Tropical Animal Health and Production

, Volume 50, Issue 4, pp 837–843 | Cite as

Dairy cows fed on tropical legume forages: effects on milk yield, nutrients use efficiency and profitability

  • J.M. Castro-Montoya
  • R.A. García
  • R.A. Ramos
  • J.M. Flores
  • E.A. Alas
  • E.E. Corea
Regular Articles
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Two trials with multiparous dairy cows were conducted. Experiment 1 tested the effects of increasing forage proportion in the diet (500, 600, and 700 g/kg DM) when a mixed sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) and jackbean (Cannavalia ensiformis) silage was used as forage. Experiment 2 studied the substitution of sorghum silage and soybean meal by jackbean silage or fresh cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) forage in the diet. All diets were iso-energetic and iso-proteic. In each experiment, 30 cows were used and separated into three groups. In experiment 1, there were no differences in dry matter intake (DMI), milk yield (MY), or apparent total tract digestibility (aTTd) among the three diets, but milk fat content increased with increasing forage proportion, even though the similar neutral detergent fiber of all diets. Nitrogen use efficiency was highest in the diet containing 600 g forage/kg DM, and some evidence was observed for a better profitability with this forage proportion. In experiment 2, feeding legumes increased DMI despite no effects on aTTd. Milk yield increased in line with DMI, with a larger increase for the fresh cowpea. Nitrogen use efficiency and milk composition were not affected by the diets. The increased MY and lower feed costs increased the economic benefits when feeding legumes, particularly when feeding fresh cowpea. Feeding fresh cowpea or jackbean silage to dairy cows appears to be an alternative to soybean as protein source, ideally at a forage proportions of 600 g/kg DM, without altering milk yield and quality and increasing the farm profitability.

Keywords

Tropical legumes Cowpea Jackbean Forage proportion Dairy cows 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

To the Asociación Cooperativa Astoria for allowing us to work in their farm. To the department of agricultural chemistry for assisting in all nutrient determinations.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. AOAC, 2005. Official Methods of Analysis. 18th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists Int., Gaithersburg.Google Scholar
  2. Bailey, K., Jones, C. and Heinrichs, A., 2005. Economic returns to Holstein and jersey herds under multiple component pricing. Journal of Dairy Science, 88, 2269–2280.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Broderick, G.A., 1995. Desirable characteristics of forage legumes for improving protein utilization in ruminants. Journal of Animal Science, 73, 2760–2773.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Buchanan-Smith, J.G., 1990. An investigation into palatability as a factor responsible for reduced intake of silage by sheep. Animal Production, 50, 253–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Castro-Montoya, J.C. and Dickhoefer, U. 2017. Effects of tropical legume silages on intake, digestibility and performance in large and small ruminants: a review. Grass and Forage science. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1111/gfs.12324
  6. Corea, E.E., Aguilar, J.M., Alas, N.P., Alas, E.A., Flores, J.M. and Broderick, G.A., 2017. Effects of dietary cowpea (Vigna sinensis) hay and protein level on milk yield, milk composition, N efficiency and profitability of dairy cows. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 226, 48–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Corea E.E., Flores, J.M., Salinas, F.M., Crespin, E.A. and Elizondo-Salazar, J.A., 2010 Yield and quality of grasses and legumes for dairy cattle feeding. Journal of Dairy Science, 93, Suppl 1.Google Scholar
  8. Dewhurst, R., 2013. Milk production from silage: comparison of grass, legume and maize silages and their mixtures. Agricultural and Food Science, 22, 57–69.Google Scholar
  9. Dong, L., Ferris, C., McDowell, D., and Yan, T., 2015. Effects of diet forage proportion on maintenance energy requirement and the efficiency of metabolizable energy use for lactation by lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 98, 8846–8855.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Jiang, F., Lin, X., Yan, Z., Hu, Z., Liu, G., Sun, Y., Liu, X. and Wang, Z., 2017. Effect of dietary roughage level on chewing activity, ruminal pH, and saliva secretion in lactating Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 100, 2660–2671.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Jonker, J., Kohn R. and Erdman, R., 1998. Using milk urea nitrogen to predict nitrogen excretion and utilization efficiency in lactating dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science, 81, 2681–2692.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Lascano, G., Koch, L, and Heinrichs, A., 2016. Precision-feeding dairy heifers a high rumen-degradable protein diet with different proportions of dietary fiber and forage-to-concentrate ratios. Journal of Dairy Science, 99, 7175–7190.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Marsalis, M.A., Angadi, S.V. and Contreras-Govea, F.E., 2010. Dry matter yield and nutritive value of corn, forage sorghum, and BMR forage sorghum at different plant populations and nitrogen rates. Field Crops Research, 116, 52–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Martínez, C., Chung, Y., Ishler, V., Bailey, K. and Varga, G., 2009. Effects of dietary forage level and monensin on lactation performance, digestibility and fecal excretion of nutrients, and efficiency of feed nitrogen utilization of Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 92, 3211–3221.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Moorby, J., Dewhurst, R., Evans, R. and Danelón, J., 2006. Effects of dairy cow diet forage proportion on duodenal nutrient supply and urinary purine derivative excretion. Journal of Dairy Science, 89, 3552–3562.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Obeid, J., Gomide, J. and Cruz, M., 1992. Silagem de milho (Zea mays, L.,) consorciado com leguminosas na alimentacao de novilhos de corte em confinamento. [Maize silage combined with leguminous in the feeding of stabled beef steers]. Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Zootecnia, 21, 39–44.Google Scholar
  17. Van Soest, P.J., 1967. Development of a comprehensive system of feed analyses and its application to forages Journal of Animal Science, 26, 119–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wang, C., Liu, J.X., Makkar, H.P.S., Wei, N. and Xu, Q., 2014. Production level, feed conversion efficiency, and nitrogen use efficiency of dairy production systems in China. Tropical Animal Health and Production. 46, 669–673.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Yang, W.A., Beauchemin, K.A. and Rode, L.M., 2001. Effects of grain processing, forage to concentrate ratio, and forage particle size on rumen pH and digestion by dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 84, 2203–2216.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Agricultural Sciences in the Tropics, Animal Nutrition and Rangeland Management in the Tropics and the SubtropicsHohenheim UniversityStuttgartGermany
  2. 2.Faculty of Agricultural SciencesUniversity of El SalvadorSan SalvadorEl Salvador

Personalised recommendations