Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T19:00:59.796Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Response of dairy cows offered a high feed value grass silage, to concentrate feed level and concentrate crude protein content

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2017

C.P. Ferris
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co Down N. Ireland BT26 6DR
F.J. Gordon
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co Down N. Ireland BT26 6DR
D.C. Patterson
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co Down N. Ireland BT26 6DR
D.J. Kilpatrick
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co Down N. Ireland BT26 6DR
Get access

Extract

The environmental and economic cost of concentrate protein ingredients is high, with the economic impact being especially important if these are certified free from genetically modified material. While reducing the crude protein (CP) content of the concentrate will reduce feed costs, animal performance is also likely to suffer (Mayne and Gordon, 1985). However it may be possible to maintain performance and yet reduce feed costs by reducing the protein content of the concentrate offered, with a simultaneous increase in concentrate feed levels. The current study was designed to examine the effects on animal performance of adopting this approach, and to quantify the ‘protein sparing’ effect of increasing the quantity of concentrate offered.

Type
Poster Presentations
Copyright
Copyright © The British Society of Animal Science 2002

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

Mayne, C.S. and Gordon, F.J. 1985. The effect of concentrate-to-forage ratio on the milk-yield response to supplementary protein. Animal Production 41: 269 279.Google Scholar