Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-pfhbr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T16:03:28.387Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Flat v. step feeding of medium or high levels of concentrates for dairy cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

D. A. Poole
D. A. Poole
Affiliation:
Boxworth Experimental Husbandry Farm, Boxworth, Cambridge CB3 8NN
Get access

Abstract

A system of feeding concentrates at a flat rate was compared with a step system in which the rate was reduced every 6 weeks. Each system was evaluated at either medium or high level concentrates. There were two trials involving 40 British Friesian cows for weeks 3 to 20 of lactation. The flat rate treatments were 71 (medium) and 9·3 kg dry matter (DM) per day (high) and corresponding step allocations were 8·8, 7·1 and 5·4 kg DM per day or 11·7, 9·3 and 7·0 kg DM per day. Silage was given to appetite. In trial 1 this was lucerne silage of moderate quality (metabolizable energy (ME) = 8·9 MJ/kg DM) and in trial 2 high quality grass silage (ME = 11·1 MJ/kg DM) was used.

In the comparison between systems of concentrate allocation, food intakes, milk production and live-weight change were similar in each trial. In the comparison between medium or high levels of concentrates, silage DM intakes were similar in trial 1 (7·1 v. 7·0 kg/day) but not in trial 2 (9·8 v. 8·7 kg·day, P < 0·05), and milk yields were lower in trial 1 (19·0 v. 21·4 kg/day, P < 0·001) but not in trial 2 (24·1 v. 25·2 kg/day). Milk composition was similar for medium and high concentrate intakes in both trials. Cows given the medium level of concentrates had higher live-weight losses than those given the high level in trial 1 (–58 v. –24 kg, P < 0·01) and trial 2 (–22 v. –kg). When concentrates were given at the medium level with moderate quality silage several cows had acetonaemia. Also, this feeding combination, especially when concentrates were given at a flat rate, reduced the proportion of cows which conceived within a limited breeding period.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 45 , Issue 3 , December 1987 , pp. 335 - 344
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1987

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

REFERENCES

British Standards Institute. 1969. Specification for Gerber method for the determination of fat in milk and milk products. Part 2. Methods. BS 696, Part 2. British Standards Institute, London.Google Scholar
Broster, W. H., Broster, V. J. and Smith, T. 1969. Experiments on the nutrition of the dairy heifer. VIII. Effect on milk production of level of feeding at two stages of lactation. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 72: 229–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campling, R. C., Freer, M. and Balch, C. C. 1962. Factors affecting the voluntary intake of food by cows. 3. The effect of urea on voluntary intake of oat straw. British Journal of Nutrition 16: 115–124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Conrad, H. R., Pratt, A. D. and Hibbs, J. W. 1964. Regulation of feed intake in dairy cows. 1. Change in importance of physical and physiological factors with increasing digestibility. Journal of Dairy Science 47: 54–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, F. J. 1981. Feed input — milk output relationships in the spring-calving cow. In Recent Developments in Ruminant Nutrition (ed. Haresign, W. and Cole, D. J. A.), pp. 295–311. Butterworths, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, F. J. 1982. The effect of pattern of concentrate allocation on milk production from autumn-calving heifers. Animal Production 34: 55–61.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 1986. The analysis of agricultural materials. 3rd ed. Reference Book 427. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Moisey, F. R. and Leaver, J. D. 1984. A study of two cutting strategies for the production of grass silage for dairy cows. Research and Development in Agriculture 1: 47–52.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Fraser, C. and McDonald, I. 1972. Digestion of concentrates in sheep. 4. The effects of urea on digestion, nitrogen retention and growth in young lambs. British Journal of Nutrition 27: 491–501.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steen, R. W. J. and Gordon, F. J. 1980. The effect of level and system of concentration allocation to January/February calving cows on total lactation performance. Animal Production 30: 39–51.Google Scholar
Taylor, K. 1979. Flat-rate feeding of concentrates to dairy cows. Report, Milk Marketing Board Farm Management Information Unit, No. 20.Google Scholar
Taylor, W. and Leaver, J. D. 1984a. Systems of concentrate allocation for dairy cattle. 1. A comparison of three patterns of allocation for autumn-calving cows and heifers offered grass silage ad libitum. Animal Production 39: 315–324.Google Scholar
Taylor, W. and Leaver, J. D. 1984b. Systems of concentrate allocation for dairy cattle. 2. A comparison of two patterns of allocation for autumn-calving cows offered two qualities of grass silage ad libitum. Animal Production 39: 325–333.Google Scholar
Tilley, J. M. A. and Terry, R. A. 1963. A two stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Journal of the British Grassland Society 18: 104–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar