Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T08:10:14.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Milk production from grass silage diets: effects of silage characteristics and the amount of supplementary concentrate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

K. Aston ,
C. Thomas ,
S. R. Daley ,
J. D. Sutton  and
M. S. Dhanoa
K. Aston
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, Hurley, Maidenhead SL6 5LR
C. Thomas
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, Hurley, Maidenhead SL6 5LR
S. R. Daley
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, Hurley, Maidenhead SL6 5LR
J. D. Sutton
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, Hurley, Maidenhead SL6 5LR
M. S. Dhanoa
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, Hurley, Maidenhead SL6 5LR
Get access

Abstract

High digestibility ryegrass was ensiled using either good methods including formic acid application (HDG) or poor methods without formic acid (HDP). Low digestibility ryegrass (LDG) and lucerne (LUC) were ensiled using similar methods to HDG. Digestible organic matter in the dry matter (DM) in vivo (DOMD) for HDG, HDP, LDG and LUC were 0·756, 0·774, 0·645 and 0·562 respectively. Silages were offered ad libitum to 40 HolsteinFriesian cows in two Latin-square design experiments during weeks 8 to 22 of lactation either alone (experiment 1) or with 3, 6, 9 or 12 kg concentrate DM per day (experiment 2). Relative intakes of silage given alone were respectively 1·00, 0·44, 0·98 and 0·79. Low intake of HDP could not be predicted from silage analysis. In experiment 2, DM intake increased by 0·11 kg and milk yield by 0·24 kg for each 0·010 change in grass silage DOMD. Intake of HDG, LDG and LUC declined linearly with increasing concentrate, on HDP the effect was non-linear and intake increased up to the 6 kg level.

In experiment 1, milk and protein yields were greatest on HDG, protein yield was higher on LDG than LUC and fat concentration higher on HDP and LUC. With supplementation milk yield was greatest on HDG up to the 6 kg level, at higher levels differences between silages were not significant. Fat concentration was highest on LDG and protein highest on HDG and lowest on LUC. On all silages giving the highest concentrate level reduced the concentration and yield of fat. Protein concentration increased up to the 9 kg level. Fat plus protein yields reached a maximum on HDG with 6 kg concentrate DM per day and with 9 kg on the remaining silages.

Keywords

dairy cowsfood intakemilk productionsilage
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 59 , Issue 1 , August 1994 , pp. 31 - 41
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1994

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

Baker, R. D., Aston, K., Thomas, C. and Daley, S. R. 1991. The effect of silage characteristics and level of concentrate on intake, substitution rate and milk constituent output. Animal Production 52: 586 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. and Wilson, R. S. 1962. The voluntary intake of roughage by steers. Animal Production 4: 351–358.Google Scholar
Bradstreet, R. B. 1969. The Kjeldahl method for organic nitrogen. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Campling, R. G. and Murdoch, J. C. 1966. The effect of concentrates on the voluntary intake of roughages by cows. Journal of Dairy Research 33: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castle, M. E. 1975. Silage and milk production. Agricultural Progress 50: 53–60.Google Scholar
Castle, M. E. 1982. Feeding high quality silage. In Silage for milk production (ed. Rook, J. A. F., Thomas, P. C.), technical bulletin, National Institute for Research in Dairying, Reading and Hannah Research Institute, Ayr, no. 2, pp. 127–150.Google Scholar
Castle, M. E., Retter, W. C. and Watson, J. N. 1980. Silage and milk production; a comparison between three grass silages of different digestibilities. Grass and Forage Science 53: 219–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demarquilly, C. and Jarrige, R. 1974. The comparative nutritive value of grasses and legumes. Quality of herbage. Proceedings of the fifth general meeting of the European Grassland Federation, Vaxtodling, vol. 28, pp. 33–41.Google Scholar
Deinum, B. 1989. Growth of lucerne on acid sandy soils and lucerne utilization as silage. In Legumes in farming systems (ed. Plancquaert, P., Haggar, R.), pp. 93–99. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Brussels.Google Scholar
Dewar, W. A. and McDonald, P. 1961. Determination of dry matter in silage by distillation with toluene. journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 12: 790–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fussell, R. J. and McCalley, D. V. 1987. Determination of volatile fatty acids (C2–C5) and lactic acid in silage by gas chromatography. Analyst, London 112: 1213–1216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, M., Rook, A. J. and Thiago, L. R. S. 1988. Factors affecting the voluntary intake of roughages by the dairy cow. In Nutrition and lactation in the dairy cow (ed. Garnsworthy, P. C.), pp. 262–279. Butterworth, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, F. J. 1984. The effect of level of concentrate supplementation given with grass silage during the winter on total lactation performance of autumn-calving dairy cows. journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 102: 163–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, F. J. 1989. The principles of making and storing high quality, high intake silage. In Silage for milk production (ed. Mayne, C. S.), occasional symposium, British Grassland Society, no. 23, pp. 3–19.Google Scholar
Gordon, F. J. and Forbes, J. M. 1970. The associative effect of level of energy and protein intake in the dairy cow. Journal of Dairy Research 37: 481–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, J. O., Corrall, A. J. and Terry, R. A. 1971. Grass species and varieties. Relationships between stage of growth, yield and forage quality. Technical report, Grassland Research Institute, no. 8.Google Scholar
Jouany, J. P. 1982. Volatile fatty acid and alcohol determination in digestive contents, silage juice, bacterial cultures and anaerobic fermenter contents. Sciences des aliments 2: 131–144.Google Scholar
Kristensen, V. F. 1983. The regulation of feed intake through the composition of the ration and the feeding principle. Beretning fra Statens Husdyrbrugsforsoq, Kobenhavn, no. 551, pp. 7.1–7.35.Google Scholar
Lawes Agricultural Trust. 1987. Genstat 5 reference manual. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
McDonald, P., Henderson, N. and Heron, S. 1991. The biochemistry of silage. Chalcombe Publications, Marlow.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 1975. Energy allowances and feeding systems for ruminants. Technical bulletin, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, no. 33. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Moisey, F. R. and Leaver, J. D. 1984. A study of two cutting strategies for the production of grass silage for dairy cows. Research and Development in Agriculture 1: 47–52.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Reid, G. W. and Tait, C. A. G. 1987. Effect of fish meal on the mobilization of body energy in dairy cows. Animal Production 45: 345–348.Google Scholar
Østergaard, V. 1979. Strategies for concentrate feeding to attain optimum feeding level in high yielding dairy cows. Beretning fra Statens Husdyrbrugsforsoq, Kobenhavn, no. 482.Google Scholar
Phipps, R. H., Welle, R. F. and Bines, J. A. 1987. The influence of forage quality and concentrate level on dry matter intake and milk production of British Friesian heifers. Grass and Forage Science 42: 49–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reeve, A. 1989. What can silage produce? —an R and D view. In Silage for milk production (ed. Mayne, C. S.), occasional symposium, British Grassland Society, no. 23, pp. 31–41.Google Scholar
Sutton, J. D. and Morant, S. V. 1989. A review of the potential of nutrition to modify milk fat and protein. Livestock Production Science 23: 219–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tayler, J. C. 1971. Dried forages and beef production. Journal of the British Grassland Society 25: 180–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tayler, J. C. and Aston, K. 1976. Milk production from diets of silage and dried forage. 2. Effect of ensiling ryegrass cut at two levels digestibility and given ad libitum with supplements of dried grass pellets. Animal Production 23: 211–221.Google Scholar
Terry, R. A. and Osbourn, D. F. 1980. Determination and prediction of the digestible energy in silages. In Forage conservation in the 80's (ed. Thomas, C.), occasional symposium, British Grassland Society, no. 11, pp. 315–318.Google Scholar
Terry, R. A., Tilley, J. M. and Outen, G. E. 1969. Effect of pH on cellulose digestion under in vitro conditions. Journal of Food and Agriculture 20: 317–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, C. 1980. Conserved forages. In Feeding strategies for dairy cows (ed. Broster, W. H., Johnson, C. L., Tayler, J. C.), pp. 8.1–8.14. Agricultural Research Council, London.Google Scholar
Thomas, C., Aston, K. and Daley, S. R. 1985. Milk production from silage. 3. A comparison of red clover with grass silage. Animal Production 41: 23–31.Google Scholar
Thomas, C., Daley, S. R., Aston, K. and Hughes, P. M. 1981. Milk production from silage. 2. The influence of the digestibility of silage made from the primary growth of perennial ryegrass. Animal Production 33: 7–13.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. 1963. Use of detergents in the analysis of fibrous feeds. II. A rapid method for the determination of fibre and lignin. Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists 46: 829–835.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. 1982. Nutritional ecology of the ruminant, p. 40. O and B Books, Corvallis, Oregon.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. and Wine, R. H. 1967. Use of detergents in the analysis of fibrous feeds. IV. Determination of plant cell wall constituents. Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists 50: 50–55.Google Scholar
Waldo, D. R. 1978. In Fermentation of silage —a review (ed. McCullough, M. E.), pp. 117–179. National Feed Ingredients Association, Iowa.Google Scholar
Weissbach, F., Kalzendorf, B., Reuter, B. and Kwella, M. 1991. Control of silage fermentation by combined application of inoculants and chemical agents. Proceedings of a conference on forage conservation towards 2000 (ed. Pahlow, G., Honig, H.), European Grassland Federation, Braunschweig, pp. 273–281.Google Scholar
Wilkins, R. J., Hutchinson, K. J., Wilson, R. F. and Harris, C. E. 1971. The voluntary intake of silage by sheep. 1. Interrelationships between silage composition and intake. journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 77: 531–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, J. M., Chapman, P. F., Wilkins, R. J. and Wilson, R. F. 1983. Interrelationships between fermentation during ensilage and initial crop composition. Proceedings of the fourteenth international grassland congress, Lexington, USA, pp. 631–634.Google Scholar
Woolford, M. K. 1984. The silage fermentation. Marcel Dekker, New York.Google Scholar