Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T09:19:28.627Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Choice of grass or maize silages by lactating dairy cows: influence of supplementary protein, concentrate level and milk yield

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

M. Habib ,
J.S. Syed  and
J.D. Leaver
M. Habib
Affiliation:
Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensyngh 2202, Bangladesh
J.S. Syed
Affiliation:
THAR Rangers, Hyderabad, Pakistan
J.D. Leaver*
Affiliation:
Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester, UK
*
†Corresponding author: E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstrat

Preference testing of two foods provides a means of assessing the relative value an animal places on the foods. Two experiments examined the relative choice of grass and maize silages by lactating dairy cows, and investigated whether protein supplementation, concentrate level or milk yield level of cow influenced this choice. In experiment 1, 16 cows including eight high (30 kg/day) and eight low (17 kg/day) yielding (milk level, ML) cows were offered a low (171 g/kg dry matter (DM)) or a high (300 g/kg DM) crude protein (CP) concentrate in eight 2×2 Latin squares. In experiment 2, four cows were offered a low (112 g/kg DM) or a high (334 g/kg DM) CP content of concentrate at a low (3·5 kg/day) or high (7 kg/day) concentrate level (CL) in a 4×4 Latin-square design.CP of concentrate did not influence the proportion of grass silage to maize silage eaten in either experiment. Also, neither ML of cows (experiment 1) nor CL (experiment 2) affected proportions of the two silages eaten. The mean proportions selected were 0·88:0·12 and 0·52:0·48 for grass and maize silages in experiments 1 and 2 respectively, which reflected differences between experiments in the digestibilities of the silages, and indicated that digestibility may be an important factor influencing the choice of silages.The CP, CL and ML treatments produced significant responses in silage and total DM intakes. Feeding behaviour studies showed the responses to CP were associated with differences in meal size, which is a function of duration of each meal and rate of intake. The number of meals taken per day was similar for all treatments and averaged 8·0 and 8·1 for experiments 1 and 2 respectively.It was concluded that whilst lactating cows modified their feeding behaviour in response to the diets available, there was no evidence they modified the proportions of the two silages selected in order to meet a target protein content in the total diet. It would appear therefore that other factors, of which digestibility may be important, have a higher priority in choice.

Keywords

dairy cattlefeeding behaviourfood preferencesforageprotein intake
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 82 , Issue 4 , August 2006 , pp. 469 - 477
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agricultural and Food Research Council. 1993 Energy and protein requirements of ruminants. Wallingford, An advisory manual prepared by the AFRC Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients, CAB International.Google Scholar
Aman, P. and Hesselman, K. 1984. Analysis of starch and other main constituents of cereal grain. Swedish Journal of Agricultural Research 14: 135–139.Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1990. Official methods of analysis, 14th edition. AOAC, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Boisen, S., Bech-Andersen, S. and Eggum, B. O. 1987. A critical view on the conversion factor 6·25 from total nitrogen to protein. Acta Agricola Scandinavica 37: 299–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, S. D. B., Kyriazakis, I. and Nolan, J. V. 1995. Diet selection in sheep–the role of the rumen environment in the selection of a diet from two feeds that differ in their energy density. British Journal of Nutrition 14: 35–54.Google Scholar
Cullison, A. E. and Lowrey, R. S. 1987. Feeds and feeding, fourth edition. Englewood Cliffs Reston, London.Google Scholar
Emmans, G. C. 1991. Diet selection by animals: theory and experimental design. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 50: 59–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forbes, J. M. 1993. Voluntary food intake. In Quantitative aspects of ruminant digestion and metabolism (ed. Forbes, J. M. and France, J.), pp. 479–494. CAB International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
Forbes, J. M. and Shariatmadari, F. 1994. Diet selection for protein by poultry. World Poultry Science Journal 50: 7–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fussel, R. J. and McCalley, D. V. 1987. Determination of volatile fatty acids (C2-C5) and lactic acid in silage by gas chromatography. Analyst 112: 1213–1216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, M. and Romney, D. 1994. The relationship between the control of meal size and the control of daily intake in ruminants. Livestock Production Science 39: 13–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hernandez-Mendo, O. and Leaver, J. D. 2004). Effect of replacing time available for grazing with time available for eating maize silage and soyabean meal on milk yield and feeding behaviour in dairy cows. Grass and Forage Science 59: 318–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, S. M., Kyriazakis, I. and Emmans, G. C. 2001). Diet selection of sheep: effects of adding urea to foods with different protein contents. Animal Science 73: 183–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, S. M., Kyriazakis, I., Emmans, G. C. and Tolkamp, B. J. 2002. Diet selection of sheep: sodium bicarbonate, but not offering the hay, modifies the effect of urea on diet selection. Animal Science 74: 357–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenney, P. A. and Black, J. L. 1984). Factors affecting diet selection by sheep. 1. Potential intake rate and acceptability of feed. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 35: 551–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirkland, R. M., Steen, R. W. J., Gordon, F. J. and Keady, T. W. J. 2005. The influence of grass and maize silage quality on apparent digestibility, metabolizable energy concentration and intake of finishing beef cattle. Grass and Forage Science 60: 244–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyriazakis, I. 1997. The nutritional choices of farm animals: to eat or what to eat? Animal choices (ed.Forbes, J. M., Lawrence, T. L. J., Rodway, R. G. and Varley, M. A.), British Society of Animal Science, occasional publication no.20. pp.55–65.Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I. and Emmans, G. C. 1991. Diet selection in pigs: dietary choices made by growing pigs following a period of underfeeding with protein. Animal Production 52: 337–346.Google Scholar
Lane, P. W. and Payne, R. W. 1997). An introductory course for GENSTAT 5 release 4. Numerical Algorithms Group, Oxford.Google Scholar
Leaver, J. D. 1996. Supplementation of maize silage and wholecrop cereals. In Recent advances in animal nutrition (ed. Garnsworthy, P. C., Wiseman, J. and Haresign, W.), pp.171–194. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food. 1986). The analysis of agricultural materials. Reference book no. 427. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food. 1993. Prediction of energy value of compound foodstuffs for farm animals. Booklet 1285. MAFF Publications, Alnwick.Google Scholar
Oldham, J. D. 1984. Protein-energy interrelationships in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 67: 1090–1114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Mara, F. P., Fitzgerald, J. J., Murphy, J. J. and Rath, M. 1998. The effect on milk production of replacing grass silage with maize silage in the diet of dairy cows. Livestock Production Science 55: 79–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phipps, R. H. 1994. Complementary forages for milk production. In Recent advances in animal nutrition (ed. Garnsworthy, P. C. and Cole, D. J. A.) pp.215–230. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham.Google Scholar
Phipps, R. H., Weller, R. F. and Rook, A. J. 1992. Forage mixtures for dairy cows: the effect on dry matter intake and milk production of incorporating different proportions of maize silage into diets based on grass silages of different energy value. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 118: 379–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phipps, R. H., Sutton, J. D., Beever, D. E. and Jones, A. K. 2000. The effect of crop maturity on the nutritional value of maize silage for lactating dairy cows. 3. Food intake and milk production. Animal Science 71: 401–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pulido, R. G. and Leaver, J. D. 2001. Quantifying the influence of sward height, concentrate level and initial milk yield on the milk production and grazing behaviour of continuously stocked dairy cows. Grass and Forage Science 56: 57–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romney, D. L., Blunn, V., Sanderson, R. and Leaver, J. D. 2000. Feeding behaviour, food intake and milk production responses of lactating dairy cows to diets based on grass silage of high or low dry-matter content, supplemented with quickly and slowly fermentable energy sources. Animal Science 71: 359–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, C. 1980. Conserved forages. In Feeding strategies for dairy cows (ed. Broster, W. H., Johnson, C. L. and Tayler, J. C.), pp. 8.1–8.14. Agricultural Research Council, London.Google Scholar
Thomas, C. and Rae, R. C. 1988. Concentrate supplementation of silage for dairy cows. In Nutrition and lactation in the dairy cow (ed. Garnsworthy, P. C.), pp.327–354. Butterworths, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolkamp, B. J., Kyriazakis, I., ,Oldham, J. D., Lewis, M., Dewhurst, R. J. and Newbold, J. R. 1998. Diet choice by dairy cows. II. Selection for metabolisable protein or for rumen degradable protein? Journal of Dairy Science 81: 2670–2680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolkamp, B. J., Friggens, N. C., Emmans, G. C., Kyriazakis, I. and Oldham, J. D. 2002. Meal patterns of dairy cows consuming mixed foods with a high or a low ratio of concentrates to grass silage. Animal Science 74: 369–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar