Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:19:23.742Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of grass silage-to-maize silage ratio and concentrate composition on methane emissions, performance and milk composition of dairy cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2015

K. J. Hart ,
J. A. Huntington ,
R. G. Wilkinson ,
C. G. Bartram  and
L. A. Sinclair
K. J. Hart
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Production, Welfare and Veterinary Sciences, Harper Adams University, Edgmond, Newport, Shropshire TF10 8NB, UK
J. A. Huntington
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Production, Welfare and Veterinary Sciences, Harper Adams University, Edgmond, Newport, Shropshire TF10 8NB, UK
R. G. Wilkinson
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Production, Welfare and Veterinary Sciences, Harper Adams University, Edgmond, Newport, Shropshire TF10 8NB, UK
C. G. Bartram
Affiliation:
Mole Valley Farmers Ltd., Exmoor House, Lime Way, South Molton, Devon EX36 3LH, UK
L. A. Sinclair*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Production, Welfare and Veterinary Sciences, Harper Adams University, Edgmond, Newport, Shropshire TF10 8NB, UK
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

It is well-established that altering the proportion of starch and fibre in ruminant diets can alter ruminal and post-ruminal digestion, although quantitative evidence that this reduces enteric methane (CH4) production in dairy cattle is lacking. The objective of this study was to examine the effect of varying grass-to-maize silage ratio (70 : 30 and 30 : 70 DM basis), offered ad libitum, with either a concentrate that was high in starch or fibre, on CH4 production, intake, performance and milk composition of dairy cows. A total of 20 cows were allocated to one of the four experimental diets in a two-by-two factorial design run as a Latin square with each period lasting 28 days. Measurements were conducted during the final 7 days of each period. Cows offered the high maize silage ration had a higher dry matter intake (DMI), milk yield, milk energy output and lower CH4 emissions when expressed per kg DMI and per unit of ingested gross energy, but there was no difference in total CH4 production. Several of the milk long-chain fatty acids (FA) were affected by forage treatment with the most notable being an increase in 18:0, 18:1 c9, 18:2 c9 c12 and total mono unsaturated FA, observed in cows offered the higher inclusion of maize silage, and an increase in 18:3 c9 c12 c15 when offered the higher grass silage ration. Varying the composition of the concentrate had no effect on DMI or milk production; however, when the high-starch concentrate was fed, milk protein concentration and milk FAs, 10:0, 14:1, 15:0, 16:1, increased and 18:0 decreased. Interactions were observed for milk fat concentration, being lower in cows offered high-grass silage and high-fibre concentrates compared with the high-starch concentrate, and FA 17:0, which was the highest in milk from cows fed the high-grass silage diet supplemented with the high-starch concentrate. In conclusion, increasing the proportion of maize silage in the diets of dairy cows increased intake and performance, and reduced CH4 production, but only when expressed on a DM or energy intake basis, whereas starch-to-fibre ratio in the concentrate had little effect on performance or CH4 production.

Keywords

methanedairy cowsforageSF6 tracer
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 9 , Issue 6 , June 2015 , pp. 983 - 991
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2015 

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

AFRC 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
Alderman, G 1985. Prediction of the energy value of compound feeds. In Recent advances in animal nutrition - 1985 (ed. W Haresign and DJA Cole), pp. 3–52. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
AOAC 1995. Official methods of analysis, 16th edition. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Beauchemin, KA, Kreuzer, M, O’Mara, F and Mc Allister, TA 2008. Nutritional management for enteric methane abatement: a review. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 21–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benchaar, C, Hassabat, F, Gervais, R, Chouinard, PY, Petit, HV and Masse, DI 2014. Methane production, digestion, ruminal fermentation, nitrogen balance, and milk production of cows fed corn silage- or barley silage-based diets. Journal of Dairy Science 97, 961–974.Google Scholar
Boadi, DA, Wittenberg, KM and Kennedy, AD 2002. Validation of the sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) tracer gas technique for measurement of methane and carbon dioxide production by cattle. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 82, 125–131.Google Scholar
Chilliard, Y, Ferlay, A and Doreau, M 2001. Effect of different types of forages, animal fat or marine oils in cow’s diet on milk fat secretion and composition, especially conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) and polyunsaturated fatty acids. Livestock Production Science 70, 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chilliard, Y, Ferlay, A, Mansbridge, RM and Doreau, M 2000. Ruminant milk fat plasticity: nutritional control of saturate, polyunsaturated, trans and conjugated fatty acids. Annals of Zootechnology 49, 181–205.Google Scholar
Creamer, KK, Pearce, LE, Hill, PJ and Boland, MJ 2002. Milk and dairy products in the 21st century prepared for the 50th anniversary of the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry 50, 7187–7719.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DEFRA 2010. Ruminant nutrition regimes to reduce methane & nitrogen emissions. Report AC0209. Retrieved December 15, 2014, from http://sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=AC0209_10114_FRP.pdf Google Scholar
Eckard, RJ, Grainger, C and de Klein, CAM 2010. Options for the abatement of methane and nitrous oxide from ruminant production: a review. Livestock Science 130, 47–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faithfull, NT 1990. Acid hydrolysis prior to automatic analysis for starch. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 50, 419–421.Google Scholar
Flint, HJ, Bayer, EA, Rincon, MT, Lamed, R and White, BA 2008. Polysaccharide utilization by gut bacteria: potential for new insights from genomic analysis. Nature Reviews Microbiology 6, 121–131.Google Scholar
Givens, DI 2010. Milk and meat in our diet: good or bad for health? Animal 4, 1941–1952.Google Scholar
Hassanant, F, Gervais, R, Julien, C, Masse, DI, Lettat, A, Chouinard, PY, Petit, HV and Benchaar, C 2013. Replacing alfalfa silage with corn silage in dairy cow diets: effects on eneteric methane production, ruminal fermentation, digestion, N balance and milk production. Journal of Dairy Science 96, 4553–4567.Google Scholar
HMSO 1986. Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, London, UK.Google Scholar
Johnson, K, Huyler, M, Westburg, H, Lamb, B and Zimmerman, P 1994. Measurement of methane emissions from ruminant livestock. Using a SF6 tracer technique. Environmental Science and Technology 28, 359–362.Google Scholar
Kliem, KE, Morgan, R, Humphries, DJ, Shingfield, KJ and Givens, DI 2008. Effect of replacing grass silage with maize silage in the diet on bovine milk fatty acid composition. Animal 2, 1850–1858.Google Scholar
Lassey, KR and Ulyatt, MJ 2000. Methane emissions by grazing ruminants. In Non-CO2 greenhouse gases: scientific understanding, control and implementation (ed. J van Ham, APM Baede, LA Meyer and R Ybema), pp. 101–106. Springer, the Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latham, MJ, Sharpe, ME and Sutton, JD 1971. The microbial flora of the rumen of cows fed hay and high cereal rations and its relationship to the rumen fermentation. Journal of Applied Bacteriology 34, 425–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lock, AL, Teles, BM, Perfield, JW, Bauman, DE and Sinclair, LA 2006. A conjugated linoleic acid supplement containing trans-10, cis-12 reduces milk fat synthesis in lactating sheep. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 1525–1532.Google Scholar
MAFF 1986. The analysis of agricultural materials (Reference book 427). HMSO, London, UK.Google Scholar
Martin, C, Morgavi, DP and Doreau, M 2010. Methane mitigation in ruminants: from microbe to the farm scale. Animal 4, 351–365.Google Scholar
McGeough, EJ, O’Kiely, P, Hart, KJ, Moloney, AP, Boland, TM and Kenny, DA 2010. Methane emissions, feed intake, performance, digestibility, and rumen fermentation of finishing beef cattle offered whole-crop wheat silages differing in grain content. Journal of Animal Science 88, 2703–2716.Google Scholar
McGinn, SM, Chung, YH, Beauchamin, KA, Iwassa, AD and Grainger, C 2009. Use of corn distillers’ dried grains to reduce enteric methane loss from beef cattle. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 89, 409–413.Google Scholar
Mills, JA, Dijkstra, J, Bannink, A, Cammell, SB, Kebreab, E and France, J 2001. A mechanistic model of whole-tract digestion and methanogenesis in the lactating dairy cow: model development, evaluation, and application. Journal of Animal Science 79, 1584–1597.Google Scholar
Moe, PW and Tyrrell, HF 1979. Methane production in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 62, 1583–1586.Google Scholar
Mulligan, FJ, Quirke, J, Rath, M, Caffrey, PJ and O’Mara, FP 2002. Intake, digestibility, milk production and kinetics of digestion and passage for diets based on maize or grass silage fed to late lactation dairy cows. Livestock Production Science 74, 113–124.Google Scholar
Muñoz, C, Yan, T, Wills, DA, Murray, S and Gordon, AW 2012. Comparison of the sulfur hexafluoride tracer and respiration chamber techniques for estimating methane emissions and correction for rectum methane output from dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 3139–3148.Google Scholar
O’Mara, FP, Fitzgerald, JJ, Murphy, JJ and Rath, M 1998. The effect on milk production of replacing grass silage with maize silage in the diet of dairy cows. Livestock Production Science 55, 79–87.Google Scholar
Orskov, ER 1986. Starch digestion and utilization in ruminants. Journal of Animal Science 63, 1624–1633.Google Scholar
Rook, JAF and Balch, CC 1961. The effects of intraruminal infusions of acetic, propionic, and butyric acids on the yield and composition of the milk of the cow. British Journal of Nutrition 15, 361–369.Google Scholar
Rotz, CA, Montes, F and Chianese, DS 2010. The carbon footprint of dairy production systems through partial life cycle assessment. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 1266–1282.Google Scholar
Russell, JB 1998. The importance of pH in the regulation of ruminal acetate to propionate ratio and methane production in vitro. Journal of Dairy Science 81, 3222–3230.Google Scholar
Saetnan, ER, Veneman, J and Newbold, CJ 2012. Evaluation of dietary additives for enteric emission mitigation – a meta-analysis. Proceedings of the 8th INRA-Rowett symposium on Gut Microbiology, Gut microbiota: friend or foe? June 17 to 20, 2012 Clermont-Ferrand, France.Google Scholar
SAS 2004. SAS/FSP 9.1 procedures guide. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Sinclair, LA, Jackson, MA, Huntington, JA and Readman, RJ 2005. The effects of processed and urea-treated whole-crop wheat, maize silage and supplement type to whole-crop wheat on the performance of dairy cows. Livestock Production Science 95, 1–10.Google Scholar
Smith, P, Bustamante, M, Ahammad, H, Clark, H, Dong, H, Elsiddig, EA, Haberl, H, Harper, R, House, J, Jafari, M, Masera, O, Mbow, C, Ravindranath, NH, Rice, CW, Robledo Abad, C, Romanovskaya, A, Sperling, F and Tubiello, F 2014. Agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU). In Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. contribution of working group III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (ed. O Edenhofer, R Pichs-Madruga, Y Sokona, E Farahani, S Kadner, K Seyboth, A Adler, I Baum, S Brunner, P Eickemeier, B Kriemann, J Savolainen, S Schlömer, C von Stechow, T Zwickel and JC Minx), pp. 811–922. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Solomon, S, Qin, D, Manning, M, Alley, RB, Berntsen, T, Bindoff, NL, Chen, Z, Chidthaisong, A, Gregory, JM, Hegerl, GC, Heimann, M, Hewitson, B, Hoskins, BJ, Joos, F, Jouzel, J, Kattsov, V, Lohmann, U, Matsuno, T, Molina, M, Nicholls, N, Overpeck, J, Raga, G, Ramaswamy, V, Ren, J, Rusticucci, M, Somerville, R, Stocker, TF, Whetton, P, Wood, RA and Wratt, D 2007. Technical summary. In Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (ed. S Solomon, D Qin, M Manning, Z Chen, M Marquis, KB Averyt, M Tignor and HL Miller), pp. 19–91. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Sutton, JD 1986. Milk composition. In Principles and practise of feeding dairy cows. Technical Bulletin 8 (ed. WH Broster, RH Phipps and CL Johnson), pp. 203–218, National Institute for Research in Dairying, Reading, UK.Google Scholar
Thomas, C ed. 2004. Feed into Milk: a new applied system for dairy cows: an advisory manual. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham, UK.Google Scholar
Van Soest, PJ, Robertson, JB and Lewis, BA 1991. Methods for dietary fibre, neutral detergent fibre and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3583–3597.Google Scholar
Vellinga, TV and Hoving, IE 2011. Maize silage for dairy cows: mitigation of methane emissions can be offset by land use change. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 89, 413–426.Google Scholar