A G R I C U LT U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E A. Huuskonen et al. (2018) 27: 232–242 232 Effects of primary growth compared to regrowth grass silage on feed intake, growth performance and carcass traits of growing bulls Arto Huuskonen1, Sari Rämö2 and Maiju Pesonen3 1Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Production systems, Halolantie 31A, FI-71750 Maaninka, Finland 2 Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Natural resources, Myllytie 1, FI-31600 Jokioinen, Finland 3 Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Production systems, Survontie 9A, FI-40500 Jyväskylä, Finland e-mail: arto.huuskonen@luke.fi The objective was to study the effects of primary growth vs. regrowth grass silage on intake, growth and carcass traits of growing bulls. In a feeding experiment, 30 bulls were offered a total mixed ration ad libitum. Two dietary treatments included either first or second cut grass silage (550 g kg-1 dry matter) supplemented with rolled barley (435 g kg-1 dry matter) and a mineral-vitamin mixture (15 g kg-1 dry matter). Feed and energy intake as well as the live weight gain of the bulls decreased when the second cut silage was used instead of the first cut silage. No differ- ences in carcass conformation or carcass fat score between the treatments were observed. Analysed chemical, di- gestibility or fermentation parameters of the silage samples did not explain the differences in feed intake. However, some second cut silage samples were found to contain mycotoxins (zearalenone, roquefortine C, mycophenolic acid and HT-2), but it is difficult to estimate whether this was the factor that affected feed intake in the present study. Key words: beef production, bulls, feed intake, grass silage, mycotoxins Introduction Grass silage is the main forage offered to growing cattle in the Nordic countries. In Finland, two or three cuts are usually harvested from swards during the grass growing period and the digestibility is typically lower for regrowth grass compared with primary growth grass (Kuoppala 2010). The importance of grass silage digestibility for grow- ing cattle is demonstrated in several studies (e.g. Steen 1988, Scollan et al. 2001, Keady et al. 2008, Manninen et al. 2011, Huuskonen et al. 2013a). Based on a meta-analysis, Huuskonen et al. (2013a) observed that a 1 g kg-1 dry matter (DM) increase in digestible organic matter (DOM) in DM (D-value) increased grass silage DM intake (DMI) by 7.2 g d-1. Steen (1988) collated eight experiments in which grass silage was supplemented with concentrate feeds and reported that increasing grass silage digestibility increased live weight (LW) gain (LWG) and carcass gain by 37 and 28 g, respectively, per 10 g kg-1 increase in DM digestibility. In dairy cows, Kuoppala et al. (2008) observed a lower DMI of regrowth grass silage compared to late harvested pri- mary growth silage, although most of the chemical and digestibility parameters were similar and the only marked difference was the higher neutral detergent fibre (NDF) concentration of primary growth silage. Nevertheless, the cows offered silage from primary growth consumed more silage and total DM and produced more milk compared to the cows offered silage from regrowth. Kuoppala et al. (2008) speculated that the microbiological quality of si- lage possibly contributed to the taste or palatability of regrowth silages, thus affecting silage DMI. Earlier, Peoples and Gordon (1989) and Heikkilä et al. (1998) also concluded that the lower milk production potential of autumn silages compared to spring silages was due to reduced silage DMI even though there were no differences between the digestibilities of the spring and autumn silages. In finishing Simmental bulls, Huuskonen and Pesonen (2017) observed that the intake and growth of bulls fed on second- and third-cut grass silages were lower than expected based on the feed analysis. One possible explanation for those unexpected intake and performance results might be mycotoxins in feeds since the presence of mycotoxins may decrease intake and affect performance (e.g. Yian- nikouris and Jouany 2002). However, the knowledge of mycotoxin occurrence in animal feed was concentrated primarily on grains and cereals whereas silages, especially grass silages, have been studied less (Cheli et al. 2013). According to the literature, the most common mycotoxins in grass silage are zearalenone (ZON), mycophenolic acid (MPA), roquefortine C (ROC) and citrinin (CT) (Schneweis et al. 2000, Driehuis et al. 2008a, b). Occurrence of deoxynivalenol (DON) in grass silage is not as common as in maize silage (Cheli et al. 2013). Manuscript received September 2018 A G R I C U LT U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E A. Huuskonen et al. (2018) 27: 232–242 233 The objective of the present experiment was to study the effects of primary growth compared to regrowth grass silage on feed intake, nutrient supply, growth performance and carcass traits of growing bulls. The experiment was designed to answer a question: Does the same digestibility in primary growth and in regrowth of grass silage affect the intake and growth performance of bulls in a similar way? Based on earlier studies, we hypothesised that the feed intake and growth of the regrowth silage fed bulls would be lower compared to primary growth fed bulls although there would not be major difference between the silage digestibilities. Because mycotoxin occurrence in grass silage is one possible explanation for lower intake, the most common mycotoxins in silages were analysed. Materials and methods Animals and management A feeding experiment was carried out in the experimental cattle unit of Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke) in Siikajoki, Finland starting in February 2016 and ending in August 2016. The animals were managed according to Finnish legislation regarding the use of animals in scientific experimentation. The experiment comprised 30 pure- bred Hereford (HF) bulls which were purchased from three commercial herds and were from six different sires. The bulls were born in spring 2015 and spent their first summer at pasture with their dams. In November 2015, the bulls were weaned and transferred to the experimental barn of Luke. During the pre-experimental period of three months (from November to February), all the bulls were housed in an uninsulated barn in group pens and offered similar feeds (grass silage, rolled barley, mineral mixture and vitamin mixture). At the start of the feeding experiment, the bulls weighed 369 (±47.5) kg and were 304 (±29.5) days old, on average. During the feeding experiment, the bulls were housed in an uninsulated barn in pens (10.0 × 5.0 m; 5 bulls in each pen), providing 10.0 m2 of space per bull. The rear half of the pen area was a straw-bedded lying area and the fore half was a feeding area with a solid concrete floor. A GrowSafe feed intake system (model 4000E; GrowSafe Systems Ltd., Airdrie, AB, Canada) was used to record individual daily feed intakes so that each pen contained two GrowSafe feeder nodes. The bulls had free access to water from a water bowl (one bowl/pen) during the experiment. Feeding and experimental design Grass silages were produced at the experimental farm of Luke in Siikajoki (64°44’N, 25°15’E) and harvested from the first-year timothy (Phleum pratense cv. Tuure) stands on 25 June and 11 August 2015; first and second cut, respectively. The aim was to have both timothy silages with D-value of 690 g kg-1 DM, and to determine the op- timal harvesting time, herbage samples were taken every second day and D-value was analysed by near-infrared spectroscopy as described by Nousiainen et al. (2004). The stands were cut by a mower conditioner (Elho 280 Hy- dro Balance; Oy Elho Production Ab, Pännäinen, Finland) and harvested with an integrated round baler wrapper (McHale Fusion 3; McHale, Ballinrobe, Co. Mayo, Ireland) 24 hours after cutting. Six layers of plastic were applied and the bales were stored in the field. Both silages were treated with a formic acid-based additive (AIV ÄSSÄ; East- man Chemical Company, Oulu, Finland; 589 g formic acid kg-1, 199 g propionic acid kg-1, 43 g ammonium formate kg-1 and 25 g potassium sorbate kg-1) applied at a rate of 5.8 kg t-1 of fresh forage. At the beginning of the feeding experiment, the bulls were randomly allotted to pens which were then random- ly allotted to one of the two feeding treatments (six pens in total, three pens per treatment and five animals per pen). The first treatment (GS1) included first cut grass silage (550 g kg-1 DM), rolled barley (435 g kg-1 DM) and mineral-vitamin mixture (15 g kg-1 DM) while the second treatment (GS2) included second cut grass silage (550 g kg-1 DM), rolled barley (435 g kg-1 DM) and a mineral-vitamin mixture (15 g kg-1 DM). The composition of the mineral-vitamin mixture (Kasvuape E-Hiven; A-Rehu Ltd., Seinäjoki, Finland) is fully described by Huuskonen et al. (2017). The bulls were offered a total mixed ration ad libitum (proportionate refusals of 5%). Total mixed rations were carried out by a mixer wagon (Trioliet; BW Oldenzaal, the Netherlands) once a day. Feed sampling and analysis During the feeding experiment, silage subsamples were taken twice a week while total mixed rations were carried out, pooled over periods of four weeks and stored at –20 °C prior to analysis. There were no visible moulds on the silages. Thawed samples were analysed for DM, ash, crude protein (CP), NDF exclusive of residual ash, crude fat (analysed as ether extracts), silage fermentation quality (pH, water-soluble carbohydrates [WSC], lactic and formic acids, volatile fatty acids [VFA], soluble and ammonia N content of total N), D-value and mycotoxins. Barley subsa- mples were collected weekly, pooled over periods of eight weeks and analysed for DM, ash, CP, NDF and crude fat. A G R I C U LT U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E A. Huuskonen et al. (2018) 27: 232–242 234 Thawed silage samples were analysed for fermentation quality by electrometric titration as described by Moisio and Heikonen (1989). The DM concentration was determined by drying at 105 °C for 20 h. Samples for chemical analysis were dried at 60 °C for 16 h and milled using a sample mill (Sakomylly KT-120; Koneteollisuus Ltd., Helsin- ki, Finland) using a 1 mm sieve. Oven DM concentration of silages was corrected for the loss of volatiles accord- ing to Huida et al. (1986). The ash, CP, NDF and crude fat concentrations as well as D-value were determined as reported by Huuskonen and Pesonen (2018). The metabolisable energy (ME) concentration of the silages was calculated as 0.016 × D-value (MAFF 1984). The ME concentration of barley grain was calculated based on con- centrations of digestible crude fibre, CP, crude fat and nitrogen-free extract as described by Luke (2018). Crude fibre concentrations and digestibility coefficients were taken from the Finnish Feed Tables (Luke 2018). The val- ues of metabolisable protein (MP) and the protein balance in the rumen (PBV) were calculated according to the Finnish feed protein evaluation system (Luke 2018) in which MP describes the amount of amino acids absorbed from the small intestine and PBV describes the balance between the dietary supply of rumen-degradable protein (RDP) and the microbial requirements for RDP. The relative intake potential of silage DM (SDMI index) was calcu- lated as described by Huhtanen et al. (2007). The silage samples were analysed for mycotoxins at the lab of Luke in Jokioinen, Finland. Mycotoxin standards were purchased either Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, Missouri, USA) or Romer Labs Diagnostics Gmbh (Tulln, Austria). The determined trichothecenes were DON, diacetoxyscirpenol (DAS), 3-and 15-acetyldeoxynivalenols (3-AcDON and 15-AcDON), nivalenol (NIV), fusarenon-X (F-X), T-2 and HT-2 toxins (T-2 and HT-2). Other determined mycotoxins were ZON, ROC, MPA, CT, fumonisins B1, B2 and B3, aflatoxins B1, B2, G1 and G2, sterigmatocystin, ochratoxin A, cyclopiazonic acid, alternariol, patulin, ergocornine, tenuatzonic acid, moniliformin and beauvericin. Penicillic acid and gliotoxin were not analysed, because the commercial standards were not available. Trichothecenes were quantified by GC-MS –method: extracted with acetonitrile:water (84:16), cleaned up with MycoSep #227 column (RomerLabs Diagnostics Gmbh, Tulln, Austria), and identified as their trimethylsilyl imid- azole (TMSI; Thermo Fisher Scientific,Waltham, MA, USA) derivatives with GC-MS (Agilent 6890 N-5973; Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA) (Hietaniemi et. al. 2004). 19-nortestosterone (250 µl, 1000 ng ml-1; Fluka/ Riedel-de Haën, Buchs, Switzerland) was used as the internal standard in the selective ion monitoring method (SIM) (Table 1). The results were confirmed with recovery tests in samples with three different concentrations. Other mycotoxins (Table 2) were extracted according Bourdra et al. (2015) with some modifications: One gram of freeze dried grass silage sample (fresh weight 5.8 g ± 0.1 g) was weighted in a 50 ml roQQuECh- ERS extraction tube (KS0-8909, Phenomenex, Torrance, CA, USA) containing trisodium citrate dihydrate (1 g), disodium hydrogencitrate sesquihydrate (0.5 g), NaCl (1 g) and MgSO 4 (4 g). 19-nortestosterone (250 ul, 1000 ng ml-1) was added as internal standard in sample. In case of a matrix matched calibration sample and recovery sample, known volumes of known standard mix solutions were added to the tube. Two different extraction procedures were done: either a) 10 ml of distilled water or b) 10 ml of distilled water containing 1% of acetic acid were added. The tubes were mixed using a Vortex blender. After complete absorption of the water solution, either a) 10 ml of acetonitrile or b) 10 ml of 1% of acetic acid in acetonitrile were added. Table 1. Trichothecenes were quantified as their trimethylsilyl imidazole (TMSI) derivatives by GC-MS; retention times, target ions and qualifier ions (Q1, Q2, Q3) in the selective ion monitoring method (SIM) are given. 19-nortestosterone was used as internal standard (ISTD). Trichothecene (TMSI derivative) Retention time, min Target ion Q1 Q2 Q3 deoxynivalenol 12.39 235 422 512 diacetoxyscirpenol 13.89 378 350 290 3-acetyldeoxynivalenol 14.08 392 467 377 15-acetyldeoxynivalenol 14.48 392 467 350 407 fusarenon-X 14.53 251 480 450 nivalenol 15.66 289 482 349 379 T-2 22.66 350 436 290 HT-2 23.05 347 466 275 377 ISTD 19-nortestosterone 18.31 346 256 331 215 A G R I C U LT U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E A. Huuskonen et al. (2018) 27: 232–242 235 Table 2. Retention times, ionisation modes, molecular weights (Mw), multiple reaction monitoring settings (MRM), cone voltages (Cone) and collision energies (Coll.) for mycotoxins determined with UPLC-MS/MS. Bold MRMs were used for identification, other as qualifiers. Mycotoxin Retention time (min) Ionisation mode Mw MRM Cone (V) Coll. (eV) Moniliformin 0.77 ESI - 98 96.9 -> 40.9 27 10 Patulin 3.37 ESI + 154 155 -> 52.9 15 20 155 -> 70.9 15 20 155 -> 80.9 15 20 Aflatoxin G2 5.74 ESI + 330 331.2 -> 189.1 32 42 331.2 -> 245.2 32 30 Aflatoxin G1 5.96 ESI + 328 329.2 -> 243.1 20 26 329.2 -> 199.8 22 44 Aflatoxin B2 5.97 ESI + 314 315.2 -> 287.2 20 26 315.2 -> 259.1 20 32 Ergocornine 5.99–6.2 ESI + 562 563 -> 277 35 30 563 -> 305 35 30 563 -> 348 35 30 Tenuazonic acid 6.13 ESI - 197 196.1 -> 139.0 50 20 196.1 -> 112.0 50 24 Fumonisin B1 6.17 ESI + 721 722.1 -> 334.3 50 40 722.1 -> 352.3 50 40 Aflatoxin B1 6.22 ESI + 312 313.2 -> 241.2 20 40 313.2 -> 285 20 24 Roquefortine C 6.41 ESI + 389 390.2 -> 322.2 27 19 390.2 -> 193 27 28 Alternariol 6.42 ESI - 258 257.1 -> 215.0 22 32 257.1 -> 147.0 22 32 Fumonisin B3 6.63 ESI + 705 706.3 -> 336.3 50 40 706.3 -> 318.3 50 40 Citrinin 6.94 ESI + 250 251.2 -> 191 14 26 251.2 -> 205.1 14 24 251.2 -> 91.0 14 40 Fumonisin B2 6.9 ESI + 705 706.3 -> 336.3 50 40 706.3 -> 318.3 50 40 Mycophenolic acid 7.08 ESI + 320 321.2 -> 207.1 14 22 321.2 -> 159.0 14 36 Zearalenone 7.87 ESI - 318 317.2 -> 175.0 42 26 317.2 -> 131.0 42 30 Ochratoxin A 7.89 ESI + 403 404.2 -> 239.1 25 32 404.2 -> 358.2 25 20 Sterigmatocystin 8.1 ESI + 324 325.2 -> 310.1 8 20 325.2 -> 115.1 8 60 325.2 -> 253.2 8 46 325.2 -> 141.1 8 54 Cyclopiazonic acid 8.57 ESI + 336 337.1 -> 196 22 26 337.1 -> 182 22 20 Beauvericin 11.0 ESI + 783 784.6 -> 262.2 34 28 784.6 -> 244.2 34 28 784.6 -> 134.1 34 66 784.6 -> 234.2 34 38 A G R I C U LT U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E A. Huuskonen et al. (2018) 27: 232–242 236 First, tubes were shaken vigorously until the pressure dissipated, then they were mixed with a Vortex blender for two minutes and finally centrifuged (2000 rpm, 5 min). One ml of extracts were filtered through a 0.2 µm GHP Acrodisc 13 (Pall Corporation, New York, NY, USA) in vials for the UPLC-MS/MS run (Waters Acquity Xevo TQ MS; Waters, Milford, MA, USA) according Stead et al. (2014) with some modifications: Mycotoxins were separated with BEH C18 column 1.7 µm (Guard column 2.1 × 5 mm, Analytical column 2.1 × 100 mm; Waters, Milford, MA, USA), using a gradient solvent system (solvent A = 0.1% formic acid in water and solvent B = 0.1% formic acid in acetonitrile). The gradient conditions were as follows: the initial percentage of solvent B was 0%, because to get retention also for moniliformin, it was held at 0% for 1.5 min, then increased to 100% to 12 min and maintained for 1 min. It was then lowered to the initial 0% in 0.1 min, and maintained for 1.9 min to re-equilibrate the col- umn prior to the next injection. MS capillary voltage was set at 3.5 kV, source temperature at 150 °C, and desol- vation temperature at 500 °C. The cone and desolvation gas flows (both nitrogen) were set at 30 and 1000 l h−1, respectively. Data was acquired using the multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) scanning mode. The calibration samples were first run during December 2017 and again during February 2018. The samples (also recovery sam- ples) were extracted and run during February 2018. Finally, an external standard method was used for quantifi- cation. It was found that citrinin is not stable in extract and that moniliformin and patulin could not be quantified due to matrix interferences. Any clear differences between responses of mycotoxins were not found between the two different extractions. Matrix-matched calibration samples were cleaned up according to Bourdra et al. (2015) with some modifications: Two different clean-up procedures were done for both extractions: a) One ml of acetonitrile phase was trans- ferred to a 2 ml roQ QuEChERS dSPE tube (KS0-8916; Phenomenex, Torrance, CA, USA), containing 0.15 g MgSO 4 and 0.025 g PSA (primary secondary amine), b) About 7.5 mg of graphitised carbon black (Sepra GCB, 04D-4615; Phenomenex, Torrance, CA, USA) was added before the extract into a 2 ml tube in order to remove pigments such as carotenoids and chlorophyll from the sample. First, tubes were shaken vigorously until the pressure dissipat- ed, then they were mixed with a Vortex blender for two minutes and finally centrifuged (2000 rpm, 5 min). One ml of extracts were filtered through a 0.2 µm GHP Acrodisc 13 (Pall Corporation, New York, NY, USA) into vials. The responses of most mycotoxins were lower in all four cleaned-up calibrants than the calibrants that had not been cleaned up in UPLC-MS/MS runs, and so silage samples were quantified without cleaning up the extracts. Concentrating of extracts to dryness and resolving to UPLC gradient (0.1% water: acetonitrile 1:1) would possibly help to quantify moniliformin and patulin. Carcass traits and ultrasound measurements The bulls were weighed on two consecutive days at the beginning of the experiment and thereafter single weigh- ings were done approximately every 28 days. Before slaughter, the bulls were weighed on two consecutive days. The bulls were weighed always at the same time in the morning before feeding. The target for the average carcass weight was 350 kg, which is near the average carcass weight for slaughtered Hereford bulls in Finland (Pesonen and Huuskonen 2015). The LWG was calculated as the difference between the means of the initial and final LW divided by the number of growing days. The estimated rate of carcass gain was calculated as the difference be- tween the final carcass weight and the carcass weight at the beginning of the experiment divided by the number of growing days. The carcass weight at the start of the experiment was assumed to be 0.52 × initial LW based on earlier studies (unpublished data). Ultrasound measurements were made one day before slaughter. Ultrasound subcutaneous fat (mm) at the 1st lumbar vertebra, ultrasound depth (cm) of longissimus dorsi muscle at the 1st lumbar vertebrae and ultrasound intramuscular fat (IMF) (%) were performed as described by Huuskonen and Pesonen (2017) with a Pie 200 SLC scanner (FPS 8; DFR 2–4 inches; Esaote, Genoa, Italy) equipped with the QUIP (Quality Ultrasound Indexing Pro- gram) software (Version 2.6) and a ASP-18 transducer (3.5 MHz) without a stand-off pad. The bulls were selected for slaughter based on LW, and slaughtered in the commercial slaughterhouse of Atria Ltd. in Kauhajoki, Finland in three batches. Both feeding treatments were represented in all batches. The transport to the slaughterhouse lasted five hours. The bulls from different pens were not mixed during the transportation. Af- ter slaughter, the carcasses were weighed hot. The cold carcass weight was estimated as 0.98 of the hot carcass weight. Dressing proportions were calculated from the ratio of cold carcass weight to final LW. The carcasses were visually classified for conformation and fatness using the EUROP quality classification (EC 2006). A G R I C U LT U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E A. Huuskonen et al. (2018) 27: 232–242 237 Statistical methods The results are shown as least squares means. The data were subjected to analysis of variance using the SAS GLM procedure (version 9.4, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). The statistical model used was y ijkl = µ + δ j + α i + θ ijl + βx ijk + e ijkl where μ is the intercept and e ijkl is the residual error term associated with kth animal. α i , is the effect of ith diet (GS1, GS2), while δ j is the effect of the slaughtering batch (j=1, 2, 3) and θ ijl is the effect of the pen. The effect of the pen was used as an error term when differences between treatments were compared because treatments were allocated to animals penned together. Initial LW was used as a covariate (βx ijk ) in the model for intake, gain, feed conversion, final LW, carcass characteristics and ultrasound measurements. Results Chemical composition and feeding values of the feeds and total mixed rations are presented in Table 3. The D val- ues of the silages were 697 and 683 g kg-1 DM for the first and second cut, respectively, and very close to the pre- planned D value (690 g kg-1 DM). The two silages had similar concentrations of ME, CP, AAT and PBV. However, the first cut silage had a 31% lower DM and 12% higher NDF concentration compared to the second cut silage. The second cut silage had a 7% higher SDMI index compared to the first cut silage. The fermentation characteristics of both silages were good as indicated by the low pH value and the low concentrations of ammonia N in total N and total fermentation acids (Table 3). Both silages were restrictively fermented with a high residual WSC concen- tration and a relatively low lactic acid concentration. However, the WSC concentration of the first cut silage was clearly lower compared to the second cut silage. Table 3. Chemical composition and feeding values (mean ± standard deviation) of the ingredients and total mixed rations (calculated) used in the feeding experiment. Feeds Total mixed rations Grass silage first cut Grass silage second cut Barley GS11 GS22 Number of feed samples 6 6 3 Dry matter (DM), g kg-1 229±28.3 331±20.8 872±6.4 343 459 Organic matter (OM), g kg-1 DM 944±4.8 933±4.0 971±0.9 956 950 Crude protein, g kg-1 DM 149±17.3 151±16.2 115±11.7 133 135 Neutral detergent fibre, g kg-1 DM 595±24.4 532±8.2 211±10.4 422 387 Crude fat, g kg-1 DM 34±0.8 35±1.0 22±0.9 29 29 Metabolisable energy, MJ kg-1 DM 11.1±0.41 10.9±0.17 12.9±0.04 11.9 11.8 Metabolisable protein, g kg-1 DM 84±4.5 83±2.2 95±1.5 89 88 Protein balance in the rumen, g kg-1 DM 24±9.6 27±9.3 -27±8.6 1 3 Digestible OM in DM, g kg-1 DM 697±13.4 683±10.4 821±3.3 753 745 Silage DM intake index 99±2.7 106±2.8 Fermentation quality of silages pH 3.90±0.148 4.27±0.120 Volatile fatty acids, g kg-1 DM 15±1.6 7±1.2 Lactic + formic acid, g kg-1 DM 49±3.5 35±5.7 Water soluble carbohydrates, g kg-1 DM 56±15.8 118±10.9 In total N, g kg-1 NH 4 N 66±3.6 55±3.3 Soluble N 555±36.4 478±30.1 1GS1 = first cut grass silage (550 g kg-1 DM), rolled barley (435 g kg-1 DM), mineral-vitamin mixture (15 g kg-1 DM); 2GS2 = second cut grass silage (550 g kg-1 DM), rolled barley (435 g kg-1 DM), mineral-vitamin mixture (15 g kg-1 DM) A G R I C U LT U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E A. Huuskonen et al. (2018) 27: 232–242 238 Barley grain used in the present experiment had typical chemical composition and feed values, corresponding to the average values in the Finnish Feed Tables. Due to differences in the composition of the experimental silages, the GS1 ration contained slightly more NDF compared to the GS2 ration (Table 3). In both rations the PBV value fulfilled the Finnish recommendation for growing cattle (PBV of the diet above –10 g/kg DM for animals above 200 kg LW). None of the first cut grass silage samples was found to contain any analysed mycotoxins. Instead, four out of six second cut silage samples were found to contain ZON and two of the six samples were found to contain ROC and MPA. All the above observations were <50 µg kg-1. Mycotoxin HT-2 was detected in one second cut silage sample at a concentration lower than 110 µg kg-1, which was the lowest concentration of quantification (LOQ) for tricho- thecenes in silage. Other analysed toxins were not observed. The average duration of the feeding experiment was 167 and 180 days for the GS1 and GS2 treatments, respec- tively (Table 4). The use of first cut silage increased DM (p<0.01), ME (p<0.001), CP (p<0.01), MP (p<0.001) and NDF (p<0.001) intakes compared to second cut silage. The average LWG of the GS1 bulls was 11% higher (p<0.01) and daily carcass gain tended to be 7% higher (p<0.10) compared to the GS2 bulls. Dietary treatments had no ef- fects on DM, energy or protein conversion rates (Table 4). Table 4. Intake, growth, feed conversion and carcass traits of the bulls fed different rations. Feedings GS11 GS22 SEM3 p-value Duration of the experiment, d 167 180 3.9 0.033 Final live weight (LW), kg 654 649 8.0 0.752 Slaughter age, d 467 488 7.5 0.058 Intake Total, kg dry matter (DM) d-1 9.93 9.17 0.161 0.002 DM intake, g kg-1 metabolic LW4 92.6 85.3 1.33 <0.001 Metabolisable energy (ME), MJ d-1 119 108 1.9 <0.001 Metabolisable protein, g d-1 879 806 14.2 <0.001 Crude protein, g d-1 1309 1220 22.1 0.005 Neutral detergent fibre, g d-1 4156 3522 66.3 <0.001 Live weight gain (LWG), g d-1 1717 1543 39.4 0.005 Carcass gain, g d-1 923 862 23.8 0.098 Feed conversion kg DM kg-1 LWG 5.78 5.94 0.137 0.611 kg DM kg-1 carcass gain 10.76 10.64 0.261 0.704 MJ ME kg-1 LWG 69.3 70.0 1.61 0.806 MJ ME kg-1 carcass gain 128.9 125.3 3.07 0.522 g crude protein kg-1 LWG 762 791 17.6 0.383 g crude protein kg-1 carcass gain 1418 1415 32.9 0.955 Carcass characteristics Carcass weight, kg 345 348 5.0 0.528 Dressing proportion, g kg-1 527 537 3.7 0.070 Conformation, EUROP 8.1 8.1 0.22 0.957 Fat score, EUROP 2.9 3.2 0.15 0.213 Ultrasound measurements Subcutaneous rump fat, mm 6.4 6.6 0.26 0.584 Intramuscular fat, % 3.5 3.5 0.11 0.575 Depth of longissimus dorsi muscle, cm 7.0 7.0 0.16 0.951 1GS1 = first cut grass silage (550 g kg-1 DM), rolled barley (435 g kg-1 DM), mineral-vitamin mixture (15 g kg-1 DM); 2GS2 = second cut grass silage (550 g kg-1 DM), rolled barley (435 g kg-1 DM), mineral-vitamin mixture (15 g kg-1 DM); 3SEM = standard error of mean; 4 Metabolic LW = LW0.75 A G R I C U LT U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E A. Huuskonen et al. (2018) 27: 232–242 239 The mean carcass weight of the bulls was 347 kg and very close to the pre-planned weight. There was no differ- ence in carcass weight, carcass conformation, carcass fat score or ultrasound measurements between the feeding treatments (Table 4). However, the dressing proportion of the GS2 bulls tended to be 2% higher (p<0.10) com- pared to the GS1 bulls. Discussion The DM concentration of the first cut silage was 31% lower compared to the second cut silage, which was due to rainy conditions during the first cut. Because the aim was to have both silages with a D-value of 690 g kg-1 DM, it was not possible to wait for better weather conditions for the first cut. The second cut silage had a higher SDMI index compared to the first cut silage. The difference in the DM content affected the SDMI index, as a meta-anal- ysis by Huhtanen et al. (2007) implied that SDMI is independently affected by silage DM concentration. Huhtanen et al. (2007) observed that silage DMI of dairy cows increased quadratically with increasing silage DM concentra- tion. Also, many earlier data evaluations have reported a positive association between forage DM concentration and DMI in both dairy cows and growing cattle (e.g. Offer et al. 1998, Steen et al. 1998, Wright et al. 2000). Steen et al. (1998) observed that the maximum forage intake was achieved at a DM concentration of 320 g kg-1 while Huhtanen et al. (2007) reported that the maximum intake was predicted at a DM concentration of 419 g kg-1. Based on SDMI index, the intake response of the second cut silage should have been higher compared to the first cut silage. Nevertheless, daily DMI was higher when the GS1 ration was used instead of the GS2 ration, so differences in DMI in the present experiment could not be predicted from the SDMI index. However, in previous large-scale meta-analyses, the SDMI index has generally been a good indicator of the factors affecting silage DMI in both dairy cows (Huhtanen et al. 2002, 2007) and growing cattle (Huuskonen et al. 2013a). Earlier, Steen et al. (1998) examined factors affecting grass silage intake by growing beef steers. They determined the intakes of 136 silages from farms in Northern Ireland and produced multiple regression relationships between chemical param- eters and intake. Also, these equations of Steen et al. (1998) predict that the intake potential (g DM kg-1 metabolic LW) of the second cut silage should have been higher compared to the first cut silage in the present experiment. In a recent meta-analysis, Huuskonen et al. (2013a) reported that DMI of growing cattle can be predicted from LW and diet composition with reasonable accuracy. Live weight was the most important variable predicting total feed intake, but the model was clearly improved when adjusted for dietary variables (NDF and VFA concentra- tions, SDMI index). Based on the equation reported by Huuskonen et al. (2013a) and the dietary compositions of the present rations, the predicted total DMI for GS1 and GS2 rations would have been 10.06 and 10.19 kg DM d-1, respectively, whereas the measured intakes were 9.93 and 9.17 kg DM d-1. Based on this, the realised DMI for GS1 ration was an expected result, but the GS2 ration resulted in a clearly lower intake than expected based on feed analysis. The same phenomenon has been found earlier in some milk production (Kuoppala et al. 2008, Sairanen et al. 2016) and beef cattle (Huuskonen and Pesonen 2017) experiments. For example, Sairanen et al. (2016) con- cluded that the high energy content of the autumn-cut silage was not realised as milk production and low total DMI was the main reason for the relatively low milk yield. Mycotoxins were only found in second cut silage samples and none in first cut samples. In a review, Yiannikouris and Jouany (2002) stated that the contamination of feeds by mycotoxins generally leads to a decrease in intake. However, the effects of a single mycotoxin are conflicting and inconsistent results can be explained by the uncontrolled presence of other mycotoxins and their potential synergy (Yiannikouris and Jouany 2002). There- fore, it is difficult to estimate whether the mycotoxins were the most important factor that affected feed intake in the present study. Higher daily DMI of the GS1 compared to the GS2 ration was reflected also as larger daily energy and nutrient in- take. The observed difference in ME intake is probably the most important explanation for the improved LWG of the GS1 compared to the GS2 bulls. Based on a meta-analysis of growing cattle feeding experiments, Huuskonen and Huhtanen (2015) reported that energy intake is the most important dietary variable affecting LWG of growing cattle, whereas their results showed only marginal effects of protein supply on LWG. In the present experiment, the feed conversion rate did not differ between treatments. In some previous experiments silage DM concentration has affected on feed conversion, but the results are partly contradictory. Steen (1985) reported that carcass gain per unit of ME was similar for the treatments based on the wilted (250 g DM kg-1) and unwilted (195 g DM kg-1) si- lages in their experiment 2, but was 6% lower for the wilted (259 g DM kg-1) than for the unwilted (191 g DM kg-1) silages for experiment 1. O’Kiely et al. (1988) observed that unwilted silage (227 g DM kg-1) DM was converted A G R I C U LT U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E A. Huuskonen et al. (2018) 27: 232–242 240 more efficiently to carcass gain than DM of two wilted silages (313 and 397 g DM kg-1). However, the conclusions of Steen (1984) and Cottyn et al. (1985) suggest no difference between well-preserved unwilted and wilted silag- es in the feed conversion. In the experiment of Steen (1984) DM concentrations of unwilted and wilted silages were 161 and 266 g kg-1 and in the experiment of Cottyn et al. (1985) 209 and 328 g kg-1, respectively. Based on data from 85 published comparisons, Wright et al. (2000) concluded that there was no clear evidence that wilting reduced the efficiency of utilization of ME in growing cattle or in milk production. The dressing proportion of the GS2 bulls tended to be slightly higher compared to the GS1 bulls in the present experiment. This could be because of the higher daily DMI and higher NDF concentration of the first cut silage compared to the second cut silage. According to Owens et al. (1995), a higher dietary NDF concentration gener- ally promotes a greater gut fill. This kind of positive relationship between diet NDF concentration and gut fill has been reported earlier, for example, by Pond et al. (1987) and Rinne et al. (1997). In the present study, feeding treatments had no effects on carcass conformation or carcass fat score. It is estab- lished that these traits generally increase with increasing carcass weight (Kempster et al. 1988, Keane and Allen 1998, Huuskonen et al. 2013b, 2014). In the present experiment, there was no difference in carcass weight be- tween the feeding treatments so it is logical that no differences in carcass conformation or fat score were ob- served. Nevertheless, many previous reports have shown that also increasing energy intake has increased carcass conformation (Caplis et al. 2005, Pesonen et al. 2013, Huuskonen and Huhtanen 2015, Huuskonen et al. 2016) and carcass fatness (Huuskonen et al. 2007, Pesonen et al. 2013, Huuskonen and Huhtanen 2015) of finishing cattle, but these effects could not be demonstrated in the present experiment. It is possible that the effects of increas- ing energy intake on carcass traits are greater when the energy intake increases as a result of increasing dietary energy content instead of increasing voluntary feed intake as in the present experiment. Overall, daily DM and energy intakes, as well as the live weight gain of the finishing bulls, decreased when the second cut timothy silage was used in the total mixed ration instead of the first cut silage. One possible reason for the decreased DMI in GS2 could be the presence of mycotoxins in second cut silage, but definite reasons were dif- ficult to identify in this kind of feeding experiment. The dressing proportion of the GS2 bulls tended to be higher compared to the GS1 bulls which could be due to the higher NDF concentration of the first cut silage compared to the second cut silage. Acknowledgements This study was a part of NautaNurmi-project which was partially funded by the Centre for Economic Develop- ment, Transport and the Environment for Northern Ostrobothnia Finland, Ab Hanson & Möhring, Eastman Chemi- cal Company and Nordkalk Ltd. We wish to express our gratitude to Jarkko Kekkonen and his personnel for their technical assistance and excellent care of the experimental animals. References Boudra, H., Rouillé, B., Lyanc, B. & Morgavi, D.P. 2015. Presence of mycotoxins in sugar beet pulp silage collected in France. Ani- mal Feed Science and Technology 205: 131–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2015.04.010 Caplis. J., Keane, M.G., Moloney, A.P. & O’Mara, F.P. 2005. Effects of supplementary concentrate level with grass silage, and sep- arate or total mixed ration feeding, on performance and carcass traits of finishing steers. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 44: 27–43. Cheli, F., Campagnoli, A. & Dell’Orto, V. 2013. Fungal populations and mycotoxins in silages: From occurrence to analysis. Animal Feed Science and Technology 183: 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2013.01.013 Cottyn, B.G., Boucque, C.V., Fiems, L.O., Vanacker, J.M. & Buysse, F.X. 1985. Unwilted and prewilted grass silage for finishing bulls. Grass and Forage Science 40: 119–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2494.1985.tb01728.x Driehuis, F., Spanjer, M.C., Scholten, J.M. & Te Giffel, M.C. 2008a. Occurrence of mycotoxins in maize, grass and wheat silage for dairy cattle in the Netherlands’. Food Additives and Contaminations 1: 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/19393210802236927 Driehuis, F., Spanjer, M.C., Scholten, J.M. & Te Giffel, M.C. 2008b. Occurrence of mycotoxins in feedstuffs of dairy cows and esti- mation of total dietary intakes. Journal of Dairy Science 91: 4261–4271. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2008-1093 EC 2006. Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2006 of 24 July 2006 concerning the Community scale for the classification of carcasses of adult bovine animals. Official Journal of European Union L214: 1–6. Heikkilä, T., Toivonen, V. & Huhtanen, P. 1998. Effect of spring and autumn silage, protein and concentrate level on milk produc- tion. In: Nagy, G. & Petö, K. (eds.). Ecological aspects of grassland management. Proceedings of the 17th General Meeting of the European Grassland Federation, Debrecen Agricultural University, Debrecen, Hungary. p. 717–721. A G R I C U LT U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E A. Huuskonen et al. (2018) 27: 232–242 241 Hietaniemi, V., Kontturi, M., Rämö, S., Eurola, M., Kangas, A., Niskanen, M. & Saastamoinen, M. 2004. Contents of trichothecenes in oats during official variety, organic cultivation and nitrogen fertilization trials in Finland. Agricultural and Food Science 13: 54– 67. https://doi.org/10.2137/1239099041837996 Huhtanen, P., Khalili, H., Nousiainen, J.I., Rinne, M., Jaakkola, S., Heikkilä, T. & Nousiainen, J. 2002. Prediction of the relative intake potential of grass silage by dairy cows. Livestock Production Science 73: 111–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(01)00279-2 Huhtanen, P., Rinne, M. & Nousiainen, J. 2007. Evaluation of the factors affecting silage intake of dairy cows; a revision of the rela- tive silage dry matter intake index. Animal 1: 758-770. https://doi.org/10.1017/S175173110773673X Huida, L., Väätäinen, H. & Lampila, M. 1986. Comparison of dry matter contents in grass silage as determined by oven drying and gas chromatographic water analysis. Annales Agriculturae Fenniae 25: 215–230. Huuskonen, A. & Huhtanen, P. 2015. The development of a model to predict weight gain of growing cattle fed grass silage-based diets. Animal 9: 1329–1340. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731115000610 Huuskonen, A., Huhtanen, P. & Joki-Tokola, E. 2013a. The development of a model to predict feed intake by growing cattle. Live- stock Science 158: 74–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2013.10.005 Huuskonen, A., Khalili, H. & Joki-Tokola, E. 2007. Effects of three different concentrate proportions and rapeseed meal supple- ment to grass silage on animal performance of dairy-breed bulls with TMR feeding. Livestock Science 110: 154–165. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.livsci.2006.10.015 Huuskonen, A. & Pesonen, M. 2017. A comparison of first-, second- and third-cut timothy silages in the diets of finishing beef bulls. Agricultural and Food Science 26: 16–24. https://doi.org/10.23986/afsci.60413 Huuskonen, A. & Pesonen, M. 2018. Effects of replacing different proportions of barley grain by rye grain of performance of grow- ing and finishing dairy bulls. Agricultural and Food Science 27: 152–158. https://doi.org/10.23986/afsci.70971 Huuskonen, A., Pesonen, M. & Honkavaara, M. 2016. Performance and meat quality of Nordic Red and Aberdeen Angus bulls offered faba bean or field pea based whole crop legume-cereal silages. Agricultural and Food Science 25: 1–12. https://doi. org/10.23986/afsci.52311 Huuskonen, A., Pesonen, M. & Honkavaara, M. 2017. Effects of replacing timothy silage by alsike clover silage on performance, carcass traits and meat quality of finishing Aberdeen Angus and Nordic Red bulls. Grass and Forage Science 72: 220–233. https:// doi.org/10.1111/gfs.12247 Huuskonen, A., Pesonen, M., Kämäräinen, H. & Kauppinen, R. 2013b. A comparison of purebred Holstein-Friesian and Hol- stein-Friesian × beef breed bulls for beef production and carcass traits. Agricultural and Food Science 22: 262–271. https://doi. org/10.23986/afsci.7781 Huuskonen, A., Pesonen, M., Kämäräinen, H. & Kauppinen, R. 2014. Production and carcass traits of purebred Nordic Red and Nor- dic Red × beef breed crossbred bulls. Journal of Agricultural Science 152: 504–517. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859613000749 Keady, T.W., Lively, F.O., Kilpatrick, D.J. & Moss, B.W. 2008. The effects of grain treatment, grain feed level and grass silage feed value on the performance of and meat quality from, finishing beef cattle. Animal 2: 149–159. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S1751731107000948 Keane, M.G. & Allen, P. 1998. Effects of production system intensity on performance, carcass composition and meat quality of beef cattle. Livestock Production Science 56: 203–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(98)00155-9 Kempster A.J., Cook G.L. & Southgate J.R. 1988. Evaluation of British Friesian, Canadian Holstein and beef breed × British Friesian steers slaughtered over a commercial range of fatness from 16-month and 24-month beef production systems. 2. Carcass char- acteristics, and rate and efficiency of lean gain. Animal Production 46: 365–378. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003356100018973 Kuoppala, K. 2010. Influence of harvesting strategy on nutrient supply and production of dairy cows consuming diets based on grass and red clover silage. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Helsinki, Department of Agricultural Sciences. MTT Science 11. 51 p. Kuoppala, K., Rinne, M., Nousiainen, J. & Huhtanen, P. 2008. The effect of cutting time of grass silage in primary growth and re- growth and the interactions between silage quality and concentrate level on milk production of dairy cows. Livestock Science 116: 171–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2007.10.002 Luke 2018. Feed Tables and Nutrient Requirements. (cited 25. August 2018). http://www.luke.fi/feedtables Manninen, M., Honkavaara, M., Jauhiainen, L., Nykänen, A. & Heikkilä, A.-M. 2011. Effects of grass-red clover silage digestibility and concentrate protein concentration on performance, carcass value, eating quality and economy of finishing Hereford bulls reared in cold conditions. Agricultural and Food Science 20: 151–168. https://doi.org/10.2137/145960611797215691 Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF). 1984. Energy Allowances and Feeding Systems for Ruminants. ADAS Reference book 433. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Her Majesty`s Stationery Office, London. 85 p. Moisio, T. & Heikonen, M. 1989. A titration method for silage assessment. Animal Feed Science and Technology 22: 341–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(89)90078-3 Nousiainen, J., Ahvenjärvi, S., Rinne, M., Hellämäki, M. & Huhtanen, P. 2004. Prediction of indigestible cell wall fraction of grass silage by near infrared reflectance spectroscopy. Animal Feed Science and Technology 115: 295–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. anifeedsci.2004.03.004 Offer, N.W., Percival, D.S., Dewhurst, R.J. & Thomas, C. 1998. Prediction of the voluntary intake potential of grass silage by sheep and dairy cows from laboratory silage measurements. Animal Science 66: 357–367. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1357729800009486 O’Kiely, P., Flynn, A.V. & Wilson, R.K. 1988. A comparison of the chemical composition of unwilted and wilted grass silage and of the intake, performance, carcass composition and rumen fluid volatile fatty acid concentrations of steers fed the silages. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 27: 39–50. Owens, F.N., Gill, D.R., Secrist, D.S. & Coleman, S.W. 1995. Review of some aspects of growth and development of feedlot cattle. Journal of Animal Science 73: 3152–3172. https://doi.org/10.2527/1995.73103152x A G R I C U LT U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E A. Huuskonen et al. (2018) 27: 232–242 242 Peoples, A.C. & Gordon, F.J. 1989. The influence of wilting and season of silage harvest and the fat and protein concentration of the supplement on milk production and food utilization by lactating cattle. Animal Production 48: 305–317. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0003356100040307 Pesonen, M., Honkavaara, M., Kämäräinen, H., Tolonen, T., Jaakkola, M., Virtanen, V. & Huuskonen, A. 2013. Effects of concen- trate level and rapeseed meal supplementation on performance, carcass characteristics, meat quality and valuable cuts of He- reford and Charolais bulls offered grass silage-barley-based rations. Agricultural and Food Science 22: 151–167. https://doi. org/10.23986/afsci.6703 Pesonen, M. & Huuskonen, A. 2015. Production, carcass characteristics and valuable cuts of beef breed bulls and heifers in Finni- sh beef cattle population. Agricultural and Food Science 24: 164–172. https://doi.org/10.23986/afsci.50930 Pond, K.R., Ellis, W.C., Lascano, C.E. & Akin, D.E. 1987. Fragmentation and flow of grazed coastal bermudagrass through the diges- tive tract of cattle. Journal of Animal Science 65: 609–618. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1987.652609x Rinne, M., Huhtanen, P. & Jaakkola, S. 1997. Grass maturity effects on cattle fed silage-based diets. 2. Cell wall digestibility, di- gestion and passage kinetics. Animal Feed Science and Technology 67: 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-8401(96)01142-X Sairanen, A., Palmio, A. & Rinne, M. 2016. Milk production potential of regrowth grass silages. Grassland Science in Europe 21: 379–381. Scollan, N.D., Sargeant, A., McAllan, A.B. & Dhanoa, M.S. 2001. Protein supplementation of grass silages of differing digestibility for growing steers. Journal of Agricultural Science 136: 89–98. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002185960000856X Schneweis, I., Meyer, K., Hormansdorfer, S. & Bauer, J. 2000. Mycophenolic acid in silage. Applied and Environmental Microbio- logy 66: 3639–3641. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.66.8.3639-3641.2000 Stead, S., Roberts, D., Gledhill, A., de Rijk, T., Van Poucke, C. & De Saeger, S. 2014. The development of a sensitive multi-residue LC-MS/MS method for the quantitative determination of mycotoxins in animal feedstuffs and silage using Xevo TQ-S. Waters: Ap- plication Note. 9 p. http://www.waters.com/webassets/cms/library/docs/720004961en.pdf Steen, R.W.J. 1984. A comparison of unwilted and wilted grass silages offered to beef cattle without and with monensin sodium. Grass and Forage Science 39: 35–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2494.1984.tb01662.x Steen, R.W.J. 1985. The effect of field wilting and mechanical treatment on the feeding value of grass silage for beef cattle and on beef output per hectare. Animal Production 41: 281–291. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003356100036333 Steen, R.W.J. 1988. Factors affecting the utilization of grass silage for beef production. In: Frame J. (ed.). Efficient Beef Production from Grass. Occasional Symposium No. 22, British Grassland Society, Hurley, UK. p. 129–139. Steen, R.W.J., Gordon, F.J., Dawson, L.E.R., Park, R.S., Mayne, C.S., Agnew, R.E., Kilpatrick, D.J. & Porter, M.G. 1998. Factors af- fecting the intake of grass silage by cattle and prediction of silage intake. Animal Science 66: 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S1357729800008894 Wright, D.A., Gordon, F.J., Steen, R.W.J. & Patterson, D.C. 2000. Factors influencing the response in intake of silage and animal performance after wilting of grass before ensiling: a review. Grass and Forage Science 55:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365- 2494.2000.00198.x Yiannikouris, A. & Jouany, J.-P. 2002. Mycotoxins in feeds and their fate in animals: a review. Animal Research 51: 81–99. https:// doi.org/10.1051/animres:2002012 Effects of primary growth compared to regrowth grass silage onfeed intake, growth performance and carcass traits of growingbulls Introduction Materials and methods Animals and management Feeding and experimental design Feed sampling and analysis Carcass traits and ultrasound measurements Statistical methods Results Discussion Acknowledgements References