Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T17:52:04.849Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sward characteristics and performance of dairy cows in organic grass–legume pastures shaded by tropical trees

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 April 2014

D. S. C. Paciullo ,
M. F. A. Pires ,
L. J. M. Aroeira ,
M. J. F. Morenz ,
R. M. Maurício ,
C. A. M. Gomide  and
S. R. Silveira
D. S. C. Paciullo*
Affiliation:
Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária Dairy Cattle, Rua Eugênio do Nascimento, 610, Dom Bosco, 36038330, Juiz de Fora, Minas Gerais, Brazil
M. F. A. Pires
Affiliation:
Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária Dairy Cattle, Rua Eugênio do Nascimento, 610, Dom Bosco, 36038330, Juiz de Fora, Minas Gerais, Brazil
L. J. M. Aroeira
Affiliation:
Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária Dairy Cattle, Rua Eugênio do Nascimento, 610, Dom Bosco, 36038330, Juiz de Fora, Minas Gerais, Brazil
M. J. F. Morenz
Affiliation:
Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária Dairy Cattle, Rua Eugênio do Nascimento, 610, Dom Bosco, 36038330, Juiz de Fora, Minas Gerais, Brazil
R. M. Maurício
Affiliation:
Bio-Engineering Department, Federal University of São João Del Rei, Praça Frei Orlando 170, CEP 36307-352, São João Del Rei, Minas Gerais, Brazil
C. A. M. Gomide
Affiliation:
Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária Dairy Cattle, Rua Eugênio do Nascimento, 610, Dom Bosco, 36038330, Juiz de Fora, Minas Gerais, Brazil
S. R. Silveira
Affiliation:
Bio-Engineering Department, Federal University of São João Del Rei, Praça Frei Orlando 170, CEP 36307-352, São João Del Rei, Minas Gerais, Brazil
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The silvopastoral system (SPS) has been suggested to ensure sustainability in animal production systems in tropical ecosystems. The objective of this study was to evaluate pasture characteristics, herbage intake, grazing activity and milk yield of Holstein×Zebu cows managed in two grazing systems (treatments): SPS dominated by a graminaceous forage (Brachiaria decumbens) intercropped with different leguminous herbaceous forages (Stylosanthes spp., Pueraria phaseoloides and Calopogonium mucunoides) and legume trees (Acacia mangium, Gliricidia sepium and Leucaena leucocephala), and open pasture (OP) of B. decumbens intercropped only with Stylosanthes spp. Pastures were managed according to the rules for organic cattle production. The study was carried out by following a switch back format with 12 cows, 6 for each treatment, over 3 experimental years. Herbage mass was similar (P>0.05) for both treatments, supporting an average stocking rate of 1.23 AU/ha. Daily dry matter intake did not vary (P>0.05) between treatments (average of 11.3±1.02 kg/cow per day, corresponding to 2.23±0.2% BW). Milk yield was higher (P<0.05; 10.4±0.06 kg/cow per day) in the SPS than in the OP (9.5±0.06 kg/cow per day) during the 1st year, but did not significantly differ (P>0.05) in subsequent years. The highest (P<0.05) values for herbage mass and milk yield were observed during the 3rd year. In the SPS, with moderate shade (19% shade relative to a full-sun condition), the grass CP was higher (P<0.05) than in the OP, although the NDF content and digestibility coefficient were not modified. The animals spent more time (P<0.05) idling in the SPS than in OP. The higher legume proportion in the SPS was associated with the higher CP level in B. decumbens relative to the OP, which could explain the better (P<0.05) performance of the cows in silvopastoral areas during the 1st year. However, during the 2nd and 3rd years, similarities in the legume percentages of both systems resulted in similar (P>0.05) milk yields. Low persistence of Stylosanthes guianensis was observed over the experimental period, indicating that the persistence of forage legumes under grazing could be improved using adapted cultivars that have higher annual seed production. The SPS and a diversified botanical composition of the pasture using legume species mixed with grasses are recommended for organic milk production.

Keywords

agroforestrydairy cowforage legumesnutritive valueorganic milk production
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Special Issue 8: Agroecology: integrating animals in agroecosystems , August 2014 , pp. 1264 - 1271
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

Andrade, EJ, Brook, R and Ibraihm, M 2008. Growth, production and carbon sequestration of silvopastoral systems with native timber species in the dry lowlands of Costa Rica. Plant and Soil 30, 11–22.Google Scholar
Aroeira, LJM, Paciullo, DSC, Lopes, FCF, Morenz, MJF, Saliba, ES, Silva, JJ and Ducatti, C 2005. Disponibilidade, composição bromatológica e consumo de matéria seca em pastagem consorciada de Brachiaria decumbens com Stylosanthes guianensis . Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira 40, 413–418.Google Scholar
Aroeira, LJM, Lopes, FCF, Deresz, F, Verneque, RS, Dayrell, MS, Matos, LL, Vasquez, HM and Vittori, A 1999. Pasture availability and dry matter intake of lactating crossbred cows grazing elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum, Schum.). Animal Feed Science and Technology 78, 313–324.Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists 2009. Official methods of analysis, 15th edition. AOAC, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.Google Scholar
Auad, AM, Resende, TT, Silva, DM and Fonseca, MG 2012. Hymenoptera (Insecta: Hymenoptera) associated with silvopastoral systems. Agroforestry Systems 85, 113–119.Google Scholar
Baliscei, MA, Souza, W, Barbosa, OR, Cecato, U, Krutzmann, A and Queiroz, EO 2012. Behavior of beef cattle and the microclimate with and without shade Acta Scientiarum 4, 409–415.Google Scholar
Bocquier, F and González-García, E 2010. Sustainability of ruminant agriculture in the new context: feeding strategies and features of animal adaptability into the necessary holistic approach. Animal 4, 1258–1273.Google Scholar
Boddey, RM, Macedo, R, Tarre, RM, Ferreira, E, Oliveira, OC, Rezende, CP, Cantarutti, RB, Pereira, JM, Alves, BJR and Urquiaga, S 2004. Nitrogen cycling in Brachiaria pastures: the key to understanding the process of pasture decline? Agriculture Ecosystem Environment 103, 389–403.Google Scholar
Cavagnaro, JB and Trione, SO 2007. Physiological, morphological and biochemical responses to shade of Trichloris crinita, a forage grass from the arid zone of Argentina. Journal of Arid Environments 68, 337–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coates, DB, Miller, CP, Hendricksen, RE and Jones, RJ 1997. Stability and productivity of Stylosanthes pastures in Australia. II. Animal production from Stylosanthes pastures. Tropical Grasslands 31, 494–502.Google Scholar
Cruz, P 1997. Effect of shade on the carbon and nitrogen allocation in a perennial tropical grass, Dichanthium aristatum . Journal of Experimental Botany 48, 15–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deinum, B, Sulastri, RD and Seinab, MHJ 1996. Effects of light intensity on growth, anatomy and forage quality of two tropical grasses (Brachiaria brizantha and Panicum maximum var. Trichoglume). Netherlands Journal of Agriculture Science 44, 111–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devkota, NR, Kemp, PD, Hodgson, J, Valentine, I and Jaya, IKD 2009. Relationship between tree canopy height and the production of pasture species in a silvopastoral system based on alder trees. Agroforestry Systems 76, 363–374.Google Scholar
Dias-Filho, M 2000. Growth and biomass allocation of the C4 grasses Brachiaria brizantha and B. humidicola under shade. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira 35, 2335–2341.Google Scholar
Dumont, B, Fortun-Lamothe, L, Jouven, M, Thomas, M and Tichit, M 2013. Prospects from agroecology and industrial ecology for animal production in the 21st century. Animal 7, 1028–1043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária 1999. Brazilian system for soil classification. Centro Nacional de Pesquisa de Solos, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Google Scholar
Fike, JH, Stapies, CR and Sollenberger, LE 2003. Pasture forages, supplementation rate, and stocking rate effects on dairy cow performance. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 1268–1281.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Food and Agriculture Organization 2000. Food safety and quality as affected by organic farming. FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization 2006. World reference base for soil resources 2006: a framework for international classification, correlation and communication. World Soil Resources Report, 103. FAO, Rome, Italy. 145pp.Google Scholar
Gomide, JA, Wendling, IJ, Bras, SP and Quadros, HB 2001. Milk production and herbage intake of crossbred Holstein × Zebu cows grazing a Brachiaria decumbens pasture under two daily forage allowances. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 30, 1194–1199.Google Scholar
Henning, WP, Barnard, HH and Venter, JJ 1995. Effect of grazing cycle on milk production of cows on kikuyu pasture. South African Journal of Animal Science 25, 7–12.Google Scholar
Hovi, M, Sundrum, A and Thamsborg, SM 2003. Animal health and welfare in organic livestock production in Europe: current state and future challenges. Livestock Production Science 80, 41–53.Google Scholar
International Federation of Organic Association Movement 2002. Basic standards for organic production and processing. IFOAM, Victoria, Canada.Google Scholar
Jones, RM and Hargreaves, JNG 1979. Improvements to the dry-weight-rank method for measuring botanical composition. Grass and Forage Science 43, 181–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kallenbach, RL, Kerley, MS and Bishop-Hurley, JG 2006. Cumulative forage production, forage quality and livestock performance from an annual ryegrass and cereal rye mixture in a Pine–Walnut silvopasture. Agroforestry Systems 66, 43–53.Google Scholar
Kendall, PE, Nielsen, PP, Webster, JR, Verkerk, GA, Litllejohn, RP and Matthews, LR 2006. The effect of providing shade to lactating dairy cows in a temperate climate. Livestock Science 103, 148–157.Google Scholar
Kephart, KD and Buxton, DR 1993. Forage quality responses of C3 and C4 perennial grasses to shade. Crop Science 33, 831–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimura, FT and Miller, VL 1952. Chromic oxide measurement: improved determination of chromic oxide in cow feed and faeces. Agricultural Food Chemistry 111, 633–635.Google Scholar
Klusman, C 1988. Trees and shrubs for animal production in tropical and subtropical areas. Plant Research Development 27, 92–104.Google Scholar
Kretschemer, AE and Pitman, WD 2001. Germplasm resources of tropical forage legumes. In Tropical forage plants (ed. A Sotomayor-Rios and WD Pitman), pp. 41–57. CRC Press, London.Google Scholar
Lopes, FCF 2008. Consumo de forrageiras tropicais por vacas em lactação sob pastejo em sistemas intensivos de produção de leite. Cadernos Técnicos de Veterinária e Zootecnia 57, 67–117.Google Scholar
Murgueitio, E, Calle, Z, Uribe, F, Calle, A and Solorio, B 2011. Native trees and shrubs for the productive rehabilitation of tropical cattle ranching lands. Forestry Ecology Management 261, 1654–1663.Google Scholar
National Research Council 2001. Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle, 7th edition. NRC, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Nonaka, I, Takusari, N, Tajima, K, Suzuki, T, Higuchi, K and Kurihara, M 2008. Effects of high environmental temperatures on physiological and nutritional status of prepubertal Holstein heifers. Livestock Science 133, 14–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olanite, JA, Tarawali, SA and Akenova, ME 2004. Biomass yield, quality and acceptability of selected grass-legume mixtures in the moist savanna of west Africa. Tropical Grassland 38, 117–128.Google Scholar
Olivo, CJ, Charão, PS, Ziech, MF, Rossarolla, G and Moraes, RS 2006. Comportamento de vacas em lactação em pastagem manejada sob princípios agroecológicos. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 35, 2443–2450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paciullo, DSC, Castro, CRT, Gomide, CAM, Fernandes, PB, Rocha, WSD, Müller, MD and Rossiello, ROP 2010. Soil bulk density and biomass partitioning of Brachiaria decumbens in a silvopastoral system. Scientia Agricola 67, 401–407.Google Scholar
Paciullo, DSC, Castro, CRT, Gomide, CAM, Maurício, RM, Pires, MFA, Müller, MD and Xavier, DF 2011. Performance of dairy heifers in a silvopastoral system. Livestock Science 141, 166–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rozados-Lorenzo, MJ, Gonzalez-Hernandez, MP and Silva-Pando, FJ 2007. Pasture production under different tree species and densities in an Atlantic silvopastoral system. Agroforestry Systems 70, 53–62.Google Scholar
Samarakoon, SP, Wilson, JR and Shelton, HM 1990. Growth, morphology and nutritive value of shaded Stenotaphrum secundatum, Axonopus compressus and Pennisetum clandestinum . Journal of Agricultural Science 114, 161–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoeneberger, MM 2009. Agroforestry: working trees for sequestering carbon on agricultural lands. Agroforestry Systems 75, 27–37.Google Scholar
Senanayake, SGJ 1995. The effect of different light levels on the nutritive quality of four natural tropical grasses. Tropical Grassland 29, 1111–1114.Google Scholar
Setz, EZF 1991. Métodos de quantificação de comportamento de primatas em estudos de campo. A Primatologia no Brasil 3, 411–435.Google Scholar
Sierra, J, Dulormne, M and Desfontaines, L 2002. Soil nitrogen as affected by Gliricidia sepium in a silvopastoral system in Guadeloupe, French Antilles. Agroforestry Systems 54, 87–97.Google Scholar
Soto-Pinto, L, Anzueto, M, Mendonça, J, Ferrer, GJ and Jong, B 2010. Carbon sequestration through agroforestry in indigeneous communities of Chiapas, México. Agroforestry Systems 78, 39–51.Google Scholar
Sousa, LF, Maurício, RM, Moreira, GR, Gonçalves, LC, Borges, I and Pereira, LGR 2010. Nutritional evaluation of ‘Braquiarão’ grass in association with ‘Aroeira’ trees in a silvopastoral system. Agroforestry Systems 79, 179–189.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute 2001. User’s guide: statistics, version 8.1. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Stobbs, TH 1975. Factors limiting the nutritional value of grazed tropical pasture for beef and milk production. Tropical Grassland 9, 141–150.Google Scholar
Tilley, JMA and Terry, RAA 1963. A two stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Journal of British Grassland Society 18, 104–111.Google Scholar
Tucker, CB, Rogers, AR and Shütz, KE 2008. Effect of solar radiation on dairy cattle behaviour, use of shade and body temperature in a pasture-based system. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 109, 141–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tudsri, S, Prasanpanich, S, Sawadipanich, S, Jaripakorn, P and Iswilanons, S 2001. Effect of pasture production systems on milk production in the central plains of Thailand. Tropical Grassland 35, 246–256.Google Scholar
Van Soest, PJ, Robertson, JB and Lewis, B 1991. A method for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and non starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3583–3597.Google Scholar
Wilson, JR 1996. Shade-stimulated growth and nitrogen uptake by pasture grasses in a subtropical environment. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 47, 1075–1093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamamoto, W, Dewi, IA and Ibahim, M 2007. Effects of silvopastoral areas on milk production at dual-purpose cattle farms at the semi-humid old agricultural frontier in central Nicaragua. Agricultural Systems 94, 368–375.Google Scholar