Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T13:43:24.109Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The use of an impeller mowing conditioner during haymaking had no effects on feeding behavior, feed intake or performance of organic dairy cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 April 2021

Andreas Haselmann Open the ORCID record for Andreas Haselmann [Opens in a new window] ,
Josef Kirchler ,
Birgit Fürst-Waltl Open the ORCID record for Birgit Fürst-Waltl [Opens in a new window] ,
Werner Zollitsch Open the ORCID record for Werner Zollitsch [Opens in a new window] ,
Qendrim Zebeli Open the ORCID record for Qendrim Zebeli [Opens in a new window]  and
Wilhelm Knaus Open the ORCID record for Wilhelm Knaus [Opens in a new window]
Andreas Haselmann
Affiliation:
Division of Livestock Sciences, Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, BOKU—University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, 1180Vienna, Austria
Josef Kirchler
Affiliation:
Division of Livestock Sciences, Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, BOKU—University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, 1180Vienna, Austria
Birgit Fürst-Waltl
Affiliation:
Division of Livestock Sciences, Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, BOKU—University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, 1180Vienna, Austria
Werner Zollitsch
Affiliation:
Division of Livestock Sciences, Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, BOKU—University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, 1180Vienna, 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, 1210Vienna, Austria
Wilhelm Knaus*
Affiliation:
Division of Livestock Sciences, Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, BOKU—University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, 1180Vienna, Austria
*
Author for correspondence: Wilhelm Knaus, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Impeller mowing conditioners are commonly used to speed up the drying process on the field, making forage preservation (haying, ensiling) less dependent on weather conditions. However, the effects of this technique on the nutritive value of the forage and dairy cows' responses have not been investigated yet. Each half of two fields of grass-dominated swards, first regrowth, was cut either with or without the use of an impeller mowing conditioner (experimental hay and control hay, respectively). Ceteris paribus conditions were guaranteed by the same cutting and wilting times (roughly 48 h), number of teddings, field pickup technique and barn-drying method. At the beginning of the feeding trial, 19 lactating Holstein cows were allocated to one of two groups, one control (nine cows) and one experimental group (10 cows) and were fed the respective forage plus a fixed amount of concentrate [3.6 kg d−1; dry matter (DM) basis]. After a 14-d adaptation period, data were collected over 21 consecutive days. Covariate data of cows were collected prior to the experimental feeding period, over a time span of 9 d, and included in the statistical model. Results revealed that control and experimental hay showed significant (P < 0.05) differences in the nutrient profile. However, the magnitude of these differences was not enough to affect intakes of hay (18.4 ± 0.29 kg DM d−1), total dietary energy or chewing activity, but did lead to a decreased intake of water-soluble carbohydrates and an increased crude protein intake, thus affecting ruminal nitrogen balance (P < 0.01). This resulted in a higher milk urea content [23.3 vs 17.9 mg (100 mL)−1; P < 0.01] in cows fed the experimental hay, whereas other milk performance parameters remained unaffected. In conclusion, the use of the impeller mowing conditioner did not affect the overall forage utilization by cows when the diet contained about 16% concentrate (DM basis). As this is the first study dealing with the effects of an impeller mowing conditioner on cows' responses, future research should consider investigating the effects of mowing conditioners when cows are fed only forage or diets with lower concentrate amounts.

Keywords

Apparent total tract digestibilitychewing behaviorfeed sortinghay-based feeding
Type
Research Paper
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 36 , Issue 6 , December 2021 , pp. 549 - 556
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Amanlou, H, Amirabadi Farahani, T and Eslamian Farsuni, N (2017) Effects of rumen undegradable protein supplementation on productive performance and indicators of protein and energy metabolism in Holstein fresh cows. Journal of Dairy Science 100, 3628–3640.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barr, AG, Smith, DM and Brown, DM (1995) Estimating forage yield and quality changes during field drying for hay 1. Model of dry-matter and quality losses. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 76, 83–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beauchemin, KA (1991) Ingestion and mastication of feed by dairy cattle. The Veterinary Clinics of North America. Food Animal Practice 7, 439–463.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beauchemin, KA (2018) Invited review: current perspectives on eating and rumination activity in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 101, 4762–4784.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Branco, AF, Harmon, DL, Bohnert, DW, Larson, BT and Bauer, ML (1999) Estimating true digestibility of nonstructural carbohydrates in the small intestine of steers. Journal of Animal Science 77, 1889–1895.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brito, AF, Tremblay, GF, Bertrand, A, Castonguay, Y, Bélanger, G, Michaud, R, Lapierre, H, Benchaar, C, Petit, HV, Ouellet, DR and Berthiaume, R (2008) Alfalfa cut at sundown and harvested as baleage improves milk yield of late-lactation dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 3968–3982.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brito, AF, Tremblay, GF, Lapierre, H, Bertrand, A, Castonguay, Y, Bélanger, G, Michaud, R, Benchaar, C, Ouellet, DR and Berthiaume, R (2009) Alfalfa cut at sundown and harvested as baleage increases bacterial protein synthesis in late-lactation dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 1092–1107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Broderick, GA, Koegel, RG, Mauries, MJC, Schneeberger, E and Kraus, TJ (1999) Effect of feeding macerated alfalfa silage on nutrient digestibility and milk yield in lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 82, 2472–2485.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Broderick, GA, Koegel, RG, Walgenbach, RP and Kraus, TJ (2002) Ryegrass or alfalfa silage as the dietary forage for lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 1894–1901.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, BJ, Prioul, J-L and Couderc, H (1977) The physiological response to cutting in Italian ryegrass. Journal of the British Grassland Society 32, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeVries, TJ, Holtshausen, L, Oba, M and Beauchemin, KA (2011) Effect of parity and stage of lactation on feed sorting behavior of lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 4039–4045.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DLG (1997) DLG-Futterwerttabellen für Wiederkäuer. (Dokumentationsstelle—Universität Hohenheim, Ed.) 7th Edn. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: DLG Verlag.Google Scholar
Edmonson, AJ, Lean, IJ, Weaver, LD, Farver, T and Webster, G (1989) A body condition scoring chart for Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 72, 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ertl, P (2016) The net contribution of dairy cows to human food supply and feeding industrial by-products as a potential strategy for improvement. (Doctoral thesis), BOKU–University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
Ertl, P, Zebeli, Q, Zollitsch, W and Knaus, W (2016) Effects of supplementation of a forage-only diet with wheat bran and sugar beet pulp in organic dairy cows. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 32, 1–8.Google Scholar
European Commission (2008) Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 of September 5, 2008. European Commission.Google Scholar
Frick, R and Fluri, P (2001) Bienenverluste beim Mähen mit Rotationsmähwerken. Agrarforschung 8, 196–201.Google Scholar
GfE (2001) Recommendations for the Supply of Energy and Nutrients to Dairy Cows and Heifers, German Society of Nutrition Physiology, Ed., Frankfurt am Main, Germany: DLG Verlag.Google Scholar
GfE (2008) New equations for predicting metabolisable energy of grass and maize products for ruminants. Proceedings of the Society of Nutrition Physiology. DLG Verlag, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. pp. 191–198.Google Scholar
Greenlees, WJ, Hanna, HM, Marley, SJ, Bailey, TB and Shinners, KJ (2000) A comparison of four mower conditioners on drying rate and leaf loss in alfalfa and grass. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 16, 15–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, MB (2017) Sugars in dairy cattle rations. Tri-State Dairy Nutrition Conference 2017, Fort Wayne, IN, USA. pp. 135–146.Google Scholar
Haselmann, A, Wenter, M, Fuerst-Waltl, B, Zollitsch, W, Zebeli, Q and Knaus, W (2020) Comparing the effects of silage and hay from similar parent grass forages on organic dairy cows’ feeding behavior, feed intake and performance. Animal Feed Science and Technology 267, 114560, available online 04 June 2020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hof, G, Vervoorn, MD, Lenaers, PJ and Tamminga, S (1997) Milk urea nitrogen as a tool to monitor the protein nutrition of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 80, 3333–3340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hong, BJ, Broderick, GA, Koegel, RG, Shinners, KJ and Straub, RJ (1988) Effect of shredding alfalfa on cellulolytic activity, digestibility, rate of passage, and milk production. Journal of Dairy Science 71, 1546–1555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humbert, J-Y, Ghazoul, J, Sauter, GJ and Walter, T (2010) Impact of different meadow mowing techniques on field invertebrates. Journal of Applied Entomology 134, 592–599.Google Scholar
Koegel, RG, Straub, RJ, Shinners, KJ, Broderick, GA and Mertens, DR (1992) An overview of physical treatments of lucerne performed at Madison, Wisconsin, for improving properties. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 52, 183–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kröger, I, Humer, E, Neubauer, V, Kraft, N, Ertl, P and Zebeli, Q (2016) Validation of a noseband sensor system for monitoring ruminating activity in cows under different feeding regimens. Livestock Science 193, 118–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S, Khafipour, E, Krause, DO, Kroeker, A, Rodriguez-Lecompte, JC, Gozho, GN and Plaizier, JC (2012) Effects of subacute ruminal acidosis challenges on fermentation and endotoxins in the rumen and hindgut of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 294–303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGechan, MB (1989) A review of losses arising during conservation of grass forage: part 1, field losses. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 44, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mertens, DR (1997) Creating a system for meeting the fiber requirements of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 80, 1463–1481.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mertens, DR and Koegel, RG (1996) Maceration of Alfalfa hay and Silage Improves Milk Production. Madison, WI, USA: US Dairy Forage Research Center.Google Scholar
Oltner, R, Emanuelson, M and Wiktorsson, H (1985) Urea concentrations in milk in relation to milk yield, live weight, lactation number, and amount and composition of feed given to dairy cows. Livestock Production Science 12, 47–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owens, FN, Zinn, RA and Kim, YK (1986) Limits to starch digestion in the ruminant small intestine. Journal of Animal Science 63, 1634–1648.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pizarro, EA and James, DB (1972) Estimates of respiratory rates and losses in cut swards of Lolium perenne (S321) under simulated haymaking conditions. Journal of the British Grassland Society 27, 17–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pöllinger, A (2000) Abschlussbericht zum Projekt: Der Mähaufbereiter mit Breitschwadablage — Untersuchungen bezüglich Abtrocknungsverhalten am Feld und am Futterstock, Siliereigenschaften, Futterqualität und Leistungsbedarf im Vergleich zu herkömmlich geerntetem Futter. Bundesanstalt für alpenländische Landwirtschaft, Gumpenstein, Irdning, Austria.Google Scholar
Rotz, CA (1995) Field curing of forages. In Moore, KJ and Peterson, MA (eds), Post-harvest Physiology and Preservation of Forages CSSA Special Publication 22. Madison, WI, USA: American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science Society, pp. 39–66.Google Scholar
Savoie, P (2001) Intensive mechanical conditioning of forages: a review. Canadian Biosystems Engineering 43, 1–12.Google Scholar
Schröder, UJ and Staufenbiel, R (2006) Invited review: methods to determine body fat reserves in the dairy cow with special regard to ultrasonographic measurement of backfat thickness. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sundberg, M and Thylen, A (1994) Leaching losses due to rain in macerated and conditioned forage. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 58, 133–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Susenbeth, A, Mayer, R, Koehler, B and Neumann, O (1998) Energy requirement for eating in cattle. Journal of Animal Science 76, 2701–2705.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomas, H and James, AR (1999) Partitioning of sugars in Lolium perenne (perennial ryegrass) during drought and on rewatering. New Phytologist 142, 295–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, PJ (1994) Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant, 2nd Edn, Ithaca, NY, USA: Cornell University Press, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VDLUFA (2012) Handbuch der landwirtschaftlichen Versuchs- und Umweltmethodik (VDLUFA Methodenbuch), Band III. Die chemische Untersuchung von Futtermitteln. Kapitel 4-8. In VDLUFA (ed.), Darmstadt, Germany: VDLUFA-Verlag.Google Scholar