Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-kw98b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-02T13:04:03.877Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The effect of amount of protein in the concentrates on hay intake and rate of passage, diet digestibility and milk production in British Saanen goats

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

M. S. Badamana
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute for Grassland and Animal Production, Hurley Research Station, Hurley, Maidenhead SL6 5LR
J. D. Sutton
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute for Grassland and Animal Production, Hurley Research Station, Hurley, Maidenhead SL6 5LR
J. D. Oldham
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute for Grassland and Animal Production, Hurley Research Station, Hurley, Maidenhead SL6 5LR
A. Mowlem
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute for Grassland and Animal Production, Hurley Research Station, Hurley, Maidenhead SL6 5LR
Get access

Abstract

During the first 2 weeks after kidding, 27 multiparous British Saanen goats were offered 1·5 kg hay (98 g crude protein (CP) per kg dry matter (DM)) and from 0·45 increasing to 0·70 kg concentrates (152 g CP per kg DM) daily. Week 2 was used as a covariance period. At week 3 of lactation all the goats were allocated to one of three groups and were offered hay ad libitum and 1 kg concentrates containing 117 (LP), 152 (MP) or 185 (HP) g CP per kg DM daily to week 15. During weeks 4 to 15, hay intake and milk yield were highest in the HP group. With increasing protein in the concentrates, hay DM intake was 1·20, 1·19 and 1·37 (s.e. 0·060) kg/day respectively and milk yield was 3·04, 3·21 and 3·36 (s.e. 0·080) kg/day respectively (linear response P < 001). There was no significant effect on the concentration of solids-not-fat, fat, total nitrogen or casein in milk. The digestibility of dietary organic matter, acid-detergent fibre and total nitrogen measured after week 15 was significantly greater with HP than with LP (P < 0·05), with MP values being intermediate (linear response P < 005). The rate of passage of ytterbium-labelled hay was unaffected by the treatments. The results indicate that, with lactating goats given hay and concentrates, beneficial responses may be expected to increasing concentrate CP to at least 185 g CP per kg DM.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1990

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

REFERENCES

Agricultural Reseach Council. 1980. The Nutrient Requirements of Ruminant Livestock. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough.Google Scholar
Badamana, M. S. 1987. Forage utilisation by dairy goats. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Reading.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L., Graham, N. MCC. and Wainman, F. W. 1956. Some observations on the digestibility of food by sheep, and on related problems. British Journal of Nutrition 10: 6991.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ciszuk, P. and Lindberg, J. E. 1988. Responses in feed intake, digestibility and nitrogen retention in lactating dairy goats fed increasing amounts of urea and fish meal. Ada Agriculturae Scandinavica 38: 381395.Google Scholar
Dhanoa, M. S., Siddons, R. C, France, J. and Gale, D. L. 1985. A multicompartmental model to describe marker excretion patterns in ruminant faeces. British Journal of Nutrition 53: 663671.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grovum, W. L. and Williams, V. J. 1973. Rate of passage of digesta in sheep. 4. Passage of marker through the alimentary tract and the biological relevance of rate-constants derived from the changes in concentration of marker in faeces. British Journal of Nutrition 30: 313329.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hadjipanayiotou, M. 1982. Protein levels for early-weaned Damascus kids given high-concentrate diets. Technical Bulletin, Agricultural Research Institute, Cyprus, pp. 4348.Google Scholar
Knowles, F. and Watkin, J. E. 1938. The milk of the goat under English conditions. Journal of Dairy Research 9: 153165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindahl, I. L. 1955. Goat feeding investigation. Annual Report of the Animal and Poultry Husbandry Research Branch, Agricultural Research Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC (cited by Morand-Fehr and Sauvant, 1978).Google Scholar
Lindahl, I. L. 1956. Goat feeding investigation. Annual Report of the Animal and Poultry Husbandry Research Branch, Agricultural Research Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC (cited by Morand-Fehr and Sauvant, 1978).Google Scholar
Lu, C. D., Inglesias, T. I., Nelson, R. R., Rubin, J. L. and Teh, T. H. 1984. Response of lactating dairy goats to dietary protein and energy levels. Journal of Dairy Science 67: Suppl. 1. pp. 132133.Google Scholar
Ministry Of Agriculture, Fisheries And Food, Department Of Agriculture And Fisheries For Scotland And Department Of Agriculture For Northern Ireland. 1975 Energy allowances and feeding systems for ruminants. Technical Bulletin 33. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Morand-fehr, P. and Sauvant, D. 1978. Nutrition and optimum performance of dairy goats. Livestock Production Science 5: 203213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morand-fehr, P. and Sauvant, D. 1980. Composition and yield of goat milk as affected by nutritional manipulation. Journal of Dairy Science 63: 16711680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council. 1981. Nutrient Requirements of Domestic Animals, No. 15. Nutrient Requirements of Goats: Angora, Dairy and Meat Goats in Temperate and Tropical Countries. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Oldham, J. D., Broster, W. H., Napper, D. J. and Siviter, J. W. 1979. The effect of a low-protein ration on milk yield and plasma metabolites in Friesian heifers during early lactation. British Journal of Nutrition 42: 149162.Google Scholar
Oldham, J. D., Hart, I. C. and Bines, J. A. 1978. Effect of abomasal infusions of casein, arginine, methionine or phenylalanine on growth hormone, insulin, prolactin, thyroxine and some metabolites in blood from lactating goats. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 37: 9A (Abstr.).Google ScholarPubMed
Oldham, J. D. and Smith, T. 1982. Protein/energy interrelationships for growing and lactating cattle. In: Protein Contribution of Feedstuffs for Ruminants (ed. Miller, E. L., Pike, I. H. and Es, A. J. H. Van), pp. 103130. Butterworths, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. and McDonald, I. 1979. The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 92: 499503.Google Scholar
Rowland, S. J. 1938. The determination of the nitrogen distribution in milk. Journal of Dairy Research. 9: 4246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skjevdal, T. 1981. Effect on goat performances of given quantities of feedstuffs, and their planned distribution during the cycle of reproduction. In Nutrition and Systems of Goat Feeding (ed. Morand-Fehr, P., Bourbouze, A. and Simiane, M. De), Vol. 1., pp. 300318. ITOVIC-INRA, Tours, France.Google Scholar
Sutton, J. D. 1989. Altering milk composition by feeding. Journal of Dairy Science 72: 28012814.Google Scholar
Tilley, J. M. A. and Terry, R. A. 1963. A two-stage technique for the in vitro digestibility of forage crop. Journal of the British Grassland Society 18: 104111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van soest, P. J. 1973. Collaborative study of acid-detergent fiber and lignin. Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists 56: 781784.Google Scholar
Van soest, P. J. and Wine, R. H. 1967. Use of detergents in the analysis of fibrous feeds. IV. Determination of plant cell-wall constituents. Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists 50: 5055.Google Scholar