Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T16:21:26.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Toward a new practical energy evaluation system for dairy cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 October 2008

B. J. Tolkamp  and
I. Kyriazakis
B. J. Tolkamp*
Affiliation:
Animal Nutrition and Health Department, SAC, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, Scotland, UK
I. Kyriazakis
Affiliation:
Animal Nutrition and Health Department, SAC, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, Scotland, UK Veterinary Faculty, University of Thessaly, PO Box 199, 43100 Karditsa, Greece
*
E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Energy evaluation systems translate an animal’s net energy (NE) requirements into feed metabolisable energy requirements (MER). The Feed into Milk (FiM) project (Agnew RE, Yan T, France J, Kebreab E and Thomas C 2004. Energy requirement and supply. In Feed into Milk. A new applied feeding system for dairy cows (ed. C Thomas), pp. 11–20. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham, UK) proposed a new system to predict MER of dairy cows that is, in contrast to previous energy evaluation systems for cattle, independent of feed quality. The FiM system shares this characteristic with an energy evaluation system for ad libitum-fed cattle proposed in 1994 by Tolkamp and Ketelaars (T&K). The FiM system requires nine parameters to translate requirements for NE into MER for dairy cows, while the T&K system for cattle requires only two for the same purpose. This paper analyses the contribution of each of the parameters to the final MER predictions, the differences in MER prediction between the two systems and the underlying causes of these differences. The systems differ considerably in their estimates of the NE that is required for maintenance and in their (implicit) assumptions about the partial efficiency of ME utilisation for lactation. The T&K system is based on a constant partial efficiency of ME utilisation, but in the FiM system this efficiency changes with milk yield (MY) and shows a sharp discontinuity that is at odds with the underlying biology. These are the two main causes of the differences in MER predictions. Nevertheless, over a range of MYs between 10 and 40 kg, and for cows maintaining, gaining or losing weight, the MER predictions of the two systems are very similar with maximum differences of up to ±2% only. FiM predictions of MER are systematically higher than T&K predictions for cows with very low and very high MY. It is concluded that the FiM system could reduce parameter requirements with negligible effects on MER predictions. The combination of a very high maintenance NE parameter and a curvilinear model with two subsequent corrections leads to internal inconsistencies in the FiM system. The T&K system is much simpler but it might benefit from including more recent information for the estimation of its parameters.

Keywords

dairy cowenergy requirementsefficiency of ME utilisation
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , February 2009 , pp. 307 - 314
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2008

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

Agnew, RE, Yan, T, France, J, Kebreab, E, Thomas, C 2004. Energy requirement and supply. In Feed into Milk. A new applied feeding system for dairy cows (ed. C Thomas), pp. 11–20. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham, UK.Google Scholar
Agricultural and Food Research Council (AFRC) 1993. Energy and protein requirements of ruminants. An advisory manual prepared by the AFRC Technical Committee on responses to nutrients. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Agricultural Research Council ( ARC ) 1980. The nutrient requirements of ruminant livestock. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Beever, DE, Cammell, S, Sutton, JD, Rowe, N and Perrott, GE 1998. Energy metabolism in high yielding cows. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science 1998 Annual Meeting, BSAS, Penicuik, UK, p. 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) 1990. Feeding standards for Australian livestock: ruminants. Compiled by the Ruminants Subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Agriculture. CSIRO, East Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
Cushnahan, A, Mayne, C, Unsworth, EF 1995. Effects of ensilage of grass on performance and nutrient utilization by dairy cattle. 2. Nutrient metabolism and rumen fermentation. Animal Science 60, 347–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, FJ, Patterson, DC, Yan, T, Porter, MG, Mayne, CS, Unsworth, EF 1995. The influence of genetic index for milk production on the response to complete diet feeding and the utilisation of energy and nitrogen. Animal Science 61, 199–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, FJ, Patterson, DC, Porter, MG, Unsworth, EF 2000. The effect of degree of grass wilting prior to ensiling on performance and energy utilisation by lactating dairy cattle. Livestock Production Science 64, 291–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA) 1989. Ruminant nutrition. Recommended allowances and feed tables (ed. R Jarrige). John Libbey and Co Ltd, London, UK.Google Scholar
Kebreab, E, France, J, Agnew, RE, Yan, T, Dhanoa, MS, Dijkstra, J, Beever, DE, Reynolds, CK 2003. Alternatives to linear analysis of energy balance data from lactating cows. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 2904–2913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council (NRC) 2001. Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle, 7th revised edition. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Sutton, JD, Cammell, S, Beever, DE, Humphries, DJ, Phipps, R 1998. Energy and nitrogen balance of lactating dairy cows given mixtures of urea-treated whole-crop wheat and grass silage. Animal Science 67, 203–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutton, JD, Phipps, RH, Cammell, SB, Humphries, DJ 2001. Attempts to improve the utilization of urea-treated whole-crop wheat by lactating dairy cows. Animal Science 73, 137–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolkamp, BJ, Ketelaars, JJMH 1994. Efficiency of energy utilisation in cattle given food ad libitum: predictions according to the ARC system and practical consequences. Animal Production 59, 43–47.Google Scholar
Van Es, AJH 1978. Feed evaluation for ruminants. 1. The system in use from May 1977 onwards in the Netherlands. Livestock Production Science 5, 331–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yan, T, Patterson, DC, Gordon, FJ, Porter, MG 1996. The effects of wilting of grass prior to ensiling on the response to bacterial inoculation. 1. Silage fermentation and nutrient utilization over three harvests. Animal Science 62, 405–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yan, T, Gordon, FJ, Agnew, RE, Porter, MG, Patterson, DC 1997. The metabolisable energy requirement for maintenance and the efficiency of utilisation of metabolisable energy for lactation by dairy cows offered grass silage-based diets. Livestock Production Science 51, 141–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar