Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T00:52:33.904Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of forage type and level of concentrate supplementation on food intake, diet digestibility and milk production of crossbred cows (Bos taurus × Bos indicus)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

H. Khalili ,
T. Varvikko  and
S. Crosse
H. Khalili
Affiliation:
International Livestock Centre for Africa, PO Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
T. Varvikko
Affiliation:
International Livestock Centre for Africa, PO Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
S. Crosse
Affiliation:
International Livestock Centre for Africa, PO Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Get access

Abstract

An experiment was carried out to evaluate the effects of forage type and level of concentrate supplementation on forage intake, diet digestibility and milk production. Twenty-four crossbred cows (Bos taurus × Bos indicus), in early lactation, were allocated to the following six dietary treatments: native grass hay (H) or oat-vetch hay (OV), offered ad libitum, and supplemented with either 0, 2·5 or 5·0 kg per cow per day of a wheat-middling-based concentrate. A four-period, partially balanced, change-over design was used and the treatments were arranged as a 2 × 3 factorial.

The daily dry-matter (DM) intake was 640 g (P < 0·001) higher with cows on (H) diets compared with those on OV diets. However, OV diets were more digestible (0·675 v. 0·566, P < 0·001) resulting in 800 g higher (P < 0·05) daily intake of digestible DM. The daily milk yield was 1·24 kg higher (P < 0·001) for cows on OV diets compared with H diets. Milk fat concentration was higher (P < 0·05), but milk protein concentration was lower (P < 0·001) with H diets. The rates of rumen degradation of DM and nitrogen of OV were higher than of H for all incubation periods; similarly the values of the rate constant of DM and nitrogen were greater for OV than for H.

The daily DM intake increased by 3·72 kg/day (P < 0·001), when the amount of concentrate increased from 0 to 5·0 kg/day, indicating a minor substitution of basal forage by concentrate. The apparent DM digestibilities of the diets were higher when the diets were supplemented with concentrates. The milk yield increased linearly (P < 0·001), when the level of concentrate supplement increased from 0 to 5 kg, resulting in 0·52 kg more milk per day per kg additional concentrate given.

Keywords

cowscrossbredsforagemilk productionsupplements
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 54 , Issue 2 , April 1992 , pp. 183 - 189
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1992

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

Archibald, K. A. E. 1984. Dairy cattle feeding in the humid or high rainfall tropics. In Milk production in developing countries (ed. Smith, A. J.), pp. 110–132. Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L., Waimman, F. W. and Wilson, R. S. 1961. The regulation of food intake by sheep. Animal Production 3: 51–61.Google Scholar
Campling, R. C. and Lean, I. J. 1983. Food characteristics that limit voluntary intake. In Nutritional physiology of farm animals (ed. Rook, J. A. F. and Thomas, P. C.), pp. 457–475. Longman, New York.Google Scholar
Campling, R. C. and Murdoch, J. C. 1966. The effect of concentrates on the voluntary intake of roughages by cows. Journal of Dairy Research 33: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chilalo Agricultural Development Unit. 1970. Animal husbandry activities 1968–1970. Publication no. 56, CADU, Asela Station, Arsi, Ethiopia.Google Scholar
Goering, H. K. and Van Soest, P. J. 1970. Forage fibre analyses. Agricultural handbook, United States Department Agriculture, no. 379, pp. 1–20.Google Scholar
Gryseels, G. and Anderson, F. M. 1983. Research on farm and livestock productivity in the central Ethiopian highlands. Initial results, 1977–80. Research report, International Livestock Centre for Africa, no. 4. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.Google Scholar
Johnson, C. L. 1977. The effect of the plane and pattern of concentrate feeding on milk yield and composition in dairy cows. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 88: 79–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, C. L. 1979. The effect of level and frequency of concentrate feeding on the performance of dairy cows of different yield potential. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 92: 743–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, B. and Kenward, M. G. 1989. Design and analysis of cross-over trials. Chapman and Hall, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiwuwa, G. H., Trail, J. C. M., Kurtu, M. Y., Worku, G., Anderson, F. A. and Durkin, J. 1983. Crossbred dairy cattle productivity in Arsi Region, Ethiopia. Research report, International Livestock Centre for Africa, no. 11. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.Google Scholar
Leaver, J. D. 1981. The contribution of grass and conserved forages to the nutrient requirements for milk production. In Recent advances in animal nutrition—1981 (ed. Haresign, W.), pp. 71–80. Butterworths, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, I. 1981. A revised model for the estimation of protein degradability in the rumen. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 96: 251–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massow, V. H. von. 1989. Dairy imports into sub-Saharan Africa: problems, policies and prospects. Research report, International Livestock Centre for Africa, no. 17. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.Google Scholar
Miles, D. G., Walters, R. J. K. and Evans, E. M. 1969. Dry-matter intake and live-weight gain of cattle and sheep offered different grass varieties with and without clover. Animal Production 11: 19–28.Google Scholar
Moir, R. J. 1961. A note on the relationship between the digestible dry matter and the digestible energy content of ruminant diets. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 1: 24–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council. 1989. Nutrient requirement of dairy cattle. 6th ed. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Nicholson, M. 1983. Calf growth, milk offtake and estimated lactation yields of Boran cattle in the southern rangelands of Ethiopia. Research report, International Livestock Centre for Africa, no. 6. Joint ILCA/Ethiopian Pastoral Systems Study, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.Google Scholar
Oldham, J. D. 1984. Protein-energy interrelationships in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 67: 1090–1114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oldham, J. D. and Alderman, G. 1982. Recent advances in understanding protein-energy interrelationships in intermediary metabolism in ruminants. In Protein and energy supply for high production of milk and meat, p. 33. Pergamon Press (for the United Nations), Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oldham, J. D. and Smith, T. 1982. Protein-energy interrelationships for growing and for lactating cattle. In Protein contribution offeedstuffs for ruminants (ed. Pike, E. L. I. H. and Es, A. J. H. Van), pp. 103–130. Butterworths, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. and Cochran, W. G. 1980. Statistical methods. 7th ed. Iowa State University Press, Ames, la.Google Scholar
Tyrrell, H. F., Haaland, G. L., Moe, P. W. and Brown, A. C. G. 1981. Effect of level and solubility of protein on energy value of corn silage based rations fed to Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science 64: suppl. 1, pp. 123–124 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Van Keulen, J. and Young, B. A. 1977. Evaluation of acid-insoluble ash as a natural marker in ruminant digestibility studies. Journal of Animal Science 44: 282–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar