Beet and Soy Hulls for Lactating Cows

8/14/2019 Beet and Soy Hulls for Lactating Cows

1/9

Original article

Effect of concentrate type and distribution methodon milk fat content and milk production in dairy cows

CAgabriel JB Coulon2 C Journal J Bony

C Sibra JC Bonnefo2

1 cole nationale dingnieurs des travaux agricoles de Clermont-Ferrand, 63370 Lempdes;2Laboratoire adaptation des herbivores aux milieux, Inra, 63122 Saint-Gens-Champanelle;

3lnra, Domaine exprimental du Roc, 63210 Orcival, France

(Received 7 March 1997; accepted 5 June 1997)

Summary - Twenty-oneHolstein

dairycows in mid lactation were included in a 3 x 3 Latin square

design study over three successive 4-week periods. Throughout the trial, the animals were fed an isoen-ergetic diet composed of 55% grass silage and 45% concentrate. Silage was offered twice a day(9:00 and 16:00). In the first treatment (GW) the concentrate was ground wheat given in two mealssper day 1 h before silage distribution. In the second treatment (RW), the concentrate was rolledwheat given three times a day 2 h after silage distribution. In the third treatment (PHM), the concentratewas a mixture of beet pulp (40%), soybean hulls (40!0) and maize (20%) given under the same con-ditions as treatment RW. Milk yield was higher (+ 2 kg/day) for PHM treatment than for the GW andRW treatments (P < 0.01). In the PHM treatment milk contained more fat (+2 g/kg, P < 0.01) and lessprotein (-1.7 g/kg, P < 0.01) than in the GW andRW treatments. These results were associated withchanges in rumen fluid parameters (higher pH and higher proportions of acetic acid for PHM treat-ment). There was little difference between the GW and RW treatment groups, probably because ofslower intake and marked concentrate refusal in the GW

group,which

mayhave affected the effects

of that treatment on rumen fermentation.

dairy cow / fat content / concentrate / milk yield

Rsum - Effet de la nature et des modalits de distribution du concentr sur le taux buty-reux du lait. Vingt et une vaches Holstein en pleine lactation ont t utilises dans un schma en carrlatin 3 x3 avec trois priodes successives de 4 semaines. Durant tout lessai, les animaux ont reu uneration isonergtique constitue de 55 % densilage dherbe et de 45 % de concentr. Dans le premiertraitement (GW), le concentr tait du bl broy distribu en deux repas par jour, 1 h avant la distri-

* Correspondence and reprintsTel: (33) 04 73 98 13 44; fax: (33) 04 73 98 13 80; e-mail: [email protected]


2/9

bution de lensilage. Dans le deuxime traitement (RW), le concentr tait du bl aplati, distribu entrois repas par jour, 2 h aprs la distribution densilage. Dans le 3e traitement (PHM) le concentr taitun mlange de pulpes de betteraves (40 %), de coques de soja (40 %) et de mas (20 %) distribu dansles mmes conditions que le traitement RW. Les animaux du traitement PHM ont produit 2 kg/jourde lait de plus que ceux des traitements GW etRW (p < 0,01Leur lait a t plus riche en matires

grasses (+ 2 g/kg, p < 0,01 ) et moins riche en protines (-1,7 g/kg, p < 0,01). Ces rsultats sont mettreen relation avec un pH et une proportion dacide actique dans le jus du rumen suprieurs avec le trai-tement PHM. Les diffrences entre les lots GW et RW ont t faibles, vraisemblabement en raisondune ingestion moins rapide et de refus importants du concentr dans le lot GW qui ont pu limiterles effets de ce traitement sur les fermentations dans le rumen.

vache laitire / taux butyreux / concentr / production laitire

INTRODUCTION

Anumber of factors may affect milk fat

con-

tent, especially dietary factors linked to thetype of forage and to the proportion of con-centrate in the diet (Journet and Chilliard,1985; Sutton, 1989; Hoden and Coulon,1991). When the proportion of concentrateis high, the concentrate type and distribu-tion methods (mixed with forage, numberof meals, presentation) may play a consid-erable role (Gibson, 1984; Sutton et al, 1985;Grant et al, 1990;Aaes, 1993),

althoughopposite results have been published (Yangand Varga, 1989; McLeod et al, 1994). Mostof these studies, however, were conductedunder extreme conditions (very high pro-portion of concentrate in the diet, totallyground diet) hardly reflecting the feedingpractices routinely applied in France. Obser-vations at the farm level, however, suggestedthat concentrate presentation and feed dis-tribution sequence could be associated with

significant changes in milk fat content(Coulon et al, 1994). Recent trials on theeffect of concentrate presentation (CoulonandAgabriel, 1995), feeding sequence(Chassaing et al, 1996), type of concentrateand number of meals (Jackson et al, 1991;

Agnew et al, 1996) have not confirmed theseobservations. It is possible that these prac-tices are effective only when combined

together. The aim of this study was to test

that hypothesis by comparing the effect ofassociating several dietary factors underrealistic feeding conditions, such as the num-

ber of feeds and the order in which theywere distributed, and the type and process-

ingform of the concentrates.

MATERIALSAND METHODS

Experimental design and feeding

Twenty-one Holstein dairy cows (five primi-parous and 16 multiparous) in their decreasinglactation phase (85th lactation day at the begin-ning of the experiment, on average) were usedin a 3 x 3 Latin

square experimental design,with

seven cows in each cell of the Latin square. Theywere managed in loose housing with boxes and

troughs fitted with electronically controlled gatesfor individual rationing. Cows were milked at7:00 and 17:00 in the milking pen.At the begin-ning of lactation, all the cows were given ad libi-tum a complete diet based on grass silage. Dur-ing a 2-week pre-experimental period, the cowswere given a diet composed of 10 kg DM/dayof second cycle cocksfoot silage mixed with 4.5kg/day ground wheat and 4.5 kg/day pelleted

concentrate composed of40%

beet pulp, 40%soybean hulls and 20% ground maize, in twomeals per day.

The trial started on 1 I March 1996 and

unfolded over three 4-week periods. Three groupsof seven cows each were formed according tothe date of calving, parity, and milk yield per-formances recorded during the pre-experimen-tal period. In the first treatment (GW), the con-centrate was ground wheat given in two equalmeals 1 h before silage distribution (8:00 and15:00). In the second treatment (RW), the con-centrate was rolled wheat distributed as three

equal meals (1 I:00, 15:00 and 18:00); the firstand third of these meals were given 2 h after


3/9

silage distribution. In the third treatment (PHM),the concentrate was pelleted and composed of40% beet pulp, 40% soybean hulls and 20%ground maize. The distribution was as in the RWtreatment group. Maize incorporation in that mix-

ture maintained a relatively high energy value(1.06 UFL/kg DM) while sustaining a degrada-tion rate in the rumen twice as low as that

obtained with wheat (table I). Silage was given intwo meals to all treatment groups (9:00 and16:00). The silage (55% of total DM in the diet)and concentrate (45% of total DM in the diet)amounts were given in a controlled and restrictedmanner. They were set for the whole duration ofthe trial and adapted so as to cover 95% of eachanimals maintenance and production require-ments throughout the pre-experimental period.The animals nitrogen requirements were alwaysmet. Practically, for the GW and RW treatmentgroups and for a milk yield of 30 kg/day, theamounts of silage and concentrate given were10.5 kg DM/day and 9.5 kg/day, respectively.In the PHM treatment group, these amounts were

11kg DM/day and 10 kg/day, respectively, totake into account the lower energy value of the

concentrate. The cows were maintained at the

trough for 30 min after concentrate distributionwhen it was given before silage and for 2.5 h inthe morning and 2 h in the evening after grassdistribution. They only had access to drinkingwater once freed. Throughout the duration of thetrial, the cows were given 250 kg/day mineral

supplement (type 7P-21 Ca in the GW and RWtreatment groups and type 14P-l6Ca in the PHM

group). Treatment changeovers between experi-mental periods were sudden, occurring in a sin-

gle day.

Measurements

Milk yield was measured individually at eachmilking. For each animal, milk fat, protein andlactose contents, together with somatic cell count,were measured at each milking, for 4 days ofeach of the last 2 weeks of each period and 2

days each week from a mixed sample of two

daily milkings the other weeks. The animals wereweighed in the first and last week of each experi-mental period. Their body condition score wasassessed by handling at the beginning and endof the experiment, according to the notation scale(1-5) proposed by Bazin (1985). During the lastweek of each period, rumen fluid was sampled byabdominal puncture between 14:00 and 15:00.

The pH was directly measured and a sample wasmade up and frozen for volatile fatty acid (VFA)composition analysis (Jouany, 1982). Theamounts of silage and concentrate ingested weremeasured individually every day. TheDM mat-

ter content of feeds was measured four times aweek in silage and once a week for each con-centrate, by oven-drying. In the PHM and RWtreatment groups, the amount of silage eatenbefore each concentrate distribution was mea-

sured once during the third and fourth week ofeach period. One day during the same weeks,each animals feeding behaviour was monitoredbetween 8:00 and 12:00 and between 15:00 and

19:00 by recording their activity every 5 min(forage and/or concentrate intake).

The crude fibre (Weende method), crude pro-tein (Kjeldahl technique) and organic matter con-tents were analysed once in each period for silageand once during the whole trial duration for con-centrates. The quality of silagepreservation (pH,VFA, soluble nitrogen, ammoniacal nitrogen,alcohol) was assessed once in each experimentalperiod according to Dulphy and Demarquilly(1981). Particle size distribution was measuredonce in the ground wheat and in the rolled wheat.For RW, 96 and 18% of the particles were largerthanI and 4 mm, respectively. Correspondingvalues for the GW were 40 and 0%. The char-

acteristics of the feeds are shown in table I.

Energy and nitrogen balances were computedfrom the differences between nutritional suppliesand the animals requirements according to Inrarecommendations (Andrieu and Demarquilly,1987; Vermorel, 1989; V6rit6 and Peyraud,1989). Milk energy was computed from the fat,protein and lactose contents according to theSjaunja formula (1989).

The effect of the experimental treatments onthe variables studied was processed by analysisof variance (SAS, 1987) from the measurementsperformed in the last two weeks of each experi-mental period (except for rumen fluid charac-teristics, which were available only in the lastweek). The factors introduced in the analysiswere the treatment, the period and the animal.One cow was excluded from data processingbecause it became ill (foreign body).

RESULTS

At the beginning of the experiment, the ani-mals mean live weight was 652 kg and their


4/9

body condition score was 2.3. During the

trial, their live weight remained almostunchanged (+2 kg on average) and the bodyscore increased slightly (+0.4). Over thecourse of the trial, five cows suffered frommastitis but there were no real repercussionson their milk yield. One cow presented apulmonary disorder. No acidosis wasrecorded.

Feed intake

Energy supplied to the cows was lower than

designed in the protocol because of an over-estimation of the grass silage energy valueused when preparing the diet, so that theanimals were in negative energy balanceunder the three treatments (table II). Energysupply was slightly lower in the GW treat-ment because of a slightly lower concen-

trate intake. Under that treatment, three cows

significantly refused concentrate (in excessof 2 kg/day). It was also under that treat-

ment that the duration of concentrate intake

was the longest (twice as long as underPHMtreatment where larger quantities wereoffered), even for cows that did not refusemuch. When the cows were given the con-centrate in three meals a day (RW andPHMtreatments), the amount of silage eaten dur-ing the 2 h preceding the first concentratedistribution was high, 4.4 and 5.1 kg DMfor RW andPHM treatments, respectively,ie, about half of the total daily intake of

silage.

Milk yield and composition

Milk yield and fat content were significantlyhigher (+2.0 kg/day and +2.1 g/kg, respec-tively, P < 0.01) for the PHM treatment thanfor the GW and RW treatments (table II).In contrast, protein content was lower for

the PHM treatment than for the GW andRW treatments (-1.6 g/kg, P < 0,01), Withthe same type of concentrate (GW and RW


5/9

treatments), distribution practices slightlyaltered the fat content (+0.9 g/kg in favour ofRW treatment, P > 0.05) and the proteincontent (+0.7 g/kg in favour of the RW treat-ment, P < 0.05). When restricting the ana-lysis to the 17 cows that refused less than2 kg/day concentrate under GW treatment,the difference in fat content between the

GW and RW treatments increased (+1.8g/kg in favour of the RW treatment,

P < 0.05), whereas the difference in proteincontent disappeared (+0.3 g/kg in favour ofthe RW treatment, P > 0.05). In the cowsunder RW andPHM treatments, individual

fat content variability was not linked tosilage intake before concentrate distribu-tion. The amounts of protein produced werethe same in all three

treatments,whereas fat

amounts were higher under PHM treatment(+137 g/day, ie, +13% relative to GW and


6/9

RW treatments, P < 0.01 ). The lactose con-tent was slightly but significantly higher inthe PHM than in the RW treatment

(+0.7 g/kg, P < 0.05).

Rumen fluid characteristics

The rumen fluid pH was significantly higherunder PHM treatment (6.36) than under theGW (6.08) and RW (6.17) treatments (tableII). The acetic acid (C2) proportion was sig-nificantly lower (P < 0.01 ) under the GWtreatment than under the RW or PHM treat-

ments, whereas the propionic acid (C3) andbutyric acid (C4) contents were slightlyhigher, although not significantly so. Thefat content increased in parallel with therumen juice pH and the (C2+C4)/C3 ratio(P < 0.01However, taken together, thesetwo variables only accounted for 23% ofthe fat content variability.

Animal performance changes inducedby feeding transition

The intake of silage and concentrate, on theday of diet changeover, did not vary fromGW to RW treatment but increased between

RW and PHM treatments and decreased

between PHM and GW treatments, as

expected in the protocol. Three days afterchanging the diet, a marked decrease in con-

centrate intake (-2 kg DM/day) occurred inthe cows that changed to the GW treatment.All animals on this treatment exhibited a

lower concentrate intake, but its extent var-ied in intensity and duration: four cowsrefused large amounts (> 4 kg/day for 100days) and three almost maintained the intake

previous to the change in diet. The effect ofdiet changeover on milk yield occurred

quickly with the transition involving the

PHM treatment: milk decreased on the firstday of diet change when changing fromPHM to GW. When changing from RW to

PHM, the milk yield increase was spreadover 3 days.

DISCUSSION

The experimental design of this trial made it

possible to compare: a) the association ofdifferent feeding practices known to favourfat content (number of meals, feed distribu-tion sequence, presentation of the concen-trate) with the same type of concentrate(GW/RW comparison); and b) the effect ofthe composition of concentrate distributedunder the most favourable conditions for

milk fat content (RW/PHM comparison).As described in the protocol, these compari-sons were made with the same level of nutri-

tional supplies and the same proportion ofconcentrate in the diet (45%).).

Under these conditions, significant per-formance changes were noted, although theywere moderate, in particular for fat content.In the treatment which was thought to bethe most unfavourable (GW), with 30% of

rapidly degradable starch, fat contentremained high, close to 40 g/kg. It was there-fore logical that the RW and PHM treat-ments had relatively little effect on fat con-tent. Indeed, the effects of feeding methodswere only important when applied to a dietwhich induced very low fat contents (Gib-son, 1984; Robinson, 1989). This trialshowed that, with grass-based diets, incor-porating 40 to 50% cereal-based concen-

trate did not induce any sharp drop in fatcontent, even in the absence of any specialprecautions in its distribution. This con-firmed the results of Jackson et al ( 1991 )and Coulon andAgabriel (1995). It is likely,however, that the deleterious effect expectedfrom the GW treatment was partially inhi-bited by the slow intake rate of the concen-trate in the cows subjected to the GW treat-ment and the high levels of refusal by some

of those cows, as demonstrated by the resultsobtained when those cows were excluded

from the analysis. It is also possible that the


7/9

negative energy balance observed in thistreatment contributed to the maintenance ofa high milk fat content due to a higher bodylipid mobilisation (Journet and Chilliard,1985). The fact that refusals were onlyobserved after the third day of animals beingintroduced to the GW treatment suggeststhat refusals might be the result of rejectiondue to rumen dysfunction rather than palata-bility. The decrease in concentrate intakerate could then be considered as an animal

adaptation to restrict the drop in pH asso-ciated with the intake of very fermentablefeeds.

The main differences in performanceresulted from the type of concentrate, as it is

classically reported in the literature, whenthe proportion of concentrate in the diet is

high (Coulon et at, 1989; De Visser et at,1990). The PHM treatment induced higher

milk yield, higher milk fat content and lowerprotein content than the GW and RW treat-ments. Several factors can account for that

result. The highest milk yield can be relatedto a better

digestibilityof the diet under

PHM treatment because of slower degrada-tion in the rumen, which reduces digestiveinteractions (V6rit6 and Dulphy, 1981;Michalet-Doreau and Sauvant, 1989). Sucha higher milk yield can also be due to theslightly higher nitrogen supplementation ofthe PHM diet, which may have improvedthe diet digestibility and/or stimulated milkyield (Journet et al, 1983). The differencesin milk chemical

compositioncould be due

both to matter dilution effects (protein con-tent) and/or to changes in the fermentingorientations in the rumen. Diets inducing a

high C2/C3 ratio in the rumen are usuallyfavourable to milk yield and detrimental to


8/9

live weight gain and protein content (Veriteand Joumet, 1971; Thomas, 1984; De Visseret al, 1990). This is consistent with our

observations, even if estimating live weight

changesover short

periodsis delicate. Diets

leading to a high (C2+C4)/C3 ratio usuallyimprove fat content (Journet and Chilliard,1985). However, the weak correlationbetween fat content and the (C2+C4)/C3ratio (fig 1 ) demonstrates the failure of thatindicator to account for the fat content vari-

ations, especially because it only reflects aninstant measurement of the rumen status

which itself only partially reflects the pro-duction of the main VFA on a daily scale.Other mechanisms, either metabolic or hor-

mone-related, should therefore be taken intoconsideration (Sutton and Morant, 1989) to

explain the individual variations in fat con-tent.

In conclusion, this trial showed that sig-nificant differences in milk yield and com-position can be induced by jointly modify-ing the type and mode of distribution ofconcentrates. For concentrate proportionsin the diet between 40 and 50% of total DM,however, the changes in fat content remainmoderate, much lower than observed with

higher concentrate proportions. Resultsobtained with the GW diet, in particular thehigh protein/fat milk ratio, should be viewedwith caution. The behaviour of the cows

observed in this study would indicate thatthat treatment may increase the risk of

rumen dysfunction.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors gratefully thank M Barbet and hisstaff for the cow management, samplings andmeasurements, and JL Peyraud for his advice onprotocol elaboration.

REFERENCES

Agnew KW, Mayne CS, Doherty JG (1996)An exam-ination of the effect of method and level of con-

centrate feeding on milk production in dairy cowsoffered a grass silage-based diet.Anim Sci 63,21-311

Aaes 0 (1993) Total mixed rations versus separatefeeding of concentrate rich rations fed restrictivelyor ad libitum to

dairycows.

ReportNo

16/1993from the National Institute ofAnimal Science,Foulum, Denmark.

Andrieu J, Demarquilly C (1987) Valeur nutritive desfourrages: tables et prvision. Bull Techn CRZVTheix, Inrci 70, 61-74

Bazin S (1985) Grille de notation de letat dengraisse-ment des vache.s Pies Noire.s. Iteb Editions, 31 pp

Coulon JB, Faverdin P, Laurent F, Cotto G (1989).Influence de la nature de 1aliment concentr6 sur

les performances des vaches laiti6res. /nra ProdAnim 2, 47-53

Coulon JB,Agabriel C, Brunschwig G, Muller C,Bonaiti B ( 1994) Effects of feeding practices onmilk fat concentration for dairy cows. J Dairv Sci77,2614-262W

Coulon JB,Agabriel C (1995) Effet de la forme de

presentation de lorge sur la production et la com-position du lait de vache.Ann Zontech 44, 247-253

Chassaing C, Coulon JB,Agabriel C, Garel JP (1996)The effect of feeding sequence on fat concentra-tion in milk.Ann Zootech 45, I51-157

De Visser H, Van Der Togt PL, Tamminga S (1990)Structural and non-structural carbohydrates in con-centrate supplements of silage-based dairy cowsrations. 1. feed intake and milk production. Neth J

Agric Sci 38, 487-498

Dulphy JP, Demarquilly C (1981) Probl6mes partic-uliers aux ensilages. In: Prvision de la valeur nutri-tive des aliment.s de.s ruminants (Demarquilly C,ed), Inra Publications, Paris, 81-104

HodenA, Coulon JB ( 1991 ) Maitrise de la compositiondu lait: influence des facteurs nutritionnels sur la

quantit6 et les taux de matires grasses et prot6iques.Inra Prod Anim 4, 361-367

Gibson JP ( 1984). The effect of

frequencyof

feedingon

milk production of dairy cattle: analysis of pub-lished results.Anim Prod 38, 181-1911

Grant RJ, Colenbrander VF,Albright JL ( 1990) Effectof particule size and rumen cannulation upon chew-ing activity and litterality in dairy cows. J DairySci 73, 3158-3164

Jouany JP ( 1982) Volatile fatty acid and alcohol deter-mination in digestive contents, silage juices, bac-terial cultures and anaerobic fermentor contents.

Sci Alim 2, 131-144

Jackson DA, Johnson CL, Forbes JM ( 1991) The effectof

compound compositionand

silagecharacteristics

on silage intake, feeding behaviour, production ofmilk and live-weight change in lactating dairy cows.

Anim Prod 52,I I-19


9/9

Journet M, Faverdin P, Remond B, Vtsrite R ( 1983)Niveau et qualit6 des apports azot6s en d6but delactation. Bull Tech CRZV Theix, Inra 51, 7-17

Journet M, Chilliard Y ( 1985) Influence de Ialimen-tation sur la composition du lait. 1. Taux butyreux:facteurs g6n6raux. Bull Tech CRZV Theix, Inra 60,

13-23Macleod GK, Colucci PE, MooreAD, Grieve DG,

Lewis N (1994) The effects of feeding frequency ofconcentrates and feeding sequence of hay on eatingbehavior, ruminal environment and milk produc-tion in dairy cows. Can J Anim Sci 74, 103-113

Michalet-Doreau B, Sauvant D (1989) Influence de ]anature du concentre, c6r6ales ou pulpe de better-aves, sur la digestion chez les ruminants. Inra Prod

Anim 2, 235-244

Robinson PH (1989) Dynamic aspects of feeding man-agement for dairy cows. J Dairv Sci 72, 1197-1209

SjaunjaLO

(1989)Methods

forcalculation

ofthe

energy content of milk lnternational commission forrecording the productivity of milk animal,ICRPMA, Brussels.

StatisticalAnalysis System Institute (1987) SAS usersguide: .statistics. SAS Institute Inc, Cary NC.

Sutton JD ( 1989)Altering milk composition by feed-

ing. J Dairy Sci 72, 2801-2814

Sutton JD, Broster WH, Napper DJ, Siviter JW ( 1985)Feeding frequency for lactating cows. Effects on

digestion, milk production and energy utilization. BrJ Nutr 53, I 17-130

Sutton JD, Morant SV( 1989)A review of the potentialof nutrition to modify milk fat and protein. LivestProd Sci 23, 219-237

Thomas PC (1984) Feeding and milk production. In:Milk Compositional Quality and its Importance inFuture Markets (Castle ME, Gunn RG, eds), OccPubl Br SocAnim Prod, UK, 9, 53-67

Verite R, Journet M (1971) Utilisation compar6e de1ensilage de mas et de 1ensilage dherbe pour laproduction laiti!re.Ann Zootech 20, 153-167

Verite R, Dulphy JP (1981) Effet de la nature de lali-ment concentre sur I ingestion et les performancesdes vaches laiti6res. Bull Tech CRZV Theix, Inra

45, 15-21

Verite R, Peyraud JL (1989) Protein: thePD1 system.In: Ruminant Nutrition. Recommended allowances

and feed tables (Jarrige R, ed), Inra-John LibbeyEurotext, London, 33-47Vermorel M (1989) Energy: the feed unit systems. In:

Ruminant Nutrition. Recommended allowances and

feed tables (Jarrige R, ed), Inra-John Libbey Euro-text, London, 23-30.

Yang CMJ, Varga GA (1989) Effect of three concen-trate feeding frequencies on rumen protozoa, rumendigesta kinetics and milk yield in dairy cows.J Dairy Sci 72, 950-957

Date post:	30-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	jtadic
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

Beet and Soy Hulls for Lactating Cows

Documents