Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T11:57:09.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An examination of two concentrate allocation strategies which are based on the early lactation milk yield of autumn calving Holstein Friesian cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2015

D. Lawrence ,
M. O’Donovan ,
T. M. Boland ,
E. Lewis  and
E. Kennedy
D. Lawrence
Affiliation:
Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland School of Agriculture and Food Science, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
M. O’Donovan
Affiliation:
Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland
T. M. Boland
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture and Food Science, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
E. Lewis
Affiliation:
Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland
E. Kennedy*
Affiliation:
Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland
*
†E-mail: emer.kennedy@teagasc.ie
Get access

Abstract

The objective of this experiment was to compare the effects of two concentrate feeding strategies offered with a grass silage and maize silage diet on the dry matter (DM) intake, milk production (MP) and estimated energy balance of autumn calved dairy cows. Over a 2-year period, 180 autumn calving Holstein Friesian cows were examined. Within year, cows were blocked into three MP sub-groups (n=9) (high (HMP), medium (MMP) and low (LMP)) based on the average MP data from weeks 3 and 4 of lactation. Within a block cows were randomly assigned to one of two treatments (n=54), flat rate (FR) concentrate feeding or feed to yield (FY) based on MP sub-group. Cows on the FR treatment were offered a fixed rate of concentrate (5.5 kg DM/cow per day) irrespective of MP sub-group. In the FY treatment HMP, MMP and LMP cows were allocated 7.3, 5.5 and 3.7 kg DM of concentrate, respectively. The mean concentrate offered to the FR and FY treatments was the same. On the FR treatment there was no significant difference in total dry matter intake (TDMI, 17.3 kg) between MP sub-groups. In the FY treatment, however, the TDMI of HMP-FY was 2.2 kg greater than MMP-FY, and 4.5 kg greater than LMP-FY (15.2 kg DM). The milk yield of LMP-FR was 3.5 kg less than the mean of the HMP-FR and MMP-FR treatments (24.5 kg). The milk yield of the HMP-FY treatment was 3.6 and 7.9 kg greater than the MMP-FY and LMP-FY treatments, respectively. The difference in MP between the HMP sub-groups was 2.6 kg, which translates to a response of 1.4 kg of milk per additional 1 kg of concentrate offered. There was no significant difference in MP between the two LMP sub-groups; however, MP increased 0.8 kg per additional 1 kg of concentrate offered between cows on the LMP-FR and LMP-FY treatments. The estimated energy balance was positive for cows on the LMP-FR treatment, but negative for cows on the other treatments. The experiment highlights the variation within a herd in MP response to concentrate, as cows with a lower MP potential are less responsive to additional energy input than cows with a greater MP potential. Cows with a greater MP capacity did not substitute additional concentrate for the basal forage, which indicates an additional demand for energy based on ability of individual cows to produce milk.

Keywords

feeding methodindoor feedingmixed rationconcentratewinter milk
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 10 , Issue 5 , May 2016 , pp. 796 - 804
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

Agnew, KW, Mayne, CS and Doherty, JG 1996. An examination of the effect of method and level of concentrate feeding on milk production in dairy cows offered a grass silage-based diet. Animal Science 63, 21–31.Google Scholar
Alexandratos, N and Bruinsma, J 2012. World agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012 revision. ESA Working paper No. 12-03. FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Bargo, F, Muller, LD, Kolver, ES and Delahoy, JE 2003. Invited review: production and digestion of supplemented dairy cows on pasture. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 1–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beecher, M, Hennessy, D, Boland, TM, O’Donovan, M and Lewis, E 2013. Comparing drying protocols for perennial ryegrass samples in preparation for chemical analysis. In 22nd International Grassland Congress. Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
Drackley, JK 1999. Biology of dairy cows during the transition period: the final frontier? Journal of Dairy Science 82, 2259–2273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edmonson, AJ, Lean, IJ, Weaver, LD, Farver, T and Webster, G 1989. A body condition scoring chart for Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 72, 68–78.Google Scholar
Faverdin, P, Baratte, C, Delagarde, R and Peyraud, J 2011. GrazeIn: a model of herbage intake and milk production for grazing dairy cows. 1. Prediction of intake capacity, voluntary intake and milk production during lactation. Grass and Forage Science 66, 29–44.Google Scholar
Faverdin, P, Dulphy, JP, Coulon, JB, Verite, R, Garel, PP, Rouel, J and Marquir, B 1991. Substitution of roughage by concentrates for dairy cows. Livestock Production Science 27, 137–156.Google Scholar
Ferris, CP, Gordon, FJ, Patterson, DC, Porter, MG and Yan, T 1999. The effect of genetic merit and concentrate proportion in the diet on nutrient utilization by lactating dairy cows. The Journal of Agricultural Science 132, 483–490.Google Scholar
Ferris, CP, McCoy, MA, Lennox, SD, Catney, DC and Gordon, FJ 2002. Nutrient utilisation and energy balance associated with two contrasting winter milk production systems for high genetic merit autumn calving dairy cows. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 41, 55–70.Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, JJ and Murphy, JJ 1999. A comparison of low starch maize silage and grass silage and the effect of concentrate supplementation of the forages or inclusion of maize grain with the maize silage on milk production by dairy cows. Livestock Production Science 57, 95–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuentes-Pila, J, Ibañez, M, De Miguel, JM and Beede, DK 2003. Predicting average feed intake of lactating Holstein cows fed totally mixed rations. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 309–323.Google Scholar
Gallo, L, Carnier, P, Cassandro, M, Mantovani, R, Bailoni, L, Contiero, B and Bittante, G 1996. Change in body condition score of Holstein Cows as affected by parity and mature equivalent milk yield. Journal of Dairy Science 79, 1009–1015.Google Scholar
Garcı́a, SC and Holmes, CW 2001. Lactation curves of autumn- and spring-calved cows in pasture-based dairy systems. Livestock Production Science 68, 189–203.Google Scholar
Horan, B, Dillon, P, Berry, DP, O’Connor, P and Rath, M 2005. The effect of strain of Holstein–Friesian, feeding system and parity on lactation curves characteristics of spring-calving dairy cows. Livestock Production Science 95, 231–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarrige, R 1989. Ruminant nutrition: recommended allowances and feed tables. John Libbey Eurotext, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Kellaway, R and Harrington, T 2004. Feeding concentrates: supplements for dairy cows. Landlinks Press, Victoria, Austraila.Google Scholar
Kertz, AF, Reutzel, LF and Thomson, GM 1991. Dry matter intake from parturition to midlactation. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 2290–2295.Google Scholar
Lawrence, DC, O’Donovan, M, Boland, TM, Lewis, E and Kennedy, E 2014. The effect of concentrate feeding amount and feeding strategy on milk production, dry matter intake and energy partitioning of autumn calving Holstein-Friesian cows. Journal of Dairy Science 98, 338–348.Google Scholar
Macrae, A, Whitaker, D, Burrough, E, Dowell, A and Kelly, J 2006. Use of metabolic profiles for the assessment of dietary adequacy in UK dairy herds. Veterinary Record 159, 655–661.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moisey, FR and Leaver, JD 1985. Systems of concentrate allocation for dairy cattle 3. A comparison of two flat-rate feeding systems at two amounts of concentrates. Animal Science 40, 209–217.Google Scholar
National Research Council 2001. Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle, 7th revised edition. National Academic Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Nikkhah, A, Furedi, CJ, Kennedy, AD, Crow, GH and Plaizier, JC 2008. Effects of feed delivery time on feed intake, milk production, and blood metabolites of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 4249–4260.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Mara, F 1996. A net energy system for cattle and sheep. University College Dublin, Department of Animal Science and Production, Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
Patton, D, Shalloo, L, Pierce, KM and Horan, B 2012. A biological and economic comparison of 2 pasture-based production systems on a wetland drumlin soil in the northern region of Ireland. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 484–495.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reist, M, Erdin, D, Von Euw, D, Tschuemperlin, K, Leuenberger, H, Delavaud, C, Chilliard, Y, Hammon, HM, Kuenzi, N and Blum, JW 2003. Concentrate feeding strategy in lactating dairy cows: metabolic and endocrine changes with emphasis on Leptin1, 2. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 1690–1706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, C 2002. Economics of visceral energy metabolism in ruminants: Toll keeping or internal revenue service? Journal of Animal Science 80, 74–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruelle, E, Shalloo, L, Wallace, M and Delaby, L 2015. Development and evaluation of the pasture-based herd dynamic milk (PBHDM) model for dairy systems. European Journal of Agronomy 71, 106–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS Institute 2011. SAS 9.3 output delivery system: user’s guide. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina, USA.Google Scholar
Sauvant, D, Perez, JM and Tran, G 2004. Molasses - Sugarcane. In Tables of composition and nutritional value of feed materials, pigs, poultry, cattle, sheep, goats, rabbits, horses, fish. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands. pp. 238–239.Google Scholar
Spahr, SL, Shanks, RD, McCoy, GC, Maltz, E and Kroll, O. 1993. Lactation potential as a criterion for strategy of feeding total mixed rations to dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 76, 2723–2735.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sweeney, RA 1989. Generic combustion method for determination of crude protein in feeds: collaborative study. Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists 72, 770–774.Google Scholar
Taylor, W and Leaver, JD 1984. 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 Science 39, 315–324.Google Scholar
Van Soest, PJ, Robertson, JB and Lewis, BA 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3583–3597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Veerkamp, RF, Beerda, B and Van Der Lende, T 2003. Effects of genetic selection for milk yield on energy balance, levels of hormones, and metabolites in lactating cattle, and possible links to reduced fertility. Livestock Production Science 83, 257–275.Google Scholar
Veerkamp, RF, Simm, G and Oldham, JD 1994. Effects of interaction between genotype and feeding system on milk production, feed intake, efficiency and body tissue mobilization in dairy cows. Livestock Production Science 39, 229–241.Google Scholar