Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:49:10.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Milk production is unaffected by replacing barley or sodium hydroxide wheat with maize cob silage in rations for dairy cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2014

L. Hymøller ,
A. L. F. Hellwing ,
P. Lund  and
M. R. Weisbjerg
L. Hymøller*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, AU Foulum, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, P.O. Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
A. L. F. Hellwing
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, AU Foulum, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, P.O. Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
P. Lund
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, AU Foulum, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, P.O. Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
M. R. Weisbjerg
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, AU Foulum, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, P.O. Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Starch is an important energy-providing nutrient for dairy cows that is most commonly provided from cereal grains. However, ruminal fermentation of large amounts of easily degradable starch leads to excessive production and accumulation of volatile fatty acids (VFA). VFA not only play a vital role in the energy metabolism of dairy cows but are also the main cause of ruminal acidosis and depressed feed intake. The aim of the present study was to compare maize cob silage (MCS) as an energy supplement in rations for dairy cows with highly rumen-digestible rolled barley and with sodium hydroxide wheat (SHW), which has a higher proportion of by-pass starch than barley. Two studies were carried out: (1) a production study on 45 Danish Holstein cows and (2) an intensive study to determine digestibilities, rumen fermentation patterns and methane emission using three rumen-cannulated Danish Holstein cows. Both studies were organised as a 3×3 Latin square with three experimental periods and three different mixed rations. The rations consisted of grass-clover silage and maize silage (~60% of dry matter (DM)), rapeseed cake, soybean meal, sugar beet pulp and one of three different cereals as a major energy supplement: MCS, SHW or rolled barley (~25% of DM). When MCS replaced barley or SHW as an energy supplement in the mixed rations, it resulted in a lower dry matter intake; however, the apparent total tract digestibilities of DM, organic matter, NDF, starch and protein were not different between treatments. The energy-corrected milk yield was unaffected by treatment. The fat content of the milk on the MCS ration was not different from the SHW ration, whereas it was higher on the barley ration. The protein content of the milk decreased when MCS was used in the ration compared with barley and SHW. From ruminal VFA patterns and pH measures, it appeared that MCS possessed roughage qualities with respect to rumen environment, while at the same time being sufficiently energy rich to replace barley and SHW as a major energy supplement for milk production. The environmental impact, expressed as methane emissions, was not different when comparing MCS, SHW and barley.

Keywords

dairy cowmaize cob silagesodium hydroxide wheatdigestibilitymethane
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Issue 5 , May 2014 , pp. 738 - 747
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2014 

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

Åkerlind, M, Weisbjerg, MR, Eriksson, T, Thøgersen, R, Udén, P, Ólafson, BL, Harstad, OM and Volden, H 2011. Feed analyses and digestion methods. In Norfor – The Nordic feed evaluation system. EAAP Publication no. 130 (ed. H Volden), pp 41–54. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, NL.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, MS 2000. Effects of diet on short – term regulation of feed intake by lactating dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 83, 1598–1624.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bergman, EN 1990. Energy contributions of volatile fatty acids from the gastrointestinal tract in various species. Physiological Reviews 70, 567–590.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bossen, D and Weisbjerg, MR 2009. Allocation of feed based on individual cow live weight changes II: effect on milk production. Livestock Science 126, 273–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bossen, D, Weisbjerg, MR, Munksgaard, L and Højsgaard, S 2009. Allocation of feed based on individual dairy cow live weight changes. I: feed intake and live weight changes during lactation. Livestock Science 126, 252–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broderick, GA 2003. Effects of varying dietary protein and energy levels on the production of lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 1370–1381.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Canibe, N, Højbjerg, O, Badsberg, JH and Jensen, BB 2007. Effect of feeding fermented liquid feed and fermented grain on gastrointestinal ecology and growth performance in piglets. Journal of Animal Science 85, 2959–2971.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Brabander, DL, Cottyn, BG and Boucqué, CV 1992. Substitution of concentrates by ensiled high – moisture maize grain in dairy cattle diets. Animal Feed Science and Technology 38, 57–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Brabander, DL, De Boever, JL, De Smet, AM, Vanacker, JM and Boucqué, CV 1999. Evaluation of the physical structure of fodder beets, potatoes, presses beet pulp, brewers grains, and corn cob silage. Journal of Dairy Science 82, 110–121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Campeneere, S, De Boever, JL and De Brabander, DL 2006. Comparison of rolled, NaOH treated and ensiled wheat grain in dairy cattle diets. Livestock Science 99, 267–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flachowsky, G, Peyker, W, Schneider, A and Henkel, K 1993. Fibre analyses and in sacco degradability of plant fractions of two corn varieties harvested at various times. Animal Feed Science and Technology 43, 41–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gulmez, BH and Turkmen, II 2007. Effect of starch sources with different degradation rates on ruminal fermentation of lactating dairy cows. Revue de Médecine Vétérinaire 158, 92–99.Google Scholar
Hellwing, ALF, Lund, P, Weisbjerg, MR, Brask, M and Hvelplund, T 2012. Technical note: test of a low-cost and animal-friendly system for measuring methane emissions from dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 6077–6085.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hetta, M, Tahir, MN and Swensson, C 2010. Response in dairy cows to increased inclusion of wheat in maize and grass silage based diets. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A – Animal Science 60, 219–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, C, Weisbjerg, MR, Nørgaard, P and Hvelplund, T 2005. Effect of maize silage maturity on site of starch and NDF digestion in lactating dairy cows. Animal Feed Science and Technology 118, 279–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klevenhusen, F, Kreuzer, M and Soliva, CR 2011. Enteric and manure – derived methane and nitrogen emissions as well as metabolic energy losses in cows fed balanced diets based on maize, barley or grass hay. Animal 5, 450–461.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Larsen, M, Lund, P, Weisbjerg, MR and Hvelplund, T 2009. Digestion site of starch from cereals and legumes in lactation dairy cows. Animal Feed Science and Technology 153, 236–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Littell, RC, Milliken, GA, Stroup, WW, Wolfinger, RD and Schabenberger, O 2006. SAS® for MIXED models, 2nd edition, 813pp. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Madsen, J, Weisbjerg, MR and Hvelplund, T 2010. Concentrate composition for automatic milking systems – effect on milking frequency. Livestock Science 127, 45–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mikkelsen, M 2011. Majsvarmeenheder 2001–2010. Retrieved October 25, 2013, from https://www.landbrugsinfo.dk/Kvaeg/Foder/Grovfoder/Majshelsaed-og-kolbemajs/Sider/pl_11_472.aspx#B Google Scholar
Mills, JAN, Kerbreab, E, Yates, CM, Crompton, LA, Cammell, SB, Dhanoa, MS, Agnew, RE and France, J 2003. Alternative approaches to predicting methane emissions from dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science 81, 3141–3150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moe, PW, Tyrrell, HF and Hooven, NN 1973. Energy balance measurements with corn meal and ground oats for lactating cows. Journal of Dairy Science 56, 1149–1153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, WD, Ludden, PA, Nayigihugu, V and Hess, BW 2004. Technical note: a procedure for the preparation and quantitative analysis of samples for titanium dioxide. Journal of Animal Science 82, 179–183.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nozière, P, Ortigues-Marty, I, Loncke, C and Sauvant, D 2010. Carbohydrate quantitative digestion and absorption in ruminants: from feed starch and fibre to nutrients available for tissues. Animal 4, 1057–1074.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nørgaard, P, Nadeau, E and Randby, ÅT 2011. A Nordic structure evaluation system for diets fed to dairy cows: a meta – analysis. In Modelling nutrient digestion and utilisation in farm animals (ed. D Sauvant, J van Milgen, P Faverdin and N Friggens), pp. 112–120. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, NL.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Mara, FP, Murphy, JJ and Rath, M 1997. The effect of replacing dietary beet pulp with wheat treated with sodium hydroxide, ground wheat, or ground corn in lactating cows. Journal of Dairy Science 80, 530–540.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Phipps, RH, Sutton, JD, Humphries, DJ and Jones, AK 2001. A comparison of the effects of cracked wheat and sodium hydroxide treated wheat on food intake, milk production and rumen digestion in dairy cows given maize silage diets. Animal Science 72, 585–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutter, SM, Champion, RA and Penning, PD 1997. An automatic system to record foraging behaviour in free-ranging ruminants. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 54, 185–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoorl, N 1929. Suiker-Titratie (Sugar titration). Chemisch Weekblad 26, 130–134.Google Scholar
Schürch, AF, Lloyd, LE and Crampton, EW 1950. The use of chromic oxide as an index for determining the digestibility of a diet. Journal of Nutrition 50, 629–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sjaunja, LO, Baevre, L, Junkkarinen, L, Pedersen, J and Setälä, J 1991. A Nordic proposal for an energy corrected milk (ECM) formula. In EAAP publication 50: performance recording of animals – state of the art 1990 (ed. P Gaillon and Y Chabert), pp. 156–157. Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation (PUDOC), Wageningen, NL.Google Scholar
Stensig, T, Weisbjerg, MR and Hvelplund, T 1998. Digestion and passage kinetics of fibre in dairy cows as affected by the proportion of wheat starch or sucrose in the diet. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A – Animal Science 48, 129–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storm, AC and Kristensen, NB 2010. Effects of particle size and dry matter content of total mixed ration in intra-ruminal equilibration and net portal flux of volatile fatty acids in lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 4223–4238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilley, JMA and Terry, RA 1963. A two-stage method for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Journal of the British Grassland Society 18, 104–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Umoh, JE and Holmes, W 1976. A note on ensiled ear maize and barley in finishing rations for beef cattle. Animal Production 22, 279–281.Google Scholar
Volden, H and Nielsen, NI 2011. Energy and metabolizable protein. In Norfor – The Nordic feed evaluation system. EAAP Publication no. 130 (ed. H Volden), pp. 81–84. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, NL.CrossRefGoogle Scholar