Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T00:41:42.796Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Combination of legume-based herbage and total mixed ration (TMR) maintains intake and nutrient utilization of TMR and improves nitrogen utilization of herbage in heifers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2016

A. Santana ,
C. Cajarville ,
A. Mendoza  and
J. L. Repetto
A. Santana
Affiliation:
Departamento de Producción de Bovinos, Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad de la República, Ruta 1, Km 41.500, San José, Uruguay
C. Cajarville*
Affiliation:
Departamento de Nutrición Animal, Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad de la República, Ruta 1, Km 41.500, San José, Uruguay
A. Mendoza
Affiliation:
Departamento de Producción de Bovinos, Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad de la República, Ruta 1, Km 41.500, San José, Uruguay
J. L. Repetto
Affiliation:
Departamento de Producción de Bovinos, Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad de la República, Ruta 1, Km 41.500, San José, Uruguay
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Diets combining herbage and total mixed rations (TMR) are increasingly used in temperate regions for feeding ruminants, but little information is available regarding the effects on nutrient intake and digestion of this feeding management in beef cattle. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of combining TMR (10% CP and 13% ADF), and legume-based herbage (14% CP and 27% ADF) on intake, nutrient digestion, ruminal fermentation, microbial N flow and glucose and nitrogen metabolism in heifers. The experiment was a 3×3 Latin square design replicated three times; each period lasted 18 days (10 adaptation days and 8 measurement days). Nine cross-bred (Aberdeen Angus×Hereford) heifers (214±18 kg) fitted with permanent rumen catheters and housed in individual metabolic cages were assigned to one of three treatments: 24 h access to TMR (T), 24 h access to herbage (H) or combined diets with 18 h access to TMR and 6 h access to herbage (T+H). Data were evaluated using a mixed model. Animals fed T+H (TMR 71% and herbage 29%) diets tended to have a higher dry matter intake as a proportion of their BW than animals fed T. The T+H diet did not change ruminal fermentation (pH, N–NH3 and volatile fatty acids) or the N metabolism relative to the T diet, but increased the glucagon concentration and altered glucose metabolism. Conversely, animals fed T+H had increased purine derivatives excretion, increased N use efficiency for microbial protein synthesis and decreased plasma urea and urinary N excretion relative to animals fed H diet. The use of combined diets led to consumption of nutrients similar to a TMR diet, without reducing nutrient use and could improve N utilization compared with the herbage-only diet.

Keywords

partial mixed rationmixed dietspasturefeeding systemmicrobial protein synthesis
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , April 2017 , pp. 616 - 624
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2016 

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

Adams, RF, Jones, RL and Conway, PL 1984. High performance liquid chromatography of microbial acid metabolites. Journal of Chromatography 336, 125–137.Google Scholar
Aguerre, M, Cajarville, C, Kozloski, GV and Repetto, JL 2013. Intake and digestive responses by ruminants fed fresh temperate pasture supplemented with increased levels of sorghum grain: a comparison between cattle and sheep. Animal Feed Science and Technology 186, 12–19.Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) 1990. Official methods of analysis, 15th edition. AOAC, Arlington, VA, USA.Google Scholar
Bach, A, Calsamiglia, S and Stern, MD 2005. Nitrogen metabolism in the rumen. Journal of Dairy Science 88 (suppl. E), E9–E21.Google Scholar
Balcells, J, Guada, JA and Peiró, JM 1992. Simultaneous determination of allantoin and oxypurines in biological fluids by high-performance liquid chromatography. Journal of Chromatography 575, 153–157.Google Scholar
Bargo, F, Muller, LD, Delahoy, JE and Cassidy, TW 2002. Performance of high producing dairy cows with three different feeding systems combining pasture and total mixed rations. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 2948–2963.Google Scholar
Chen, XB and Gomes, MJ 1995. Estimation of microbial protein supply to sheep and cattle based on urinary excretion of purine derivatives – An overview of the technical details 1–19. International Feed Resources Unit Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn Aberdeen, Scotland, UK.Google Scholar
Coppock, CE, Bath, DL and Harris, B 1981. From feeding to feeding systems. Journal of Dairy Science 64, 1230–1249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) 1986. Analytical methods for characterizing feed resources for ruminants. In Better utilization of crop residues and by-products in animal feeding: research guidelines 2. A practical manual for research workers (ed. TR Preston), pp. 283–305. FAO, Rome, Italy. Retrieved on 8 October 2007 from http://www.fao.org/documents/en/detail/27299.Google Scholar
Fox, DG, Tedeschi, LO, Tylutki, TP, Russell, JB, Van Amburgh, MB, 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.Google Scholar
Garcia, SC, Santini, FJ and Elizalde, JC 2000. Sites of digestión and bacterial protein synthesis in dairy heifers fed fresh oats with or without corn or barley grain. Journal of Dairy Science 83, 746–755.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hristov, A, Hanigan, M, Cole, A, Todd, R and McAllister, T 2011. Review: ammonia emissions from dairy farms and beef feedlots. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 91, 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huntington, GB, Harmon, DL and Richardset, CJ 2006. Sites, rates, and limits of starch digestion and glucose metabolism in growing cattle. Journal of Animal Science 84 (suppl. E), E14–E24.Google Scholar
Kaps, M and Lamberson, WR 2004. Biostatistics for animal science. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK. Chapter 14.4, p. 308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolver, ES and Muller, LD 1998. Performance and nutrient intake of high producing Holstein cows consuming pasture or a total mixed ration. Journal of Dairy Science 81, 1403–1411.Google Scholar
Loor, JJ, Soriano, FD, Lin, X, Herbein, JH and Polan, CE 2003. Grazing allowance after the morning or afternoon milking for lactating cows fed a total mixed ration (TMR) enhances trans11-18:1 and cis9,trans11-18:2 (rumenic acid) in milk fat to different extents. Animal Feed Science and Technology 109, 105–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lourenço, M, Van Ranst, G, Vlaeminck, B, De Smet, S and Fievez, V 2008. Influence of different dietary forages on the fatty acid composition of rumen digesta as well as ruminant meat and milk. Animal Feed Science and Technology 145, 418–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, JE, Brant, MH, Kunkle, WE and Hopkins, DI 1999. Effects of supplementation on voluntary forage intake, diet digestibility, and animal performance. Journal of Animal Science 77, 122–135.Google Scholar
Morales, E, Soldado, A, González, A, Martínez, A, Domínguez, I, Delgado, B and Vicente, F 2010. Improving the fatty acid profile of dairy cow milk by combining grazing with feeding of total mixed ration. Journal of Dairy Research 77, 225–230.Google Scholar
Mosoni, P, Chaucheyras-Durand, F, Béra-Maille, C and Forano, E 2007. Quantification by real-time PCR of cellulolytic bacteria in the rumen of sheep after supplementation of a forage diet with readily fermentable carbohydrates: effect of a yeast additive. Journal of Applied Microbiology 103, 2676–2685.Google Scholar
National Research Council 2001. Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle, 7th revised edition. National Academies Press, Washington DC, USA.Google Scholar
Oba, M and Allen, MS 1999. Evaluation of the Importance of the digestibility of neutral detergent fiber from forage: effects on dry matter intake and milk yield of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 82, 589–596.Google Scholar
Reynal, SM and Broderick, GA 2005. Effect of dietary level of rumen-degraded protein on production and nitrogen metabolism in lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 4045–4064.Google Scholar
Reynolds, CK and Kristensen, NB 2008. Nitrogen recycling through the gut and the nitrogen economy of ruminants: an asynchronous symbiosis. Journal of Animal Science 86 (suppl. E), E293–E305.Google Scholar
Robertson, JB and Van Soest, PJ 1981. The detergent system of analysis and its application to human foods. In The analysis of dietary fibre in food (ed. WPT James and O Theander), pp. 123–158. Marcel Dekker, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Satter, LD and Slyter, LL 1974. Effect of ammonia concentration on rumen microbial protein production in vitro. British Journal of Nutrition 32, 199–208.Google Scholar
Soder, KJ and Rotz, CA 2001. Economic and environmental impact of four levels of concentrate supplementation in grazing dairy herds. Journal of Dairy Science 84, 2560–2572.Google Scholar
Tebot, I, Cajarville, C, Repetto, JL and Cirio, A 2012. Supplementation with non-fibrous carbohydrates reduced fiber digestibility and did not improve microbial protein synthesis in sheep fed fresh forage of two nutritive values. Animal 6, 617–623.Google Scholar
Vibart, RE, Burns, JC and Fellner, V 2010. Effect of replacing total mixed ration with pasture on ruminal fermentation. The Professional Animal Scientist 26, 435–442.Google Scholar
Vibart, RE, Fellner, V, Burns, JC, Huntington, JB and Green, JT 2008. Performance of lactating dairy cows fed varying levels of total mixed ration and pasture. Journal of Dairy Research 75, 471–480.Google Scholar
Wales, MJ, Marett, LC, Greengood, JS, Wright, MM, Tornhill, BJ, Jacobs, JL, Ho, CKM and Auldist, MJ 2013. Use of partial mixed ration in pasture-based dairying in temperate regions of Australia. Animal Production Science 53, 1167–1178.Google Scholar