Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:09:30.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Grass silage pulp as a dietary component for high-yielding dairy cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2019

O. Savonen Open the ORCID record for O. Savonen [Opens in a new window] ,
M. Franco ,
T. Stefanski ,
P. Mäntysaari ,
K. Kuoppala  and
M. Rinne Open the ORCID record for M. Rinne [Opens in a new window]
O. Savonen*
Affiliation:
Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), FI-31600Jokioinen, Finland
M. Franco
Affiliation:
Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), FI-31600Jokioinen, Finland
T. Stefanski
Affiliation:
Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), FI-31600Jokioinen, Finland
P. Mäntysaari
Affiliation:
Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), FI-31600Jokioinen, Finland
K. Kuoppala
Affiliation:
Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), FI-31600Jokioinen, Finland
M. Rinne
Affiliation:
Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), FI-31600Jokioinen, Finland
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Green biorefineries provide novel opportunities to use the green biomass efficiently and utilize the ecosystem services provided by grasslands more widely. The effects of the inclusion of fractionated grass silage solid fraction (pulp) on feed intake, rumen fermentation, diet digestion and milk production in dairy cows were investigated. Pulp was separated from grass silage using a screw press simulating a green biorefinery. Partial removal of liquid from forage increased DM concentration from 220 to 432 g/kg and NDF from 589 to 709 g/kg DM while CP decreased from 144 to 107 g/kg DM. A feeding trial using an incomplete changeover design with 24 Nordic Red cows and two 3-week periods was conducted. The pulp replaced grass silage in the diet at 0 (P0), 25 (P25) and 50 (P50) percentage of total forage, which was fed ad libitum with 13 kg of concentrate for all treatments. The forage DM intake was highest on P25 (14.1 kg/day) while P0 and P50 did not differ from each other (13.2 and 13.0 kg/day, respectively). There were no differences between the treatments in rumen pH or ammonia N, but the proportion of acetate increased with increasing pulp inclusion. The digestibility was measured using acid insoluble ash and indigestible NDF (iNDF) as internal markers. Neither of the markers detected differences in NDF digestibility, but according to iNDF, apparent total tract organic matter digestibility decreased with increasing pulp inclusion. The cows maintained milk production at P25, but it showed some decline at P50 (energy-corrected milk at P0 and P25 was 39.8 kg/day while for P50, it was 38.5 kg/day, P = 0.056) and the milk protein yield significantly declined with higher pulp inclusion. Simultaneously, the nitrogen use efficiency in milk production increased. It seems that the fibrous grass-based fraction from a biorefinery process has potential to be used as a feed for ruminants.

Keywords

biorefineryfibreforageliquid–solid separationruminant
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 14 , Issue 7 , July 2020 , pp. 1472 - 1480
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

Adler, SA, Johansen, A, Ingvoldstadt, AK, Etun, R and Gjerlaung-Enger, EJ 2018. Forages – a local protein source for growing pigs. In Proceedings of the IXth Nordic Feed Science Conference, 12–13 June 2018, Uppsala, Sweden, pp. 61–65.Google Scholar
Anon 1971. Determination of crude oils and fats. Official Journal of European Community Legistations 297, 995–997.Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists 1990. Official methods of analysis. AOAC, Arlington, VA, USA.Google Scholar
Bryant, AM, Carruthers, VR and Trigg, TE 1983. Nutritive value of pressed herbage residues for lactating dairy cows. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 26, 79–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damborg, VK, Jensen, SK, Johansen, M, Ambye-Jensen, M and Weisbjerg, MR 2019. Ensiled pulp from biorefining increased milk production in dairy cows compared with grass-clover silage. Journal of Dairy Science 102, 8883–8897.10.3168/jds.2018-16096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damborg, VK, Stødkilde, L, Jensen, SK and Weisbjerg, MR 2018. Protein value and degradation characteristics of pulp fibre fractions from screw pressed grass, clover and lucerne. Animal Feed Science and Technology 244, 93–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edmonson, AJ, Lean, IJ, Weaver, LD, Farcer, T and Webster, G 1989. A body condition scoring chart for Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 72, 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Commission 1971. Commission Directive 71/250/EEC. Determination of ash which is insoluble in hydrochloric acid. Official Journal No L 155/13, 30–31 (Method B).Google Scholar
Franco, M, Hurme, T, Winquist, E and Rinne, M 2019. Grass silage for biorefinery – a meta-analysis of silage factors affecting liquid-solid separation. Grass and Forage Science 74, 218–230. https://doi.org//10.1111/gfs.12421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haacker, K, Block, HJ and Weissbach, F 1983. Zur kolorimetrischen Milchsäurebestimmung in Silagen mit p-Hydroxydiphenyl. Archiv für Tierernährung 33, 505–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hermansen, JE, Jorgensen, U, Laerke, PE, Manevski, K, Boelt, B and Jensen, SK 2017. Green Biomass – protein production through bio-refining. DCA raport No. 093. 68 p. Retrieved on 21 February 2019 from http://www.dca.au.dk.Google Scholar
Hintz, RW, Koegel, RG, Kraus, TJ and Mertens, DR 1999. Mechanical maceration of Alfalfa. Journal of Animal Science 77, 187–193.10.2527/1999.771187xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hong, BJ, Broderick, GA, Koegel, RG, Shinners, KJ and Straub, RJ 1988. Effects of shredding alfalfa stems on fiber digestion determined by in vitro procedures and scanning electron microscopy. Journal of Dairy Science 71, 1536–1545.10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(88)79717-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoover, WH 1986. Chemical factors involved in ruminal fiber digestion. Journal of Dairy Science 69, 2755–2766.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huhtanen, P, Ahvenjärvi, S, Weisbjerg, MR and Nørgaard, P 2006b. Digestion and passage of fibre in ruminants. In Ruminant physiology: Digestion, metabolism and impact of nutrition on gene expression, immunology and stress (ed. Sejrsen, K, Hvelpund, T and Nielsen, MO), pp. 87–135. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Huhtanen, P, Blauwiekel, R and Saastamoinen, I 1998. Effects of intraruminal infusions of propionate and butyrate with two different protein supplements on milk production and blood metabolites in dairy cows receiving grass silage based diet. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 77, 213–222.3.0.CO;2-6>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huhtanen, P and Broderick, G 2016. Improving utilisation of forage protein in ruminant production by crop and feed management. The multiple roles of grassland in the European bioeconomy. In Proceedings of 26th General Meeting of the European Grassland Federation, 4–8 September 2016, Trondheim, Norway, pp. 340–349.Google Scholar
Huhtanen, P, Kaustell, K and Jaakkola, S 1994. The use of internal markers to predict total digestibility and duodenal flow of nutrients in cattle given six different diets. Animal Feed Science and Technology 48, 211–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huhtanen, P and Nousiainen, J 2012. Production responses of lactating dairy cows fed silage-based diets to changes in nutrient supply. Livestock Science 148, 146–158.10.1016/j.livsci.2012.05.023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huhtanen, P, Nousiainen, J and Rinne, M 2006a. Recent developments in forage evaluation with special reference to practical applications. Agricultural and Food Science 15, 293–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huhtanen, P, Nousiainen, J, Rinne, M, Kytölä, K and Khalili, H 2008. Utilization and partition of dietary nitrogen in dairy cows fed grass silage-based diets. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 3589–3599.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huhtanen, P, Rinne, M and 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huida, L, Väätäinen, H and Lampila, M 1986. Comparison of dry matter contents in grass silage as determined by oven drying and gas chromatographic water analysis. Annales Agriculturae Fenniae 25, 215–230.Google Scholar
Kamm, B, Schönincke, P and Hille, CH 2016. Green biorefinery – industrial implementation. Food Chemistry 197, 1341–1345.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuoppala, K, Rinne, M, Nousiainen, J and Huhtanen, P 2008. The effect of cutting time of grass in primary growth and the interactions between silage quality and concentrate level on milk production of dairy cows. Livestock Science 116, 171–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luke 2019. Feed tables and nutrient requirements, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke). Retrieved on 15 July 2019 from www.luke.fi/feedtablesGoogle Scholar
MAFF 1984. Energy allowances and feeding systems for ruminants. In: ADAS Reference Book No. 433. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, London, UK.Google Scholar
McCullough, H 1967. The determination of ammonia in whole blood by direct colorimetric method. Clinical Chemical Acta 17, 10–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McEniry, J and O’Kiely, P 2013.The estimated nutritive value of three common grassland species at three primary growth harvest dates following ensiling and fractionation of press-cake. Agricultural and Food Science 22, 194–200.10.23986/afsci.6710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mertens, DR, Koegel, RG and Straub, RJ 1991. Altered ruminal fermentation in lactating cows fed rations containing macerated alfalfa. In 1991 research summaries, pp. 89–92. U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center, Madison, WI, USA.Google Scholar
Niemi, P, Pihlajaniemi, V, Rinne, M and Siika-aho, M 2017. Production of sugars from grass silage after steam explosion or soaking in aqueous ammonia. Industrial Crops and Products 98, 93–99.10.1016/j.indcrop.2017.01.022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nousiainen, J, Rinne, M, Hellämäki, M and Huhtanen, P 2003. Prediction of the digestibility of primary growth grass silages harvested at different stages of maturity from chemical composition and pepsin-cellulase solubility. Animal Feed Science and Technology 103, 97–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pijlman, J, Koopmans, S, De Haan, G, Lenssinck, F, Van Houwelingen, KM, Sanders, JPM, Deru, JGC and Erisman, JW 2018. Effect of the grass fibrous fraction obtained from biorefinery on n and P utilization of dairy cows. In Proceedings of the XX Nitrogen Workshop, 25–27 June 2018, Rennes, France, pp. 431–433.Google Scholar
Raymond, WF and Harris, CE 1957. The value of the fibrous residue from leaf protein extraction as a feeding-stuff for ruminants. Journal of British Grassland Society 12, 166–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rinne, M, Huhtanen, P and 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rinne, M, Huhtanen, P and Jaakkola, S 2002. Digestive processes of dairy cows fed silages harvested at four stages of grass maturity. Journal of Animal Science 80, 1986–1998.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rinne, M, Jaakkola, S, Kaustell, K, Heikkilä, T and Huhtanen, P 1999. Silages harvested at different stages of grass growth v. concentrate foods as energy and protein sources in milk production. Animal Science 69, 251–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rinne, M, Keto, L, Siljander-Rasi, H and Stefanski, T 2018. Grass silage for biorefinery – palatability of silage juice for growing pigs and lactating cows. In Proceedings of XVIII International Silage Conference (ed. K Gerlach and K-H Südekum), 24–26 July 2018, Bonn, Germany, pp. 184–185.Google Scholar
Robertson, JB and Van Soest, PJ 1981. The detergent system of analysis and its application to human foods. In The analyses of dietary fibre in foods (ed. James, WDT and Theander, O), pp. 123–158. Marcell Dekker, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Sales, J and Janssens, GPJ 2003 Acid-insoluble ash as a marker in digestibility studies: a review. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences 12, 383–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santamaría-Fernández, M, Molinuevo-Salces, B, Lübeck, M and Uellendahl, H 2018. Biogas potential of green biomass after protein extraction in an organic biorefinery concept for feed, fuel and fertilizer production. Renewable Energy 129, 769–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savonen, O, Franco, M, Stefanski, T, Mäntysaari, P, Kuoppala, K and Rinne, M 2018. Grass silage for biorefinery – dairy cow responses to diets based on solid fraction of grass silage. In Proceedings of the 9th Nordic Feed Science Conference, 12–13 June 2018, Uppsala, Sweden, pp. 55–60.Google Scholar
Somogyi, M 1945. A new reagent for the determination of sugars. Journal of Biological Chemistry 160, 61–68.Google Scholar
Stefanski, T, Franco, M, Savonen, O, Jalava, T, Winquist, E and Rinne, M 2018. Grass silage biorefinery – separation efficiency and aerobic stability of silage, solid and liquid fractions. In Proceedings of the 9th Nordic Feed Science Conference, 12–13 June 2018, Uppsala, Sweden, pp. 153–158.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P, Robertson, JB and Lewis, BA 1991. Methods for dietary fibre, neutral detergent fibre and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3583–3597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weisbjerg, MR, Waldemar, P, Hellewing, ALF and Kristensen, T 2018. Can we increase digestibility of green forages by physical treatment before ensiling? In Proceedings of the 9th Nordic Feed Science Conference, 12–13 June 2018, Uppsala, Sweden, pp. 15–22.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, JM and Rinne, M 2018. Highlights of progress in silage conservation and future perspectives. Grass and Forage Science 73, 40–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xiu, S and Shahbazi, A 2015. Development of green biorefinery for biomass utilization: a review. Trends in Renewable Energy 1, 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar