Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T10:44:51.565Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of crop maturity on the nutritional value of maize silage for lactating dairy cows. 1. Energy and nitrogen utilization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

S. B. Cammell ,
J. D. Sutton ,
D. E. Beever ,
D. J. Humphries  and
R. H. Phipps
S. B. Cammell
Affiliation:
Centre for Dairy Research, Department of Agriculture, University of Reading, Earley Gate, Reading RG6 6AT, UK
J. D. Sutton
Affiliation:
Centre for Dairy Research, Department of Agriculture, University of Reading, Earley Gate, Reading RG6 6AT, UK
D. E. Beever
Affiliation:
Centre for Dairy Research, Department of Agriculture, University of Reading, Earley Gate, Reading RG6 6AT, UK
D. J. Humphries
Affiliation:
Centre for Dairy Research, Department of Agriculture, University of Reading, Earley Gate, Reading RG6 6AT, UK
R. H. Phipps
Affiliation:
Centre for Dairy Research, Department of Agriculture, University of Reading, Earley Gate, Reading RG6 6AT, UK
Get access

Abstract

Four multiparous Holstein-Friesian cows fitted with simple cannulas in the proximal duodenum and the rumen were offered four diets in a 4 ✕ 4 Latin-square design to evaluate the effect on energy and nitrogen balance of crop maturity of maize when offered as ensiled food with grass silage and a concentrate. Forage maize (cv. Hudson) was ensiled at target dry matter (DM) contents of 230, 280, 330 and 380 g per kg fresh weight (FW). The mean values for volatile corrected DM (VCDM) and starch content of the maize forages as given were 226, 278, 319 and 357 g/kg FW and 180, 263, 327 and 401 g/kg VCDM respectively. Grass silage (GS) containing 247 g VCDM per kg FW was produced from the primary growth of a perennial ryegrass sward. The diets comprised 8·7 kg DM concentrate per day with one of four forage treatments offered ad libitum, in a 3 : 1 DM ratio of maize silage with GS, designated T23, T28, T33 and T38. Each period was of 6 weeks with energy and nitrogen balances conducted in respiration chambers over 6 days in either week 5 or 6. There were no significant effects of maturity on DM intake. Changes in milk yield and composition were not significant but milk protein yield increased significantly (P < 0·05) with maize maturity up to T33 and was linearly related (P < 0·05) to changes in maize silage starch and neutraland acid-detergent fibre (NDF, ADF) content. Total starch intake increased significantly (P < 0·01) with maturity but apparent digestibility of starch was significantly (P < 0·05) reduced only with the most mature maize silage (T38). NDF and ADF intake and amounts digested were not significantly different despite a numerical decline with stage of maturity. Total nitrogen intake and apparent digestibility were not significantly different although there were significant differences (P < 0·05) in the amount of nitrogen excreted as urine, which was greatest on T23 and least on T33, and milk which was least on T23 and greatest on T33. Mean gross energy (GE) intake increased by 17 MJ/day from T23 to T33 but the differences were non-significant. Faecal energy output on T23 was significantly lower (P < 0·05) than the other treatments whilst urine energy on T23 was significantly higher (P < 0·05) compared with T33. Methane energy losses were not significantly different. There were no significant differences between treatments in either GE digestibility or metabolizability, digestible or metabolizable energy (ME) intakes or in the partition of ME to heat, tissue or milk. The calculated ME concentrations of the maize silages were not significantly different with an overall mean of 12·3 MJ/kg VCDM estimated at maintenance intake, or 0·63 MJ/MJ GE. Changes in maize silage composition resulted in a doubling of the ratio of digested starch to digested NDF (0·66, 0·94, 1·10 and 1·21) for treatments T23 to T38 respectively. Despite this large change in digested nutrients no differences in the efficiency of energy utilization were detected.

Keywords

dairy cowsenergy consumptionmaize silage
Type
Ruminant nutrition, behaviour and production
Information
Animal Science , Volume 71 , Issue 2 , October 2000 , pp. 381 - 390
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2000

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

Abdalla, A. L., Sutton, J. D., Phipps, R. H. and Humphries, D. J. 1999. Digestion in the rumen of lactating dairy cows given mixtures of urea-treated whole-crop wheat and grass silage. Animal Science 69: 203–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agricultural and Food Research Council. 1990. Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients. Report no 5, Nutritive requirements of ruminant animals: energy. Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews, Series B: Livestock Feeds and Feeding 60: 729–804.Google Scholar
Agricultural and Food Research Council. 1993. Energy and protein requirements of ruminants. An advisory manual prepared by the AFRC Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Agricultural Research Council. 1980. The nutrient requirements of ruminant livestock. Technical review. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Farnham Royal, UK.Google Scholar
Bal, M. A., Coors, J. G. and Shaver, R. D. 1996. Kernel milkline stage effects on the nutritive value of corn silage for lactating diary cows. Journal of Dairy Science 79: (suppl. 1) 150 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Bechdel, S. I. 1926. Quality of silage for milk production as affected by stage of maturity of corn. Pennsylvania Agricultural Experimental Station, Bulletin 207, pp. 1–16.Google Scholar
Beever, D. E., Cammell, S. B., Sutton, J. D. and Humphries, D. J. 1998. The effect of stage of harvest of maize silage on the concentration and efficiency of utilization of metabolizable energy by lactating dairy cows. In Energy metabolism of farm animals. Proceedings of the 14th international symposium on energy metabolism (ed. McCracken, K., Unsworth, E. F. and Wylie, A. R. G.), pp. 359–362. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Brouwer, E. 1965. Report of sub-committee on constants and factors. In Energy metabolism (ed. Blaxter, K. L.), European Association for Animal Production publication no 11, pp. 441–443. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Cammell, S. B., Beever, D. E., Skelton, K. V. and Spooner, M. C. 1981. The construction of open-circuit calorimeters for measuring gaseous exchange and heat production in sheep and young cattle. Laboratory Practice 30: 115–119.Google Scholar
Cammell, S. B., Beever, D. E., Sutton, J. D., France, J., Alderman, G. and Humphries, D. J. 2000. An examination of energy utilization in lactating dairy cows receiving a total mixed ration based on maize silage. Animal Science 71: In press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cammell, S. B., Thomson, D. J., Beever, D. E., Haines, M. J., Dhanoa, M. S. and Spooner, M. C. 1986. The efficiency of energy utilisation in growing cattle consuming fresh perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne cv. Melle) or white clover (Trifolium repens cv. Blanca). British Journal of Nutrition 55: 669–680.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carr, M. K. V. and Hough, M. N. 1978. The influence of climate on maize production in north-western Europe. In: Forage maize, production and utilisation (ed. Bunting, E. S., Pain, B. F., Phipps, R. H., Wilkinson, J. M. and Gunn, R. E.), pp. 15–55. Agricultural Research Council, London.Google Scholar
Demarquilly, C. 1988. Factors that influence the nutritive value of silage maize. In Quality of silage maize, digestibility and zootechnical performance. Seminar held in Gembloux, Belgium, November 1998.Google Scholar
Gordon, F. J., Porter, M. G., Mayne, C. S., Unsworth, E. F. and Kilpatrick, D. J. 1995. Effect of forage digestibility and type of concentrate on nutrient utilization by lactating dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Research 62: 15–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harrison, J. H., Johnson, L., Riley, R., Xu, S., Loney, K., Hunt, C. W. and Sapienza, D. 1996. Effect of harvest maturity of whole plant corn silage on milk production and component yield, and passage of corn grain and starch into faeces. Journal of Dairy Science 79: (suppl. 1) 149 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Huber, J. T., Graff, G. C. and Engel, R. W. 1965. Effect of maturity on nutritive value of corn silage for lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 48: 1121-1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 1992. Feed composition — UK tables of feed composition and nutritive value for ruminants, second edition. Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, Standing Committee on Tables of Feed Composition. Chalcombe Publications, Canterbury.Google Scholar
Phipps, R. H. 1996. A crop from over there that’s doing rather well over here: forage maize in the diet of the lactating dairy cow. Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society of England 157: 103–115.Google Scholar
Phipps, R. H., Sutton, J. D., Beever, D. E. and Jones, A. K. 2000. The effect of crop maturity on the nutritional value of maize silage for lactating dairy cows. 3. Food intake and milk production. Animal Science 71: 401–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phipps, R. H., Sutton, J. D. and Jones, B. A. 1995. Forage mixtures for dairy cows: the effect on dry-matter intake and milk production of incorporating either fermented or urea-treated whole-crop wheat, brewers’ grains, fodder beet or maize silage into diets based on grass silage. Animal Science 61: 491–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phipps, R. H., Weller, R. F. and Fulford, R. J. 1978. The development of plant components and their effect on the quality of fresh and ensiled forage maize. III. An evaluation in terms of milk production. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 92: 493–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, M. G., Patterson, D. C., Steen, R. W. J. and Gordon, F. J. 1984. Determination of dry matter and gross energy of grass silage. Proceedings of the seventh silage conference, The Queen’s University, Belfast.Google Scholar
Sutton, J. D., Abdalla, A. L., Phipps, R. H., Cammell, S. B. and Humphries, D. J. 1997. The effect of the replacement of grass silage by increasing proportions of urea-treated whole-crop wheat on food intake and apparent digestibility and milk production by dairy cows. Animal Science 65: 343–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutton, J. D., Cammell, S. B., Beever, D. E., Humphries, D. J. and Phipps, R. H. 1998. Energy and nitrogen balance of lactating dairy cows given mixtures of urea-treated whole-crop wheat and grass silage. Animal Science 67: 203–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutton, J. D., Cammell, S. B., Phipps, R. H., Beever, D. E. and Humphries, D. J. 2000. The effect of crop maturity on the nutritional value of maize silage for lactating dairy cows. 2. Ruminal and post-ruminal digestion. Animal Science 71: 391–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyrrell, H. F. and Reid, J. T. 1965. Prediction of the energy value of cow’s milk. Journal of Dairy Science 48: 1215-1223.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed