Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T20:39:33.842Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of concentrate-to-forage ratio on the milk-yield response to supplementary protein

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

C. S. Mayne  and
F. J. Gordon
C. S. Mayne
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co. Down BT26 6DP
F. J. Gordon
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co. Down BT26 6DP
Get access

Abstract

Twenty-four British Friesian dairy cattle in their first lactation were used in a change-over design experiment with four periods, each of 4 weeks duration. The aim of the experiment was to examine the effects of varying both concentrate crude-protein concentration and the proportions of concentrates and grass silage in the diet on milk yield and composition. Twelve treatments were examined in a 3 × 4 factorial arrangement. Concentrates containing four levels of crude protein (CP), ranging from 120 to 206 g/kg fresh weight were offered in diets containing either 400, 500 or 600 g concentrates per kg dry-matter (DM) intake. The grass silage offered as the basal forage had a DM concentration of 214 g/kg and a digestible organic matter concentration of 682 g/kg DM.

Milk yields (kg/day) for cows offered diets containing 400, 500 and 600 g concentrates per kg DM were 17·2, 18·1 and 18·3 respectively; and 17·4, 17·6, 18·0 and 18·4 for cows offered diets with concentrates containing 120, 147, 176 and 206 g CP per kg fresh weight respectively (pooled s.e. 0·13). Increasing either the proportion of concentrates in the diet or the CP concentration of the concentrates did not significantly affect milk fat concentration, but did increase milk protein concentration.

There was a trend towards a greater milk-yield response to protein supplementation with low- rather than high-concentrate diets, although it appears that this trend may only be apparent in situations where total food intake is restricted.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 41 , Issue 3 , December 1985 , pp. 269 - 280
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1985

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 Research Council. 1980. The Nutrient Requirements of Ruminant Livestock. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough.Google Scholar
Agricultural Research Council. 1984. The Nutrient Requirements of Ruminant Livestock. Suppl. No. 1. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough.Google Scholar
Butler, T. M. 1973. Sources and levels of protein in cattle feeds. Ir. Grassld Anim. Prod. Ass. J. 8: 24–31.Google Scholar
Castle, M. E. and Watson, J. N. 1975. Silage and milk production: a comparison between barley and dried grass as supplements to silage of high digestibility. J. Br. Grassld Soc. 30: 217–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalmers, J. S. and Thomas, P. C. 1978. The effect of the ratio of forage to concentrate and of the composition of the concentrate mixture on rumen fermentation and milk secretion in cows given silage- based diets. Proc. 20th int. Dairy Congr., Lexington, pp. 60–61.Google Scholar
Cowan, R. T., Reid, G. W., Greenhalgh, J. F. D. and Tait, C. A. G. 1981. Effects of feeding level in late pregnancy and dietary protein concentration during early lactation on food intake, milk yield, liveweight change and nitrogen balance of cows. J. Dairy Res. 48: 201–212.Google Scholar
Cuthbert, N. H., Thickett, W. S. and Wilson, P. N. 1973. The effect of varying protein level in a compound diet fed in conjunction with grass silage. Proc. Br. Soc. Anim. Prod. (New Ser.) 2: 70 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Devendra, C. and Lewis, D. 1973. The interaction between dietary lipids and fibre in the sheep. 1. A comparison of the methods used for crude fibre and acid-detergent fibre estimations. Anim. Prod. 17: 275–280.Google Scholar
Elsden, S. R. and Gibson, Q. H. 1954. The estimation of lactic acid using eerie sulphate. Biochem. J. 58: 154–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ganev, G., Ørskov, E. R. and Smart, R. 1979. The effect of roughage or concentrate feeding and rumen retention time on total degradation of protein in the rumen. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 93: 651–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, F. J. 1979. The effect of protein content of the supplement for dairy cows with access ad libitum to high digestibility, wilted grass silage. Anim. Prod. 28: 183–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, F. J. 1980. The effect of silage type on the performance of lactating cows and the response to high levels of protein in the supplement. Anim. Prod. 30: 29–37.Google Scholar
Gordon, F. J. and Forbes, T. J. 1970. The associative effect of level of energy and protein intake in the dairy cow. J. Dairy Res. 37: 481–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, F. J. and McMurray, C. H. 1979. The optimum level of protein in the supplement for dairy cows with access to grass silage. Anim. Prod. 29: 283–291.Google Scholar
Kelly, N. C., Thomas, P. C. and Chamberlain, D. G. 1980. The effect of dietary inclusions of protein on milk secretion and nitrogen retention in cows given silage-barley diets. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 39: 62A (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Lees, J. A., Garnsworthy, P. C. and Oldham, J. D. 1982. The response of dairy cows in early lactation to supplements of protein given with rations designed to promote different patterns of rumen fermentation. In Forage Protein in Ruminant Animal Production (ed. Thomson, D. J., Beever, D. E. and Gunn, R. G.), Occ. Symp. Br. Soc. Anim. Prod. No. 6, pp. 157–159.Google Scholar
Ling, E. R. 1963. Textbook of Dairy Chemistry. Vol. 2 4th ed. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
Logan, V. S., Miles, V. and Haskell, S. R. 1959. The effect of relative protein and energy content of dairy rations on production and composition of milk. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 39: 226–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMurray, C. H., Logan, E. F., McParland, P. J., McRory, F. I. and O'neill, D. G. 1978. Sequential changes in some blood components in the normal neonatal calf. Br. vet. J. 134: 590–597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayne, C. S. and Gordon, F. J. 1984. The effect of type of concentrate and level of concentrate feeding on milk production. Anim. Prod. 39: 65–76.Google Scholar
Mertens, D. R. and Ely, L. O. 1979. A dynamic model of fiber digestion and passage in the ruminant for evaluating forage quality. J. Anim. Sci. 49: 1085–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland and Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland. 1975. Energy allowances and feeding systems for ruminants. Tech. Bull. 33. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Moir, R. J. and Harris, L. E. 1962. Ruminal flora studies in the sheep. ×. Influence of nitrogen intake upon ruminal function. J. Nutr. 77: 285–298.Google Scholar
Morgan, C. A., Edwards, R. A. and McDonald, P. 1980. Effect of energy and nitrogen supplements on the metabolism and intake of silage. In Forage Conservation in the 80's (ed. Thomas, C.), Occ. Symp. Br. Grassld Soc. No. 11, pp. 363–368.Google Scholar
Oldham, J. D. and Smith, R. H. 1982. Protein/energy interrelationships for growing and for lactating cattle. In Protein Contribution of Feedstuffs for Ruminants, (ed. Miller, E. L., Pike, I. H. and Es, A. J. H. Van) pp. 103–130. Butterworth, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Fraser, C. and McDonald, I. 1972. Digestion of concentrates in sheep. 4. The effects of urea on digestion, nitrogen retention and growth in young lambs. Br. J. Nutr. 27: 491–501.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Hughes-Jones, M. and McDonald, I. 1981. Degradability of protein supplements and utilization of undegraded protein by the high producing dairy cow. In Recent Developments in Ruminant Nutrition (ed. Haresign, W. and Cole, D. J. A.), pp. 17–30. Butterworth, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. and McDonald, I. 1979. The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 92: 499–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, H. D. and Lucas, H. L. 1962. Changeover designs. Tech. Bull. N. Carol, agric. Exp. Stn, No. 147.Google Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. and Gordon, F. J. 1980. The effect of level and system of concentrate allocation to January/ February calving cows on total lactation performance. Anim. Prod. 30: 39–51.Google Scholar
Sutton, J. D. 1984. Feeding and milk fat production. In Milk Compositional Quality and its Importance in Future Markets (ed. Castle, M. E. and Gunn, R. G.), Occ. Symp. Br. Soc. Anim. Prod. No. 9, pp. 43–52.Google Scholar
Thomas, P. C. 1984. Feeding and milk protein production. In Milk Compositional Quality and its Importance in Future Markets (ed. Castle, M. E. and Gunn, R. G.), Occ. Symp. Br. Soc. Anim. Prod. No. 9, pp. 53–68.Google Scholar
Udén, P. 1984. The effect of intake and hay: concentrate ratio upon digestibility and digesta passage. Anim. Feed. Sci. Tech. 11: 167–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van soest, P. J. 1973. Revised estimates of net energy values of feeds. Proc. Cornell Nutr. Conf, pp. 11–23.Google Scholar
Vérité, R., Journet, M. and Jarrige, R. 1979. A new system for the protein feeding of ruminants: the PDI system. Livest. Prod. Sci. 6: 349–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yousef, I. M., Huber, J. T. and Emery, R. S. 1970. Milk protein synthesis as affected by high grain, low- fibre rations. J. Dairy Sci. 53: 734–739.Google Scholar