Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T22:04:06.410Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of and interactions between the maturity of grass silage and concentrate starch source when offered as total mixed rations on the performance of dairy cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2012

M. N. Tahir ,
P. Lund  and
M. Hetta
M. N. Tahir*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Research for Northern Sweden, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SE-901 83 Umeå, Sweden
P. Lund
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Research Centre Foulum, Aarhus University, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
M. Hetta
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Research for Northern Sweden, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SE-901 83 Umeå, Sweden
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

A 2 × 2 factorial feeding experiment was conducted to examine the effects of varying the maturity level of the grass used to prepare silage and the nature of concentrate starch source and their interactions on dry matter intake (DMI), diet digestibility, energy corrected milk (ECM) production and milk composition in dairy cows. Twenty-eight multiparous Swedish Red dairy cows, 133 ± 45 days in milk (DIM), with an average milk yield of 30 ± 4 kg/day and a live weight of 624 ± 69 kg were blocked by DIM and randomly assigned to seven replicated balanced 4 × 4 Latin squares with four 21-day experimental periods. The experimental diets consisted of four total mixed rations (TMR) consisting of early-cut grass silage (EGS) supplemented with either barley- or maize-based concentrate and late-cut grass silage (LGS) supplemented with either barley- or maize-based concentrate. All TMR contained identical proportions of forage (51%) and concentrate (49%). Total tract digestibility was estimated by determining indigestible NDF (iNDF) concentrations in feeds and faeces and using iNDF as an internal marker. The feeds’ ruminal degradation parameters were determined using both in situ (nylon bag) and in vitro (gas production (GP)) techniques. Cows offered diets containing EGS had greater (P < 0.001) daily dry matter (DM) intakes, ECM yields and total tract digestibilities for DM and organic matter (OM), but these were not affected by the nature of the concentrate starch source. No interaction between the maturity of the silage and the nature of the concentrate starch source was observed for DMI, diet digestibility or ECM yield. Both grass silages and concentrates had similar rates of ruminal degradation of NDF when measured in situ. The in situ DM (P < 0.001) and starch (P = 0.001) degradation rates of barley-based concentrate were greater than those for maize-based concentrate. In vitro OM GP rates and extents were similar for both concentrate feeds. The results showed that diets containing EGS offered better animal performance and diet digestibility than diets containing LGS. The concentrate starch source did not affect animal performance, but total NDF digestibility was better with diet containing barley- than maize-based concentrate.

Keywords

grass silage maturityconcentrate starch sourcedry matter intakedigestibilitymilk production and composition
Type
Nutrition
Information
animal , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , April 2013 , pp. 580 - 590
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2012

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

Allen, MS 2000. Effects of diet on short-term regulation of feed intake by lactating dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 83, 1598–1624.Google Scholar
Åkerlind, M, Weisbjerg, MR, Eriksson, T, Tøgersen, R, Udén, P, Ólafsson, BL, Harstad, OM, Volden, H 2011. Feed analyses and digestion methods. In The Nordic feed evaluation system, NorFor (ed. H Volden), pp. 41–54. EAAP 130, Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Andersson, R, Hedlund, B 1983. HPLC analysis of organic acids in lactic acid fermented vegetables. Zeitschrift für Lebensmittel-Untersuchung und Forschung 176, 440–443.Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) 1984. Official methods of analysis. AOAC, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Bach Knudsen, KE 1997. Carbohydrate and lignin contents of plant materials used in animal feeding. Animal Feed Science and Technology 67, 319–338.Google Scholar
Baevre, L, Junkkarinen, L, Pedersen, J, Setälä, J, Sjaunja, LO 1988. A Nordic proposal for energy corrected milk (ECM) formula. International Committee for Recording the Productivity of Milk Animals (ICRPMA), Paris.Google Scholar
Baker, LD, Ferguson, JD, Chalupa, W 1995. Responses in urea and true protein of milk to different protein feeding schemes for dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 78, 2424–2434.Google Scholar
Bernes, G, Hetta, M, Martinsson, K 2008. Effects of harvest date of timothy (Phleum pratense) on its nutritive value, and on the voluntary silage intake and liveweight gain of lambs. Grass and Forage Science 63, 212–220.Google Scholar
Biagini, D, Lazzaroni, C 2009. Efficiency of feed nitrogen conversion in dairy cattle herds. Italian Journal of Animal Science 8 (suppl. 2), 265–267.Google Scholar
Britt, JS, Thomas, RC, Speer, NC, Hall, MB 2003. Efficiency of converting nutrient dry matter to milk in Holstein herds. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 3796–3801.Google Scholar
Broderick, GA, Cochran, RC 2000. In vitro and in situ methods for estimating digestibility with reference to protein degradability. In Feeding systems and feed evaluation models (ed. MK Theodorou and J France), pp. 53–85. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Broderick, GA, Huhtanen, P, Ahvenjarvi, S, Reynal, SM, Shingfield, KJ 2010. Quantifying ruminal nitrogen metabolism using the omasal sampling technique in cattle-A meta-analysis. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 3216–3230.Google Scholar
Chai, WH, Udén, P 1998. An alternative oven method combined with different detergent strengths in the analysis of neutral detergent fibre. Animal Feed Science and Technology 74, 281–288.Google Scholar
Cone, JW, VanGelder, AH, Visscher, GJW, 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.Google Scholar
Dixon, RM, Stockdale, CR 1999. Associative effects between forages and grains: consequences for feed utilisation. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 50, 757–773.Google Scholar
DePeters, EJ, Taylor, SJ 1985. Effects of feeding corn or barley on composition of milk and diet digestibility. Journal of Dairy Science 68, 2027–2032.Google Scholar
Gasa, J, Holtenius, K, Sutton, JD, Dhanoa, MS, Napper, DJ 1991. Rumen fill and digesta kinetics in lactating Friesian cows given 2 levels of concentrates with 2 types of grass-silage ad-lib. British Journal of Nutrition 66, 381–398.Google Scholar
Grings, EE, Roffler, RE, Deitelhoff, DP 1992. Evaluation of corn and barley as energy-sources for cows in early lactation fed alfalfa-based diets. Journal of Dairy Science 75, 193–200.Google Scholar
Hetta, M, Tahir, MN, Swensson, C 2010. Responses in dairy cows to increased inclusion of wheat in maize and grass silage based diets. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A – Animal Science 60, 219–229.Google Scholar
Hetta, M, Cone, JW, Bernes, G, Gustavsson, AM, Martinsson, K 2007. Voluntary intake of silages in dairy cows depending on chemical composition and in vitro gas production characteristics. Livestock Science 106, 47–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huhtanen, P, Sveinbjörnsson, J 2006. Evaluation of methods for estimating starch digestibility and digestion kinetics in ruminants. Animal Feed Science and Technology 130, 95–113.Google Scholar
Huhtanen, P, Hristov, AN 2009. A meta-analysis of the effects of dietary protein concentration on milk protein yield and milk N efficiency in dairy cows. Journal of Diary Science 92, 3222–3232.Google Scholar
Huhtanen, P, Rinne, M, Nousiainen, J 2007. Evaluation of the factors affecting silage intake of dairy cows: a revision of the relative silage dry-matter intake index. Animal 1, 758–770.Google Scholar
Huhtanen, P, Rinne, M, Nousianen, J 2008a. Evaluation of concentrate factors affecting silage intake of dairy cows: a development of the relative total diet intake index. Animal 2, 942–953.Google Scholar
Huhtanen, P, Seppäla, A, Ots, M, Ahvenjärvi, S, Rinne, M 2008b. In vitro gas production profiles to estimate extent and effective first-order rate of neutral detergent fiber digestion in the rumen. Journal of Animal Science 86, 651–659.Google Scholar
Hvelplund, T, Weisbjerg, MR 2000. In situ techniques for the estimation of protein degradability and postrumen availability. In Forage evaluation in ruminant nutrition (ed. DI Givens, E Owen, RFE Axford and HM Omed), pp. 233–258. CABI Publishing, Oxon, UK.Google Scholar
Keady, TVJ, Mayne, CS, Kilpatrick, DJ 2004. An evaluation of five models commonly used to predict food intake of lactating dairy cattle. Livestock Production Science 89, 129–138.Google Scholar
Khalili, H, Sairanen, A, Hissa, K, Huhtanen, P 2001. Effects of type and treatment of grain and protein source on dairy cow performance. Animal Science 72, 573–584.Google Scholar
Kuoppala, K, Ahvenjarvi, S, Rinne, M, Vanhatalo, A 2009. Effects of feeding grass or red clover silage 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, 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 on milk production of dairy cows. Livestock Science 116, 171–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsson, K, Bengtsson, S 1983. Determination of soluble carbohydrates in plant material – description of methods, vol. 22. Statens Lantbrukskemiska Laboratorium, Uppsala, Sweden (In Swedish).Google Scholar
Lindgren, E 1979. The nutritional value of roughages determined in vivo and by laboratory methods. Report No. 45, Department of Animal Nutrition & Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden, p. 61 (In Swedish).Google Scholar
Madsen, J, Hvelplund, T, Weisbjerg, MR, Bertilson, J, Olsson, I, Spörndly, R, Harstad, OM, Volden, H, Tuori, M, Varvikko, T, Huhtanen, P, Olafsson, BL 1995. The AAT/PBV protein evaluation system for ruminants: a revision. Norwegian Journal of Agricultural Sciences suppl. 19, 1–37.Google Scholar
McCarthy, RD, Klusmeyer, TH, Vicini, JL, Clark, JH, Nelson, DR 1989. Effects of source of protein and carbohydrate on ruminal fermentation and passage of nutrients to the small-intestine of lactating cows. Journal of Dairy Science 72, 2002–2016.Google Scholar
Menke, KH, Steingass, H 1988. Estimation of the energetic feed value obtained from chemical analysis and in vitro gas production using rumen fluid. Animal Research and Development 28, 7–25.Google Scholar
Mertens, DR, Allen, M, Carmany, J, Clegg, J, Davidowicz, A, Drouches, M, Frank, K, Gambin, D, Garkie, M, Gildemeister, B, Jeffress, D, Jeon, CS, Jones, D, Kaplan, D, Kim, GN, Kobata, S, Main, D, Moua, X, Paul, B, Robertson, J, Taysom, D, Thiex, N, Williams, J, Wolf, M 2002. Gravimetric determination of amylase-treated neutral detergent fiber in feeds with refluxing in beakers or crucibles: collaborative study. Journal of AOAC International 85, 1217–1240.Google Scholar
Mills, JAN, France, J, Dijkstra, J 1999. A review of starch digestion in the lactating dairy cow and proposals for a mechanistic model: 1. Dietary starch characterisation and ruminal starch digestion. Journal of Animal and Feed Science 8, 291–340.Google Scholar
National Research Council 2001. Carbohydrates. In Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle, 7th edition, pp. 30–42. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Nocek, JE, Tamminga, S 1991. Site of starch in the gastrointestinal tract of dairy cows and its effect on milk yield and composition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3598–3629.Google Scholar
Oltner, R, Wiktorsson, H 1983. Urea concentrations in milk and blood as influenced by feeding varying amounts of protein and energy to dairy-cows. Livestock Production Science 10, 457–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Overton, TR, Cameron, MR, Elliott, JP, Clark, JH, Nelson, DR 1995. Ruminal fermentation and passage of nutrients to the duodenum of lactating cows fed mixtures of corn and barley. Journal of Dairy Science 78, 1981–1998.Google Scholar
Reynolds, CK 2006. Production and metabolic effects of site of starch digestion in dairy cattle. Animal Feed Science and Technology 130, 78–94.Google Scholar
Rinne, M, Huhtanen, P, Jaakkola, S 1997. Grass maturity effects on cattle fed silage-based diets. 2. Cell wall digestibility, digestion and passage kinetics. Animal Feed Science and Technology 67, 19–35.Google Scholar
Rinne, M, Jaakkola, S, Kaustell, K, Heikkilä, T, Huhtanen, P 1999. Silage harvested at different stages of grass growth v. concentrate foods as energy and protein sources in milk production. Animal Science 69, 251–263.Google Scholar
Schofield, P, Pitt, RE, Pell, AN 1994. Kinetics of fiber digestion from in vitro gas-production. Journal of Animal Science 72, 2980–2991.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Silveira, C, Oba, M, Beauchemin, KA, Helm, J 2007. Effect of grains differing in expected ruminal fermentability on the productivity of lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 2852–2859.Google Scholar
Spörndly, R 2003. Feed tables for ruminants. Report No. 257. Department of Animal Nutrition & Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden (In Swedish).Google Scholar
Tothi, R, Lund, P, Weisbjerg, MR, Hvelplund, T 2003. Effect of expander processing on fractional rate of maize and barley starch degradation in the rumen of dairy cows estimated using rumen evacuation and in situ techniques. Animal Feed Science and Technology 104, 71–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, WZ, Beauchemin, KA, Koenig, KM, Rode, LM 1997. Comparison of hull-less barley, barley, or corn for lactating cows: effects on extent of digestion and milk production. Journal of Dairy Science 80, 2475–2486.Google Scholar