Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T12:07:32.038Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of forage conservation method, concentrate level and propylene glycol on intake, feeding behaviour and milk production of dairy cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

K. J. Shingfield ,
S. Jaakkola  and
P. Huhtanen
K. J. Shingfield
Affiliation:
Animal Production Research, MTT Agrifood Research Finland, FIN 31600 Jokioinen, Finland
S. Jaakkola
Affiliation:
Animal Production Research, MTT Agrifood Research Finland, FIN 31600 Jokioinen, Finland
P. Huhtanen
Affiliation:
Animal Production Research, MTT Agrifood Research Finland, FIN 31600 Jokioinen, Finland
Get access

Abstract

The current study was conducted to establish if effects on animal performance due to differences in forage composition resulting from conservation method could be compensated for by increases in concentrate feeding or supplements of a gluconeogenic substrate. Thirty-two Finnish Ayrshire dairy cows were used in a cyclic changeover experiment with four 21-day experimental periods and a 4 ✕ 2 ✕ 2 factorial arrangement of treatments to evaluate the effects of forage conservation method, concentrate level and propylene glycol (PG), and their interactions, on intake, feeding behaviour and milk production. Experimental treatments consisted of four conserved forages offered ad libitum, supplemented with two levels of a cereal-based concentrate (7 or 10 kg/day) and PG (0 and 210 g/day) offered as three meals of equal size. Forages were prepared from primary growths of timothy and meadow fescue swards and ensiled using no additive (NA), an inoculant enzyme preparation (IE) or a formic-acid based (FA) additive or conserved as hay 1 week later. Cows given silage-based diets had higher (P 0·001) forage dry-matter (DM) intakes (mean increase 0·76 kg/day), spent less (P 0·001) time eating and chewing (mean response -159 and -119 min/day, respectively) and produced more (P 0·05) energy-corrected milk (ECM), milk fat and milk lactose (respective mean responses 1·52, 0·098 and 0·033 kg/day) than animals given hay-based diets. Use of an additive during ensiling further improved (P 0·05) silage DM intake, ECM yield and milk protein secretion (mean 0.72, 0.70 and 0.038 kg/day, respectively). Dietary inclusion of PG decreased forage DM intake for hay, IE and FA silage-based diets (mean –0·14, –0·16 and –0·42 kg/day, respectively) but elicited positive responses (mean 0·57 kg/day) for cows given NA silage. Furthermore, PG supplementation had no (P > 0·05) effects on ECM yield or milk protein output but depressed (P 0·05) mean milk fat content from 46·6 to 45·6 g/kg. Increases in concentrate feeding were associated with a reduction in the total amount of time cows spent eating, chewing and ruminating and elicited (P 0·001) mean DM intake, ECM yield, milk fat and milk protein responses of 1·5, 1·62, 0·061 and 0·064 kg/day, respectively. Use of a gluconeogenic substrate or increases in concentrate feeding were unable to compensate for variations in animal performance due to forage conservation method.

Keywords

concentratesdairy cowsforagemilk productionpropylene glycol
Type
Ruminant nutrition, behaviour and production
Information
Animal Science , Volume 74 , Issue 2 , April 2002 , pp. 383 - 397
Copyright
Copyright © 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

Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1990. Official methods of analysis, 15th edition. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, VA.Google Scholar
Bertilson, J. 1983. Effects of conservation method and stage of maturity upon the feeding value of forages to dairy cows. Ph. D. thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Animal Nutrition and Management, report 104.Google Scholar
Boever, J. L. de, Andries, J. I., Brabander, D. L. de, Cottyn, B. G. and Buysse, F. X. 1990. Chewing activity of ruminants as a measure of physical structure-a review of factors affecting it. Animal Feed Science and Technology 27: 281–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brabander, D. L. de, Boever, J. L. de, Vanacker, J. M., Boucqué, Ch. V. and Botterman, S. M. 1999. Evaluation of physical structure in dairy cattle nutrition. In Recent advances in animal nutrition (ed. Garnsworthy, P. C. and Wiseman, J.), pp. 111–145. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham.Google Scholar
Campling, R. C. and Balch, C. C. 1961. Factors affecting the voluntary food intake by cows. 1. Preliminary observations on the effect, on the voluntary intake of hay, of changes in the amount of reticulo-ruminal contents. British Journal of Nutrition 15: 523–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chamberlain, D. G. and Choung, J. J. 1993. The nutritional value of grass silage. Proceedings of the 10th international conference on silage research, Dublin City University, Dublin, Republic of Ireland (ed. O’Kiely, P., O’Connel, M. and Murphy, J.), pp. 131–136.Google Scholar
Chamberlain, D. G., Martin, P. A. and Robertson, S. 1989. Optimizing compound feed use in dairy cows with high intakes of silage. In Recent advances in animal nutrition (ed. Haresign, W. and Cole, D. J. A.), pp. 175–193. Butterworths, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chamberlain, D. G., Martin, P. A., Robertson, S. and Hunter, E. A. 1992. Effects of the type of additive and the type of supplement on the utilization of grass silage for milk production in dairy cows. Grass and Forage Science 47: 391–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiofalo, V., Dulphy, J. P. and Baumont, R. 1992. Influence of the method of forage conservation on feeding behaviour, intake and characteristics of reticulo-rumen content, in sheep fed ad libitum. Reproduction, Nutrition, Development 32: 377–392.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cozzi, G., Berzaghi, P., Gottardo, F., Gabai, G. and Andrighetto, I. 1996. Effects of feeding propylene glycol to mid-lactating dairy cows. Animal Feed Science and Technology 64: 43–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cushnahan, A. and Mayne, C. S. 1995. Effects of ensilage of grass on performance and nutrient utilization by dairy cattle. 1. Food intake and milk production. Animal Science 60: 337–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cushnahan, A., Mayne, C. S. and Unsworth, E. F. 1995. Effects of ensilage of grass on performance and nutrient utilization by dairy cattle. 2. Nutrient metabolism and rumen fermentation. Animal Science 60: 347–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, A. W. and Hall, W. B. 1969. Cyclic change-over designs. Biometrica 56: 283–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demarquilly, C. 1973. Composition chimique, caractéristiques fermentaires, digestibilité et quantité des ensilage de fourrage: modifications par rapport au fourrage initial. Annales de Zootechnie 22: 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dhiman, T. R., Cadorniga, C. and Satter, L. D. 1993. Protein and energy supplementation of alfalfa silage diets during early lactation. Journal of Dairy Science 76: 1945–1959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dulphy, J. P., Michalet-Doreau, B. and Demarquilly, C. 1984. Etude comparee des quantities ingérées et du comportment allimentaire et mercyque dovins et de bovines recevant des ensilages d’herbe réalisés selon différentes techniques. Annales de Zootechnie 33: 291–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elizalde, H. F. and Mayne, C. S. 1992. The effects of fermentation characteristics of grass silage on the eating behaviour of dairy cows. Animal Production 54: 464 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Emery, R. S., Brown, R. E. and Black, A. L. 1967. Metabolism of DL-1, 2-propanediol-214C in a lactating cow. Journal of Nutrition 92: 348–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, L. J., Erfle, J. D., Lodge, G. A. and Sauer, F. D. 1973. Effects of propylene glycol or glycerol supplementation of the diet of dairy cows on feed intake, milk yield and composition, and incidence of ketosis. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 53: 289–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedel, K. 1990. [The estimation of the energetic feeding value of roughages by means of a cellulase method.] Wissenschaftliche Zeitung Universitet Rostock, N-Reihe 39: 78–86.Google Scholar
Gill, M., Rook, J. A. and Thiago, L. R. S. 1988. Factors affecting the voluntary intake of roughages by the dairy cow. In Nutrition and lactation in the dairy cow (ed. Garnsworthy, P. C.), pp. 262–279. Butterworths, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, F. J. 1989. An evaluation through lactating cattle of a bacterial inoculant as an additive for grass silage. Grass and Forage Science 44: 169–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heikkilä, T., Huhtanen, P., Jaakkola, S. and Miettinen, H. 1995. Manipulation of milk composition with forage-based diets. In Milk in nutrition effects of production and processing factors (ed. Mantere-Alhonen, S. and Maijala, K.), Proceedings of NJF/NMR seminar number 252, Turku, Finland, NJF report 102, pp. 116–134. University Printing House, Helsinki.Google Scholar
Heikkilä, T., Toivonen, V. and Huhtanen, P. 1998. Effecs of and interactions between the extent of silage fermentation and protein supplementation in lactating dairy cows. Agricultural and Food Science in Finland 7: 329–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heikkilä, T., Väätäinen, H. and Toivonen, V. 1993. Effects of acid and biological additives on grass silage quality and milk production in dairy cows supplemented with concentrates containing three levels of rapeseed meal. Proceedings of the 10th international conference on silage research, Dublin City University, Dublin, Republic of Ireland (ed. O’Kiely, P., O’Connel, M. and Murphy, J.), pp. 190–191.Google Scholar
Huhtanen, P. 1994a. Forage influences on milk composition. In Forage: seeding to feeding (ed. Fredeen, A. F.), Proceedings of Nova Scotia forage conference, The Nova Scotia Forage Council, Darthmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada, pp. 144–162.Google Scholar
Huhtanen, P. 1994b. Forage influences on milk composition. In Forage: seeding to feeding (ed. Fredeen, A. F.), Proceedings of Nova Scotia forage conference, The Nova Scotia Forage Council, Darthmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada, pp. 103–127.Google Scholar
Huhtanen, P. 1998. Supply of nutrients and productive responses in dairy cows given diets based on restrictively fermented grass silage. Agricultural and Food Science in Finland 7: 219–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huhtanen, P., Khalili, H., Nousiainen, J. I., Rinne, M., Jaakkola, S., Heikkilä, T. and Nousiainen, J. 2002. Prediction of the relative intake potential of grass silage by dairy cows. Livestock Production Science 73: 111–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huida, L., Väätäinen, H. and Lampila, M. 1986. Comparison of dry matter contents in grass silage as determined by oven drying and gas chromatographic water analyses. Annales Agriculturae Fenniae 25: 215–230.Google Scholar
Jaakkola, S. and Huhtanen, P. 1993. The effects of preservation method and proportion of concentrate on nitrogen digestion and rumen fermentation in cattle. Grass and Forage Science 48: 146–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaakkola, S., Rinne, M., Heikkilä, T., Toivonen, V. and Huhtanen, P. 1996. Effects of restriction of silage fermentation with formic acid on milk production. Proceedings of the 11th international silage conference, IGER, Aberystwyth, UK (ed. Jones, D. I. H., Jones, R., Dewhurst, R., Merry, R. and Haigh, P. M.), pp. 76–77.Google Scholar
Jones, B. A., Hatfield, R. D. and Muck, R. E. 1992. Effect of fermentation and bacterial inoculation on lucerne cell walls. Journal of Food Science and Agriculture 60: 147–153.CrossRefGoogle 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. 1996. Effects of inoculant treatment on ryegrass silage fermentation, digestibility, rumen fermentation, intake and performance of lactating dairy cattle. Grass and Forage Science 51: 232–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keady, T. W. J. and Murphy, J. J. 1997. The effects of treating low dry matter herbage with a bacterial inoculant or formic acid on the intake and performance of lactating dairy cattle. Animal Science 64: 25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Littell, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W. and Wolfinger, R. D. 1996. SAS® system for mixed models. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
McCullough, H. 1967. The determination of ammonia in whole blood by direct colorimetric method. Clinica Chimica Acta 17: 297–304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayne, C. S. 1990. An evaluation of an inoculant of Lactobacillus plantarum as an additive for grass silage for dairy cattle. Animal Production 51: 1–13.Google Scholar
Mayne, C. S. 1992. An evaluation of the concentrate sparing effect of four silage additives. Animal Production 54: 488 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Mayne, C. S. 1993. The effect of formic acid, sulphuric acid and a bacterial inoculant on silage fermentation and the food intake and milk production of lactating dairy cows. Animal Production 56: 29–42.Google Scholar
Mayne, C. S. and Steen, R. W. J. 1993. A review of animal production responses to formic acid and inoculant treatment of grass silage in trials at the Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland. Proceedings of the 10th international conference on silage research, Dublin City University, Dublin, Republic of Ireland (ed. O’ Kiely, P., O’Connel, M. and Murphy, J.), pp. 52–53.Google Scholar
Morrison, I. M. 1979. Changes in the cell wall components of laboratory silages and the effect of various additives on these changes. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 93: 581–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murdoch, J. C. and Rook, J. A. F. 1963. A comparison of hay and silage for milk production. Journal of Dairy Research 30: 391–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newbold, J. R. 1994. Practical application of the Metabolizable Protein System. In Recent advances in animal nutrition (ed. Garnsworthy, P. C. and Cole, D. J. A.), pp. 231–264. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. C., Yan, T., Gordon, F. J. and Kilpatrick, D. J. 1998. Effects of bacterial inoculation of unwilted and wilted grass silages. 2. Intake, performance and eating behaviour by dairy cattle. An evaluation of an inoculant/enzyme preparation as an additive for grass silage for cattle. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 131: 113–119.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. J. C., Waita, J. M., Arney, D. R. and Chiy, P. C. 1999. The effects of sodium and potassium fertilizers on the grazing behaviour of dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 61: 201–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poppi, D. P., Norton, B. W., Minson, D. G. and Hendricksen, R. E. 1980. The validity of critical size theory for particles leaving the rumen. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 94: 275–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rinne, M., Hellämäki, M., Nousiainen, J., Aura, E. and Huhtanen, P. 1999a. Development of timothy during progressing growth and subsequent nutritional implications. Proceedings of the 12th international silage conference, SLU, Uppsala, Sweden (ed. Pauly, T.), pp. 166–167.Google Scholar
Rinne, M., Jaakkola, S. and Huhtanen, P. 1997. Grass maturity effects on cattle fed silage-based diets. 1. Organic matter digestion, rumen fermentation and nitrogen utilization. Animal Feed Science and Technology 67: 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rinne, M., Jaakkola, S., Kaustell, K., Heikkilä, T. and Huhtanen, P. 1999b. Silages harvested at different stages of grass growth v. concentrate foods as energy and protein sources in milk production. Animal Science 69: 251–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, J. B. and Van Soest, P. J. 1981. The detergent system of analysis and its application to human foods. In The analyses of dietary fibre in foods (ed. W. James, D. T. and Theander, O.), pp. 123–158. Marcell Dekker, New York.Google Scholar
Rogers, G. L., Bryant, A. M., Jury, K. E. and Hutton, J. B. 1979. Silage and dairy cow performance. 1. Digestible energy intake and yield and composition of milk of cows fed pasture and pasture silages. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 22: 511–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seal, C. J. and Reynolds, C. K. 1993. Nutritional implications of gastrointestinal and liver metabolism in ruminants. Nutrition Research Reviews 6: 185–208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shingfield, K. J., Jaakkola, S. and Huhtanen, P. 1998. The influence of forage preservation method, concentrate level and propylene glycol on dry matter intake and milk production. Journal of Dairy Science 81: (suppl. 1) 1257 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Shingfield, K. J., Jaakkola, S. and Huhtanen, P. 2001. Effects of level of nitrogen fertiliser application and various nitrogenous supplements on milk production and nitrogen utilization of dairy cows given grass silage-based diets. Animal Science 73: 541–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shingfield, K. J., Jaakkola, S. and Huhtanen, P. 2002. Effect of forage conservation method, concentrate level and propylene glycol on diet digestibility, rumen fermentation, blood metabolite concentrations and nutrient utilization of dairy cows Animal Feed Science and Technology In press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shingfield, K. J. and Offer, N. W. 1998. Determination of allantoin in bovine milk by high-performance liquid chromatography. Journal of Chromatography B 706: 342–346.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sjaunja, L. O., Baevre, L., Junkkarinen, L., Pedersen, J. and Setälä, J. 1990. A Nordic proposal for an energy corrected milk (ECM) formula. Twenty-seventh session of the International Committee of Recording and Productivity of Milk Animals, Paris, pp. 156–157.Google Scholar
Smith, E. J., Henderson, A. R., Oldham, J. D., Whitaker, D. A., Aitchison, K., Anderson, D. H. and Kelly, J. M. 1993. The influence of an inoculant/enzyme preparation as an additive for grass silage offered in combination with three levels of concentrate supplementation on performance of lactating dairy cows. Animal Production 56: 301–310.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1989. SAS/STAT® user´s guide, version 6, fourth edition. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. 1990. Recent advances in the use of silage additives for dairy cattle. In Management issues for the grassland farmer in the 1990s. British Grassland Society occasional symposium no. 25, pp. 43–52.Google Scholar
Sutton, J. D. 1989. Altering milk composition by feeding. Journal of Dairy Science 72: 2801–2814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutton, J. D., Broster, W. H., Schuller, E., Napper, D. J., Broster, V. J. and Bines, J. A. 1988. Influence of plane of nutrition and diet composition on rumen fermentation and energy utilization by dairy cows. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 110: 261–270.Google Scholar
Teller, E., Vanbelle, M. and Kamatali, P. 1993. Chewing behaviour and voluntary grass silage intake by cattle. Livestock Production Science 33: 215–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, C. 1984. Milk compositional quality and the rôle of forages. In Milk compositional quality and its importance in future markets (ed. Castle, M. and Gunn, R. G.), British Society of Animal Production occasional publication no. 9, pp. 69–76.Google Scholar
Thomas, C. 1987. Factors affecting substitution rates in dairy cows on silage based rations. In Recent advances in animal nutrition (ed. Haresign, W. and Cole, D. J. A.), pp. 205–218. Butterworths, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, C., Gill, M. and Austin, A. R. 1980. The effect of supplements of fishmeal and lactic acid on voluntary intake of silage by calves. Grass and Forage Science 35: 275–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, P. C. and Chamberlain, D. G. 1982. Silage as a foodstuff. In Silage for milk production, technical bulletin 2 (ed. Rook, J. A. F. and Thomas, P. C.), pp. 63–101. National Institute for Research in Dairying-Hannah Research Institute.Google Scholar
Thomas, P. C. and Chamberlain, D. G. 1984. Manipulation of milk compostion to meet market needs. In Recent advances in animal nutrition (ed. Haresign, W. and Cole, D. J. A.), pp. 219–243. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar