An examination of the effect of concentrate energy source on rumen fermentation characteristics of dairy cattle offered grass silages of differing intake characteristics

1999 ◽  
Vol 1999 ◽  
pp. 217-217 ◽  
Author(s):  
T.W.J. Keady ◽  
C.S. Mayne ◽  
D A Fitzpatrick
Keyword(s):  
Energy Source ◽  
Dairy Cattle ◽  
Milk Fat ◽  
Rumen Fermentation ◽  
Concentrate Energy ◽  
Production Studies ◽  
Metabolisable Energy ◽  
Lactating Dairy Cattle ◽  
Concentrate Energy Source ◽  
Degradable Protein

Recent dairy cow production studies (Keady et al, 1998a, b) have indicated that energy source (starch v fibre) in the concentrate did not alter silage intake or milk yield of lactating dairy cattle offered a range of grass silages. However in both studies increasing the level of starch in the concentrate increased milk protein concentration and tended to decrease milk fat concentration. The present study was undertaken to examine the effects of concentrate energy source on rumen fermentation characteristics of dairy cattle offered three grass silages.Three silages were produced from predominantly perennial ryegrass swards after 39 day regrowth intervals. Silages A and C were ensiled from primary regrowths treated with an inoculant while silage B was ensiled from a secondary regrowth untreated. Silage A was wilted for 24 hours prior to ensiling while silages B and C were ensiled direct. Two concentrates, 0s and 100s were formulated to contain different starch concentrations but similar concentrations of crude protein, metabolisable energy, digestible undegradable protein and effective rumen degradable protein.

The effects of concentrate composition on silage intake and feeding behaviour of lactating dairy cattle offered a range of grass silages differing in intake characteristics

1998 ◽  
Vol 1998 ◽  
pp. 196-196
Author(s):  
T.W.J. Keady ◽  
C.S. Mayne
Keyword(s):  
Energy Source ◽  
Dairy Cattle ◽  
Feeding Behaviour ◽  
Important Variable ◽  
Concentrate Energy ◽  
Diverse Range ◽  
Lactating Dairy Cows ◽  
Lactating Dairy Cattle ◽  
Concentrate Energy Source ◽  
Degradable Protein

A previous study at this Institute (Keady and Mayne, 1997) indicated that concentrate energy source did not alter silage intake or feeding behaviour of lactating dairy cattle offered one of a diverse range of grass silages differing in fermentation and intake characteristics, but of similar digestibility. Digestibility is the most important variable in grass silages at farm level and also has a considerable influence on silage intake. The aim of the present study was to examine the effects of concentrate energy source and effective rumen degradable protein (ERDP):digestible undegradable protein (DUP) ratio on silage intake and feeding behaviour of lactating dairy cows offered a range of grass silages differing in digestibility and intake characteristics.

The effects of concentrate composition on silage intake and feeding behaviour of lactating dairy cattle offered a range of grass silages differing in intake characteristics

1998 ◽  
Vol 1998 ◽  
pp. 196-196
Author(s):  
T.W.J. Keady ◽  
C.S. Mayne
Keyword(s):  
Energy Source ◽  
Dairy Cattle ◽  
Feeding Behaviour ◽  
Important Variable ◽  
Concentrate Energy ◽  
Diverse Range ◽  
Lactating Dairy Cows ◽  
Lactating Dairy Cattle ◽  
Concentrate Energy Source ◽  
Degradable Protein

A previous study at this Institute (Keady and Mayne, 1997) indicated that concentrate energy source did not alter silage intake or feeding behaviour of lactating dairy cattle offered one of a diverse range of grass silages differing in fermentation and intake characteristics, but of similar digestibility. Digestibility is the most important variable in grass silages at farm level and also has a considerable influence on silage intake. The aim of the present study was to examine the effects of concentrate energy source and effective rumen degradable protein (ERDP):digestible undegradable protein (DUP) ratio on silage intake and feeding behaviour of lactating dairy cows offered a range of grass silages differing in digestibility and intake characteristics.

An examination of the effect of concentrate energy source on milk production of dairy cows offered grass silages with differing intake characteristics

1996 ◽  
Vol 1996 ◽  
pp. 63-63
Author(s):  
T.W.J. Keady ◽  
C.S. Mayne ◽  
M. Marsden
Keyword(s):  
Energy Source ◽  
Food Intake ◽  
Dairy Cattle ◽  
Dairy Cows ◽  
Concentrate Energy ◽  
Diverse Range ◽  
Accuracy Of Prediction ◽  
Lactating Dairy Cattle ◽  
Concentrate Energy Source ◽  
Voluntary Food Intake

Considerable progress has been made recently at this Institute in improving the accuracy of prediction of silage intake when offered as the sole diet. However in most farm situations, silage is usually supplemented with varying levels and types of concentrate when offered to dairy cattle. The aim of the present study was to examine the effects of concentrate energy source on the voluntary food intake and milk yield and composition of lactating dairy cattle when offered a diverse range of grass silages.A total of five grass silages were used in the study, silages A, B and D were produced from primary regrowths, while silages C and E were produced from second regrowths of perennial ryegrass swards. Silages A, B, C, D and E were ensiled after 48, 24, 0, 0 and 24 hour wilting periods. Silages A and C were ensiled untreated, B and D treated with an inoculant, and silage E treated with a formic acid based additive.

An examination of the effect of concentrate energy source on milk production of dairy cows offered grass silages with differing intake characteristics

1996 ◽  
Vol 1996 ◽  
pp. 63-63
Author(s):  
T.W.J. Keady ◽  
C.S. Mayne ◽  
M. Marsden
Keyword(s):  
Energy Source ◽  
Food Intake ◽  
Dairy Cattle ◽  
Dairy Cows ◽  
Concentrate Energy ◽  
Diverse Range ◽  
Accuracy Of Prediction ◽  
Lactating Dairy Cattle ◽  
Concentrate Energy Source ◽  
Voluntary Food Intake

Considerable progress has been made recently at this Institute in improving the accuracy of prediction of silage intake when offered as the sole diet. However in most farm situations, silage is usually supplemented with varying levels and types of concentrate when offered to dairy cattle. The aim of the present study was to examine the effects of concentrate energy source on the voluntary food intake and milk yield and composition of lactating dairy cattle when offered a diverse range of grass silages.A total of five grass silages were used in the study, silages A, B and D were produced from primary regrowths, while silages C and E were produced from second regrowths of perennial ryegrass swards. Silages A, B, C, D and E were ensiled after 48, 24, 0, 0 and 24 hour wilting periods. Silages A and C were ensiled untreated, B and D treated with an inoculant, and silage E treated with a formic acid based additive.

The effects of concentrate energy source on the milk production of dairy cows given a grass silage-based diet

1995 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Huhtanen ◽  
S. Jaakkola ◽  
E. Saarisalo
Keyword(s):  
Energy Source ◽  
Organic Matter ◽  
Milk Fat ◽  
Apparent Digestibility ◽  
Concentrate Energy ◽  
Grass Silage ◽  
Gross Energy ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Energy Supplements ◽  
Concentrate Energy Source

AbstractSixteen Finnish Ayrshire cows were used in a four period cyclic change-over experiment to evaluate eight concentrate supplements in a 2 × 2 × 2 factorial arrangement. Two concentrate energy sources (starchy and fibrous) were used, each given with two levels (0 and 180 g/kg on a dry-matter (DM) basis) ofrapeseed meal (RSM) and two levels (0 and 180g/kg on DM basis) of wet distillers' solubles (WDS). The starchy concentrate (S) comprised rolled barley and oats (1:1). For the cows given the fibrous concentrate (F), 600 g/kg of the grain mixture was replaced with a mixture of fibrous by-products. Grass silage was offered ad libitum and the supplements offered at a rate of 9 kg/day (fresh weight).The cows offered F supplements consumed more silage DM than those offered S supplements (P < 0·01) but the difference in the total DM intake was smaller. The cows given S supplements produced slightly more milk than those given F supplement (26·5 v. 25·9 kg/day) but no differences were observed in the yield of milk constituents between the energy supplements. Replacing starch with fibre in the concentrate had no effect on the apparent digestibility of organic matter but tended to increase that of neutral-detergent fibre.Including RSM in the supplement increased total DM intake (P<0·05) and led to increases in the yield of milk and milk constituents (P < 0·001 and P < 0·01). Diet apparent digestibility was not affected by RSM supplementation.There were no significant interactions between concentrate energy source and RSM supplementation. Including WDS in the diet had no effect on food intake. Production responses to WDS supplementation varied with the concentrate energy source. WDS increased (at least P< 0·05) milk yield (1·0 kg/day) and the yields of fat (76 g/day) and protein (48 g/day) when given with the starchy concentrate. With the fibrous concentrate WDS had no effect on milk and protein yield, and decreased fat yield by 52 g/day (P < 0·05). The positive responses in the yields of milk fat and protein to RSM and WDS supplementation were almost additive with the starchy concentrate. Inclusion of WDS in the diet increased the apparent digestibility of organic matter and gross energy.

The effects of energy source and level of digestible undegradable protein in concentrates on silage intake and performance of lactating dairy cows offered a range of grass silages

1999 ◽  
Vol 68 (4) ◽  
pp. 763-777 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. W. J. Keady ◽  
C. S. Mayne ◽  
D. A. Fitzpatrick ◽  
M. Marsden
Keyword(s):  
Energy Source ◽  
Dairy Cows ◽  
Milk Fat ◽  
Protein Concentration ◽  
Milk Protein ◽  
Apparent Digestibility ◽  
Concentrate Energy ◽  
Lactating Dairy Cows ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Concentrate Energy Source

AbstractThe effects of energy source and level of digestible undegraded protein (DUP) in concentrates on silage intake and performance of lactating dairy cows, offered one of a range of grass silages differing in digestibility and intake characteristics, were evaluated in a partially balanced change-over design experiment involving 48 cows. Four silages were prepared using differing management practices prior to and during ensiling. All silages were treated with an inoculant additive. For silages A, В, С and D, dry matter (DM) concentrations were 199, 320, 313 and 223 (s.e. 4.6) g/kg, pH values 3.82, 4.03, 4·03 and 5·27 (s.e. 0.056), ammonia nitrogen (N) concentrations 58, 122, 66 and 356 (s.e. 13.2) g/kg total N and in vivo DM apparent digestibilities 077, 0.75 , 0.60 and 0.60 (s.e. 0·013) respectively. When offered as the sole diet to 12 dairy cows in a partially balanced change-over design experiment, silage DM intakes were 14.7, 14.7, 12.7 and 10.5 (s.e. 0·36) kg/day respectively for silages А, В, С and D. Six concentrates containing three starch concentrations, each at two levels of DUP, were formulated to have similar concentrations of crude protein, metabolizable energy (ME) and fermentable ME. For the low and high starch concentrates and low and high levels of DUP, starch concentrations were 22·5 and 273 g/kg DM and DUP levels were 44 and 60 g/kg DM respectively. Silages were offered ad libitum supplemented with 10 kg fresh concentrate per head per day. For silages А, В, С and D, DM intakes were 10.8, 11.2, 10·7 and 9·1 (s.e. 0·26) kg/day and milk yields 29.0, 27.6, 27.1 and 25.7 (s.e. 0.69) kg/day respectively. With the exception of milk protein concentration there were no significant (P> 0.05) silage type by concentrate energy source and/or level of DUP interactions on silage intake, milk output or composition. Concentrate energy source had no effect (P> 0.05) on silage DM intake, the yields of milk, fat, protein or fat plus protein or milk fat concentration. However, increasing starch concentration increased milk protein concentration (P< 0·001), urinary allantoin concentration (P< 0·01) and diet apparent digestibility (P< 0·001). Altering concentrate DUP level had no effect (P> 0·05) on silage DM intake, yields of milk, protein, fat or fat plus protein, milk f at concentrations or diet apparent digestibility. Increasing the level of DUP decreased milk protein (P< 0·05) concentration. It is concluded that with silages of varying digestibility, fermentation and intake characteristics, there were no concentrate energy source and/or level of DUP by silage type interactions on silage intake, milk yield or composition, or diet apparent digestibility with the exception of a silage type by concentrate level of DUP interaction on milk protein concentration. With out-of-parlour feeding of concentrates the results of the present study suggest that there is no evidence to justify the formulation of concentrates differing in energy source or level of DUP to complement individual silage types.

Milk production in early lactation dairy cows given grass silagead libitum: Influence of concentrate energy source, crude protein content and level of concentrate allowance

1988 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 317-331 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. K. Sloan ◽  
P. Rowlinson ◽  
D. G. Armstrong
Keyword(s):  
Energy Source ◽  
Dairy Cows ◽  
Milk Yield ◽  
Milk Fat ◽  
Crude Protein ◽  
Metabolizable Energy ◽  
Energy Concentration ◽  
Concentrate Energy ◽  
Neutral Detergent Fibre ◽  
Concentrate Energy Source

ABSTRACTThere is increasing interest in how the raw material make-up of concentrates can influence the milk performance of dairy cows. Thus, over two consecutive winters, 54 dairy cows were used to investigate the effects on dry matter (DM) intake, milk yield and its composition of feeding concentrates of diverse energy source (LNDF — 131 g neutral-detergent fibre per kg DM, 492 g starch plus sugars per kg DM; HNDF — 244 g neutral-detergent fibre per kg DM, 293 g starch plus sugar per kg DM) at two formulated crude protein (CP) levels (157v.187 g/kg DM) and three levels of concentrate allowance (9, 11, 13 kg DM). The concentrates were formulated to be of equivalent metabolizable energy concentration (MJ/kg DM) and were offered with silagead libitumfor a 10-week period (weeks 4 to 13 of lactation).Silage intakes were variable but not significantly influenced by concentrate energy source or formulated CP level, except in the 1st year where animals consuming the high CP concentrate ate more silage. Silage DM intake decreased as concentrate allowance was increased with the substitution rate (kg silage DM per kg concentrate DM) increasing as concentrate allowance was increased.Increasing the concentrate allowance effected the expected increases in milk yield. Concentrate energy source did not influence milk yield but the higher CP levels effected a 2-kg increase in milk yield. Feeding of LNDF concentrates depressed milk fat concentration and its yield, the depression being accentuated with each increase in concentrate allowance. The depression in milk fat concentration was negatively correlated with the forage: concentrate ratio of the diet consumed. Furthermore, dietary NDF proportion was shown to account for greater than half of the variation in milk fat concentration. In contrast to the observations made for milk fat, feeding the LNDF concentrates effected an increase in milk protein concentration but only at the lower CP level of the concentrate.

An examination of the effect of concentrate energy source and changes in eRDP:DUP ratio on milk production of dairy cows offered grass silages differing in digestibility and intake characteristics

1997 ◽  
Vol 1997 ◽  
pp. 9-9
Author(s):  
T.W.J. Keady ◽  
C.S. Mayne ◽  
M. Marsden
Keyword(s):  
Energy Source ◽  
Dairy Cows ◽  
Important Variable ◽  
Animal Performance ◽  
Concentrate Energy ◽  
Diverse Range ◽  
Grass Silage ◽  
Lactating Dairy Cows ◽  
Concentrate Energy Source ◽  
Degradable Protein

Results from a previous study at this Institute indicated that concentrate energy source did not alter silage intake or animal performance of lactating dairy cows offered a range of grass silages of similar digestibility but differing in intake characteristics. Digestibility is probably the single most important variable affecting animal performance from grass silage. The present study was undertaken to examine the effects of concentrate energy source and effective rumen degradable protein (eRDP):digestible undegradable protein (DUP) ratio in the concentrate on the silage intake of, and animal performance from, lactating dairy cows offered a diverse range of grass silages differing in digestibility and intake characteristics.

The effects of concentrate energy source on silage intake and animal performance with lactating dairy cows offered a range of grass silages

1998 ◽  
Vol 66 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. W. J. Keady ◽  
C. S. Mayne ◽  
M. Marsden
Keyword(s):  
Energy Source ◽  
Food Intake ◽  
Dairy Cows ◽  
Milk Fat ◽  
Milk Protein ◽  
Design Experiment ◽  
Apparent Digestibility ◽  
Concentrate Energy ◽  
Lactating Dairy Cows ◽  
Concentrate Energy Source

AbstractA partially balanced change-over design experiment was made to examine the effects of concentrate energy source on the voluntary food intake and animal performance of 50 lactating dairy cows offered a diverse range of grass silages. The silages were also offered as the sole diet to 10 dairy cows in a partially balanced change-over design experiment. A total of five silages were prepared. Silages A, B and D and silages C and E were harvested from primary regrowths and secondary regrowths respectively of predominantly perennial ryegrass swards. Herbage was ensiled either pre-wilted or unwilted and either untreated or treated with a bacterial inoculant or formic acid based additives. For silages A, B, C, D and E, dry matter (DM) concentrations were 473, 334, 170, 170 and 256 (s.e. 4·0) g/kg, pH values 4·42, 4·01, 4·88, 4·46 and 3·91 (s.e. 0·059), ammonia-nitrogen (N) concentrations 86, 88, 289, 182 and 135 (s.e. 10·6) glkg total N and in vitro DM apparent digestibilities 0·76, 0·76, 0·75, 0·73 and 0·75 (s.e. 0·009) respectively. When offered as the sole diet DM intakes were 14·1,14·7,10·5,10·1 and 11·5 (s.e. 0·50) kg/day. Five concentrates were formulated to contain similar concentrations of crude protein, effective rumen degradable protein (ERDP), metabolizable energy (ME) and fermentable ME (FME) but using different carbohydrate sources to achieve a wide range of starch concentrations. For the low and high starch concentrates, starch concentrations were 50 and 384 g/kg DM, and acid-detergent fibre concentrations were 128 and 75 g/kg DM respectively. The silages were offeredad libitumsupplemented with 10 kg concentrate per head per day. For silages A, B, C, D and E silage DM intakes were 10·6, 10·5, 8·5, 8·6 and 9·0 (s.e. 0·37) kg/day and milk yields 23·9, 28·1, 26·2, 26·1 and 25·0 (s.e. 0·76) kg/day respectively. Concentrate energy source did not influence (P > 0·05) silage DM intake, diet apparent digestibility or the yields of milk or fat plus protein. For concentrates containing 50, 131, 209, 310 and 384 g starch per kg DM, milk protein concentrations were 32·0, 32·2, 32·5, 33·0 and 33·6 (s.e. 0·13) glkg, milk fat concentrations were 44·5, 43·9, 43·8, 43·3 and 43·1 (s.e. 0·35) glkg and urinary allantoin concentrations 15·2,15·4, 17·0, 1.7·6 and 18·0 mmolll respectively. Increasing starch intake resulted in positive and negative linear relationships for milk protein (P< 0·01, R2 = 0·96) and fat (P< 0·01, R2 = 0·96) concentrations respectively. There were no significant concentrate energy source × silage type interactions on silage intake or yields of milk or fat plus protein (P > 0·05). However there was a concentrate energy source × silage type interaction on milk fat yield (P > 0·05). It is concluded that, with silages of varying fermentation and intake characteristics but similar apparent digestibility, there were no concentrate energy source × silage type interactions on food intake, milk composition or milk yield. Also concentrate energy source had no effect on silage DM intake or milk yield. However increasing starch intake linearly increased milk protein concentration, probably due to increased microbial protein synthesis and decreased milk fat concentration.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document