Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T19:06:35.290Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of offering silage overnight in the early grazing season to autumn-calved cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

K. Aston ,
S. R. Daley  and
B. G. Gibbs
K. Aston
Affiliation:
Animal and Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
S. R. Daley
Affiliation:
Animal and Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
B. G. Gibbs
Affiliation:
Animal and Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
Get access

Abstract

Three experiments were conducted in the early grazing seasons of 1982–84 inclusive. Autumn-calved lactating British Friesian cows grazed a perennial ryegrass pasture either by strip grazing to leave 80 mm residual herbage (SG) or by rotationally grazing six paddocks on a fixed pre-determined cycle (PG). They were offered grazing only or grazing and average quality grass silage (S) or a 1: 1 mix of silage and ensiled brewers' grains (SB) given individually overnight in a cubicle house.

In experiment 1, cows received treatments SG or SGS. The intake of silage dry matter (DM) was 4·3 kg/day and the estimated intakes of herbage DM from measured animal performance were 15·2 and 8·9 kg/day respectively. Milk yields were 18·4 and 15·3 kg/day, the concentrations of fat and protein in the milk were 38·0, 41·8 and 33·3, 30·8 g/kg and live-weight change was +679 and +348 g/day for treatments SG and SGS respectively.

For experiment 2, cows received treatments SG, PG or PGS and grazing stocking rates were 5·2, 5·5 and 11·0 cows per ha respectively. Silage intake was 6·1 kg/day DM and the estimated intakes of herbage DM were 14·2, 15·3 and 7·7 kg/day respectively. Milk yields were 18·2, 18·2 and 16·1 kg/day, the concentrations of fat and protein were 41·6, 39·8, 42·3 and 33·3, 33·0, 30·4 g/kg and live-weight change was +325, +540 and +161 g/day for treatments SG, PG and PGS respectively.

For experiment 3, cows received treatments PG, PGS or PGSB and grazing stocking rates were 5·8, 11·6 and 11·6 cows per ha respectively. The intakes of silage and silage plus brewers' grains DM were 6·5 and 8·5 kg/day. The estimated intakes of herbage DM were 14·2, 7·2 and 7·3 kg/day, milk yields were 18·7, 14·6 and 18·9 kg/day, the concentration of fat and protein in the milk were 37·3, 42·1, 40·3 and 33·4, 32·6, 32·9 g/kg and live-weight change was +425, +415 and +441 g/day for treatments PG, PGS and PGSB respectively.

The results show that offering silage overnight allowed grazing stocking rates to be doubled, raised the concentration of fat in the milk and depressed the yields of milk and protein. When brewers' grains were given with the silage, yields of milk fat and protein were greater compared with when silage was offered alone and the yield of fat was greater than for herbage alone.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , April 1987 , pp. 173 - 181
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1987

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

REFERENCES

Baker, R. D. 1982. Estimating herbage intake from animal performance. In Herbage Intake Handbook (ed. Leaver, J. D.), pp. 77–93. The British Grassland Society, Hurley.Google Scholar
Balch, C. C. 1972. Milk composition. In Handbuch der Tierernahrung. Vol. 2 (ed. Lenkeit, W., Brierem, K. and Crasemann, E.), pp. 259–291. Paul Parey, Hamburg.Google Scholar
Castle, M. E. and Watson, J. N. 1975. Further comparisons between a rigid rotational ‘Wye College’ system and other systems of grazing for milk production. Journal of the British Grassland Society 30: 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castle, M. E. and Watson, J. N. 1976. Silage and milk production. A comparison between barley and groundnut cake as supplements to silage of high digestibility. Journal of the British Grassland Society 31: 191–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, A. J., Mayne, C. S. and Woodcock, S. C. F. 1986. A comparison of two methods for the estimation of herbage intake by lactating dairy cows. Animal Production 42: 457 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Combellas, J. J. and Hodgson, J. 1975. The influence of the level of milk yield established at the start of the grazing season upon the response of spring-calving cows to variation in herbage allowance. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Production (New Series) 4: 113–114.Google Scholar
Corrall, A. J., Lavender, R. H. and Terry, C. P. 1979. Grass species and varieties. Seasonal patterns of production and relationships between yield, quality and date of harvest. Technical Report, Grassland Research Institute, No. 26.Google Scholar
England, P. and Gill, M. 1985. The effect of fish meal and sucrose supplementation on the voluntary intake of grass silage and live-weight gain of young cattle. Animal Production 40: 259–265.Google Scholar
Hodgson, J., Tayler, J. C. and Lonsdale, C. R. 1971. The relationship between intensity of grazing and the herbage consumption and growth of calves. Journal of the British Grassland Society 26: 231–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, C. W. 1974. The Massey grass meter. Dairyfarming Annual, pp. 26–30.Google Scholar
Hourmant, M. 1975. Dynamique de la production fourragère. Les systèmes à base d'herbe. Journées ITEB, pp. 14–15.Google Scholar
Journet, M. and Demarquilly, C. 1979. Grazing. In Feeding Strategy for the High Yielding Dairy Cow (ed. Broster, W. H. and Swan, H.), pp. 295–321. Granada Publishing, St Albans.Google Scholar
Leaver, J. D. 1982. Grass height as an indicator for supplementary feeding of continuously stocked dairy cows. Grass and Forage Science 37: 285–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Du, Y. L. P., Combellas, J., Hodgson, J. and Baker, R. D. 1979. Herbage intake and milk production by grazing dairy cows. 2. The effects of level of winter feeding and daily herbage allowance. Grass and Forage Science 34: 249–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Du, Y. L. P. and Hutchinson, M. 1982. Grazing. In Milk from Grass (ed. Thomas, C. and Young, J. W. O.), pp. 43–57. Billingham, ICI Agricultural Division and Hurley, Grassland Research Institute.Google Scholar
Mayne, C. S., Newberry, R. D. and Woodcock, S. C. F. 1984. The effect of severity of grazing on milk production of grazing dairy cows. Animal Production 38: 524–525 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Phillips, C. J. C. and Leaver, J. D. 1983. The effect of offering silage to set-stocked dairy cows. Animal Production 36: 507 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Phipps, R. H., Bines, J. A., Weller, R. F. and Thomas, J. 1984. Complete diets for dairy cows: the effect of energy concentration and change in energy concentration of a complete diet on intake and performance of lactating dairy cows. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 103: 323–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, D. J. 1986. A comparison of three energy levels in straw mixes used for partial storage feeding of dairy cows. Animal Production 42: 451 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Roberts, D. J. and Leaver, J. D. 1984. Effect of three daytime stocking rates for dairy cows offered silage overnight. Animal Production 38: 524 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Terry, R. A., Osbourn, D. F., Cammell, S. B. and Fenlon, J. S. 1973. In vitro digestibility and the estimation of energy in herbage. Proceedings of the 5th General Meeting, European Grassland Federation, Uppsala, Sweden. Vaxlodling 28: 19–25.Google Scholar
Thomas, C., Aston, K. and Daley, S. R. 1978. The potential of ensiled grass and forage crops for milk production by the autumn-calving dairy cow. Report, Grassland Research Institute. (Mimeograph).Google Scholar
Thomas, C., Aston, K., Tayler, J. C., Daley, S. R. and Osbourn, D. F. 1981. Milk production from silage. 1. The influence of an additive containing formaldehyde and formic acid on the response of lactating heifers and cows to supplementary protein. Animal Production 32: 285–295.Google Scholar