Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T06:31:07.651Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Differential response to stocking rates and feeding by two genotypes of Holstein-Friesian cows in a pasture-based automatic milking system

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 September 2015

C. C. Nieman ,
K. M. Steensma ,
J. E. Rowntree ,
D. K. Beede  and
S. A. Utsumi
C. C. Nieman
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA W.K. Kellogg Biological Station, Michigan State University, Hickory Corners, MI 49060, USA
K. M. Steensma
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA W.K. Kellogg Biological Station, Michigan State University, Hickory Corners, MI 49060, USA
J. E. Rowntree
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
D. K. Beede
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
S. A. Utsumi*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA W.K. Kellogg Biological Station, Michigan State University, Hickory Corners, MI 49060, USA
*
†E-mail: utsumi@msu.edu
Get access

Abstract

The throughput of automatic milking systems (AMS) is likely affected by differential traffic behavior and subsequent effects on the milking frequency and milk production of cows. This study investigated the effect of increasing stocking rate and partial mixed ration (PMR) on the milk production, dry matter intake (DMI), feed conversion efficiency (FCE) and use of AMS by two genotypes of Holstein-Friesian cows in mid-lactation. The study lasted 8 weeks and consisted in a factorial arrangement of two genotypes of dairy cattle, United States Holstein (USH) or New Zealand Friesian (NZF), and two pasture-based feeding treatments, a low stocking rate system (2 cows/ha) fed temperate pasture and concentrate, or a high stocking rate system (HSR; 3 cows/ha) fed same pasture and concentrate plus PMR. A total of 28 cows, 14 USH and 14 NZF, were used for comparisons, with 12 cows, six USH and six NZF, also used for tracking of animal movements. Data were analyzed by repeated measure mixed models for a completely randomized design. No differences (P>0.05) in pre- or post-grazing herbage mass, DMI and FCE were detected in response to increases in stocking rate and PMR feeding in HSR. However, there was a significant (P<0.05) grazing treatment×genotype×week interaction on milk production, explained by differential responses of genotypes to changes in herbage mass over time (P<0.001). A reduction (P<0.01) in hours spent on pasture was detected in response to PMR supplementation in HSR; this reduction was greater (P=0.01) for USH than NZF cows (6 v. 2 h, respectively). Regardless of the grazing treatment, USH cows had greater (P=0.02) milking frequency (2.51 v. 2.26±0.08 milkings/day) and greater (P<0.01) milk yield (27.3 v. 16.0±1.2 kg/day), energy-corrected milk (24.8 v. 16.5±1.0 kg/day), DMI (22.1 v. 16.6±0.8 kg/day) and FCE (1.25 v. 1.01±0.06 kg/kg) than NZF cows. There was also a different distribution of milkings/h between genotypes (P<0.001), with patterns of milkings/h shifting (P<0.001) as a consequence of PMR feeding in HSR. Results confirmed the improved FCE of grazing dairy cows with greater milk production and suggested the potential use of PMR feeding as a tactical decision to managing HSR and milkings/day in AMS farms.

Keywords

automatic milking systemsdairy breedpasture-based systemspartial mixed rationstocking rate
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 9 , Issue 12 , December 2015 , pp. 2039 - 2049
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2015 

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

Bargo, F, Muller, LD, Delahoy, JE and Cassidy, TW 2002. Performance of high producing dairy cows with three different feeding systems combining pasture and total mixed rations. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 2960–2975.Google Scholar
Clark, DA, Phyn, CVC, Tong, MJ, Collis, SJ and Dalley, DE 2006. A systems comparison of once-versus twice-daily milking of pastured dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 1854–1862.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Koning, K and Rodenburg, J 2004. Automatic milking: state of the art in Europe and North America. In Automatic milking: a better understanding (ed. A Meijering, H Hogeveen and CJAM de Koning), pp. 27–35. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, J, France, J, Ellis, JL, Strathe, AB, Kebrab, E and Bammik, A 2013. Production efficiency of ruminants: feed, nitrogen and methane. In Sustainable animal agriculture (ed. E Kebrab), pp. 10–25. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillon, P 2006. Achieving high dry-matter intake from pasture with grazing dairy cows. In Fresh herbage for dairy cattle (ed. A Elgersma, J Dijkstra and S Tamminga), pp. 1–26. Springer, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Fariña, SR, Garcia, SC, Fulkerson, WJ and Barchia, IM 2011. Pasture-based dairy farm systems increasing milk production through stocking rate or milk yield per cow: pasture and animal responses. Grass and Forage Science 66, 316–332.Google Scholar
Fulkerson, WJ, Davison, TM, Garcia, SC, Hough, G, Goddard, ME, Dobos, R and Blockey, M 2008. Holstein-Friesian dairy cows under a predominantly grazing system: interaction between genotype and environment. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 826–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haque, MN, Cornou, C and Madsen, J 2014. Estimation of methane emission using the CO2 method from dairy cows fed concentrate with different carbohydrate composition in automatic milking systems. Livestock Science 154, 57–66.Google Scholar
Hills, JL, Wales, WJ, Dunshea, FR, Garcia, SC and Roche, JR 2015. Invited review: an evaluation of the likely effects of individualized feeding of concentrate supplements to pasture-based dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 98, 1–39.Google Scholar
Holden, LA, Muller, LD, Lykos, T and Cassidy, TW 1995. Effect of corn silage supplementation on intake and milk production in cows grazing grass pasture. Journal of Dairy Science 78, 154–160.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holden, LA, Muller, LD, Varga, GA and Hillard, PJ 1994. Ruminal digestion and duodenal nutrient flows in dairy cows consuming grass at pasture, hay or silage. Journal of Dairy Science 77, 3034–3042.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horan, B, Dillon, P, Faverdin, P, Delaby, L, Buckley, F and Rath, M 2005. The interaction of strain of Holstein Friesian cows and pasture based feed systems on milk yield, body weight and body condition score. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 1231–1243.Google Scholar
Jago, J and Bruke, J 2010. An evaluation of two pastoral dairy production systems using automatic milking technology. Proceedings of the First North American Conference on Precision Dairy Management, 2–5 March, Toronto, ON, Canada, pp. 109–115.Google Scholar
Jago, J, Jackson, A and Woolford, M 2003. Dominance effects on the time budget and milking behaviour of cows managed on pasture and milked in an automated milking system. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 63, 120–123.Google Scholar
Jago, JG, Davis, KL, Copeman, PJ, Ohnstad, I and Woolford, MM 2007. Supplementary feeding at milking and minimum milking interval effects on cow traffic and milking performance in a pasture-based automatic milking system. Journal of Dairy Research 74, 492–499.Google Scholar
Kennedy, E, Curran, J, Mayes, B, McEvoy, M, Murphy, JP and O’Donovan, M 2011. Restricting dairy cow access time to pasture in early lactation: the effects on milk production, grazing behaviour and dry matter intake. Animal 5, 1805–1813.Google Scholar
Kennedy, J, Dillon, P, Delaby, L and Faverdin, P 2003. Effect of genetic merit and concentrate supplementation on grass intake and milk production with Holstein Friesian dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 610–621.Google Scholar
Ketelaar-de Lauwere, CC, Devir, S and Metz, JHM 1996. The influence of social hierarchy on the time budget of cows and their visits to an automatic milking system. Applied Animal Behavior Science 49, 199–211.Google Scholar
Ketelaar-de Lauwere, CC, Ipema, AH, Lokhorst, C, Metz, JHM, Noordhuizen, JPTM, Schouten, WGP and Smits, AC 2000. Effect of sward height and distance between pasture and barn on cows’ visits to an automatic milking system and other behavior. Livestock Production Science 65, 131–142.Google Scholar
Littell, RC, Milliken, GA, Stroup, WW, Wolfinger, RD and Schabenberger, O 2006. SAS system for mixed models, 2nd edition. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Lyons, NA, Kerrisk, KL and Garcia, SC 2013a. Comparison of 2 systems of pasture allocation on milking intervals and total daily milk yield of dairy cows in a pasture-based automatic milking system. Journal of Dairy Science 96, 4494–4504.Google Scholar
Lyons, NA, Kerrisk, KL and Garcia, SC 2013b. Effect of pre-versus postmilking supplementation on traffic and performance of cows milked in a pasture-based automatic milking system. Journal of Dairy Science 96, 4397–4405.Google Scholar
Lyons, NA, Kerrisk, KL and Garcia, SC 2014. Milking frequency management in pasture-based automatic milking systems: a review. Livestock Science 152, 102–116.Google Scholar
Macoon, B, Sollemberger, LE, Staples, CR, Portier, KM, Fike, JH and Moorell, JE 2011. Grazing management and supplementation effects on forage and dairy cow performance on cool-season pastures in the southeastern United States. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 3949–3959.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mannetje, L and Jones, RM 2000. Field and laboratory methods for grassland and animal production research. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Parker, WJ, McCutcheon, SN and Carr, DH 1989. Effect of herbage type and level of intake on the release of chromic oxide from intraruminal controlled release capsules in sheep. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 32, 537–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Ramírez, E, Delagarde, R and Delaby, L 2008. Herbage intake and behavioural adaptation of grazing dairy cows by restricting time at pasture under two feeding regimes. Animal 2, 1384–1392.Google Scholar
Sporndly, E and Wredle, E 2004. Automatic milking and grazing – effects of distance to pasture and level of supplements on milk yield and cow behavior. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 1702–1712.Google Scholar
Stockdale, CR 1994. Persian clover and maize silage, 1. Silage as a supplement for lactating dairy cows offered herbage of different quality [Trifolium resupinatum]. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 45, 1751–1765.Google Scholar
Tuñon, G, Lopez-Villalobos, N, Kemp, PD, Kennedy, E, Hennessy, D and O’Donovan, M 2011. Effect of pre-grazing herbage mass on grazing behaviour, grass dry matter intake and milk production of dairy cows. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 71, 28–32.Google Scholar
Tyrrell, HF and Reid, JT 1965. Prediction of the energy values of cow’s milk. Journal of Dairy Science 48, 1215–1223.Google Scholar
Utsumi, S 2011. Strategies to increase the efficiency of automatic milking and milk production from high producing dairy cows. In Proceedings of Dairy Research Foundation Symposium (ed. P Celi), pp. 32–43. The University of Sydney, University Printing Services, Camden, NSW, Australia.Google Scholar