Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T08:01:48.460Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of crop maturity on the nutritional value of maize silage for lactating dairy cows. 3. Food intake and milk production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

R. H. Phipps ,
J. D. Sutton ,
D. E. Beever  and
A. K. Jones
R. H. Phipps
Affiliation:
Centre for Dairy Research, Department of Agriculture, University of Reading, Hall Farm, Reading RG2 9HX, UK
J. D. Sutton
Affiliation:
Centre for Dairy Research, Department of Agriculture, University of Reading, Hall Farm, Reading RG2 9HX, UK
D. E. Beever
Affiliation:
Centre for Dairy Research, Department of Agriculture, University of Reading, Hall Farm, Reading RG2 9HX, UK
A. K. Jones
Affiliation:
Centre for Dairy Research, Department of Agriculture, University of Reading, Hall Farm, Reading RG2 9HX, UK
Get access

Abstract

Fifty-five multiparous Holstein-Friesian cows were used in a 20-week continuous design study to determine the effect of maize silage maturity on food intake and milk production. Forage maize (cv. Hudson) was harvested and ensiled at target dry matter (DM) contents of 230 (T23), 280 (T28), 330 (T33) and 380 (T38) g per kg fresh weight (FW). The mean values for volatile-corrected DM (VCDM), starch, neutral-detergent fibre (NDF), crude protein and predicted metabolizable energy (ME) content of the four maize silages were 226, 290, 302 and 390 g/kg FW, 114, 274, 309 and 354 g/kg VCDM, 574, 447, 431 and 448 g/kg VCDM, 96, 80, 74 and 75 g/kg VCDM and 10·3, 11·5, 11·6 and 11·2 MJ/kg DM, respectively. Grass silage containing 296 g VCDM per kg FW was produced from the primary growth of a perennial ryegrass sward. At week 3 of lactation cows were allocated to one of five forage treatments offered ad libitum. The forage treatments were either grass silage alone (TGS) or a 3 : 1 DM ratio of maize and grass silage designated as T23, T28, T33 and T38. All cows also received 8·7 kg DM per day of a dairy concentrate. Forage VCDM intake for TGS was lower (P < 0·001) than for T23 to T38. Increasing maize silage DM content from 226 (T23) to 290 (T28) g/kg increased (P < 0·05) forage VCDM intake from 10·9 to 13·3 kg/day but a further increase to 390 (T38) g/kg tended to reduce VCDM intake. When compared with TGS, the inclusion of maize silage increased milk yield from 28·0 kg/day to 29·4, 32·7, 33·0 and 30·8 kg/day for T23 to T38, respectively, the increases being significant for T28 to T38. However, milk yield was reduced (P < 0·05) when the DM content of the maize silage increased from 302 to 390 g/kg. Increasing maize silage DM content from T23 to T33 reduced (P < 0·05) milk fat content from 45·8 to 41·8 g/kg, which was also lower (P < 0·05) than for TGS. The inclusion of maize silage increased fat yield with a significant difference (P < 0·05) between TGS and T28. The inclusion of maize silage increased milk protein content (P < 0·05) and protein yield (P < 0·001) when compared with TGS. While increasing maize silage maturity did not affect (P > 0·05) milk protein content, protein yield was higher (P < 0·05) for the two intermediate DM contents. There were no treatment effects on body condition score. It is concluded that the changes in composition of maize silage with increasing maturity, which are associated with increased starch and reduced NDF content, resulted in large increases in food intake and yield of milk and protein as crops matured from T23 to T33. However, when crop maturity increased further to T38 there was a tendency for DM intake and yield of milk and protein to decline.

Keywords

dairy cowsfood intakemaize silagemilk production
Type
Ruminant nutrition, behaviour and production
Information
Animal Science , Volume 71 , Issue 2 , October 2000 , pp. 401 - 409
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2000

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

Agricultural and Food Research Council. 1993. Energy and protein requirements of ruminants. An advisory manual prepared by the AFRC Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients. CAB International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
Bal, M. A., Coors, J. G. and Shaver, R. D. 1996. Kernel milkline stage effects on the nutritive value of corn silage for lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 79: (suppl. 1) 150 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Bechdel, S. I. 1926. Quality of silage for milk production as effected by stage of maturity of corn. Pennsylvania Agricultural Experimental Station, bulletin 207, pp. 1–16.Google Scholar
Böhm, M., Kirchgeßner, M. and Schwarz, F. J. 1984. Futteraufnahme und Milchleistung von Kuhen bei Verutterung von Maissilage mit unterschiedlicher Reife und Verschiedenen Heumengen. 3. Mitteilung: Einsatz von Maissilage (Ende der Teigreife) zusammen mit variierenden Heuanteilen. Wirtschaftseigene Futter 30: 14–25.Google Scholar
Bryant, H. T., Huber, J. T. and Blaser, R. E. 1965. Comparison of corn silage harvested at the milk and medium dough stages of maturity for dry matter intake, digestibility and milk production of lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 43: (suppl. 1) 838 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Cammell, S. B., Sutton, J. D., Beever, D. E., Humphries, D. J. and Phipps, R. H. 2000. The effect of crop maturity on the nutritional value of maize silage for lactating dairy cows. 1. Energy and nitrogen utilization. Animal Science 71: 381–390.Google Scholar
Demarquilly, C. 1988. Factors that influence the nutritive value of silage maize. In Quality of silage maize, digestibility and zootechnical performance. Seminar held in Gembloux, Belgium, November 1988.Google Scholar
Givens, D. I., Cottyn, B. G., Dewey, P. J. S. and Steg, A. 1995. A comparison of the neutral detergent-cellulase method with other laboratory methods for predicting the digestibility in-vivo of maize silage from three European countries. Animal Feed Science and Technology 54: 55–64.Google Scholar
Hameleers, A. 1998. The effects of the inclusion of either maize silage, fermented whole crop wheat or urea treated whole crop wheat in a diet based on high-quality grass silage on the performance of dairy cows. Grass and Forage Science 53: 157-163Google Scholar
Harrison, J. H., Johnson, L., Riley, R., Xu, S., Loney, K., Hunt, C. W. and Sapienza, D. 1996. Effect of harvest maturity of whole plant corn silage on milk production and component yield, and passage of corn grain and starch into faeces. Journal of Dairy Science 79: (suppl. 1) 149 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Huber, J. T., Graf, G. C. and Engel, R. W. 1965. Effect of maturity on nutritive value of corn silage for lactating cows. Journal of Dairy Science 48: 1121-1123.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huffman, C. F. and Duncan, C. W. 1956. Comparison of silage made field corn (Ohio M15) and silage corn (Eureka) for milk production. Journal of Dairy Science 39: (suppl. 1) 998 (abstr.).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 1993. Prediction of the energy values of compound feedstuffs for farm animals. Booklet 1285. MAFF Publications, Alnwick, UK. Google Scholar
Mulvany, P. 1977. A body condition technique for use with British Friesian cows. Animal Science 24: 157–158.Google Scholar
Offer, N. W., Cotterill, B. R. and Thomas, C. 1996. Relationship between silage evaluation and animal response. Proceedings of the 11th international silage conference. (ed. Jones, D. I. H., Jones, R., Dewhurst, R. and Haigh, P. M.), pp. 26–38. Institute for Grassland and Environmental Research, Aberystwyth.Google Scholar
O’Mara, F. P., Fitzgerald, J. J., Murphy, J. J. and Rath, M. 1998. The effect on milk production of replacing grass silage with maize silage in the diet of dairy cows. Livestock Production Science 55: 79–87.Google Scholar
Phipps, R. H. 1996. A crop from over there that’s doing rather well over here: forage maize in the diet of the lactating dairy cow. Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society of England 157: 103–115.Google Scholar
Phipps, R. H., Fulford, R. J. and Crofts, F. C. 1975. Relationships between the production of forage maize and accumulated temperatures, Ontario heat Units and solar radiation. Journal of Agricultural Meteorology 14: 385–397.Google Scholar
Phipps, R. H., Newbold, J. and Beever, D. E. 1997. Supplementation of maize silage based diets. Journal of Dairy Science 80: (suppl. 1) 160 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Phipps, R. H., Sutton, J. D. and Jones, B. A. 1995. Forage mixtures for dairy cows: the effect on dry-matter intake and milk production of incorporating either fermented or urea-treated whole-crop wheat, brewers’ grains, fodder beet or maize silage into diets based on grass silage. Animal Science 61: 491–496.Google Scholar
Phipps, R. H., Weller, R. F. and Fulford, R. J. 1978. The development of plant components and their effect on the quality of fresh and ensiled forage maize. III. An evaluation in terms of milk production. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 92: 493–498.Google Scholar
Phipps, R. H., Weller, R. F. and Rook, A. J. 1992. Forage mixtures for dairy cows: the effect on dry-matter intake and milk production of British Friesian dairy cows of incorporating different proportions of maize silage into diets based on grass silages of differing value. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 118: 379–382.Google Scholar
Porter, M. G., Patterson, D. C., Steen, R. W. J. and Gordon, F. J. 1984. Determination of dry matter and gross energy of grass silage. Proceedings of the seventh silage conference, The Queen’s University, Belfast.Google Scholar
Reynolds, C. K., Sutton, J. D. and Beever, D. E. 1997. Effect of feeding starch to dairy cattle on nutrient availablity and production. In: Recent advances in animal nutrition (ed. Garnsworthy, P. C. and Wiseman, J.), pp. 105–134. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1987. User’s guide version 6·12. Statistical Analysis Systems Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Sutton, J. D., Abdalla, A. L., Phipps, R. H., Cammell, S. B. and Humphries, D. J. 1997. The effect of the replacement of grass silage by increasing proportions of urea-treated whole-crop wheat on food intake and apparent digestibility and milk production by dairy cows. Animal Science 65: 343–351.Google Scholar
Sutton, J. D., Aston, K., Beever, D. E., Dhanoa, M. S. 1996. Milk production from grass silage based diets: effects of high-protein concentrates for lactating heifers and cows on intake, milk production and nitrogen fractions. Animal Science 62: 207–215.Google Scholar
Sutton, J. D., Cammell, S. B., Beever, D. E., Humphries, D. J. and Phipps, R. H. 1998. Energy and nitrogen balance of lactating dairy cows given mixtures of urea-treated whole-crop wheat and grass silage. Animal Science 67: 203–212.Google Scholar
Sutton, J. D., Cammell, S. B., Phipps, R. H., Beever, D. E. and Humphries, D. J. 2000. The effect of crop maturity on the nutritional value of maize silage for lactating dairy cows. 2. Ruminal and post-ruminal digestion. Animal Science 71: 391–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyrrell, H. F. and Reid, J. T. 1965. Prediction of the energy value of cow’s milk. Journal of Dairy Science 48: 1215–1223.Google Scholar