Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T08:29:11.470Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Silages harvested at different stages of grass growth v. concentrate foods as energy and protein sources in milk production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

M. Rinne ,
S. Jaakkola ,
K. Kaustell ,
T. Heikkilä  and
P. Huhtanen
M. Rinne
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Centre, Animal Production Research, FIN-31600 Jokioinen, Finland
S. Jaakkola
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Centre, Animal Production Research, FIN-31600 Jokioinen, Finland
K. Kaustell
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Centre, Animal Production Research, FIN-31600 Jokioinen, Finland
T. Heikkilä
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Centre, Animal Production Research, FIN-31600 Jokioinen, Finland
P. Huhtanen
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Centre, Animal Production Research, FIN-31600 Jokioinen, Finland
Get access

Abstract

Four silages were prepared at 1-week intervals from a primary growth of timothy-meadow fescue sward. They were offered to 32 Finnish Ayrshire cows and supplemented with 7 or 10 kg of concentrate containing 0 or 1·15 kg rapeseed meal (RSM). The basal concentrate consisted of barley, oats and molassed sugar-beet pulp (2: 2: 1) and minerals. Diets were arranged 4 × 2 × 2 factorially in a cyclic change-over experiment with four periods of 21 days each.

Silages contained 739, 730, 707 and 639 g digestible organic matter (D value) per kg dry matter (DM) for harvests I, II, III and IV, respectively. All dietary factors had marked effects on the performance of the cows but generally interactions between treatments could not be detected. A decrease of 10 g/kg in silage D value decreased energy-corrected milk (ECM) production of the cows by 0·50 kg/day and silage DM intake by 0·162 kg/day. An increment of 1 kg concentrate DM decreased silage DM intake by 0·61 kg and yielded 0·55 kg more ECM per day. Inclusion of RSM into the concentrate increased daily ECM production by 1·7 kg and silage DM intake by 0·60 kg/kg RSM when substituting the basal concentrate. Milk yield and yields of milk constituents decreased curvilinearly with delayed date of harvest the difference being greatest between the last two cuts and thus closely reflected the changes in silage D value. Milk protein concentration increased as apparent digestibility (P < 0.001) and concentrate level in the diet increased (P < 0.001). Milk fat concentration was not affected by the dietary treatments.

Marginal ECM production responses to estimated metabolizable energy (ME) intake were higher when intake was manipulated with the date of silage harvest (0·138 kg ECM per MJ additional ME) compared with increased concentrate feeding (0·103); highest response was achieved by RSM feeding (0·244). Additional intake of calculated amino acids absorbed from the small intestine (AAT) manipulated by silage harvest time resulted in the highest marginal response (0·59 g milk protein per g additional AAT), while increased concentrate feeding and inclusion of RSM were equal (0·50 v. 0·49, respectively). Improving silage quality by earlier harvest resulted in higher milk yield, and in greater efficiency in the use of increments of estimated ME and AAT than was seen with increased concentrate feeding. Protein supplementation improved milk production irrespective of silage harvest date.

Keywords

concentratesdairy cowsenergy intakegrass silagemilk production
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 69 , Issue 1 , August 1999 , pp. 251 - 263
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1999

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

Aston, K., Sutton, J. D. and Fisher, W. J. 1995. Milk production from grass silage diets: strategies for concentrate allocation. Animal Science 61: 465–480.Google Scholar
Aston, K., Thomas, C., Daley, S. R., Sutton, J. D. and Dhanoa, M. S. 1994. Milk production from grass silage diets: effects of silage characteristics and the amount of supplementary concentrate. Animal Production 59: 31–41.Google Scholar
Balch, C. C. 1971. Proposal to use time spent chewing as an index of the extent to which diets for ruminants possess the physical property of fibrousness characteristic of roughages. British Journal of Nutrition 26: 383–392.Google ScholarPubMed
Boever, J. L. de, Andries, J. I., Brabander, D. L. de, Cottyn, B. G. and Buysse, F. X. 1990. Chewing activity of ruminants as a measure of physical structure — a review of factors affecting it. Animal Feed Science and Technology 27: 281–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boever, J. L. de, Smet, A. de, Brabander, D. L. de and Boucque, C. V. 1993. Evaluation of physical structure. 1. Grass silage. Journal of Dairy Science 76: 140–153.Google Scholar
Borcher, R. 1977. Allantoin determination. Analytical Biochemistry 79: 612–613.Google Scholar
Bosch, M. W., Lammers-Wienhoven, S. C. W., Bangma, G. A., Boer, H. and Adrichem, P. W. M. van. 1992. Influence of stage of maturity of grass silage on digestion processes in dairy cows. 2. Rumen contents, passage rates, distribution of rumen and faecal particles and mastication activity. Livestock Production Science 32: 265–281.Google Scholar
Castle, M. E., Retter, W. C. and Watson, J. N. 1980. Silage and milk production: a comparison between three grass silages of different digestibilities. Grass and Forage Science 35: 219–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castle, M. E., Gill, M. S. and Watson, J. N. 1983. Silage and milk production: a comparison between three rates of high-protein concentrate supplementation of grass silages of two digestibilities. Grass and Forage Science 38: 135–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chamberlain, D. G., Martin, P. A. and Robertson, S. 1989. Optimizing compound feed use in dairy cows with high intakes of silage. In Recent advances in animal nutrition (ed. Haresign, W. and Cole, D. J. A.), pp. 175–193. Butterworths, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, X. B. and Gomes, M. J. 1992. Estimation of microbial protein supply to sheep and cattle based on urinary excretion of purine derivatives — an overview of the technical details. Occasional publication 1992 of the International Feed Resources Unit, Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen, UK.Google Scholar
Cushnahan, A., Mayne, C. S. and Goodall, E. A. 1995. Effect of stage of maturity of grass and the period of ensilage on milk production with grass silage-based diets. Animal Science 60: 515 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Davis, A. W. and Hall, W. B. 1969. Cyclic change-over designs. Biometrika 56: 283–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gasa, J., Holtenius, K., Sutton, J. D., Dhanoa, M. S. and Napper, D. J. 1991. Rumen fill and digesta kinetics in lactating Friesian cows given two levels of concentrates with two types of grass silage ad lib . British Journal of Nutrition 66: 381–398.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gill, M., Sargeant, A. and Evans, R. T. 1987. The effect of type of silage and level of concentrate on pattern of eating in dairy cows. Proceedings of the eighth silage conference, AFRC Institute for Grassland and Animal Production, Hurley, Berkshire, paper 30 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Gordon, F. J. 1980. The effect of silage type on the performance of lactating cows and the response to high levels of protein in the supplement. Animal Production 30: 29–37.Google Scholar
Gordon, F. J., Porter, M. G., Mayne, C. S., Unsworth, E. F. and Kilpatrick, D. J. 1995. Effect of forage digestibility and type of concentrate on nutrient utilization by lactating dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Research 62: 15–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hansen, J. L. and Freier, E. F. 1978. Direct assays of lactate, pyruvate, ß-hydroxybutyrate and acetoacetate with a centrifugal analyzer. Clinical Chemistry 24: 475–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heikkilä, T., , Väätäinen, H. and Toivonen, V. 1993. Effects of acid and biological additives on grass silage quality and milk production in dairy cows supplemented with concentrates containing three levels of rapeseed meal. Proceedings of the 10th international conference on silage research, Dublin, Ireland, pp. 190–191 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Huhtanen, P. 1994. Forage influences on milk composition. Proceedings of the Nova Scotia forage conference; forage: seeding to feeding, The Nova Scotia Forage Council, Darthmouth, Nova Scotia, pp. 144–162.Google Scholar
Huhtanen, P. and Heikkilä, T., 1996. Effects of physical treatment of barley and rapeseed meal in dairy cows given grass silage-based diets. Agricultural and Food Science in Finland 5: 399–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hvelpund, T., Weisbjerg, M. and Andersen, L. 1992. Estimation of the true digestibility of rumen undegraded dietary protein in the small intestine of ruminants by the mobile bag technique. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science 42: 34–39.Google Scholar
Kristensen, V. F. and Skovborg, E. B. 1990. [Effect of cutting time on yield and quality of grass and on silage intake and milk production in dairy cows.] 15. Beretning fra Fœllesudvalget for Statens Planteavls-og Husdyrbrugsforsøg. Tjele, Denmark.Google Scholar
Madsen, J., Hvelpund, T., Weisbjerg, M. R., Bertilsson, J., Olsson, I., Spòrndly, R., Harstad, O. M., Volden, H., Tuori, M., Varvikko, T., Huhtanen, P. and Olafsson, B. L. 1995. The AAT/PBV protein evaluation system for ruminants. A revision. Norwegian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, supplement no. 19.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 1975. Energy allowances and feeding systems for ruminants. Tecnical bulletin no. 33. 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
Oldham, J. D. 1995. Protein requirements and responses: a United Kingdom perspective. In Breeding and feeding the high genetic merit dairy cow (ed. Lawrence, T. L. J., Gordon, F. J. and Carson, A.), British Society of Animal Science occasional publication no. 19, pp. 21–29.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. and McDonald, I. 1979. The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 92: 499–503.Google Scholar
Phipps, R. H., Weiler, R. F. and Bines, J. A. 1987. The influence of forage quality and concentrate level on dry matter intake and milk production of British Friesian heifers. Grass and Forage Science 42: 49–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rinne, M., Jaakkola, S., Heikkilä, T., Huhtanen, P. and Toivonen, V. 1995. Silage digestibility and concentrate supplementation in milk production. Nordisk Jordbruksforskning 77: 124 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Rinne, M., Jaakkola, S. and Huhtanen, P. 1996. Effects of stage of ensiling grass on diet digestion by dairy cows. In Proceedings of the Xlth international silage conference (ed. Jones, D. I. H., Jones, R. Dewhurst, R., Merry, R. and Haigh, P. M.), pp. 196–197 (abstr.). IGER, Aberystwyth, UK.Google Scholar
Rinne, M., Jaakkola, S. and Huhtanen, P. 1997. Grass maturity effects on cattle fed silage-based diets. 1. Organic matter digestion, rumen fermentation and nitrogen utilization. Animal Feed Science and Technology 67:1–17.Google Scholar
Sjaunja, L. O., Baevre, L., Junkkarinen, L., Pedersen, J. and Setälä, J. 1990. A Nordic proposal for an energy corrected milk (ECM) formula. 27th session of the International Committee of Recording and Productivity of Milk Animals, Paris, Prance, pp. 156–157.Google Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. and Gordon, F. J. 1980. The effect of type of silage and level of concentrate supplementation offered during early lactation on total lactation performance of January / February calving cows. Animal Production 30: 341–354.Google Scholar
Sutton, J. D. and Morant, S. V. 1989. A review of the potential of nutrition to modify milk fat and protein. Livestock Production Science 23: 219–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, C. 1987. Factors affecting substitution rates in dairy cows on silage based rations. In Recent advances in animal nutrition (ed. Haresign, W. and Cole, D.J. A.), pp. 205–218. Butterworths, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuori, M., Kaustell, K., Vala ja, J., Aimonen, E., Saarisalo, E. and Huhtanen, P. 1996. Rehutaulukot ja ruokintasuositukset [Feed tables and feeding recommendations], second edition. Yliopistopaino, Helsinki, Finland.Google Scholar
Van Keulen, J. and Young, B. A. 1977. Acid insoluble ash as a natural marker for digestibility studies. Journal of Animal Science 44: 282–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar