Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T10:28:15.967Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of ruminal degradability of ensiled whole crop maize varieties on feed intake and milk production of dairy cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2019

G. Terler Open the ORCID record for G. Terler [Opens in a new window] ,
L. Gruber  and
W. Knaus
G. Terler*
Affiliation:
Institute of Livestock Research, Agricultural Research and Education Centre Raumberg-Gumpenstein, Raumberg 38, 8952 Irdning-Donnersbachtal, Austria Division of Livestock Sciences, Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Gregor Mendel-Straße 33, 1180 Vienna, Austria
L. Gruber
Affiliation:
Institute of Livestock Research, Agricultural Research and Education Centre Raumberg-Gumpenstein, Raumberg 38, 8952 Irdning-Donnersbachtal, Austria
W. Knaus
Affiliation:
Division of Livestock Sciences, Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Gregor Mendel-Straße 33, 1180 Vienna, Austria
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The feed value of whole crop maize silage (WCMS) depends on nutrient composition, ruminal degradability and whole tract digestibility. However, as the ruminal degradation rate is involved in physical regulation of feed intake, ruminal degradability of WCMS may also affect feed intake and milk production of dairy cows. Thus, the aim of this study was to examine relationships between nutrient composition, ruminal degradability, and whole tract digestibility of WCMS and feed intake and milk production of dairy cows. Nine varieties were tested in 3 consecutive years. Nutrient composition analyses included proximate analysis and determination of cell wall constituents. Whole tract digestibility was determined in vivo using wethers and ruminal degradability was examined in situ using four rumen-fistulated steers. Feed intake and milk production were measured using nine cows per variety. Cows were fed a ration consisting of 75.0% WCMS, 8.5% hay and 16.5% soya bean meal (dry matter basis) ad libitum. Variety did not influence nutrient composition, except for the concentration of ADF (ADFom), ADL and utilisable CP (uCP). In contrast, variety had a significant effect (P < 0.05) on ruminal degradability of NDF (aNDFom) and on whole tract digestibility of organic matter (OM) and non-fibre carbohydrates. Dry matter intake (DMI) of WCMS tended to be affected by variety (0.05<P < 0.10) whereas no effect on energy-corrected milk production (ECM) was observed. The year of harvest had an influence on net energy for lactation and uCP concentration, ruminal degradability and whole tract digestibility of nutrients, as well as on DMI and ECM of dairy cows. Whole tract aNDFom digestibility of WCMS was positively correlated with aNDFom concentration (R2 = 0.48) and whole tract OM digestibility (R2 = 0.58). Furthermore, ruminal OM degradability was positively correlated with DMI (R2 = 0.57) and ECM (R2 = 0.49) of dairy cows. The results indicate that ruminal degradability and whole tract digestibility have a greater impact on the feed value of WCMS than nutrient composition and should be focused on to optimise feed intake and milk production of dairy cows. Thus, maize breeders should include ruminal degradability and whole tract digestibility parameters in variety testing programs to increase the informative value of variety descriptions for farmers.

Keywords

nutrient compositionwhole tract digestibilityfeed valuewhole crop maize silagefeed intake regulation
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 13 , Issue 9 , September 2019 , pp. 1917 - 1926
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

Ali, M, van Duinkerken, G, Cone, JW, Klop, A, Blok, MC, Spek, JW, Bruinenberg, MH and Hendriks, WH 2014. Relationship between chemical composition and in situ rumen degradation characteristics of maize silages in dairy cows. Animal 8, 1832–1838.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bal, MA, Coors, JG and Shaver, RD 1997. Impact of the maturity of corn for use as silage in the diets of dairy cows on intake, digestion, and milk production. Journal of Dairy Science 80, 2497–2503.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bal, MA, Shaver, RD, Al-Jobeile, H, Coors, JG and Lauer, JG 2000. Corn silage hybrid effects on intake, digestion, and milk production by dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 83, 2849–2858.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ballard, CS, Thomas, ED, Tsang, DS, Mandebvu, P, Sniffen, CJ, Endres, MI and Carter, MP 2001. Effect of corn silage hybrid on dry matter yield, nutrient composition, in vitro digestion, intake by dairy heifers, and milk production by dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 84, 442–452.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bayerische Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft (LfL) 2017. Gruber Tabelle zur Fütterung der Milchkühe, Zuchtrinder, Schafe, Ziegen, 42. Auflage. LfL, Poing, Germany.Google Scholar
De Boever, JL, Goossens, K, Peiren, N, Swanckaert, J, Ampe, B, Reheul, D, De Brabander, DL, De Campeneere, S and Vandaele, L 2017. The effect of maize silage type on the performances and methane emission of dairy cattle. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 101, e246–e256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deutsche Landwirtschaftsgesellschaft (DLG) 1997. DLG-Futterwerttabellen – Wiederkäuer. DLG-Verlag, Frankfurt/Main, Germany.Google Scholar
Ettle, T and Schwarz, FJ 2003. Effect of maize variety harvested at different maturity stages on feeding value and performance of dairy cows. Animal Research 52, 337–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandez, I, Martin, C, Champion, M and Michalet-Doreau, B 2004. Effect of corn hybrid and chop length of whole-plant corn silage on digestion and intake by dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 1298–1309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferraretto, LF and Shaver, RD 2015. Effects of whole-plant corn silage hybrid type on intake, digestion, ruminal fermentation, and lactation performance by dairy cows through a meta-analysis. Journal of Dairy Science 98, 2662–2675.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferret, A, Gasa, J, Plaixats, J, Casañas, F, Bosch, L and Nuez, F 1997. Prediction of voluntary intake and digestibility of maize silages given to sheep from morphological and chemical composition, in vitro digestibility or rumen degradation characteristics. Animal Science 64, 493–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gesellschaft für Ernährungsphysiologie – Ausschuss für Bedarfsnormen (GfE) 1991. Leitlinien für die Bestimmung der Verdaulichkeit von Rohnährstoffen an Wiederkäuern. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 65, 229–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gesellschaft für Ernährungsphysiologie – Ausschuss für Bedarfsnormen (GfE) 2001. Energie- und Nährstoffbedarf landwirtschaftlicher Nutztiere – No. 8: Empfehlungen zur Energie- und Nährstoffversorgung der Milchkühe und Aufzuchtrinder. DLG-Verlag, Frankfurt/Main, Germany.Google Scholar
Gruber, L, Terler, G and Knaus, WF 2018. Nutrient composition, ruminal degradability and whole tract digestibility of whole crop maize silage from nine current varieties. Archives of Animal Nutrition 72, 121–137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ivan, SK, Grant, RJ, Weakley, D and Beck, J 2005. Comparison of a corn silage hybrid with high cell-wall content and digestibility with a hybrid of lower cell-wall content on performance of Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 244–254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, L, Harrison, JH, Hunt, C, Shinners, K, Doggett, CG and Sapienza, D 1999. Nutritive value of corn silage as affected by maturity and mechanical processing: a contemporary review. Journal of Dairy Science 82, 2813–2825.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khan, NA, Yu, P, Ali, M, Cone, JW and Hendriks, WH 2015. Nutritive value of maize silage in relation to dairy cow performance and milk quality. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 95, 238–252.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuehn, CS, Linn, JG, Johnson, DG, Jung, HG and Endres, MI 1999. Effect of feeding silages from corn hybrids selected for leafiness or grain to lactating dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 82, 2746–2755.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nennich, TD, Linn, JG, Johnson, DG, Endres, MI and Jung, HG 2003. Comparison of feeding corn silages from leafy or conventional corn hybrids to lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 2932–2939.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oba, M and Allen, MS 1999. Effects of brown midrib 3 mutation in corn silage on dry matter intake and productivity of high yielding dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 82, 135–142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ørskov, ER, Hovell, FD and Mould, F 1980. The use of the nylon bag technique for the evaluation of feedstuffs. Tropical Animal Production 5, 195–213.Google Scholar
Ørskov, ER and McDonald, I 1979. The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. The Journal of Agricultural Science 92, 499–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peyrat, J, Nozière, P, Le Morvan, A, Férard, A, Protin, PV and Baumont, R 2014. Effects of ensiling maize and sample conditioning on in situ rumen degradation of dry matter, starch and fibre. Animal Feed Science and Technology 196, 12–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sniffen, CJ, O’Connor, JD, Van Soest, PJ, Fox, DG and Russell, JB 1992. A net carbohydrate and protein system for evaluating cattle diets: II. Carbohydrate and protein availability. Journal of Animal Science 70, 3562–3577.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Südekum, KH 2005. Möglichkeiten und Grenzen einer Standardisierung der in situ-Methodik zur Schätzung des ruminalen Nährstoffabbaus. Übersichten Tierernährung 33, 71–86.Google Scholar
Thomas, ED, Mandebvu, P, Ballard, CS, Sniffen, CJ, Carter, MP and Beck, J 2001. Comparison of corn silage hybrids for yield, nutrient composition, in vitro digestibility, and milk yield by dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 84, 2217–2226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Verband Deutscher Landwirtschaftlicher Untersuchungs- und Forschungsanstalten (VDLUFA) 2012. Handbuch der landwirtschaftlichen Versuchs- und Untersuchungsmethodik (VDLUFA-Methodenbuch) – Bd. III. Die chemische Untersuchung von Futtermitteln. VDLUFA-Verlag, Darmstadt, Germany.Google Scholar
Weissbach, F and Kuhla, S 1995. Stoffverluste bei der Bestimmung des Trockenmassegehaltes von Silagen und Grünfutter: Entstehende Fehler und Möglichkeiten der Korrektur. Übersichten Tierernährung 23, 189–214.Google Scholar