Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-rz4zl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-11T08:00:38.020Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of type of concentrate and level of concentrate feeding on milk production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

C. S. Mayne  and
F. J. Gordon
C. S. Mayne
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co. Down BT26 6DP
F. J. Gordon
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co. Down BT26 6DP
Get access

Abstract

Twenty-four British Friesian dairy cows in early lactation were used in a change-over design experiment with three periods, each of 4 weeks duration. The aim of the experiment was to assess the effects of both the type of concentrate and the level of concentrate supplementation on the utilization of grass silage for milk production. Four treatments consisted of offering 10 kg/day of either a barley (10B) or a sugar beet pulp-based concentrate (10S), each concentrate being offered at two crude protein concentrations of 175 (low) and 245 (high) g/kg dry matter. In a further two treatments the barley-based concentrates containing the low and high protein concentrations were offered at 7 kg/day (7B). All concentrates were offered in addition to the cows having ad libitum access to grass silage containing a dry-matter concentration of 213 g/kg and a digestible organic matter concentration of 668 g/kg dry matter.

Silage dry-matter intakes (kg/day) for cows given the low- and high-protein concentrates respectively were: 9·06 and 9·28 for the 7B treatments; 8·21 and 8·33 for the 10B treatments; and 8·04 and 7·97 for the 10S treatments (pooled s.e. 0·11). Fat-corrected milk yields for cows given the low- and high-protein concentrates respectively were: 24·0 and 24·1 for the 7B treatments; 25·9 and 27·0 for the 10B treatments; and 25·7 and 26·2 for the 10S treatments (pooled s.e. 0·57).

The higher level of concentrate feeding significantly increased milk yield (P < 0·001) whereas neither energy source nor protein concentration in the concentrates had a significant effect on milk yield (P > 0·05). There was a trend towards a greater response to increased protein concentration at the higher level of feeding.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 39 , Issue 1 , August 1984 , pp. 65 - 76
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1984

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Agricultural Research Council. 1980. The Nutrient Requirements of Ruminant Livestock. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough.Google Scholar
Beever, D. E. 1980. The utilization of protein in conserved forage. In Forage Conservation in the 80's. (ed. Thomas, C.), Occ. Symp. Br. Grassld Soc. No. 11, pp. 131–143.Google Scholar
Bhattacharya, A. N. and Sleiman, F. T. 1971. Beet pulp as a grain replacement for dairy cows and sheep. J. Dairy Sci. 54: 89–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broster, W. H. 1972. Protein requirements of cows for lactation. In Handbuch der Tierernährung (ed. Lenkeit, W.Breirem, K. and Crasemann, E.), Vol. 2, pp. 292–322. Verlag-Paul Parey, Hamburg.Google Scholar
Campling, R. C. 1966. The effect of concentrates on the rate of disappearance of digesta from the alimentary tract of cows given hay. J. Dairy Res. 33: 13–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campling, R. C., Freer, M. and Balch, C. C. 1962. Factors affecting the voluntary intake of food by cows. 3. The effect of urea on the voluntary intake of oat straw. Br. J. Nutr. 16: 115–124CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Castle, M. E. 1977. A comparison between the feeding value of barley and dried molassed sugar beet pulp for milk production. J. int. Irtst. Sugar Beet Res. 7: 63–73.Google Scholar
Castle, M. E., Gill, M. S. and Watson, J. N. 1981. Silage and milk production: a comparison between barley and dried sugar beet pulp as silage supplements. Grass Forage Sci. 36: 319–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castle, M. E. and Watson, J. N. 1975. Silage and milk production: a comparison between barley and dried grass as supplements to silage of high digestibility. J. Br. Grassld Soc. 30: 217–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castle, M. E. and Watson, J. N. 1976. Silage and milk production: a comparison between barley and groundnut cake as supplements to silage of high digestibility. J. Br. Grassld Soc. 31: 191–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clancy, M. J. and Wilson, R. K. 1966. Development and application of a new chemical method for predicting the digestibility and intake of herbage samples. Proc. 10th int. Grassld Congr., Helsinki, pp. 445–453.Google Scholar
Conway, E. J. 1962. Microdiffusion Analysis and Volumetric Error. 5th ed. Crosby Lockwood, London.Google Scholar
Devendra, C. and Lewis, D. 1973. The interaction between dietary lipids and fibre in the sheep. 1. A comparison of the methods used for crude fibre and acid-detergent fibre estimations. Anim Prod. 17: 275–280.Google Scholar
Dewar, W. A. and McDonald, P. M. 1961. Determination of dry matter in silage by distillation with toluene. J. Sci. Fd Agric. 11: 790–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
El-Shazly, K., Dehority, B. A. and Johnson, R. R. 1961. Effect of starch on the digestion of cellulose in vitro and in vivo by rumen microorganisms. J. Anim. Sci. 20: 268–273.Google Scholar
Ganev, G., Ørskov, E. R. and Smart, R. 1979. The effect of roughage or concentrate feeding and rumen retention time on total degradation of protein in the rumen. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 93: 651–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, F. J. 1977. The effect of protein content on the response of lactating cows to level of concentrate feeding. Anim. Prod. 25: 181–191.Google Scholar
Gordon, F. J. 1979. The effect of protein content of the supplement for dairy cows with access ad libitum to high digestibility, wilted grass silage. Anim. Prod. 28: 183–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, F. J. 1980. The effect of silage type on the performance of lactating cows and the response to high levels of protein in the supplement. Anim. Prod. 30: 29–37.Google Scholar
Gordon, F. J. 1981. Feed input-milk output relationships in the spring-calving dairy cow. In Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition —1980 (ed. Haresign, W.), pp. 15–32. Butterworth, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, F. J. and McMurray, C. H. 1979. The optimum level of protein in the supplement for dairy cows with access to grass silage. Anim. Prod. 29: 283–291.Google Scholar
Jones, D. W. and Kay, J. J. 1976. Determination of volatile fatty acids C1-C6 and lactic acid in silage juice. J. Sci. Fd Agric. 27: 1005–1014.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keppler, D. and Decker, K. 1974. Glycogen. Determination with amyloglucosidase. In Methods of Enzymatic Analysis (ed. Bergmeyer, H. U.), Vol. 3, pp. 1127–1131. Verlag Chemie, Weinheim and Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Ling, E. R. 1963. A Textbook of Dairy Chemistry. Vol. 2. 4th ed. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
McMurray, C. H., Logan, E. F., McParland, P. j., McRory, F. J. and O';neill, D. G. 1978. Sequential changes in some blood components in the normal neonatal calf. Br. vet. J. 134: 590–597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mertens, D. R. and Ely, L. O. 1979. A dynamic model of fiber digestion and passage in the ruminant for evaluating forage quality. J. Anim. Sci. 49: 1085–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mertens, D. R. and Loften, J. R. 1980. The effect of starch on forage fiber digestion kinetics in vitro. J. Dairy Sci. 63: 1437–1446.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 1973. The analysis of agricultural materials. Tech. Bull. 27. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.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. Tech. Bull. 33. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Moir, R. J. and Harris, L. E. 1962. Ruminal flora studies in the sheep. X. Influence of nitrogen intake upon ruminal function. J. Nutr. 77: 285–298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oldham, J. D. and Alderman, G. 1982. Recent advances in understanding protein/energy inter-relationships in intermediary metabolism of ruminants. In Protein and Energy supply for High Production of Milk and Meat, pp. 33–63. United Nations, Pergamon Press, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Hughes-Jones, M. and McDonald, I. 1981. Degradability of protein supplements and utilization of undegraded protein by the high producing dairy cow. In Recent Developments in Ruminant Nutrition, (ed. Haresign, W. and Cole, D. J. A.), pp. 17–30. Butterworth, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, H. D. and Lucas, H. L. 1962. Changeover designs. Tech. Bull. N. Carol, agric. Exp. Stn, No. 147.Google Scholar
Ronning, M. and Bath, D. L. 1962. Relative milk production value of barley, dried beet pulp, molasses dried beet pulp and concentrated steffen filtrate dried beet pulp. J. Dairy Sci. 45: 854–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowett Research Institute. 1976. Feedingstuffs Evaluation Unit, First Report, 1975. Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. and Gordon, F. J. 1980a. The effect of level and system of concentrate allocation to January/February calving cows on total lactation performance. Anim. Prod. 30: 39–51.Google Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. and Gordon, F. J. 1980b. The effect of type of silage and level of concentrate supplementation offered during early lactation on total lactation performance of January/February calving cows. Anim. Prod. 30: 341–354.Google Scholar
Wainman, F. W., Dewey, P. J. S. and Boyne, A. W. 1979. Feedingstuffs Evaluation Unit, Second Report, 1978, Rowett Research Institute. Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, Edinburgh.Google Scholar