Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T16:59:02.790Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of concentrate factors affecting silage intake of dairy cows: a development of the relative total diet intake index

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 May 2008

P. Huhtanen ,
M. Rinne  and
J. Nousiainen
P. Huhtanen*
Affiliation:
MTT Agrifood Research Finland, Animal Production Research, FI-31600, Jokioinen, Finland
M. Rinne
Affiliation:
MTT Agrifood Research Finland, Animal Production Research, FI-31600, Jokioinen, Finland
J. Nousiainen
Affiliation:
Valio Ltd, Farm Services, P.O. Box 10, FI-00039 Valio, Finland
*
E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The aim of this work was to develop an index describing the relative intake of the total diet by dairy cows, and hence the ability to predict intake responses to changes in both forage and concentrate variables. An evaluation of concentrate factors affecting silage dry matter (DM) intake of dairy cows was conducted based on dietary treatment means from milk production experiments. The data were divided into four subsets according to concentrate treatments used within the experiments: the amount of concentrate supplementation (n = 217), protein supplementation (n = 336), carbohydrate composition (n = 114) and fat concentration of the concentrate (n = 29). The data were subjected to mixed-model regression analysis. Increased concentrate DM intake (CDMI) decreased silage DM intake (SDMI) quadratically. The substitution rate (substitution of silage DM for concentrate DM) increased with improved silage intake potential. SDMI increased quadratically with concentrate protein intake, the response being negatively related to the effective protein degradability (EPD) of concentrates. Replacement of starchy concentrate ingredients with fibrous supplements had a small positive effect on silage intake, whereas increased concentrate fat concentration slightly decreased SDMI. The outcome of concentrate factors influencing total DM intake (TDMI) was used to create a relative CDMI index as follows: CDMI index = 100 + 10 × [(CDMI − 0.1629 × CDMI − 0.01882 × CDMI2 − 5.49) + ((0.9474 × CCPI − 0.4965 × CCPI2) − 2.017 × (CEPD − 0.74)) + 0.00225 × (CNDF − 250) − 0.0103 × (40 − Cfat) − 0.00058 × (CDMI − 8.0) × (SDMI index − 100)], where CDMI = concentrate DM intake (kg/day), CCPI = supplementary concentrate CP intake (kg/day; CP>170 g/kg DM), CEPD = concentrate EPD (g/g), CNDF = concentrate NDF concentration (g/kg DM), Cfat = concentrate fat concentration (g/kg DM) and SDMI index is the relative intake potential of silage (Huhtanen, Rinne and Nousiainen 2007. Animal 1, 758–770). TDMI index was calculated as SDMI index + CDMI index − 100 to describe the relative intake potential of the total diet. For the whole data set (n = 943), one TDMI index unit was equivalent to 0.095 kg/day DM intake, i.e. close to the default value of 0.100 kg. The CDMI index explained proportionally 0.88 of the variation in TDMI within a study with a 0.27 kg/day residual mean-square error (n = 616). The corresponding values for the TDMI index were 0.81 and 0.37 kg/day (n = 943), respectively. The residual mean-square errors in cross-validation were marginally higher. The developed TDMI index can be used to estimate the intake responses to diet changes. It provides an improved basis for practical dairy cow ration formulation and economic evaluation.

Keywords

concentrateforageintake regulationproteinsilage intake potential
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 2 , Issue 6 , June 2008 , pp. 942 - 953
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2008

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

Agnew RE, Offer NW, McNamee BF and Park RS 2001. The development of a system based near infrared spectroscopy to predict the intake of grass silage as the sole feed by the dairy cow. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the British Society of Animal Science, 2001, p. 197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bandyk, CA, Cochran, RC, Wickersham, TA, Titgemeyer, EC, Farmer, CG, Higgins, JJ 2001. Effect of ruminal vs postruminal administration of protein on utilisation of low-quality forage by beef steers. Journal of Animal Science 79, 225–231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benson, JA, Reynolds, CK, Humphries, DJ, Rutter, SM, Beever, DE 2001. Effects of abomasal infusion of long-chain fatty acids on intake, feeding behaviour and milk production in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 79, 1182–1191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dulphy, JP, Demarguilly, C 1994. The regulation and prediction of feed intake in ruminants in relation to feed characteristics. Livestock Production Science 39, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dulphy, JP, Faverdin, P, Jarrige, R 1989. Feed intake: the Fill Unit System. In Ruminant nutrition: recommended allowances and feed tables (ed. R Jarrige), pp. 61–67. INRA, John Libbey Eurotext, London, Paris.Google Scholar
Egan, AR 1977. Nutritional status and intake regulation in sheep. VIII. Relationship between the voluntary intake of herbage by sheep and the protein/energy ration in digestion products. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 28, 907–915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egan, AR, Doyle, PT 1985. Effect of intraruminal infusion of urea on the response in voluntary food intake by sheep. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 36, 483–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faverdin, P, M’hamed, D, Vérité, R 2003. Effects of metabolizable protein on intake and milk production of dairy cows independent of effects on ruminal digestion. Animal Science 76, 137–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferris, CP, Gordon, FJ, Patterson, DC, Mayne, CS, Kilpatrick, DJ 1999. The influence of dairy cow genetic merit on the direct and residual response to level of concentrate supplementation. Journal of Agricultural Science 132, 467–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, DS, Burns, JC, Pond, KR 1987. Modelling ad libitum dry matter intake by ruminants as regulated by distension and chemostatic feedbacks. Journal of Theoretical Biology 126, 407–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hannah, SM, Cochran, RC, Vanzant, ES, Harmon, DL 1991. Influence of protein supplementation on site and extent of digestion, forage intake, and nutrient flow characteristics in steers consuming dormant bluestem-range forage. Journal of Animal Science 69, 2624–2633.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huhtanen, P 1988. The effects of supplementation of silage diet with barley, unmolassed sugar beet pulp and molasses on organic matter, nitrogen and fibre digestion in the rumen of cattle. Animal Feed Science and Technology 20, 259–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huhtanen, P, Jaakkola, S 1993. The effects of the forage preservation method and the proportion of concentrate on digestion of cell wall carbohydrates and rumen digesta pool size in cattle. Grass and Forage Science 48, 155–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huhtanen, P, Khalili, H, Nousiainen, JI, Rinne, M, Jaakkola, S, Heikkilä, T, Nousiainen, J 2002. Prediction of the relative intake potential of grass silage by dairy cows. Livestock Production Science 73, 111–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huhtanen, P, Rinne, M, Nousiainen, J 2007. Evaluation of the factors affecting silage intake of dairy cows: a revision of the relative silage dry-matter intake index. Animal 1, 758–770.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hyppölä, K, Hasunen, O 1970. Dry matter and energy standards for dairy cows. Acta Agralia Fennica 116, 1–59.Google Scholar
Ingvartsen, KL 1994. Models of voluntary food intake in cattle. Livestock Production Science 39, 19–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keady, TVJ, Mayne, CS, Offer, NW, Thomas, C 2004a. Prediction of voluntary intake. In Feed into milk (ed. C Thomas), pp. 1–7. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham, UK.Google Scholar
Keady, TVJ, Mayne, CS, Kilpatrick, DJ 2004b. An evaluation of five models commonly used to predict food intake of lactating dairy cattle. Livestock Production Science 89, 129–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khalili, H, Huhtanen, P 2002. Effect of casein infusion in the rumen, duodenum or both sites on factors affecting forage intake and animal performance of dairy cows fed red clover-grass silage. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 909–918.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Littell, RC, Milliken, GA, Stroup, WW, Wolfinger, RD 1996. SAS® system for mixed models. SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Madsen, J, Hvelplund, T, Weisbjerg, MR, Bertilsson, J, Olsson, I, Spörndly, R, Harstad, OM, Volden, H, Tuori, M, Varvikko, T, Huhtanen, P, Olafsson, BL 1995. The AAT/PBV protein evaluation system for ruminants. A revision. Norwegian Journal of Agricultural Sciences (Suppl. 19), 37.Google Scholar
Mayne, CS, Gordon, FJ 1984. The effect of type of concentrate and level of concentrate feeding on milk production. Animal Production 39, 65–76.Google Scholar
McNamee, BF, Woods, VB, Kilpatrick, DJ, Mayne, CS, Agnew, RE, Gordon, FJ 2005. The prediction of the intake potential of grass silage in the supplemented diets of lactating dairy cows. Livestock Production Science 92, 233–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mertens, DR 1994. Regulation of forage intake. In Forage quality, evaluation and utilization (ed. GC Fahey Jr), pp. 450–493. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI, USA.Google Scholar
MTT 2006. Rehutaulukot ja ruokintasuositukset (Feed tables and feeding recommendations). Agrifood Research Finland. Retrieved March 26, 2007, from http://www.agronet.fi/rehutaulukotGoogle Scholar
Nousiainen J 2004. Development of tools for the nutritional management of dairy cows on silage-based diets. PhD, University of Helsinki. Retrieved March 26, 2007, from http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/maa/kotie/vk/nousiainen.Google Scholar
NRC 2001. National Research Council. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle, 7th revised edition, 381pp. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Oldham, JD 1984. Protein energy relationships in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 67, 1090–1114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onetti, SG, Grummer, RR 2004. Response of lactating cows to three supplemental fat sources as affected by forage in the diet and stage of lactation: a meta-analysis of literature. Animal Feed Science and Technology 115, 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rinne M 2000. Influence of the timing of the harvest of primary grass growth on herbage quality and subsequent digestion and performance in the ruminant animal. PhD, University of Helsinki. Retrieved March 26, 2007, from http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/maa/kotie/vk/rinneGoogle Scholar
Rook, AJ, Gill, M, Willink, RD, Lister, SJ 1991. Prediction of voluntary intake of grass silage by lactating dairy cows offered concentrates at a flat rate. Animal Production 52, 407–420.Google Scholar
Shingfield, KJ, Jaakkola, S, Huhtanen, P 2001. Effects of level of nitrogen fertilizer 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, Vanhatalo, A, Huhtanen, P 2003. Comparison of heat-treated rapeseed expeller and solvent-extracted soya-bean meal protein supplements for dairy cows given grass silage-based diets. Animal Science 77, 305–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shingfield KJ, Ahvenjärvi S, Toivonen V, Vanhatalo A, Huhtanen P and Griinari JM 2008. Effect of incremental levels of sunflower-seed oil in the diet on ruminal lipid metabolism in dairy cows. British Journal of Nutrition 99, 971–983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sjaunja LO, Bævre L, Junkkarinen L, Pedersen J and Setälä J 1991. A Nordic proposal for an energy corrected milk (ECM) formula. In Proceedings of the 27th Biennial Session of the International Committee for Animal Recording (ed. P Gaillon and Y Chabert), pp. 156–157. EAAP Publication No. 50, Pudoc, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
St-Pierre, NR 2001. Integrating quantitative findings from multiple studies using mixed model methodology. Journal of Dairy Science 84, 741–755.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sutton, JD, Morant, SV, Bines, JA, Napper, D, Givens, DI 1993. Effect of altering the starch : fibre ratio in the concentrates on hay intake and milk production by Friesian cows. Journal of Agricultural Science 120, 379–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tesfa, AT 1993. Effects of rape-seed oil supplementation on digestion, microbial protein synthesis and duodenal microbial amino acid composition in ruminants. Animal Feed Science and Technology 41, 313–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, C 1987. Factors affecting the substitution rates in dairy cows on silage based rations. In Recent advances in animal nutrition (ed. W Haresign and DJA Cole), pp. 205–218. Butterworths, London, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuori, M, Kaustell, KV, Huhtanen, P 1998. Comparison of the protein evaluation systems of feeds for dairy cows. Livestock Production Science 55, 33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vadiveloo, J, Holmes, W 1979. Prediction of the voluntary feed intake of dairy cows. Journal of Agricultural Science 93, 553–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Huhtanen, Rinne and Nousiainen supplementary material

Appendix 1

Download Huhtanen, Rinne and Nousiainen supplementary material(File)
File 56.3 KB