Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:07:52.741Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of supplementation of a forage-only diet with wheat bran and sugar beet pulp in organic dairy cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 November 2016

Paul Ertl ,
Qendrim Zebeli ,
Werner Zollitsch  and
Wilhelm Knaus
Paul Ertl*
Affiliation:
Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, Division of Livestock Sciences, BOKU–University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna, 1180 Vienna, Austria
Qendrim Zebeli
Affiliation:
Department for Farm Animals and Veterinary Public Health, Institute of Animal Nutrition and Functional Plant Compounds, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, 1210 Vienna, Austria
Werner Zollitsch
Affiliation:
Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, Division of Livestock Sciences, BOKU–University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna, 1180 Vienna, Austria
Wilhelm Knaus
Affiliation:
Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, Division of Livestock Sciences, BOKU–University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna, 1180 Vienna, Austria
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although levels of concentrate supplementation are generally lower in organic as compared with conventional dairy cows, forage-only (FO) diets are not very common in organic dairy cows because of the resulting limited dry matter intake (DMI) and lower milk production. However, from the perspective of net food production, FO diets or forage diets supplemented only with by-products from the food processing industry, offer considerable potential because they do not compete with humans for food. The aim of the present study was therefore to investigate the effects of adding a mixture of wheat bran and dried sugar beet pulp [0.56:0.44 on a dry matter (DM) basis] to a FO diet on DMI, milk production, chewing activity and production efficiency. Seventeen multiparous and three primiparous mid-lactation Holstein cows were randomly assigned to one of two treatments, receiving either a FO mixture with hay and grass silage in equal proportions (FO) or the same forage mixture supplemented with a mixture of wheat bran and dried sugar beet pulp at a rate of 25% of dietary DM (25%BP). The experiment was conducted in a change-over design with two experimental periods of 7 and 6 weeks, respectively. Overall, feeding the 25%BP diet increased DMI and energy-corrected milk (ECM) yield by 1.8 kg d−1 as compared with cows fed FO. Feed conversion efficiency (kg ECM per kg DMI) and energy efficiency (kg ECM per 10 MJ net energy for lactation intake) were higher in FO, but cows fed FO were in a slightly negative energy balance and also tended to have a higher mobilization of body tissues as compared with cows fed 25%BP. In comparison with FO, cows receiving 25%BP showed less chewing activity per kg DMI or per kg neutral detergent fiber ingested. In conclusion, results from this feeding trial showed that adding wheat bran and dried sugar beet pulp to a FO diet increased DMI and milk yield and improved the energy balance when compared with a FO diet, although the magnitude of the milk yield response was lower than expected.

Keywords

concentrategrass-basedlow inputby-productmilkefficiency
Type
Research Papers
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 32 , Issue 5 , October 2017 , pp. 446 - 453
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 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

Allen, M.S. 2000. Effects of diet on short-term regulation of feed intake by lactating dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 83:1598–1624.Google Scholar
Beever, D.E. and Doyle, P.T. 2007. Feed conversion efficiency as a key determinant of dairy herd performance: A review. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 47:645–657.Google Scholar
Bradford, B.J. and Mullins, C.R. 2012. Invited review: Strategies for promoting productivity and health of dairy cattle by feeding nonforage fiber sources. Journal of Dairy Science 95:4735–4746.Google Scholar
Britt, J.S., Thomas, R.C., Speer, N.C., and Hall, M.B. 2003. Efficiency of converting nutrient dry matter to milk in Holstein herds. Journal of Dairy Science 86:3796–3801.Google Scholar
Brun-Lafleur, L., Delaby, L., Husson, F., and Faverdin, P. 2010. Predicting energy × protein interaction on milk yield and milk composition in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 93:4128–4143.Google Scholar
Collard, B.L., Boettcher, P.J., Dekkers, J.C.M., Petitclerc, D., and Schaeffer, L.R. 2000. Relationships between energy balance and health traits of dairy cattle in early lactation. Journal of Dairy Science 83:2683–2690.Google Scholar
Coulon, J.B. and Remond, B. 1991. Variations in milk output and milk protein-content in response to the level of energy supply to the dairy-cow – a review. Livestock Production Science 29:31–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R.M. and Stockdale, C.R. 1999. Associative effects between forages and grains: Consequences for feed utilisation. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 50:757–773.Google Scholar
Eastridge, M.L. 2006. Major advances in applied dairy cattle nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 89:1311–1323.Google Scholar
Eisler, M.C., Lee, M.R.F., Tarlton, J.F., Martin, G.B., Beddington, J., Dungait, J.A.J., Greathead, H., Liu, J.X., Mathew, S., Miller, H., Misselbrook, T., Murray, P., Vinod, V.K., Van Saun, R., and Winter, M. 2014. Steps to sustainable livestock. Nature 507:32–34.Google Scholar
Ertl, P., Knaus, W., and Steinwidder, A. 2014. Comparison of zero concentrate supplementation with different quantities of concentrates in terms of production, animal health, and profitability of organic dairy farms in Austria. Organic Agriculture 4:233–242.Google Scholar
Ertl, P., Zebeli, Q., Zollitsch, W., and Knaus, W. 2016. Feeding of wheat bran and sugar beet pulp as sole supplements in high-forage diets emphasizes the potential of dairy cattle for human food supply. Journal of Dairy Science 99:1228–1236.Google Scholar
European Commission 2008. Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 of 5 September 2008. Available at Web site http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=OJ%3AL%3A2008%3A250%3ATOC (verified 30 April 2016).Google Scholar
Fadel, J.G. 1999. Quantitative analyses of selected plant by-product feedstuffs. A Global perspective. Animal Feed Science and Technology 79:1225–1233.Google Scholar
FAO 2011. World Livestock 2011 – Livestock in Food Security. FAO, Rome.Google Scholar
Ferris, C.P., Gordon, F.J., Patterson, D.C., Kilpatrick, D.J., Mayne, C.S., and McCoy, M.A. 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. Journal of Agricultural Science 136:319–329.Google Scholar
Friggens, N.C., Emmans, G.C., Kyriazakis, I., Oldham, J.D., and Lewis, M. 1998. Feed intake relative to stage of lactation for dairy cows consuming total mixed diets with a high or low ratio of concentrate to forage. Journal of Dairy Science 81:2228–2239.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garnsworthy, P.C. 1988. The effect of energy reserves at calving on performance of dairy cows. In Garnsworthy, P.C. (ed.). Nutrition and Lactation in the Dairy Cow. Butterworths, London/Boston. p. 157–170.Google Scholar
GfE 2001. Empfehlungen zur Energie- und Nährstoffversorgung der Milchkühe und Aufzuchtrinder. DLG-Verlag, Frankfurt/Main.Google Scholar
Gruber, L., Steinwender, R., Krimberger, K., and Solkner, J. 1991. Roughage intake of simmental, brown Swiss and Holstein Friesian cows fed rations with 0-percent, 25-percent and 50-percent concentrates. Livestock Production Science 27:123–136.Google Scholar
Gruber, L., Steinwidder, A., Stefanon, B., Steiner, B., and Steinwender, R. 1999. Influence of grassland management in Alpine regions and concentrate level on N excretion and milk yield of dairy cows. Livestock Production Science 61:155–170.Google Scholar
Huhtanen, P. and Hetta, M. 2012. Comparison of feed intake and milk production responses in continuous and change-over design dairy cow experiments. Livestock Science 143:184–194.Google Scholar
Huhtanen, P., Rinne, M., and Nousiainen, J. 2008. 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
Knaus, W. 2009. Dairy cows trapped between performance demands and adaptability. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 89:1107–1114 and 1163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leiber, F., Dorn, K., Probst, J.K., Isensee, A., Ackermann, N., Kuhn, A., and Neff, A.S. 2015. Concentrate reduction and sequential roughage offer to dairy cows: Effects on milk protein yield, protein efficiency and milk quality. Journal of Dairy Research 82:272–278.Google Scholar
Littell, R.C., Henry, P.R., and Ammerman, C.B. 1998. Statistical analysis of repeated measures data using SAS procedures. Journal of Animal Science 76:1216–1231.Google Scholar
Mertens, D.R. 1997. Creating a system for meeting the fiber requirements of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 80:1463–1481.Google Scholar
Nicholas, P.K., Padel, S., Cuttle, S.P., Fowler, S.M., Hovi, M., Lampkin, N.H., and Weller, R.F. 2004. Organic dairy production: A review. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 22:217–249.Google Scholar
Nousiainen, J., Rinne, M., and Huhtanen, P. 2009. A meta-analysis of feed digestion in dairy cows. 1. The effects of forage and concentrate factors on total diet digestibility. Journal of Dairy Science 92:5019–5030.Google Scholar
Powell, J.M., Gourley, C.J.P., Rotz, C.A., and Weaver, D.M. 2010. Nitrogen use efficiency: A potential performance indicator and policy tool for dairy farms. Environmental Science and Policy 13:217–228.Google Scholar
Randby, A.T., Weisbjerg, M.R., Norgaard, 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.Google Scholar
Roche, J.R., Friggens, N.C., Kay, J.K., Fisher, M.W., Stafford, K.J., and Berry, D.P. 2009. Invited review: Body condition score and its association with dairy cow productivity, health, and welfare. Journal of Dairy Science 92:5769–5801.Google Scholar
Rosati, A. and Aumaitre, A. 2004. Organic dairy farming in Europe. Livestock Production Science 90:41–51.Google Scholar
Schader, C., Muller, A., Scialabba, N.E., Hecht, J., Isensee, A., Erb, K.H., Smith, P., Makkar, H.P.S., Klocke, P., Leiber, F., Schwegler, P., Stolze, M., and Niggli, U. 2015. Impacts of feeding less food-competing feedstuffs to livestock on global food system sustainability. Journal of the Royal Society Interface 12: 20150891.Google Scholar
Steinshamn, H. and Thuen, E. 2008. White or red clover-grass silage in organic dairy milk production: Grassland productivity and milk production responses with different levels of concentrate. Livestock Science 119:202–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Zanten, H.H., Meerburg, B.G., Bikker, P., Herrero, M., and de Boer, I.J. 2016. Opinion paper: The role of livestock in a sustainable diet: A land-use perspective. Animal 10:547–549.Google Scholar
VDLUFA 1993. Handbuch der Landwirtschaftlichen Versuchs- und Untersuchungsmethodik (VDLUFA-Methodenbuch), Bd. III: Die Chemische Untersuchung von Futtermitteln. VDLUFA-Verlag, Darmstadt.Google Scholar
Waldo, D.R. 1986. Effect of forage quality on intake and forage-concentrate interactions. Journal of Dairy Science 69:617–631.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, J.M. 2011. Re-defining efficiency of feed use by livestock. Animal 5:1014–1022.Google Scholar
Zebeli, Q., Tafaj, M., Steingass, H., Metzler, B., and Drochner, W. 2006. Effects of physically effective fiber on digestive processes and milk fat content in early lactating dairy cows fed total mixed rations. Journal of Dairy Science 89:651–668.Google Scholar
Zebeli, Q., Mansmann, D., Steingass, H., and Ametaj, B.N. 2010. Balancing diets for physically effective fibre and ruminally degradable starch: A key to lower the risk of sub-acute rumen acidosis and improve productivity of dairy cattle. Livestock Science 127:1–10.Google Scholar
Zebeli, Q., Ghareeb, K., Humer, E., Metzler-Zebeli, B.U. and Besenfelder, U. 2015. Nutrition, rumen health and inflammation in the transition period and their role on overall health and fertility in dairy cows. Research in Veterinary Science 103:126–136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed