Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T11:10:53.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of temporal variation in feed quality and quantity on the diurnal feeding behaviour of dairy cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 June 2019

A. J. John Open the ORCID record for A. J. John [Opens in a new window] ,
S. C. Garcia Open the ORCID record for S. C. Garcia [Opens in a new window] ,
K. L. Kerrisk Open the ORCID record for K. L. Kerrisk [Opens in a new window] ,
M. J. Freeman ,
M. R. Islam  and
C. E. F. Clark
A. J. John*
Affiliation:
Dairy Science Group, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, The University of Sydney, Camden 2570, New South Wales, Australia
S. C. Garcia
Affiliation:
Dairy Science Group, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, The University of Sydney, Camden 2570, New South Wales, Australia
K. L. Kerrisk
Affiliation:
Dairy Science Group, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, The University of Sydney, Camden 2570, New South Wales, Australia
M. J. Freeman
Affiliation:
Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture Dairy Centre, University of Tasmania, Burnie 7320, Tasmania, Australia
M. R. Islam
Affiliation:
Dairy Science Group, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, The University of Sydney, Camden 2570, New South Wales, Australia
C. E. F. Clark
Affiliation:
Dairy Science Group, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, The University of Sydney, Camden 2570, New South Wales, Australia
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The diurnal feeding patterns of dairy cows affects the 24 h robot utilisation of pasture-based automatic milking systems (AMS). A decline in robot utilisation between 2400 and 0600 h currently occurs in pasture-based AMS, as cow feeding activity is greatly reduced during this time. Here, we investigate the effect of a temporal variation in feed quality and quantity on cow feeding behaviour between 2400 and 0600 h as a potential tool to increase voluntary cow trafficking in an AMS at night. The day was allocated into four equal feeding periods (0600 to 1200, 1200 to 1800, 1800 to 2400 and 2400 to 0600 h). Lucerne hay cubes (CP = 19.1%, water soluble carbohydrate = 3.8%) and oat, ryegrass and clover hay cubes with 20% molasses (CP = 11.8%, water soluble carbohydrate = 10.7%) were offered as the ‘standard’ and ‘preferred’ (preference determined previously) feed types, respectively. The four treatments were (1) standard feed offered ad libitum (AL) throughout 24 h; (2) as per AL, with preferred feed replacing standard feed between 2400 and 0600 h (AL + P); (3) standard feed offered at a restricted rate, with quantity varying between each feeding period (20:10:30:60%, respectively) as a proportion of the (previously) measured daily ad libitum intake (VA); (4) as per VA, with preferred feed replacing standard feed between 2400 and 0600 h (VA + P). Eight non-lactating dairy cows were used in a 4 × 4 Latin square design. During each experimental period, treatment cows were fed for 7 days, including 3 days habituation and 4 days data collection. Total daily intake was approximately 8% greater (P < 0.001) for the AL and AL + P treatments (23.1 and 22.9 kg DM/cow) as compared with the VA and VA + P treatments (21.6 and 20.9 kg DM/cow). The AL + P and VA treatments had 21% and 90% greater (P < 0.001) dry matter intake (DMI) between 2400 and 0600 h, respectively, compared with the AL treatment. In contrast, the VA + P treatment had similar DMI to the VA treatment. Our experiment shows ability to increase cow feeding activity at night by varying feed type and quantity, though it is possible that a penalty to total DMI may occur using VA. Further research is required to determine if the implementation of variable feed allocation on pasture-based AMS farms is likely to improve milking robot utilisation by increasing cow feeding activity at night.

Keywords

automatic milking systemruminantfeeding behaviourvariable allocationad libitum
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 13 , Issue 11 , November 2019 , pp. 2519 - 2526
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2019 

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

AFIA 2014. AFIA – Laboratory Method Manual (03/001). Australian Fodder Industry Association Inc., Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
Ankom Technologies 2014a. Acid detergent fiber in feeds: filter bag technique (for A200 and A200I). ANKOM Technologies, Macedon, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Ankom Technologies 2014b. Neutral detergent fiber in feeds: filter bag technique (for A200 and A200I). ANKOM Technologies, Macedon, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) 1995. Official methods of analysis, 16 th edition. AOAC, Arlington, VA, USA.Google Scholar
Bach, A, Iglesias, C, Calsamiglia, S and Devant, M 2007. Effect of amount of concentrate offered in automatic milking systems on milking frequency, feeding behavior, and milk production of dairy cattle consuming high amounts of corn silage. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 5049–5055.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buchman, DT and Hemken, RW 1964. Ad libitum intake and digestibility of several alfalfa hays by cattle and sheep. Journal of Dairy Science 47, 861–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, CEF, Horadagoda, A, Kerrisk, KL, Scott, V, Islam, MR, Kaur, R and Garcia, SC 2014. Grazing soybean to increase voluntary cow traffic in a pasture-based automatic milking system. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 27, 422–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalley, DE, Roche, JR, Moate, PJ and Grainger, C 2001. More frequent allocation of herbage does not improve the milk production of dairy cows in early lactation. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 41, 593–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delagarde, R, Peyraud, JL, Delaby, L and Faverdin, P 2000. Vertical distribution of biomass, chemical composition and pepsin – cellulase digestibility in a perennial ryegrass sward: interaction with month of year, regrowth age and time of day. Animal Feed Science and Technology 84, 49–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeVries, TJ, von Keyserlingk, MAG and Beauchemin, KA 2003. Short communication: diurnal feeding pattern of lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 4079–4082.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibb, MJ, Huckle, CA and Nuthall, R 1998. Effect of time of day on grazing behaviour by lactating dairy cows. Grass and Forage Science 53, 41–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregorini, P 2012. Diurnal grazing pattern: its physiological basis and strategic management. Animal Production Science 52, 416–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregorini, P, Clark, CEF, Jago, JG, Glassey, CB, McLeod, KLM and Romera, AJ 2009. Restricting time at pasture: effects on dairy cow herbage intake, foraging behavior, hunger-related hormones, and metabolite concentration during the first grazing session. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 4572–4580.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Helmreich, S, Hauser, R, Jungbluth, T, Wechsler, B and Gygax, L 2014. Time-budget constraints for cows with high milking frequency on farms with automatic milking systems. Livestock Science 167, 315–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horadagoda, A, Fulkerson, WJ, Nandra, KS and Barchia, IM 2009. Grazing preferences by dairy cows for 14 forage species. Animal Production Science 49, 586–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
John, A, Clark, C, Freeman, M, Kerrisk, K, Garcia, S and Halachmi, I 2016a. Review: milking robot utilization, a successful precision livestock farming evolution. Animal 10, 1484–1492.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
John, A, Clark, C, Freeman, M, Kerrisk, K and Rawnsley, R 2013. Pasture management in two high performing automatic milking systems. In Dairy Research Foundation’s 2013 Symposium, 4–5 July 2013, Kiama, Australia, pp. 99–103.Google Scholar
John, A, Garcia, S, Kerrisk, K, Freeman, M and Clark, C 2016b. Diurnal feeding patterns of dairy cattle and implications for automatic milking systems. In Dairy Research Foundation 2016 Symposium, 15–17 June 2016, Wagga Wagga, Australia, pp. 80–85.Google Scholar
John, AJ, Garcia, SC, Kerrisk, KL, Freeman, MJ, Islam, MR and Clark, CEF 2017. Short communication: the diurnal intake and behavior of dairy cows when access to a feed of consistent nutritive value is restricted. Journal of Dairy Science 100, 9279–9284.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kerrisk, K 2009. Feeding in an automated milking system. In Proceedings of the Dairy Research Foundation’s 2009 Symposium, Camden, Australia, pp. 163–169.Google Scholar
Lyons, NA, Kerrisk, KL and Garcia, SC 2013. Comparison of 2 systems of pasture allocation on milking intervals and total daily milk yield of dairy cows in a pasture-based automatic milking system. Journal of Dairy Science 96, 4494–4504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molfino, J, Clark, CEF, Kerrisk, KL and Garcia, SC 2017. Evaluation of an activity and rumination monitor in dairy cattle grazing two types of forages. Animal Production Science 57, 1557–1562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oddy, VH, Robards, GE and Low, SG 1983. Prediction of in vivo dry matter digestibility from the fibre and nitrogen content of a feed. In Feed information and animal production: proceedings of the second symposium of the International Network of Feed Information Centres, Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough, England, pp. 395–398.Google Scholar
Prescott, N, Mottram, T and Webster, A 1998. Relative motivations of dairy cows to be milked or fed in a Y-maze and an automatic milking system. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 57, 23–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Primary Industries Standing Committee 2007. Nutrient requirements of domesticated ruminants. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Australia.Google Scholar
Schirmann, K, Chapinal, N, Weary, DM, Heuwieser, W, and von Keyserlingk, MAG 2012. Rumination and its relationship to feeding and lying behavior in Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 3212–3217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stobbs, T 1970. Automatic measurement of grazing time by dairy cows on tropical grass and legume pastures. Tropical Grasslands 4, 237–244.Google Scholar
Taweel, HZ, Tas, BM, Dijkstra, J and Tamminga, S 2004. Intake regulation and grazing behavior of dairy cows under continuous stocking. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 3417–3427.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tolkamp, BJ, Kyriazakis, I, Oldham, JD, Lewis, M, Dewhurst, RJ and Newbold, JR 1998. Diet choice by dairy cows. 2. Selection for metabolizable protein or for ruminally degradable protein? Journal of Dairy Science 81, 2670–2680.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, YJ, Doyle, PT and Egan, AR 2014. Diurnal variation in rumen fill of dairy cows grazing Persian clover at different pasture allowances. Animal Production Science 54, 1388–1393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar