Advertisement

Organic Agriculture

, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 41–51 | Cite as

Effect of replacing organic grass-clover silage from primary growth with regrowth on feed intake and milk yield of dairy cows

  • Sondre Stokke NaadlandEmail author
  • Håvard Steinshamn
  • Åshild Taksdal Randby
Article

Abstract

Under Norwegian conditions, diets based on primary growth (PG) silage typically increase milk yield compared to silage prepared from the regrowth (RG). Organic PG, dominated by immature grasses, is often high in energy and low in crude protein (CP), whereas the opposite is the case for organic RG harvests, dominated by clover. Here, we tested the hypotheses that increasing proportions of RG will reduce the total supply of metabolizable energy, but increase the CP intake, and that there is a dietary optimal mix of PG and RG to meet requirements for optimal milk production. Sixteen Norwegian Red cows were used in an experiment designed with four balanced 4 × 4 Latin squares with 21-day periods to evaluate the effect of incremental replacement of PG with RG on feed intake, nutrient digestion, and milk production. Silages were prepared from PG and RG of an organically managed grassland. Treatments comprised silages fed ad libitum with RG replacing PG in ratios of 0, 0.33, 0.67, and 1 on dry matter (DM) basis. Additionally, concentrate was offered with 8 kg for pluriparous and 7 kg for primiparous cows. The PG had higher content metabolizable energy (ME), potentially degradable neutral detergent fiber (NDF), and water-soluble carbohydrates, while RG contained more CP and indigestible NDF. The already mentioned characteristics led to higher intakes of DM, organic matter, NDF, and ME and lower intakes of CP and indigestible NDF with increasing proportions of PG in the diet. Milk yield tended to be higher when PG and RG were offered as a mixture than when fed alone. The milk fat concentration decreased linearly with increasing proportions of RG proportion, while protein concentration was unaffected by diet. This led to a similar production of energy-corrected milk among cows fed diets containing PG while cows fed pure RG diet produced 0.9 kg less daily. Silage energy concentration and energy intake influenced milk production more than CP supply.

Keywords

Dairy cow Organic milk production Regrowth Silage Grass-clover 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The project was funded by the Norwegian Agricultural Agreement Research Fund (Project number 207755 in The Research Council of Norway), the County Governors of Sør- and Nord-Trøndelag, the Sør- and Nord-Trøndelag County Authorities, TINE SA, and the Norwegian Agricultural Extension Service. The authors have no financial or other conflict of interest in the manuscript. Further, the authors acknowledge Torstein Garmo for his help with botanical composition, Egil Prestløkken for conducting a digestibility experiment with our feeds, and, finally, the always present and helpful staff at the experimental unit led by Dag Kristoffer Forberg.

References

  1. AOAC (1984) AOAC official method 7.074 fiber (acid detergent) and lignin in animal feed. In: Williams S (ed) Official methods of analysis of AOAC, 14th edn. Assoc. of Off. Anal. Chemists, Arlington, pp 162–163Google Scholar
  2. Beauchemin K (1991) Effects of dietary neutral detergent fiber concentration and alfalfa hay quality on chewing, rumen function, and milk production of dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 74:3140–3151CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bertilsson J, Murphy M (2003) Effects of feeding clover silages on feed intake, milk production and digestion in dairy cows. Grass Forage Sci 58:309–322. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2494.2003.00383.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Byström S, Jonsson S, Martinsson K (2002) Organic versus conventional dairy farming—studies from the Öjebyn project. The UK Organic Research Conference, Aberystwyth, pp 179–184Google Scholar
  5. Counc. of the Eur. Union (2007) Council Regulation (EC) No. 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91. Off J Eur Communities 189:1–23Google Scholar
  6. Dewhurst R, Fisher W, Tweed J, Wilkins R (2003) Comparison of grass and legume silages for milk production. 1. Production responses with different levels of concentrate. J Dairy Sci 86:2598–2611CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Eriksson T, Norell L, Nilsdotter-Linde N (2012) Nitrogen metabolism and milk production in dairy cows fed semi-restricted amounts of ryegrass–legume silage with birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus L.) or white clover (Trifolium repens L.). Grass Forage Sci 67:546–558. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2494.2012.00882.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Govasmark E, Steen A, Bakken A, Steinshamn H, Strøm T, Hansen S (2005) Factors affecting the concentration of Zn, Fe and Mn in herbage from organic farms and in relation to dietary requirements of ruminants. Acta Agri Scand, B—Soil Plant Sci 55:131–142. doi: 10.1080/09064710510008586 Google Scholar
  9. Halmemies-Beauchet-Filleau A, Vanhatalo A, Toivonen V, Heikkilä T, Lee MRF, Shingfield KJ (2014) Effect of replacing grass silage with red clover silage on nutrient digestion, nitrogen metabolism, and milk fat composition in lactating cows fed diets containing a 60:40 forage-to-concentrate ratio. J Dairy Sci 97:3761–3776. doi: 10.3168/jds.2013-7358 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Huhtanen P, Hristov AN (2009) A meta-analysis of the effects of dietary protein concentration and degradability on milk protein yield and milk N efficiency in dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 92:3222–3232. doi: 10.3168/jds.2008-1352 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Huhtanen P, Nousiainen JI, Khalili H, Jaakkola S, Heikkilä T (2003) Relationships between silage fermentation characteristics and milk production parameters: analyses of literature data. Livest Prod Sci 81:57–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Huhtanen P, Nousiainen J, Rinne M et al (2006) Recent developments in forage evaluation with special reference to practical applications. Agri Food Sci 15:31Google Scholar
  13. Huhtanen P, Rinne M, Nousiainen J (2007) Evaluation of the factors affecting silage intake of dairy cows: a revision of the relative silage dry-matter intake index. Animal 1:13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. SAS Institute Inc (2011) SAS/STAT Software, Version 9.3. doi:citeulike-article-id:11105873Google Scholar
  15. Khalili H, Huhtanen P (1991) Sucrose supplements in cattle given grass silage-based diet. 2. Digestion of cell wall carbohydrates. Anim Feed Sci Tech 33:263–273. doi: 10.1016/0377-8401(91)90065-Z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Khalili H, Sairanen A, Nousiainen J, Huhtanen P (2005) Effects of silage made from primary or regrowth grass and protein supplementation on dairy cow performance. Livest Prod Sci 96:269–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kuoppala K, Rinne M, Nousiainen J, Huhtanen P (2008) The effect of cutting time of grass silage in primary growth and regrowth and the interactions between silage quality and concentrate level on milk production of dairy cows. Livest Sci 116:171–182. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2007.10.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kuoppala K, Ahvenjarvi S, Rinne M, Vanhatalo A (2009) Effects of feeding grass or red clover silage cut at two maturity stages in dairy cows. 2. Dry matter intake and cell wall digestion kinetics. J Dairy Sci 92:5634–5644. doi: 10.3168/jds.2009-2250 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Kuoppala K, Rinne M, Ahvenjarvi S, Nousiainen J, Huhtanen P (2010) The effect of harvesting strategy of grass silage on digestion and nutrient supply in dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 93:3253–3263. doi: 10.3168/jds.2009-3013 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Leiber F (2014) Resigning protein concentrates in dairy cattle nutrition: a problem or a chance? Org Agri 4:269–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Licitra G, Hernandez TM, VanSoest PJ (1996) Standardization of procedures for nitrogen fractionation of ruminant feeds. Anim Feed Sci Tech 57:347–358. doi: 10.1016/0377-8401(95)00837-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Madsen J, Hvelplund T, Weisbjerg MR et al. (1995) The AAT/PBV protein evaluation system for ruminants—a revision. Nor J Agri Sci Suppl 35Google Scholar
  23. National Research Council (2001) Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle: seventh revised edition, 2001. The Natl. Acad Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  24. Newton G, Fontenot J, Tucker R, Polan C (1972) Effects of high dietary potassium intake on the metabolism of magnesium by sheep. J Anim Sci 35:440–445CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. NorFor (2007a) Norfor in sacco standard, Nordic feed evaluation system. Accessed 21.11 2014Google Scholar
  26. Norfor (2007b) Norfor method for determination of dry matter vol 2015, 21 September 2007 ednGoogle Scholar
  27. Nousiainen J (2004) Development of tools for the nutritional management of dairy cows on silage-based diets. PhD Thesis. Univ. of HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  28. Peoples A, Gordon F (1989) The influence of wilting and season of silage harvest and the fat and protein concentration of the supplement on milk production and food utilization by lactating cattle. Anim Prod 48:305–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. TINE Rådgiving (2012) TINE SA (The Nor. Dairy Ass.), Ås, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  30. Randby ÅT (1992) Grass-clover silage for dairy cows. In: 14th Gen. Meet. of Eur. Grassl. Fed., Lahti, Finland, 8–11 June 1992 1992. pp 272–275Google Scholar
  31. Randby Å, Nørgaard P, Weisbjerg M (2010) Effect of increasing plant maturity in timothy‐dominated grass silage on the performance of growing/finishing. Norwegian Red Bulls Grass Forage Sci 65:273–286Google Scholar
  32. Randby Å, Weisbjerg M, Nørgaard P, Heringstad B (2012) Early lactation feed intake and milk yield responses of dairy cows offered grass silages harvested at early maturity stages. J Dairy Sci 95:14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schwab C, Huhtanen P, Hunt C, Hvelplund T (2005) Nitrogen requirements of cattle. In: Pfeffer E, Hristov AN (eds) Nitrogen and phosphorus nutrition of cattle: reducing the environmental impact of cattle operations, vol 1. CABI Publ, Cambridge, pp 13–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Spörndly R (2003) Fodertabeller för idisslare. Rep. 257. Dep. of Anim. Nutr. Manag. Swedish Univ. Agric. Sci, UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  35. Steinshamn H (2001) Effects of cattle slurry on the growth potential and clover proportion of organically managed grass-clover leys. Acta Agri Scand, B - Soil Plant Sci 51:12. doi: 10.1080/09064710127615 Google Scholar
  36. Steinshamn H (2010) Effect of forage legumes on feed intake, milk production and milk quality—a review Anim Sci Pap and Rep 28:12Google Scholar
  37. Steinshamn H, Thuen E (2008) White or red clover-grass silage in organic dairy milk production: grassland productivity and milk production responses with different levels of concentrate. Livest Sci 119:14. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2008.04.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stensig T, Weisbjerg MR, Hvelplund T (1998) Digestion and passage kinetics of fibre in dairy cows as affected by the proportion of wheat starch or sucrose in the diet. Acta Agri Scand, A - Anim Sci 48:12. doi: 10.1080/09064709809362413 Google Scholar
  39. Van Es AJH (1978) Feed evaluation for ruminants. I. The systems in use from May 1977-onwards in the Netherlands. Livest Prod Sci 5:15. doi: 10.1016/0301-6226(78)90029-5 Google Scholar
  40. Van Soest PJ (1994) Nutritional ecology of the ruminant, 2nd edn. Comstock Publ. Assoc, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  41. Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA (1991) Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci 74:15. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2 Google Scholar
  42. Vanhatalo A (2008) Effects of harvest time of red clover silage on milk production and composition. In: biodivers. and anim. feed: future chall. for grassl. prod. Proceedings of the 22nd Gen. Meet. of the Eur. Grassl. Fed. Swedish Univ. of Agri. Sci, Uppsala, pp 391–393Google Scholar
  43. Vanhatalo A, Kuoppala K, Ahvenjärvi S, Rinne M (2009) Effects of feeding grass or red clover silage cut at two maturity stages in dairy cows. 1. Nitrogen metabolism and supply of amino acids. J Dairy Sci 92:14. doi: 10.3168/jds.2009-2249 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Volden H (2011) NorFor Nordic feed evaluation system Norfor—the Nordic feed evaluation system, vol 130. Wageningen Acad. Publ, Wageningen. doi: 10.3920/978-90-8686-718-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sondre Stokke Naadland
    • 1
    Email author
  • Håvard Steinshamn
    • 2
  • Åshild Taksdal Randby
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Animal and Aquacultural SciencesNorwegian University of Life SciencesÅsNorway
  2. 2.Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research (NIBIO)TingvollNorway

Personalised recommendations