Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T05:17:24.024Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of energy source and level of digestible undegradable protein in concentrates on silage intake and performance of lactating dairy cows offered a range of grass silages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

T. W. J. Keady ,
C. S. Mayne ,
D. A. Fitzpatrick  and
M. Marsden
T. W. J. Keady
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co. Down BT26 6DR
C. S. Mayne
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co. Down BT26 6DR Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, Newforge Lane, Belfast BT9 5PX The Queen’s University of Belfast, Newforge Lane, Belfast BT9 5PX
D. A. Fitzpatrick
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, Newforge Lane, Belfast BT9 5PX
M. Marsden
Affiliation:
J. Bibby Agriculture, ABN House, Oundle Road, Woodston, Peterborough PE2 9QF
Get access

Abstract

The effects of energy source and level of digestible undegraded protein (DUP) in concentrates on silage intake and performance of lactating dairy cows, offered one of a range of grass silages differing in digestibility and intake characteristics, were evaluated in a partially balanced change-over design experiment involving 48 cows. Four silages were prepared using differing management practices prior to and during ensiling. All silages were treated with an inoculant additive. For silages A, В, С and D, dry matter (DM) concentrations were 199, 320, 313 and 223 (s.e. 4.6) g/kg, pH values 3.82, 4.03, 4·03 and 5·27 (s.e. 0.056), ammonia nitrogen (N) concentrations 58, 122, 66 and 356 (s.e. 13.2) g/kg total N and in vivo DM apparent digestibilities 077, 0.75 , 0.60 and 0.60 (s.e. 0·013) respectively. When offered as the sole diet to 12 dairy cows in a partially balanced change-over design experiment, silage DM intakes were 14.7, 14.7, 12.7 and 10.5 (s.e. 0·36) kg/day respectively for silages А, В, С and D. Six concentrates containing three starch concentrations, each at two levels of DUP, were formulated to have similar concentrations of crude protein, metabolizable energy (ME) and fermentable ME. For the low and high starch concentrates and low and high levels of DUP, starch concentrations were 22·5 and 273 g/kg DM and DUP levels were 44 and 60 g/kg DM respectively. Silages were offered ad libitum supplemented with 10 kg fresh concentrate per head per day. For silages А, В, С and D, DM intakes were 10.8, 11.2, 10·7 and 9·1 (s.e. 0·26) kg/day and milk yields 29.0, 27.6, 27.1 and 25.7 (s.e. 0.69) kg/day respectively. With the exception of milk protein concentration there were no significant (P > 0.05) silage type by concentrate energy source and/or level of DUP interactions on silage intake, milk output or composition. Concentrate energy source had no effect (P > 0.05) on silage DM intake, the yields of milk, fat, protein or fat plus protein or milk fat concentration. However, increasing starch concentration increased milk protein concentration (P < 0·001), urinary allantoin concentration (P < 0·01) and diet apparent digestibility (P < 0·001). Altering concentrate DUP level had no effect (P > 0·05) on silage DM intake, yields of milk, protein, fat or fat plus protein, milk f at concentrations or diet apparent digestibility. Increasing the level of DUP decreased milk protein (P < 0·05) concentration. It is concluded that with silages of varying digestibility, fermentation and intake characteristics, there were no concentrate energy source and/or level of DUP by silage type interactions on silage intake, milk yield or composition, or diet apparent digestibility with the exception of a silage type by concentrate level of DUP interaction on milk protein concentration. With out-of-parlour feeding of concentrates the results of the present study suggest that there is no evidence to justify the formulation of concentrates differing in energy source or level of DUP to complement individual silage types.

Keywords

dairy cowsenergy sourcesgrass silageprotein intake
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 68 , Issue 4 , June 1999 , pp. 763 - 777
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1999

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

Agricultural and Food Research Council. 1993. Energy and protein requirements of ruminants. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Aitchinson, E.M., Gill, M. and Osbourn, D. F. 1986. The effect of supplementation with maize starch and the level of intake of perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne cv Endura) hay on the removal of digesta from the rumen of sheep. British Journal of Nutrition 56: 477–486.Google Scholar
Aston, K., Thomas, C., Daley, S.R. and Sutton, J.D. 1994. Milk production from grass silage diets: effects of the composition of supplementary concentrates. Animal Production 59: 335–344.Google Scholar
Bhattacharya, A. N. and Sleiman, F. T. 1971. Beet pulp as a grain replacement for dairy cows and sheep. Journal of Dairy Science 54: 89–94.Google Scholar
Butler, T. M. 1973. A comparison between concentrates containing barley-soyabean meal and dried molassed beet pulp-groundnut meal for milk production. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 12: 329–331.Google Scholar
Carrick, I.M., Patterson, D.C., Gordon, F.J. and Mayne, C.S. 1995. Effect of level and quality of protein on the performance of dairy cattle of differing genetic merit. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research p. 96 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Castle, M.E., Gill, M.S. and Watson, J. N. 1981. Silage and milk production: a comparison between barley and dried sugar-beet pulp as silage supplements. Grass and Forage Science 36: 319–324.Google Scholar
Chamberlain, D.G., Thomas, P.C., Wilson, W.D., Kassen, M.E. and Robertson, S. 1984. The influence of the type of carbohydrate in the supplementary concentrate on the utilisation of silage diets for milk production. Proceedings of the seventh silage conference, Belfast,p. 18.Google Scholar
Christensen, R.A., Lynch, G. L. and Clark, J. H. 1993. Influence of amount and degradability of protein on production of milk and milk components by lactating Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science 76: 3490–3496.Google Scholar
Forbes, J.M., Jackson, D. A., Johnson, C. L., Stockill, P. and Hoyle, B. S. 1986. A method for the automatic monitoring of food intake and feed behaviour of individual cattle kept in groups. Research and Development in Agriculture 3: 175–180.Google Scholar
Gordon, F. J. 1980a. The effect of silage type on the performance of lactating cows and the response to high levels of protein in the supplement. Animal Production 30: 29–37.Google Scholar
Gordon, F.J. 1980b. The effect of interval between harvests and wilting on silage for milk production. Animal Production 31: 35–41.Google Scholar
Huhtanen, P., Jaakkola, S. and Saarisalo, E. 1995. The effects of concentrate energy source on the milk production of dairy cows given a grass silage-based diet. Animal Production 60: 31–40.Google Scholar
Hussein, H. S. and Jordan, R. M. 1991. Fishmeal as a protein supplement in ruminant diets: a review. Journal of Animal Science 69: 2147–2156.Google Scholar
Keady, T. W. J. and Mayne, C. S. 1998. The effects of concentrate energy source on silage feeding behaviour and energy utilization by lactating dairy cows offered grass silages with differing intake characteristics. Animal Science 67: 225–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keady, T. W. J. and Murphy, J. J. 1997. The effects of offering sucrose and fishmeal to dairy cows receiving different levels of concentrates on food intake and animal performance. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, 1997,p. 87.Google Scholar
Keady, T. W. J., Mayne, C. S. and Fitzpatrick, D. A. 1999. An examination of the effect of concentrate energy source on rumen fermentation characteristics of dairy cattle offered grass silages of differing intake characteristics. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, 1999 p. 217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keady, T. W. J., Mayne, C. S. and Marsden, M. 1998. The effects of concentrate energy source on silage intake and animal performance with lactating dairy cows offered a range of grass silages. Animal Science 66: 21–33.Google Scholar
Keady, T. W. J., Steen, R. W. J., Kilpatrick, D. J. and Mayne, C. S. 1994. Effects of inoculant treatment on silage fermentation, digestibility and intake by growing cattle. Grass and Forage Science 49: 284–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindberg, J. E., Bristav, H. and Manyenga, A. R. 1989. Excretion of purines in the urine of sheep in relation to duodenal flow of microbial protein. Swedish Journal of Agricultural Research 19: 45–52.Google Scholar
Mayne, C. S. and Gordon, F. J. 1984. The effect of type of concentrate and level of concentrate feeding on milk production. Animal Production 39: 65–76.Google Scholar
Mehrez, A. Z. and Ørskov, E. R. 1977. A study of the artificial fibre bag technique for determining the digestibility of feeds in the rumen. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 88: 646–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mertens, D. R. and Loften, J. R. 1980. The effect of starch on forage fibre digestion kinetics in vitro. Journal of Dairy Science 63: 1437–1446.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Hughes-Jones, M. and McDonald, I. 1981a. Degradability of protein supplements and utilisation of undegraded protein by high producing dairy cows. In Recent developments in ruminant nutrition (ed. Haresign, W. and Cole, D.J.A.), pp. 17–30. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Reid, G.W. and McDonald, I. 1981b. The effects of protein degradability and food intake on milk yield and composition in cows in early lactation. British Journal of Nutrition 45: 547–555.Google Scholar
Park, R.S., Gordon, F.J., Agnew, R.E., Barnes, R. J. and Steen, R. W. J. 1997. The use of near infrared reflectance spectroscopy on dried samples to predict biological parameters of grass silage. Animal Feed Science and Technology 68: 235–246.Google Scholar
Phipps, R. H., Sutton, J. D., Weiler, R. F. and Bines, J. A. 1987. The effect of concentrate composition and method of silage feeding on intake and performance of lactating cows. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 109: 337–343.Google Scholar
Sloan, B. K., Rowlinson, P. and Armstrong, D. G. 1987. A note on concentrate energy source for dairy cows in mid lactation. Animal Production 45: 321–323.Google Scholar
Sloan, B. K., Rowlinson, P. and Armstrong, D.G. 1988. Milk production in early lactation dairy cows given grass silage ad libitum: influence of concentrate energy source, crude protein content and level of concentrate allowance. Animal Production 46: 317–331.Google Scholar
Small, J. C. and Gordon, F. J. 1990. A comparison of the responses by lactating cows given grass silage to changes in the degradability or quantity of protein offered in the supplement. Animal Production 50: 391–398.Google Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. and Gordon, F. J. 1980. The effect of type of silage and level of concentrate supplementation offered during early lactation on total lactation performance of January / February calving cows. Animal Production 30: 341–354.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
Thomas, C., Aston, K., Daley, S.R. and Bass, J. 1986. Milk production from silage. 4. The effect of the composition of the supplement. Animal Production 42: 315–325.Google Scholar
Webster, A. J. F. 1992. The metabolisable protein system for ruminants. In Recent advances in animal nutrition (ed. P.C., Garnsworthy, Haresign, W. and Cole, D.J.A.), pp. 93–110. Butterworths, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, D. A., Gordon, F. J., Steen, R. W. J. and Patterson, D. C. 1999. A study of factors influencing the response in intake and performance following wilting of grass prior to ensiling. Grass and Forage Science In press.Google Scholar