Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T12:22:03.895Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of pressed beet pulp silage inclusion in maize-based rations on performance of high-yielding dairy cows and parameters of rumen fermentation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 August 2009

J. Boguhn ,
H. Kluth ,
M. Bulang ,
T. Engelhard  and
M. Rodehutscord
J. Boguhn*
Affiliation:
Institut für Tierernährung, Universität Hohenheim, Emil-Wolff-Straße 10, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany
H. Kluth
Affiliation:
Institut für Agrar- und Ernährungswissenschaften, Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Emil-Abderhalden-Straße 26, 06099 Halle (Saale), Germany
M. Bulang
Affiliation:
Institut für Agrar- und Ernährungswissenschaften, Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Emil-Abderhalden-Straße 26, 06099 Halle (Saale), Germany
T. Engelhard
Affiliation:
Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft, Forsten und Gartenbau, Zentrum für Tierhaltung und Technik Iden, Lindenstraße 18, 39606 Iden, Germany
M. Rodehutscord
Affiliation:
Institut für Tierernährung, Universität Hohenheim, Emil-Wolff-Straße 10, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Beet pulp contains high amounts of pectins that can reduce the risk of rumen disorders compared to using feedstuffs high in starch. The objective was to study the effects of inclusion of ensiled pressed beet pulp in total mixed rations (TMR) for high-yielding dairy cows. Two TMR containing no or about 20% (on dry matter (DM) basis) beet pulp silage were used. The beet pulp silage mainly replaced maize silage and corn cob silage. The TMR were intentionally equal in the concentrations of energy and utilisable crude protein (CP) at the duodenum. TMR were fed to 39 and 40 dairy cows, respectively, for 118 days. The average daily milk yield was about 43 kg/day. No significant differences in milk yield and milk fat or milk protein content were detected. DM intake of cows was significantly reduced by the inclusion of beet pulp silage (23.0 v. 24.5 kg/day). However, a digestibility study, separately conducted with sheep, showed a significantly higher organic matter digestibility and metabolisable energy concentration for the TMR that contained beet pulp silage. In vitro gas production kinetics indicated that the intensity of fermentation was lower in the TMR that contained beet pulp silage. In vitro production of short-chain fatty acids, studied using a Rusitec, did not differ between the TMR. However, the inclusion of beet pulp silage in the ration caused a significant reduction in the efficiency of microbial CP synthesis in vitro. The amino acid profile of microbial protein remained unchanged. It was concluded that beet pulp silage has specific effects on ruminal fermentation that may depress feed intake of cows but improve digestibility. An inclusion of beet pulp silage of up to 20% of DM in rations for high-yielding dairy cows is possible without significant effects on milk yield and milk protein or milk fat.

Keywords

beet pulp silagemilk yieldmixed rationdigestibilityfermentation
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , January 2010 , pp. 30 - 39
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2009

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

Abel, H, Schröder, A, Lebzien, P, Flachowsky, G 2006. Effects of defaunation on fermentation characteristics and biotin balance in an artificial rumen-simulation system (RUSITEC) receiving diets with different amounts and types of cereal. British Journal of Nutrition 95, 99–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ali, TE, Schaeffer, LR 1987. Accounting for covariances among test day milk yields in dairy cows. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 67, 637–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, MS 1996. Physical constraints on voluntary intake of forages by ruminants. Journal of Animal Science 74, 3063–3075.Google 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.Google Scholar
Ausschuss für Bedarfsnormen (AfBN) 1991. Leitlinien für die Bestimmung der Verdaulichkeit von Rohnährstoffen an Wiederkäuern. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 65, 229–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, A, Yoon, IK, Stern, MD, Jung, HG, Chester-Jones, H 1999. Effects of type of carbohydrate supplementation to lush pasture on microbial fermentation in continuous culture. Journal of Dairy Science 82, 153–160.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beuvink, JMW, Kogut, J 1993. Modeling gas production kinetics of grass silages incubated with buffered ruminal fluid. Journal of Animal Science 71, 1041–1046.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bhatti, SA, Firkins, JL 1995. Kinetics of hydration and functional specific gravity of fibrous feed by-products. Journal of Animal Science 73, 1449–1458.Google Scholar
Boguhn, J, Kluth, H, Bulang, M, Engelhard, T, Spilke, J, Rodehutscord, M 2008. Effects of using thermally treated lupins instead of soybean meal and rapeseed meal in total mixed rations on in vitro microbial yield and performance of dairy cows. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 92, 694–704.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boguhn, J, Kluth, H, Rodehutscord, M 2006. Effect of total mixed ration composition on fermentation and efficiency of ruminal microbial crude protein synthesis in vitro. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 1580–1591.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boisen, S, Hvelplund, T, Weisbjerg, MR 2000. Ideal amino acid profiles as a basis for feed protein evaluation. Livestock Production Science 64, 239–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bulang, M, Kluth, H, Engelhard, T, Spilke, J, Rodehutscord, M 2006. Zum Einsatz von Luzernesilage bei Kühen mit hoher Milchleistung. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 90, 89–102.Google Scholar
Clark, PW, Armentano, LE 1997. Influence of particle size on the effectiveness of beet pulp fiber. Journal of Dairy Science 80, 898–904.Google Scholar
Clark, JH, Klusmeyer, TH, Cameron, MR 1992. Symposium: Nitrogen metabolism and amino acid nutrition in dairy cattle: Microbial protein synthesis and flows of nitrogen fractions to the duodenum of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 75, 2304–2323.Google Scholar
Czerkawski, JW, Breckenridge, G 1977. Design and development of a long-term rumen simulation technique (Rusitec). British Journal of Nutrition 38, 371–384.Google Scholar
DePeters, EJ, Fadel, JG, Arosemena, A 1997. Digestion kinetics of neutral detergent fiber and chemical composition within some selected by-product feedstuffs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 67, 127–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deutsche Landwirtschafts-Gesellschaft (DLG) 1997. DLG – Futterwerttabellen, Wiederkäuer, Universität Hohenheim, Dokumentationsstelle. DLG-Verlag, Frankfurt/Main, Germany.Google Scholar
Deutsche Landwirtschafts-Gesellschaft (DLG) 2000. DLG-Information: Empfehlungen zum Einsatz von Mischrationen bei Milchkühen. DLG Verlags GmbH, Frankfurt/Main, Germany.Google Scholar
De Visser, H, Hindle, VA 1990. Dried beet pulp, pressed beet pulp and maize silage as substitutes for concentrates in dairy cow rations. 1. Feeding value, feed intake, milk production and milk composition. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 38, 77–88.Google Scholar
Geissler, C, Hoffmann, M, Hickel, B 1976. Ein Beitrag zur gaschromatographischen Bestimmung flüchtiger Fettsäuren. Archiv für Tierernährung 26, 123–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gesellschaft für Ernährungsphysiologie (GfE) 2001. Empfehlungen zur Energie- und Nährstoffversorgung der Milchkühe und Aufzuchtrinder. DLG Verlags GmbH, Frankfurt/Main, Germany.Google Scholar
Gordon, CH, Derbyshire, JC, Jacobson, WC, Humphrey, JL 1965. Effects of dry matter in low-moisture silage on preservation, acceptability, and feeding value for dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 48, 1062–1068.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hemingway, RG, Parkins, JJ, Fraser, J 1986. Sugar beet pulp products for dairy cows. Animal Feed Science and Technology 15, 123–127.Google Scholar
Horn, M, Erdmann, A 1978. Zu einem häufig begangenen Fehler beim statistischen Vergleich von Populationen mit Hilfe von Vertrauensintervallen. Zeitschrift für Versuchstierkunde 20, 229–232.Google Scholar
Howard, BH 1961. Fermentation of pectin by rumen bacteria. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 20, XXIX–XXX.Google Scholar
Huhtanen, P 1987. The effect of dietary inclusion of barley, unmolassed sugar beet pulp and molasses on milk production, digestibility and digesta passage in dairy cows given silage based diet. Journal of Agricultural Science in Finland 59, 101–120.Google Scholar
Huhtanen, P 1988. The effects of barley, unmolassed sugar-beet pulp and molasses supplements on organic matter, nitrogen and fibre digestion in the rumen of cattle given a silage diet. Animal Feed Science and Technology 20, 259–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jørgensen, K 1957. Titrimetric determination of the net excretion of acid/base in urine. The Scandinavian Journal of Clinical and Laboratory Investigation 9, 287–291.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kamphues, J, Dayen, M 1983. Pressschnitzel – Bedeutung und Wert in der Tierernährung. Übersichten Tierernährung 11, 155–202.Google Scholar
Kelly, P 1983. Sugar beet pulp – a review. Animal Feed Science and Technology 8, 1–18.Google Scholar
Kenward, MG, Roger, JH 1997. Small sample inference for fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. Biometrics 53, 983–997.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kutas, F 1965. Determination of net acid-base excretion in the urine of cattle. Acta Veterinaria Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 15, 147–153.Google ScholarPubMed
Lachmann, G, Schäfer, M 1985. Diagnostik fütterungsbedingter metabolischer Azidosen und Alkalosen beim Rind. Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Karl-Marx-Universität Leipzig, Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe 34, 466–474.Google Scholar
Mansfield, HR, Stern, MD, Otterby, DE 1994. Effects of beet pulp and animal by-products on milk yield and in vitro fermentation by rumen microorganisms. Journal of Dairy Science 77, 205–216.Google Scholar
Marounek, M, Bartos, S, Brezina, P 1985. Factors influencing the production of volatile fatty acids from hemicellulose, pectin and starch by mixed culture of rumen microorganisms. Zeitschrift für Tierphysiologie, Tierernährung und Futtermittelkunde 53, 50–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDougall, EI 1948. Studies on ruminant saliva. 1. The composition and output of sheep’s saliva. The Biochemical Journal 43, 99–109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mielenz, N, Spilke, J, Krecjova, H, Schüler, L 2006. Statistical analysis of test-day milk yields using random regression models for the comparison of feeding groups during the lactation period. Archives of Animal Nutrition 60, 341–357.Google Scholar
Naumann, C, Bassler, R 1976. VDLUFA-Methodenbuch, vol. III. Die chemische Untersuchung von Futtermitteln. With supplements from 1983, 1988, 1993, 1997, 2004 and 2006. VDLUFA-Verlag, Darmstadt, Germany.Google Scholar
Oba, M, Allen, MS 1999. Evaluation of the importance of the digestibility of neutral detergent fiber from forage: effects on dry matter intake and milk yield of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 82, 589–596.Google Scholar
Oltner, R, Wiktorsson, H 1983. Urea concentrations in milk and blood as influenced by feeding varying amounts of protein and energy to dairy cows. Livestock Production Science 10, 457–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parkins, JJ, Hemingway, RG, Fraser, J 1986. A note on dried, molassed sugar-beet pulp and unmolassed, pressed sugar-beet pulp as comparative foods for dairy cows. Animal Production 43, 351–354.Google Scholar
Rodehutscord, M, Kapocius, M, Timmler, R, Dieckmann, A 2004. Linear regression approach to study amino acid digestibility in broiler chickens. British Poultry Science 45, 85–92.Google Scholar
Schröder, UJ, Staufenbiel, R 2006. Invited review: Methods to determine body fat reserves in the dairy cow with special regard to ultrasonographic measurement of backfat thickness. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 1–14.Google Scholar
Seng, M, Bonorden, S, Nissen, J, Isselstein, J, Abel, H 2008. Fermentation patterns and nutrient contents of forb-containing silages and their effects on microbial fermentation in the artificial rumen system RUSITEC. Journal of Agricultural Science 146, 333–341.Google Scholar
Sudweeks, EM, Ely, LO, Mertens, DR, Sisk, LR 1981. Assessing minimum amounts and form of roughages in ruminant diets: Roughage value index system. Journal of Animal Science 53, 1406–1411.Google Scholar
Tamminga, S, van Vuuren, AM, van Der Koelen, CJ, Ketelaar, RS, van der Togt, PL 1990. Ruminal behaviour of structural carbohydrates, non-structural carbohydrates and crude protein from concentrate ingredients in dairy cows. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 38, 513–526.Google Scholar
van Es, AJH 1975. Feed evaluation for dairy cows. Livestock Production Science 2, 95–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voelker, JA, Allen, MS 2003a. Pelleted beet pulp substituted for high-moisture corn: 2. Effects on digestion and ruminal digestion kinetics in lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 3553–3561.Google Scholar
Voelker, JA, Allen, MS 2003b. Pelleted beet pulp substituted for high-moisture corn: 1. Effects on feed intake, chewing behavior, and milk production of lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 3542–3552.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Voelker, JA, Allen, MS 2003c. Pelleted beet pulp substituted for high-moisture corn: 3. Effects on ruminal fermentation, pH, and microbial protein efficiency in lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 3562–3570.Google Scholar
Weber, U, Kaiser, E, Steinhöfel, O 2003. Untersuchungen zur Silierung von Zuckerrübenpressschnitzeln in Folienschläuchen. Part 1: Einfluss einer verzögerten Einsilierung (24 Stunden Zwischenlagerung) auf Futterwert, Verluste und Silagequalität; Kosten der Schlauchsilierung. Sugar Industry 131, 691–697.Google Scholar
Wojciechowicz, M, Heinrichova, K, Ziolecki, A 1980. A polygalacturonate lyase produced by Lachnospira multiparus isolated from bovine rumen. Journal of General Microbiology 117, 193–199.Google Scholar
Worth, HGJ 1967. The chemistry and biochemistry of pectic substances. Chemical Reviews 67, 465–473.Google Scholar