Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T10:40:36.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of cultivated mixed-species green fodder on intake, milk production and milk composition of housed dairy goats

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2019

R. Murney Open the ORCID record for R. Murney [Opens in a new window] ,
V. Burggraaf ,
N. Mapp ,
E. Ganche  and
W. King
R. Murney*
Affiliation:
AgResearch Ltd, Ruakura Research Centre, Ruakura Road, Hamilton, New Zealand
V. Burggraaf
Affiliation:
AgResearch Ltd, Ruakura Research Centre, Ruakura Road, Hamilton, New Zealand
N. Mapp
Affiliation:
AgResearch Ltd, Ruakura Research Centre, Ruakura Road, Hamilton, New Zealand
E. Ganche
Affiliation:
AgResearch Ltd, Ruakura Research Centre, Ruakura Road, Hamilton, New Zealand
W. King
Affiliation:
AgResearch Ltd, Ruakura Research Centre, Ruakura Road, Hamilton, New Zealand
*
†Email: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The majority of New Zealand dairy goat farmers utilise cultivated green-fed fodder dominated by perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) and white clover (Trifolium repens L.), but evidence from other ruminant species suggests that milk production may be improved when using a more diverse array of species within the green fodder. The aim of this experiment was to determine whether feeding lactating dairy goats a mixed-species green fodder (MF, consisting of perennial ryegrass, timothy (Phleum pratense L.), prairie grass (Bromus willdenowii Kunth), white clover, red clover (Trifolium pratense L.), lucerne (Medicago sativa L.), chicory (Cichorium intybus L.) and plantain (Plantago lanceolata L.) improves dietary intake, milk yield and composition compared with a standard ryegrass and white clover green fodder (SF). Thirty-six mid-lactation goats were housed indoors in pairs and split into two groups (A and B). The trial was split into three periods – firstly a uniformity period of 6 days, in which all goats were fed a combination of both green fodder types, followed by two treatment periods (P1 and P2) of 12 days, respectively. For P1, group A was fed MF and group B was fed SF, and then the group diets were switched for P2. Goats fed MF had 13% greater dry matter intake and 7% greater milk yield than goats fed SF. In addition, the milk protein and fat concentration of goats fed MF were 4% greater than for those fed SF, whereas there was no effect on milk lactose concentration. There was no treatment effect on the levels of protein, glucose, urea or non-esterified fatty acids in the blood of the goats. An effect of green fodder type on milk fat profile was demonstrated, with proportions of pentadecylic acid (C15:0), cis-vaccenic acid (C18:1 c11), linoleic acid (C18:2 n6) and α-linolenic acid (C18:3 n3) being increased in response to MF consumption. In contrast, iso-C15 and iso-C17 proportions were lesser. In summary, this study demonstrated that goats fed MF increased green fodder intake and milk production compared with goats fed SF. The green fodder type affected the fatty acid profile of goat’s milk, with MF increasing the levels of beneficial polyunsaturated omega fatty acids (linoleic and α-linolenic acids).

Keywords

chicoryfatty acidslegumesplantaintemperate grasses
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 13 , Issue 12 , December 2019 , pp. 2802 - 2810
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.)

Footnotes

a

Present address: Waikato Regional Council, Grey Street, Hamilton, New Zealand

b

Present address: DairyNZ Ltd, Ruakura Road, Hamilton, New Zealand

References

Agricultural and Food Research Council (AFRC) 1993. Energy and protein requirements of ruminants. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
American Oil Chemists’ Society (AOCS) 2017. Official methods and recommended practices, 7th edition. AOCS Press, Urbana, IL, USA.Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) 1990. Official methods of analysis, volume 1. 15th edition. AOAC, Arlington, VA, USA.Google Scholar
Australian Fodder Industry Association (AFIA) 2011. Laboratory methods manual, version 7. Australian Fodder Industry Association Limited, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
Avondo, M, Biondi, L, Pagano, RI, Bonanno, A and Lutri, L 2008a. Feed intake. In Dairy goats feeding and nurtrition (ed. Cannas, A and Pulina, G), pp. 147–160. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avondo, M, Bonanno, A, Pagano, RI, Valenti, B, Grigoli, AD, Luigia Alicata, M, Galofaro, V and Pennisi, P 2008b. Milk quality as affected by grazing time of day in mediterranean goats. Journal of Dairy Research 75, 48–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, HE, Moot, DJ and Pollock, KM 2003. Long term growth rates and water extraction patterns of dryland chicory and red clover. Grassland Research and Practice Series 11, 91–100.Google Scholar
Burke, JL, Waghorn, GC, Brookes, IM, Attwood, GT and Kolver, ES 2000. Formulating total mixed rations from forages – defining the digestion kinetics of contrasting species. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 60, 9–14.Google Scholar
Champion, RA, Orr, RJ, Penning, PD and Rutter, SM 2004. The effect of the spatial scale of heterogeneity of two herbage species on the grazing behaviour of lactating sheep. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 88, 61–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, DF, Tharmaraj, J and Nie, ZN 2008. Milk-production potential of different sward types in a temperate southern Australian environment. Grass and Forage Science 63, 221–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chilliard, Y, Ferlay, A, Rouel, J and Lamberet, G 2003. A review of nutritional and physiological factors affecting goat milk lipid synthesis and lipolysis. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 1751–1770.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christie, W 1989. Gas chromatography and lipids (a practical guide). The Oily Press Limited, Bridgwater, UK.Google Scholar
Collins, HA and Nicol, AM 1986. The consequence for feed dry matter intake of grazing sheep, cattle and goats to the same residual herbage mass. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 46, 125–128.Google Scholar
Cragle, RG, Murphy, MR, Williams, SW and Clark, JH 1986. Effects of altering milk production and composition by feeding on multiple component milk pricing system. Journal of Dairy Science 69, 282–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewhurst, RJ, Evans, RT, Scollan, ND, Moorby, JM, Merry, RJ and Wilkins, RJ 2003a. Comparison of grass and legume silages for milk production. 2. in vivo and in sacco evaluations of rumen function. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 2612–2621.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dewhurst, RJ, Fisher, WJ, Tweed, JKS and Wilkins, RJ 2003b. 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
Dewhurst, RJ, Shingfield, KJ, Lee, MRF and Scollan, ND 2006. Increasing the concentrations of beneficial polyunsaturated fatty acids in milk produced by dairy cows in high-forage systems. Animal Feed Science and Technology 131, 168–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubois, M, Gilles, KA, Hamilton, JK, Rebers, PA and Smith, F 1956. Colorimetric method for determination of sugars and related substances. Analytical Chemistry 28, 350–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emery, RS 1978. Feeding for increased milk protein. Journal of Dairy Science 61, 825–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fievez, V, Colman, E, Castro Montoya, J, Stefanov, I and Vlaeminck, B 2012. Milk odd- and branched-chain fatty acids as biomarkers of rumen function: an update. Animal Feed Science and Technology 172, 51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goetsch, AL, Zeng, SS and Gipson, TA 2011. Factors affecting goat milk production and quality. Small Ruminant Research 101, 55–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregorini, P, Minnee, EMK, Griffiths, W and Lee, JM 2013. Dairy cows increase ingestive mastication and reduce ruminative chewing when grazing chicory and plantain. Journal of Dairy Science 96, 7798–7805.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hall, MB, Hoover, WH, Jennings, JP, Miller, and Webster, TK 1999. A method for partitioning neutral detergent-soluble carbohydrates. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 79, 2079–2086.3.0.CO;2-Z>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, SL, Auldist, MJ, Clark, DA and Jansen, EBL 1998. Effects of white clover content in the diet on herbage intake, milk production and milk Composition of New Zealand dairy cows housed indoors. Journal of Dairy Research 65, 389–400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huguet, L, Broqua, B, Dufour, A, de Simiane, M and Beguin, JM 1979. Comparaison de graminées fourragères utilisées en affouragement en vert par la chèvre laitière. Fourrages 78, 67–88.Google Scholar
Hutton, PG, Kenyon, PR, Bedi, MK, Kemp, PD, Stafford, K, West, DM and Morris, ST 2011. A herb and legume sward mix increased ewe milk production and ewe and lamb live weight gain to weaning compared to a ryegrass dominant sward. Animal Feed Science and Technology 164, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobsen, K 1999. Dietary modifications of animal fat: status and future perspectives. Fett/Lipid 101, 475–483.3.0.CO;2-H>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenyon, PR, Morel, PCH, Corner-Thomas, RA, Perez, HL, Somasiri, SC, Kemp, PD and Morris, ST 2017. Improved per hectare production in a lamb finishing system using mixtures of red and white clover with plantain and chicory compared to ryegrass and white clover. Small Ruminant Research 151, 90–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lefrileux, Y, Morand-Fehr, P and Pommaret, A 2012. Capacity of high milk yielding goats to utilize cultivated pastures. Productions Animales 25, 277–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minneé, EMK, Waghorn, GC, Lee, JM and Clark, CEF 2017. Including chicory or plantain in a perennial ryegrass/white clover-based diet of dairy cattle in late lactation: feed intake, milk production and rumen digestion. Animal Feed Science and Technology 227, 52–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moorhead, AJE and Piggot, GJ 2009. The performance of pasture mixes containing ‘ceres tonic’ plantain (Plantago lanceolata) in Northland. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society Grassland Association 71, 195–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee 2012. Animal Welfare (Goats) Code of Welfare. Retrieved on 16 May 2018 from http://www.mpi.govt.nz/protection-and-response/animal-welfare/codes-of-welfare/.Google Scholar
National Forage Testing Association 1997. National Forage Testing Association forage analyses procedures manual. National Forage Testing Association, NE, USA.Google Scholar
Pembleton, KG, Hills, JL, Freeman, MJ, McLaren, DK, French, M and Rawnsley, RP 2016. More milk from forage: milk production, blood metabolites, and forage intake of dairy cows grazing pasture mixtures and spatially adjacent monocultures. Journal of Dairy Science 99, 3512–3528.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prosser, C and Stafford, K 2017. Goat production. In Livestock production in New Zealand (ed. Stafford, K), pp. 146–169, Massey University Press, Auckland, NZ.Google Scholar
Provenza, FD, Villalba, JJ, Dziba, LE, Atwood, SB and Banner, RE 2003. Linking herbivore experience, varied diets, and plant biochemical diversity. Small Ruminant Research 49, 257–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roca-Fernández, AI, Peyraud, JL, Delaby, L and Delagarde, R 2016. Pasture intake and milk production of dairy cows rotationally grazing on multi-species swards. Animal 10, 1448–1456.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soder, KJ, Sanderson, MA, Stack, JL and Muller, LD 2006. Intake and performance of lactating cows grazing diverse forage mixtures. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 2158–2167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Toledo, P, Andrén, A and Björck, L 2002. Composition of raw milk from sustainable production systems. International Dairy Journal 12, 75–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waugh, CD, Clark, DA, Harris, SL, Thom, ER, Copeman, PJA and Napper, AR 1998. Chicory for milk production. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society Grassland Association 60, 33–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar