Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T03:45:50.417Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of the replacement of grass silage by increasing proportions of urea-treated whole-crop wheat on food intake and apparent digestibility and milk production by dairy cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

J. D. Sutton ,
A. L. Abdalla ,
R. H. Phipps ,
S. B. Cammell  and
D. J. Humphries
J. D. Sutton
Affiliation:
Centre for Dairy Research, Department of Agriculture, University of Reading, Earley Gate, Reading RG6 6AT
A. L. Abdalla
Affiliation:
Centre for Dairy Research, Department of Agriculture, University of Reading, Earley Gate, Reading RG6 6AT
R. H. Phipps
Affiliation:
Centre for Dairy Research, Department of Agriculture, University of Reading, Earley Gate, Reading RG6 6AT
S. B. Cammell
Affiliation:
Centre for Dairy Research, Department of Agriculture, University of Reading, Earley Gate, Reading RG6 6AT
D. J. Humphries
Affiliation:
Centre for Dairy Research, Department of Agriculture, University of Reading, Earley Gate, Reading RG6 6AT
Get access

Abstract

Six Holstein-Friesian cows in mid lactation were used to examine the effects of replacing increasing proportions of grass silage (GS) by whole-crop wheat (WCW) in the diet of lactating dairy cows. Grass silage was a first-cut perennial ryegrass. The WCW was harvested at 645 g dry matter (DM) per kg and was preserved with either 20 (WCW-20) or 40 (WCW-40) kg urea per t DM. The diets were 6 kg DM dairy concentrate daily with one of six forage treatments offered ad libitum. The forage treatments were GS alone, GS with either WCW-20 or WCW-40 in a 2:1 DM ratio, GS with either WCW-20 or WCW-40 in a 1:2 DM ratio, or WCW-40 alone. The experiment consisted of an incomplete change-over design with three 4-week periods. DM intakes were highest with the mixtures (P < 0·05) but milk yield was not significantly affected by the treatments although it tended to be highest with the 1:2 ratio. Milk composition responses were generally small and non-significant, but yields of fat and protein were highest with the mixtures (P < 0·05). The apparent digestibility of DM and organic matter (OM) decreased linearly (P · 0·01) with increasing WCW inclusion but digestible DM and OM intakes were not significantly affected. Apparent digestibility of neutral-detergent fibre tended to be lower with the forage mixtures (quadratic P < 0·20). Apparent digestibility of starch was higher with GS than with diets containing WCW and decreased linearly with diets containing increasing proportions of WCW (P < 0·01). Intakes of starch and digestible starch rose with increasing WCW inclusion but so also did faecal starch output such that 0·75 kg starch per day was excreted on WCW-40 alone. Water intake from food and water excretion in urine decreased linearly with increasing WCW inclusion but water excretion in faeces and milk was not significantly affected by diet. The difference between measured water intake and output (water deficit) increased from 38 kg/day on GS alone to 58 kg/day on WCW-40 alone (linear P < 0·001). The only effects of level of urea treatment were to increase milk urea concentration (P < 0·05). It is concluded that the small size of the milk yield response to the increased forage intake obtained when up to two-thirds of the GS is replaced by WCW is due to the reduced digestibility of the OM and particularly of the starch component resulting from the egestion of whole wheat grains in the faeces.

Keywords

dairy cowsdigestibilitygrass silagemilk productionwheat
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 65 , Issue 3 , December 1997 , pp. 343 - 351
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1997

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

Adamson, A. H. and Reeve, A. 1992. Nutritional evaluation of whole-crop wheat. In Whole-crop cereals (ed. Stark, B. A. and Wilkinson, J. M.), pp. 85–95. Chalcombe Publications, Canterbury.Google Scholar
Adesogan, A. T. 1996. Prediction of the nutritive value of whole crop wheat. Ph.D. thesis, The University of Reading.Google Scholar
Adesogan, A. T., Givens, D. I. and Owen, E. 1994. The nutritive value of fermented and urea-treated whole crop wheat. Forty-fifth annual meeting of the European Association of Animal Production, p. 163 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Aston, K., Thomas, C., Daley, S. R., Sutton, J. D. and Dhanoa, M. S. 1994. Milk production from grass silage diets: effects of silage characteristics and the amount of supplementary concentrates. Animal Production 59:31–41.Google Scholar
Castejon, M. and Leaver, J. D. 1994. Intake and digestibility of wholecrop wheat and liveweight gain by dairy heifers. Animal Feed Science and Technology 46:119–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castle, M. E. and Thomas, T. P. 1975. The water intake of British Friesian cows on rations containing various forages. Animal Production 20:181–189.Google Scholar
Ciszuk, P., Sporndly, E., Gebregziabher, T. and Oltner, R. 1993. Diurnal variation in urea content of blood, milk and urine in lactating cows and goats. Report no. 224, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Hill, J. and Leaver, J. D. 1991. Replacement of whole crop wheat by grass silage in the diet of dairy cows. Animal Production 52: 606(abstr.).Google Scholar
Hill, J. and Leaver, J. D. 1993. The intake, digestibility and rate of passage of whole crop wheat and grass silage by growing heifers. Animal Production 56: 443(abstr.).Google Scholar
Kirchgessner, M., Heimbeck, W. K. and Schwartz, F. J. 1989. [Sheep and cattle as experimental animals for the determination of the nutrient digestibility of maize silage with increasing whole grain content]. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 61:111–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leaver, J. D. and Hill, J. 1992. Feeding cattle on whole-crop cereals. In Whole-crop cereals (ed. Stark, B. A. and Wilkinson, J. M), pp. 59–69. Chalcombe Publications, Canterbury.Google Scholar
Leaver, J. D. and Hill, J. 1995. The performance of dairy cows offered ensiled whole-crop wheat, urea-treated whole-crop wheat or sodium hydroxide-treated wheat grain and wheat straw in a mixture with grass silage. Animal Science 61: 481–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metcalf, J. A., Beever, D. E., Sutton, J. D., Wray-Cahen, D., Evans, R. T., Humphries, D. J., Backwell, F. R. C., Bequette, B. J. and MacRae, J. C. 1994. The effect of supplementary protein on in vivo metabolism of the mammary gland in lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 77:1816–1827.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 1986. The analysis of agricultural materials. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Murphy, M. R. 1992. Water metabolism of dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 75: 326–333.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nordin, M. and Campling, R. C. 1976. Digestibility studies with cows given whole and rolled cereal grains. Animal Production 23: 305–315.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. 1979. Recent advances in the understanding of cereal processing for ruminants. In Recent advances in animal nutrition—1979 (ed. Haresign, W. and Lewis, D.), pp. 123–132. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Phipps, R. H., Sutton, J. D. and Jones, B. A. 1995. Forage mixtures for dairy cows: the effect on dry-matter intake and milk production of incorporating either fermented or urea-treated whole-crop wheat, brewers' grains, fodder beet or maize silage into diets based on grass silage. Animal Science 61: 491–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, M. G., Patterson, D. C., Steen, R. W. J. and Gordon, F. J. 1984. Determination of dry matter and gross energy of grass silage. Proceedings of the seventh silage conference, The Queen's University, Belfast.Google Scholar
Richards, J. I. 1985. Effect of high daytime temperature on the intake and utilisation of water in lactating Friesian cows. Tropical Animal Health and Production 17: 209–217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siidekum, K.-H., Roh, H., Brandt, M., Rave, G. and Stangassinger, M. 1995. Comparative digestion in cattle and sheep fed wheat silage diets at low and high intakes. Journal of Dairy Science 78: 1498–1511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tetlow, R. M. and Wilkinson, J. M. 1992. Whole-crop cereals for beef cattle. In Whole-crop cereals (ed. Stark, B. A. and Wilkinson, J. M.), pp. 73–83. Chalcombe Publications, Canterbury.Google Scholar
Tyrrell, H. F. and Reid, J. T. 1965. Prediction of the energy value of cow's milk. Journal of Dairy Science 48:1215–1223.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zadoks, J. C., Cheng, T. T. and Konzak, C. F. 1974. A decimal code for the growth stages of cereals. Weed Research 14: 415–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar