) daily carcass gain. Increasing concentrate feed level increased total food and ME intakes, and live weight and carcass gains. There was a significant interaction between silage feed value and the response to concentrate feed level. Relative to the HFV grass silage, the positive linear response to increasing concentrate feed level was greater with lambs offered the MFV grass silage for daily live weight gain (P < 0.001), daily carcass gain (P < 0.01) and final carcass weight (P < 0.01). Relative to the HFV maize silage, there was a greater response to increasing concentrate feed level from lambs offered the MFV maize silage in terms of daily carcass gain (P < 0.05) and daily live weight gain (P = 0.06). Forage type had no significant effect on the response to increased concentrate feed level. Relative to the MFV grass silage supplemented with 0.2 kg concentrate, the potential concentrate-sparing effect of the HFV grass silage, and the MFV and HFV maize silages was 0.41, 0.09 and 0.25 kg daily per lamb, respectively. It is concluded that increasing forage feed value increased forage intake and animal performance, and maize silage can replace MFV grass silage in the diet of finishing lambs as performance was equal to or better (depending on maturity of maize at harvest) than that for MFV grass silage.

A completely randomised design study involving 132 continental crossbred beef steers was undertaken to evaluate the effects of method of grain treatment and feed level, and grass silage feed value on animal performance, carcass characteristics and meat quality of beef cattle. Winter wheat was harvested and the grain was stored either ensiled crimped and treated with 4.5 l/t of a proprietary acid-based additive (crimped), ensiled whole and treated with 20 kg feed-grade urea per t (urea) or stored conventionally in an open bin treated with 3 l propionic acid per t. Two grass silages, of contrasting feed value (L and H) were ensiled. For the conventional, crimped and urea treatments, grain dry matter (DM) concentrations were 802, 658 and 640 g/kg, respectively. For the L- and H-feed value silages, DM concentrations were 192 and 240 g/kg and D values were 671 and 730 g/kg DM, respectively. The silages were offered as the sole forage supplemented with either conventional, crimped or urea-treated grain-based concentrate at either 3.5 or 6.0 kg DM per steer per day. The grain supplement consisted of 850 and 150 g/kg DM of grain and citrus pulp, respectively. For the conventional, urea and crimped treatments, DM intakes were 8.85, 9.43 and 9.04 kg/day (standard error (s.e.) = 0.129); estimated carcass gains were 0.60, 0.55 and 0.61 kg/day (s.e. = 0.020), respectively. For the low- and high- feed value grass silages, estimated carcass gains were 0.56 and 0.61 kg/day (s.e. = 0.014), respectively. For the low and high grain feed levels, estimated carcass gains were 0.56 and 0.61 kg/day, respectively. Grain treatment, grain feed level or silage feed value did not alter (P > 0.05) meat quality, lean colour or fat colour. There were significant silage feed value × grain feed level interactions (P < 0.05) for final live weight (LW) and daily live-weight gain (DLWG). Increasing grain feed level increased final LW and DLWG when offered with the low-feed value silage, however, grain feed level had no effect on final LW or DLWG when offered with the high-feed value silage. It is concluded that urea treatment of grain increased silage intake and feed conversion ratio (kg DM intake per kg carcass) and tended to decrease carcass gain. Crimping provides a biologically equally effective method to store grain as conventional methods. Improving grass silage feed value had a greater impact on animal performance than increasing grain feed level by 2.4 kg DM per day.

Plane of nutrition (PN) offered to ewe replacements during the rearing phase (8 to 17 months) and first pregnancy may affect reproductive and progeny performance when replacements are joined at ~19 months. The effects of PN offered to spring-born ewe replacements during their first winter (winter_1), second summer (summer_2) and subsequent winter (mid and late pregnancy; winter_2) were evaluated, over 3 consecutive years, using 287 ewe lambs of four genotypes: Charmoise×Scottish Blackface (C×SBF), Belclare×SBF (Bel×SBF), Belclare (Bel) and Belclare×SBF (heterozygous for a gene, either FecGH or FecXG mutations, that increases ovulation rate: BelMG×SBF). Ewe lambs were offered, daily, a deferred-grazed herbage allowance (HA) of either 0.75 or 1.75 kg dry matter during winter_1. During summer_2 the replacements were set-stocked to maintain sward heights of 4 or 6 cm. Ewes were housed during mid and late pregnancy (winter_2) and offered either medium or high-feed-value grass silage, thus yielding a 2×2×2 factorial design. Increasing HA during winter_1 and residual sward height during summer_2 increased ewe BW post joining (P<0.001) and at lambing (P<0.01), but had no effect (P>0.05) on number of lambs reared. Increasing HA during winter_1 increased lamb BW at birth (P<0.05) and reduced carcass fat score (P<0.05). There was a significant interaction between PN offered during winter_1 and summer_2 for average daily gain (ADG) from birth to 5 weeks (P<0.01) and from 5 to 10 weeks (P<0.05): progeny of replacements that experienced either a high or low PN throughout the rearing phase had lower ADG than lambs born to the replacements that experienced a low PN only during winter_1 or summer_2. Increasing PN during winter_2 increased ewe BW (P<0.001), lamb BW at birth (P<0.001) and weaning (P<0.05) and reduced the proportion of ewes that failed to lamb (P<0.01). Ewe genotype had a significant (P<0.001) effect on litter size (1.48 to 2.45), number of lambs reared, lamb BW at birth and weaning, lamb ADG and age at slaughter. It is concluded that, among the nutrition treatments examined, increasing PN during mid and late pregnancy had the greatest effect on ewe and progeny performance. Although increasing PN offered during winter_1 increased lamb birth BW, PN offered during summer_2 had no effect on lamb performance. There were no significant interactions between PN and ewe genotype.