Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-xq9c7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-14T20:47:29.086Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of replacing rolled wheat with a moist food co-product on the yield and composition of milk from Holstein Friesian dairy cows fed a grass silage based diet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2018

A S. Chaudhry ,
W. Taylor  and
P. Rowlinson
A S. Chaudhry
Affiliation:
Dept. of Agriculture, University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK
W. Taylor
Affiliation:
Dept. of Agriculture, University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK
P. Rowlinson
Affiliation:
Dept. of Agriculture, University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK
Get access

Abstract

This study compared the effect of feeding AmyPlus, a moist feed, as opposed to rolled wheat on the yield and composition of milk from dairy cows consuming grass silage based total mixed ration (TMR). Seventy-two Holstein-Friesian cows were distributed into AmyPlus (Treatment) and Wheat (Control) groups and loose housed on straw in an open shed. Each kg Wheat based concentrate contained 345g rolled wheat, 230g rapeseed meal, 115g sugarbeet pulp, 115g Molaferm 20, 115g soybean meal, 56g barley straw and 24g vitamin-minerals. In contrast, each kg AmyPlus based concentrate contained 501g AmyPlus (480g DM /kg), 105g rapeseed meal, 126g sugarbeet pulp, 126g Molaferm 20, 84g soybean meal, 41g barley straw and 17g vitamin-minerals. Here, AmyPlus was loaded directly into the mixer wagon to prepare fresh AmyPlus based TMR with a silage to concentrate ratio of 68:32. Each TMR was fed once daily to the corresponding group of cows also receiving 2kg of Distillers’ grains per cow in the parlour during milking. Daily milk yield and composition was recorded from November 1999 to February 2000. The overall daily Dry matter intake (DMI) of each TMR per cow remained uniform (20.19 vs 20.15 kg for Treatment and Control group respectively) across both groups. Daily milk yield and total cell counts per cow did not vary significantly (P>0.05) between groups during various months. While, milk fat and protein contents were greater in Treatment than Control group during each month, the differences were significant (P<0.05) only during November and December for fat and in January for protein. On average, the Treatment group tended to show a non-significant increase (P>0.05) in daily milk yield per cow by 0.144 kg than the Control group. The fat (46.2 vs 43.7) and protein (34.5 vs 33.5) contents in g /kg milk were also increased significantly (P<0.001) in Treatment compared with Control group. Total cell counts did not vary significantly (P>0.05) and remained within the acceptable limits. The cows consuming AmyPlus maintained their health as indicated by their intake, production, cell counts and general appearance. It would appear that AmyPlus can replace rolled wheat in TMR. However, it may be necessary to evaluate the storage, economic and environmental implications of using such moist co-products in silage based dairy rations.

Type
Posters
Information
BSAP Occasional Publication , Volume 28: Integrated management systems for livestock , 2001 , pp. 159 - 163
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2001

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

AFRC. 1980. The nutrient requirements of ruminant livestock. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureux, UK.Google Scholar
AFRC. 1993. Energy and protein requirements of ruminants. An advisory manual prepared by the AFRC Technical committee on responses to nutrients. CAB International.Google Scholar
Boirman, J.G.P., Sowell, B.F. and Patterson, J.A. 1995. Liquid supplementation for ruminants fed low quality forages. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 55:105–138.Google Scholar
Dewhurst, R.J., Moorby, J.M., Dhanoa, M.S., Evans, R.T., and Fisher, W.J. 2000. Effect of altering energy and protein supply to dairy cows durin dry periods. 1. Intake, body condition and milk production. Journal of Dairy Science. 83:1782–1794.Google Scholar
Moorby, J.M., Dewhurst, R.J., Thomas, C., and Marsden, S. 1996. The influence of dietary energy source and dietary protein level on milk protein concentration from dairy cows. Animal Science. 63:1–10.Google Scholar
Romney, D.L., Blunn, V., Sanderson, R. and Leaver, J.D. 2000. Feeding behaviour, food intake and milk production responses of lactating dairy cows to diets based on grass silage of high or low dry matter content, supplemented with quickly and slowly fermentable energy sources. Animal Science. 71: 349–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS system. 1994. General Linear Model procedures. The SAS Institute Inc., SAS Campus Drive, Cary, NC USA 27513-2414.Google Scholar
Steen, R.W. J., Gordon, F.J., Dawson, L.E.R., Park, R.S., Mayne, C.S., Agnew, R.E., Kilpatrick, D.J. and Porter, M.G. 1998. Factors affecting the intake of grass silage by cattle and prediction of silage intake. Animal Science 66:115–127.Google Scholar