Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-06T10:46:37.482Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of forage type (maize-lablab or oat-vetch) and level of supplementation (wheat-middlings) on food intake, diet apparent digestibility, purine excretion and milk production of crossbred (Bos taurus × Bos indicus) cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

H. Khalili ,
P. O. Osuji ,
N. Umunna  and
S. Crosse
H. Khalili
Affiliation:
International Livestock Centre for Africa, PO Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
P. O. Osuji
Affiliation:
International Livestock Centre for Africa, PO Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
N. Umunna
Affiliation:
International Livestock Centre for Africa, PO Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
S. Crosse
Affiliation:
International Livestock Centre for Africa, PO Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Get access

Abstract

An experiment was carried out to evaluate the effects of forage type and level of concentrate supplementation on forage intake, diet apparent digestibility, purine excretion and milk production. Twelve crossbred cows (Bos taurus × Bos indicus), in early lactation, were allocated to the following six dietary treatments: maize-lablab forage (ML) or oat-vetch forage (OV), offered ad libitum, and supplemented with either 0, 2·5 or 5·0 kg per cow per day of a supplement (wheat middlings). A four-period, partially balanced, change-over design was used and the treatments were arranged as 2 × 3 factorial.

Mean organic matter (OM) intake was 670 g higher with cows on ML-based diets compared with those on OV-based diets (P <0·02). The apparent digestibilities of crude protein (CP) and neutral detergent fibre (NDF) were similar for cows given ML- or OV-based diets but the apparent digestibility of OM was higher for ML diets (P <0·05). Values of the degradation parameters (a, b and c) of DM and NDF were greater for ML forage than for the OV forage. Forage type did not affect daily milk yield nor excretion of purine derivatives in urine used to estimate microbial-nitrogen supply (P >0·05). The concentration of milk fat and total solids in the milk were similar for the two forage types offered but the concentration of milk protein was slightly higher for the cows given ML-based diets (P <0·05).

Daily OM intake increased by 3·75 and 2·70 kg per cow per day (P <0·001) respectively, when the amount of concentrate increased from 0 to 5·0 kg per cow per day for the ML- and OV-based diets. The CP apparent digestibilities of the diets were higher when the diets were supplemented with concentrates but there was no effect of supplementation on the apparent digestibilities of OM and NDF. The supply of microbial-nitrogen increased linearly with increasing level of concentrate supplementation (P <0·05). Milk yield increased linearly when the level of concentrate supplement increased from 0 to 5 kg (P <0·001), resulting in 0·39 and 0·29 kg more milk per day per kg additional concentrate given in cows on ML and OV, respectively. There was also a tendency for a quadratic effect (P <0·12), especially with ML diets, showing that when the level of concentrate increased from 0 to 2·5 or from 2·5 to 5·0 kg/day, the milk yield increased respectively by 0·62 and 0·15 kg/day per kg additional concentrate given.

Keywords

foragemilk productionpurineswheat-middlings
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 58 , Issue 3 , June 1994 , pp. 321 - 328
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1994

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

Abate Tedla and Woldeab Woldemariam. 1988. Forage crop performance on improved and unimproved drainage conditions at Debre Berhan. nternatonal Lvestock Centre for Afrca, workshop document. ILCA, Adds Ababa, Ethopa.Google Scholar
Archbald, K. A. E. 1984. Dary cattle feedng n the humd or hgh ranfall tropcs. In Mlk producton in developng countres (ed. Smith, A. J.) pp. 110–132. Centre for Tropcal Veternary Medcne, Ednburgh.Google Scholar
Assocaton of Offcal Analytcal Chemsts. 1990. Offcal methods of the Assocaton of Offcal Analytcal Chemsts (ed. Helrch, K.), pp. 807. Assocaton of Offcal Analytcal Chemsts, Vrgna.Google Scholar
Broster, W. H. and Thomas, C. 1981. The nfluence and pattern of concentrate nput on mlk output. In Recent advances n anmal nutrton (ed. Haresgn, W.), pp. 49–69. Butterworths, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camplng, R. C. and Lean, I. J. 1983. Food characterstcs that lmt voluntary ntake. In Nutrtonal physology of farm anmals (ed. Rook, J. A. F. and Thomas, P. C.), pp. 457–475. Longman, New York.Google Scholar
Camplng, R. C. and Murdoch, J. C. 1966. The effect of concentrates on the voluntary ntake of roughages by cows. Journal of Dary Research 33: 1–11.Google Scholar
Castle, M. E., Gill, M. S. and Watson, J. N. 1981. Slage and mlk producton: a comparson of barley and dred sugar beet pulp supplements to slage of hgh dgestblty. Grass and Forage Scence 36: 319–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, X. B. 1989. Excreton of purne dervatves by sheep and cattle and ts use for the estmaton of absorbed mcrobal proten. Ph. D. thess, Unversty of Aberdeen.Google Scholar
Chen, X. B., Chen, Y. K., Frankln, M. F., Ørskov, E. R. and Shand, W. J. 1992. The effect of feed ntake and body weght on purne dervatve excreton and mcrobal proten supply n sheep. Journal of Animal Science 70: 1534–1542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, X. B., Hovell, F. D. DeB., Ørskov, E. R. and Brown, D. S. 1990b. Excreton of purne dervatves by rumnants: effect of exogenous nuclec acd supply on purne dervatves excreton by sheep. British journal of Nutrition 63: 131–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, X. B., Matheson, J., Hovell, F. D. DeB. and Reeds, P. J. 1990a. Measurement of purne dervatves n urne of rumnants usng automated methods. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 53: 23–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Combellas, J., Baker, R. D. and Hodgson, J. 1979. Concentrate supplementaton, and the herbage ntake and mlk producton of hefers grazng Cenchrus clars. Grass and Forage Science 34: 303–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faverdin, P., Dulphy, J. P., Coulon, J. B., Verite, R., Garel, J. P., Rouel, J. and Marquis, B. 1991. Substtuton of roughage by concentrates for dary cows. Livestock Production Science 27: 137–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goerng, H. K. and Van Soest, P. J. 1970. Forage fbre analyses. Agrcultural Handbook, U.S. Department of Agrculture, No. 379, pp. 1–20.Google Scholar
Huhtanen, P. 1987. The effect of detary ncluson of barley, unmolassed sugar beet pulp and molasses on milk production and dgesta passage in dary cows gven slage based diets. Journal of Agricultural Science in Finland 59: 101–119.Google Scholar
Huhtanen, P. 1991. The response to replacement of barley wth wheat bran and treatment of rapeseed meal in the dets of dary cows gven grass slage ad libitum. Acda Agriculturae Scandinavica 41: 415–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Dary Federaton, 1981. Provsonal international IDF standard 105:1981.1040 Brussels, Belgum.Google Scholar
Jones, B. and Kenward, M. G. 1989. Design and analysis of cross-over irials. Chapman and Hall, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khalili, H., Varvikko, T. and Crosse, C. 1992. The effects of forage type and level of concentrate supplementation on food intake, diet digestibility and milk production of crossbred cows (Bos Inurus × Bos mdicus). Animal Production 54: 183–189.Google Scholar
McDonald, L. 1981. A revised model for the estimation of protoin degradability in the rumen. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 96: 251–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massow, V. H. von. 1989. Dary mports nto sub-Saharan Afrca: problems, polces and prospects. Research report nternatonal Lvestock Centre for Afrca, 17. Adds Ababa, Ethopa. 46 pp.Google Scholar
Mejia, A. T. 1992. Diurnal changes in urinary and plasma urine derivatives in sheep fed ad libitum. M.Sc. thesis University of Aberdeen.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 1975. Energy allowances and feeding systems for ruminants. Technical Bulletin 33. HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Moir, R. J. 1961. A note on the relationship between the digestible dry matter and the digestible energy content of ruminant diets. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 1: 24–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council. 1989. Nutrient requirement of dairy cattle. 6th ed.National Academy Press, Washngton, DC.Google Scholar
Scott, R. 1986. Cheesemaking practice. Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, London.Google Scholar
Sloan, B. K., Rowlinsion, P. and Armstrong, D. G. 1988. Milk production in early lactation in dairy cows given grass silage ad libitum: influence of concentrate energy source, crude protien content and level of concentrate allowance. Anmal Producton 46: 317–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. and Cochran, W. G. 1980. Statistical methods. 7th ed.lowa State Unversty Press, Ames, Ia.Google Scholar
Tyrrell, H. F. and Reid, J. T. 1965. Predicton of energy value of cow's milk. Journal of Dairy Science 48: 1215–1223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Keulen, J. and Young, B. A. 1977. Evaluation of acid-insoluble ash as a natural marker in ruminant digestibility studies. Journal of Animal Science 44: 282–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar