Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T09:38:54.967Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Metabolisable energy of grass and red clover silages fed to sheep at maintenance level

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 October 2019

S. J. Krizsan Open the ORCID record for S. J. Krizsan [Opens in a new window] ,
D. Pang ,
F. Fatehi ,
M. Rinne  and
P. Huhtanen
S. J. Krizsan*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Research for Northern Sweden, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, S-901 83 Umeå, Sweden
D. Pang
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Research for Northern Sweden, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, S-901 83 Umeå, Sweden
F. Fatehi
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Research for Northern Sweden, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, S-901 83 Umeå, Sweden Department of Animal Science, University of Tehran, Campus of Agricultural and Natural Resources 31587-77871 Karaj, Tehran, Iran
M. Rinne
Affiliation:
Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), FI-31600 Jokioinen, Finland
P. Huhtanen
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Research for Northern Sweden, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, S-901 83 Umeå, Sweden
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

This study investigated the effect of forage type (grass or red clover) and harvesting time (primary growth or regrowth) of silage on energy and N utilisation by sheep fed at maintenance level. Specifically, the assumption of constant loss of energy of digestible organic matter from energy losses in urine and CH4 applied in evaluation of silage metabolisable energy (ME) was investigated. Urinary excretion of high-energy phenolic compounds related to solubilisation of lignin was assumed to affect urinary energy (UE) losses from sheep fed highly digestible grass silage (GS). A total of 25 primary growth and regrowth silages of timothy (Phleum pratense) and meadow fescue (Festuca pratensis) grass mixtures and red clover (Trifolium pratense) samples collected in digestibility trials with sheep, including faecal and urine samples, were used for energy and N determinations. Urinary concentration of monophenolic compounds and CH4 emissions in vitro were also analysed. Daily faecal N output, CH4 yield (MJ/kg DM intake), proportion of CH4 energy in digestible energy (DE) and proportion of UE in DE were greater (P ≤ 0.03) in sheep fed red clover silage (RCS) than GS. Furthermore, less (P = 0.01) energy was lost as UE of DE in sheep fed primary growth GS compared with the other treatments. The relationship between UE and silage N intake or urinary N output for both silage types (i.e. grass v. red clover) was strong, but the fit of the regressions was better for GS than RCS. The CH4/DE ratio decreased (P < 0.05) and the UE/DE ratio increased (P < 0.05) with increasing organic matter digestibility in RCS. These relationships were not significant (P < 0.05) for the GS diets. The regression coefficient was higher (P < 0.05) for GS than RCS when regressing ME concentration on digestible organic matter. The results of this study imply that ME/DE ratio is not constant across first-cut GS of different maturities. The ME production response may be smaller from highly digestible first-cut GS but could not be clearly related to urinary excretion of monophenols derived from solubilisation of lignin. Furthermore, energy lost in urine was not clearly defined for RCS and was much more predictable for GS from silage N concentration.

Keywords

aromatic acidsdigestibilityfeed evaluationforagesruminants
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , April 2020 , pp. 753 - 762
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2019 

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: an advisory manual prepared by the AFRC technical committee on responses to nutrients. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Agricultural Research Council 1980. The nutrient requirements of ruminant livestock. Technical Review by an Agricultural Research Council Working Party, Common wealth Agricultural Bureau, Farnham Royal, UK.Google Scholar
Allison, MJ, Reddy, CA and Cook, HM 1981. The effects of nitrate and nitrite on VFA and CH4 production by rumen microbes. Journal of Animal Science 53, 391–399.Google Scholar
Beever, DE, Offer, N and Gill, M 2000. The feeding value of grass and grass products. In Grass – its production and utilization, 3rd edition (ed. Hopkins, A), pp. 140–195. Blackwell Science Ltd., Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
Besle, JM, Jouany, JP and Cornu, A 1995. Transformations of structural phenylpropanoids during cell-wall digestion. FEMS Microbiology Reviews 16, 33–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, KL and Clapperton, JL 1965. Prediction of the amount of methane produced by ruminants. British Journal of Nutrition 19, 511–522.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cone, JW, Van Gelder, AH, Visscher, GJW and Oudshoorn, L 1996. Influence of rumen fluid and substrate concentration on fermentation kinetics measured with a fully automated time related gas production apparatus. Animal Feed Science and Technology 61, 113–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danielsson, R, Ramin, M, Bertilsson, J, Lund, P and Huhtanen, P 2017. Evaluation of a gas in vitro system for predicting methane production in vivo. Journal of Dairy Science 100, 8881–8894.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dewhurst, RJ, Fisher, WJ, Tweed, JKS and Wilkins, RJ 2003. Comparison of grass and legume silages for milk production. 1. Production responses with different levels of concentrate. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 2598–2611.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
European Committee for Standardization 2005. Solid recovered fuels – methods for the determination of calorific value. Retrieved on 12 September 2019 from https://biom.cz/data/normy/15400_Biomass-determination.pdfGoogle Scholar
Ferris, CP, Gordon, FJ, Patterson, DC, Kilpatrick, DJ, Mayne, CS and McCoy, MA 2001. The response of dairy cows of high genetic merit to increasing proportion of concentrate in the diet with a high and medium feed value silage. The Journal of Agricultural Science 136, 319–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firkins, JL and Reynolds, CK 2005. Whole-animal nitrogen balance in cattle. In Nitrogen and phosphorus nutrition of cattle (ed. Pfeffer, E and Hristov, AN), pp. 167–186. CAB International, Cambridge, MA, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2018. The state of food and agriculture 2018. Retrieved on 11 September 2019 from http://www.fao.org/state-of-food-agriculture/en/Google Scholar
Fox, DG, Tedeschi, LO, Tylutki, TP, Russell, JB, Van Amburgh, ME, Chase, LE, Pell, AN and Overton, TR 2004. The Cornell net carbohydrate and protein system model for evaluating herd nutrition and nutrient excretion. Animal Feed Science and Technology 112, 29–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givens, DI, Everington, JM and Adamson, AH 1989. The digestibility and metabolisable energy content of grass silage and their prediction from laboratory measurements. Animal Feed Science and Technology 24, 27–43,10.1016/0377-8401(89)90018-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, FJ, Porter, MG, Mayne, CS, Unsworth, EF and Kilpatrick, DJ 1995. The effect of forage digestibility and type of concentrate on nutrient utilization for lactating dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Research 62, 15–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gustavsson, A-M 2017. System för att skatta skördetiden med hjälp av väderdata i ett varmare klimat (in Swedish). In Proceedings of Forage Conference 2017, 7–8 February 2017, Uppsala, Sweden, pp. 104–107.Google Scholar
Gustavsson, A-M and Martinsson, K 2004. Seasonal variation in biochemical composition of cell walls, digestibility, morphology, growth and phenology in timothy. European Journal of Agronomy 20, 293–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higgs, R, Chase, L and Van Amburgh, M 2012. Development and evaluation of equations in the Cornell Net Carbohydrate and Protein System to predict nitrogen excretion in lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 2004–2014.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huhtanen, P, Nousiainen, J and Rinne, M 2006. Recent developments in forage evaluation with special references to practical applications. Agricultural and Food Science 15, 293–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change 2006. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Retrieved on 12 September 2019 from https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/Google Scholar
Jung, HG, Fahey, GC and Garst, JE 1983. Simple phenolic monomers of forages and effects of in vitro fermentation on cell wall phenolics. Journal of Animal Science 57, 1294–1305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kebreab, E, Strathe, AB, Dijkstra, J, Mills, JAN, Reynolds, CK, Crompton, LA, Yan, T and France, J 2010. Energy and protein interactions and their effect on nitrogen excretion in dairy cows. In Energy and protein metabolism and nutrition: 3rd EAAP international symposium on energy and protein metabolism and nutrition (ed. Crovetto, GM), pp. 417–425. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Krizsan, SJ, Alamouti, HM, Rinne, M and Huhtanen, P 2014. Indigestible neutral detergent fibre in predictions of grass and red clover silage digestibility. Grass and Forage Science 69, 266–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuoppala, K, Ahvenjärvi, S, Rinne, M and Vanhatalo, A 2009. Effects of feeding grass or red clover silages cut at two maturity stages in dairy cows. 2. Dry matter intake and cell wall digestion kinetics. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 5634–5644.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuoppala, K, Rinne, M, Nousiainen, J and Huhtanen, P 2008. The effect of cutting time of grass silage in primary growth and regrowth and the interactions between silage quality and concentrate level in milk production of dairy cows. Livestock Science 116, 171–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, AK 1969a. Urinary excretion of aromatic acids by sheep given diets containing different amounts of protein and roughage. British Journal of Nutrition 23, 389–399.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, AK 1969b. The urinary excretion of aromatic acids by starved sheep. British Journal of Nutrition 23, 715–725.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, AK 1970. The urinary aromatic acids excreted by sheep given S24perennial ryegrass cut at six stages of maturity. British Journal of Nutrition 24, 943–959.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, AK 1973. Urinary aromatic acid excretion by fed and fasted sheep in relation to protein metabolism in the rumen. British Journal of Nutrition 30, 251–267.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, AK 1982a. The origin of urinary aromatic compounds excreted by ruminants. 1. The metabolism of quinic, cyclohexane carboxylic and non-phenolic aromatic acids to benzoic acid. British Journal of Nutrition 47, 139–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, AK 1982b. The origin of urinary aromatic compounds excreted by ruminants. 2. The metabolism of phenolic cinnamic acids to benzoic acid. British Journal of Nutrition 47, 155–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, AK, Milne, JA and Moberly, P 1983. The origin of urinary aromatic compounds excreted by ruminants. 4. The potential use of urine aromatic acid and phenol outputs as a measure of voluntary food intake. British Journal of Nutrition 49, 87–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ministry of Agriculture, Fishery and Food 1975. Energy allowances and feeding systems for ruminants. MAFF Technical Bulletin No. 33. HMSO, London, UK.Google Scholar
Navarro-Villa, A, O’Brian, M, López, S, Boland, TM and O’Kiely, P 2011. In vitro rumen methane output of red clover and perennial ryegrass assayed using the gas production technique (GPT). Animal Feed Science and Technology 168, 152–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nousiainen, J 2004. Development of tools for the nutritional management of dairy cows on silage-based diets. PhD thesis, Helsinki University, Helsinki, Finland.Google Scholar
O’Connell, JE and Fox, PF 2001. Significance and applications of phenolic compounds in the production and quality of milk and dairy products: a review. International Dairy Journal 11, 103–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olthof, MR, Hollman, PC, Buijsman, MN, Van Amelsvoort, JM and Katan, MB 2003. Chlorogenic acid, quercetin-3-rutinoside and black tea phenols are extensively metabolized in humans. The Journal of Nutrition 133, 1806–1814.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pang, D 2018. Improved utilisation of grass silage in milk production. Harvesting strategy and feeding value. PhD thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå, Sweden.Google Scholar
Pelchen, A and Peters, KJ 1998. Methane emissions from sheep. Small Ruminant Research 27, 137–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramin, M and Huhtanen, P 2012. Development of an in vitro method for determination of methane production kinetics using a fully automated in vitro gas system – a modeling approach. Animal Feed Science and Technology 174, 190–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramin, M and Huhtanen, P 2013. Development of equations for predicting methane emissions from ruminants. Journal of Dairy Science 96, 2476–2493.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Randby, ÅT, Weisbjerg, MR, Nørgaard, P and Heringstad, B 2012. Early lactation feed intake and milk yield responses of dairy cows offered grass silages harvested at early maturity stages. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 304–317.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rinne, M, Jaakkola, S, Kaustell, K, Heikkilä, T and Huhtanen, P 1999. Silages harvested at different stage of growth v. concentrate foods as energy and protein sources in milk production. Animal Science 69, 251–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soberon, MA, Cherney, DJR and Cherney, JH 2012a. Free ferulic acid uptake in ram lambs. Journal of Animal Science 90, 1885–1891.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soberon, MA, Cherney, JH, Liu, RH, Ross, DA and Cherney, DJR 2012b. Free ferulic acid uptake in lactating cows. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 6563–6570.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
St-Pierre, NR 2001. Integrating quantitative findings from multiple studies using mixed model methodology. Journal of Dairy Science 84, 741–755.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vanhatalo, A, Kuoppala, K, Ahvenjärvi, S and Rinne, M 2009. Effects of feeding grass or red clover silage cut at two maturity stages in dairy cows. 1. Nitrogen metabolism and supply of amino acids. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 5620–5633.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vasiljević, S, Ćupina, B, Krstic, D, Pataki, I, Katanski, S and Milošević, B 2011. Seasonal changes of proteins, structural carbohydrates, fats and minerals in herbage dry matter of red clover (Trifolium pratense L.). Biotechnology in Animal Husbandry 27, 1543–1550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yan, T, Mayne, CS, Gordon, FG, Porter, MG, Agnew, RE, Patterson, DC, Ferris, CP and Kilpatrick, DJ 2010. Mitigation of enteric methane emissions through improving efficiency of energy utilization and productivity in lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 2630–2638.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhao, YG, Aubry, A, Annett, R, O’Connell, NE and Yan, T 2016a. Enteric methane emissions and nitrogen utilization efficiency for two genotype of hill hoggets offered fresh, ensiled and pelleted ryegrass. Livestock Science 188, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, YG, Gordon, AW, O’Connell, NE and Yan, T 2016b. Nitrogen utilization efficiency and prediction of nitrogen excretion in sheep offered fresh perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne). Journal of Animal Science 94, 5321–5331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar