Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T05:09:23.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of dehydrated lucerne and soya bean meal on milk production and composition, nutrient digestion, and methane and nitrogen losses in dairy cows receiving two different forages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 December 2013

M. Doreau ,
A. Ferlay ,
Y. Rochette  and
C. Martin
M. Doreau*
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1213 Herbivores, 63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France; Clermont Université, VetAgro Sup, UMR1213 Herbivores, BP 10448, 63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France
A. Ferlay
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1213 Herbivores, 63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France; Clermont Université, VetAgro Sup, UMR1213 Herbivores, BP 10448, 63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France
Y. Rochette
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1213 Herbivores, 63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France; Clermont Université, VetAgro Sup, UMR1213 Herbivores, BP 10448, 63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France
C. Martin
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1213 Herbivores, 63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France; Clermont Université, VetAgro Sup, UMR1213 Herbivores, BP 10448, 63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France
*
†E-mail: michel.doreau@clermont.inra.fr
Get access

Abstract

Dehydrated lucerne is used as a protein source in dairy cow rations, but little is known about the effects of lucerne on greenhouse gas production by animals. Eight Holstein dairy cows (average weight: 582 kg) were used in a replicated 4×4 Latin square design. They received diets based on either maize silage (M) or grass silage (G) (45% of diet on dry matter (DM) basis), with either soya bean meal (15% of diet DM) completed with beet pulp (15% of diet DM) (SP) or dehydrated lucerne (L) (30% of diet DM) as protein sources; MSP, ML, GSP and GL diets were calculated to meet energy requirements for milk production by dairy cows and degradable protein for rumen microbes. Dry matter intake (DMI) did not differ among diets (18.0 kg/day DMI); milk production was higher with SP diets than with L diets (26.0 v. 24.1 kg/day), but milk production did not vary with forage type. Milk fatty-acid (FA) composition was modified by both forage and protein sources: L and G diets resulted in less saturated FA, less linoleic acid, more trans-monounsaturated FA, and more linolenic acid than SP and M diets, respectively. Enteric methane (CH4) production, measured by the SF6 tracer method, was higher for G diets than for M diets, but did not differ with protein source. The same effects were observed when CH4 was expressed per kg milk. Minor effects of diets on rumen fermentation pattern were observed. Manure CH4 emissions estimated from faecal organic matter were negatively related to diet digestibility and were thus higher for L than SP diets, and higher for M than G diets; the resulting difference in total CH4 production was small. Owing to diet formulation constraints, N intake was higher for SP than for L diets; interaction between forage type and protein source was significant for N intake. The same statistical effects were found for N in milk. Faecal and urinary N losses were determined from total faeces and urine collection. Faecal N output was lower for M than for G diets but did not differ between protein sources. Urinary N output did not differ between forage types, but was lower for cows fed L diets than for cows fed SP diets, potentially resulting in lower ammonia emissions with L diets. Replacing soya bean meal plus beet pulp with dehydrated lucerne did not change CH4 production, but resulted in more N in faeces and less N in urine.

Keywords

dehydrated lucerneN lossesmethanemilk fatty acidsdairy cow
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , March 2014 , pp. 420 - 430
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2013 

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

Agle, M, Hristov, AN, Zaman, S, Schneider, C, Ndegwa, P and Vaddella, VK 2010. The effects of ruminally degraded protein on rumen fermentation and ammonia losses from manure in dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science 93, 1625–1637.Google ScholarPubMed
Association of Official Analytical Chemistry (AOAC) 1990. Official method of analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemistry, 14th edition. Association of Official Analytical Chemistry, Arlington, VA, USA.Google Scholar
Archimède, H, Eugène, M, Marie Magdeleine, C, Boval, M, Martin, C, Morgavi, DP, Lecomte, P and Doreau, M 2011. Comparison of methane production between temperate and tropical forages: a quantitative review. Animal Feed Science and Technology 166–167, 59–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beauchemin, KA, McAllister, TA and McGinn, SM 2009. Dietary mitigation of enteric methane from cattle. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources 4, 1–18.Google Scholar
Callaway, TR, Martin, SA, Wampler, JL, Hill, NS and Hill, GM 1997. Malate content of forage varieties commonly fed to cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 80, 1651–1655.Google Scholar
Chilliard, Y, Ferlay, A and Doreau, M 2001. Effect of different types of forages, animal fat or marine oils in cow’s diet on milk fat secretion and composition, especially conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) and polyunsaturated fatty acids. Livestock Production Science 70, 31–48.Google Scholar
Christensen, DA and Cochran, MI 1983. Composition and nutritive value of dehydrated alfalfa in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 66, 1282–1289.Google Scholar
Chung, YH, He, ML, McGinn, SM, McAllister, TA and Beauchemin, KA 2011. Linseed suppresses enteric methane emissions from cattle fed barley silage, but not from those fed grass hay. Animal Feed Science and Technology 166–167, 321–329.Google Scholar
Dewhurst, RJ, Shingfield, KJ, Lee, MRF and Scollan, ND 2006. Increasing the concentrations of beneficial polyunsaturated fatty acids in milk produced by dairy cows in high-forage systems. Animal Feed Science and Technology 131, 168–206.Google Scholar
Doreau, M, Martin, C, Eugène, M, Popova, M and Morgavi, DP 2011. Leviers d’action pour réduire la production de méthane entérique par les ruminants. INRA Productions Animales 24, 461–474.Google Scholar
Dulphy, JP and Demarquilly, C 1981. Problèmes particuliers aux ensilages. In Prévision de la valeur nutritive des aliments des ruminants (ed. C Demarquilly), pp. 81–104. INRA Publications, Versailles, France.Google Scholar
Eckard, RJ, Grainger, C and de Klein, CAM 2010. Options for the abatement of methane and nitrous oxide from ruminant production: a review. Livestock Science 130, 47–56.Google Scholar
Faisant, N, Planchot, V, Kozlowski, F, Pacouret, MP, Colonna, P and Champ, M 1995. Resistant starch determination adapted to products containing high level of resistant starch. Sciences des Aliments 15, 83–89.Google Scholar
Foley, PA, Kenny, DA, Callan, JJ, Boland, TM and O’Mara, FP 2009. Effect of DL-malic acid supplementation on feed intake, methane emission, and rumen fermentation in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 87, 1048–1057.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hammond, KJ, Hoskin, SO, Burke, JL, Waghorn, GC, Koolaard, JP and Muetzel, S 2011. Effects of feeding fresh white clover (Trifolium repens) or perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) on enteric methane emissions from sheep. Animal Feed Science and Technology 166–167, 398–404.Google Scholar
Hristov, AN and Broderick, GA 1996. Synthesis of microbial protein in ruminally cannulated cows fed alfalfa silage, alfalfa hay or corn silage. Journal of Dairy Science 79, 1627–1637.Google Scholar
Hristov, AN, Hanigan, M, Cole, A, Todd, R, McAllister, TA, Ndegwa, PM and Rotz, A 2011. Review: ammonia emissions from dairy farms and beef feedlots. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 91, 1–35.Google Scholar
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA) 2007. Alimentation des bovins, ovins et caprins. Quae, Versailles, France. 307pp.Google Scholar
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2006. IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse inventories. In Emissions from livestock and manure management, chapter 10. Retrieved 1 December 2013, from http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/ Google Scholar
Kebreab, E, France, J, Beever, DE and Castillo, AR 2001. Nitrogen pollution by dairy cows and its mitigation by dietary manipulation. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 60, 275–285.Google Scholar
Kliem, KE, Morgan, R, Humphries, DJ, Shingfield, KJ and Givens, DI 2008. Effect of replacing grass silage with maize silage in the diet on bovine milk fatty acid composition. Animal 2, 1850–1858.Google Scholar
Lapierre, H and Lobley, GE 2001. Nitrogen recycling in the ruminant: a review. Journal of Dairy Science 84, E223–E236.Google Scholar
Lerch, S, Ferlay, A, Shingfield, KJ, Martin, B, Pomiès, D and Chilliard, Y 2012. Rapeseed or linseed supplements in grass-based diets: effects on milk fatty acid composition of Holstein cows over two consecutive lactations. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 5221–5241.Google Scholar
Martin, C, Morgavi, DP and Doreau, M 2010. Methane mitigation in ruminants: from microbe to the farm scale. Animal 4, 351–365.Google Scholar
Martin, C, Rouel, J, Jouany, JP, Doreau, M and Chilliard, Y 2008. Methane output and diet digestibility in response to feeding dairy cows crude linseed, extruded linseed, or linseed oil. Journal of Animal Science 86, 2642–2650.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCaughey, WP, Wittenberg, K and Corrigan, D 1999. Impact of pasture type on methane production by lactating beef cows. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 79, 221–226.Google Scholar
Nguyen, TTH, van der Werf, HMG, Eugène, M, Veysset, P, Devun, J, Chesneau, G and Doreau, M 2012. Effect of type of ration and allocation methods on the environmental impacts of beef-production systems. Livestock Science 145, 239–251.Google Scholar
Peyraud, JL and Delaby, L 1994. Utilisation de luzerne déshydratée de haute qualité dans la ration des vaches laitières. INRA Productions Animales 7, 125–134.Google Scholar
Price, SG, Satter, LD and Jorgensen, NA 1988. Dehydrated alfalfa in dairy cow diets. Journal of Dairy Science 71, 727–736.Google Scholar
Riediger, ND, Othman, RA, Suh, M and Moghadasian, MH 2009. A systemic review of the roles of n-3 fatty acids in health and disease. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 109, 668–679.Google Scholar
Rochette, P and Janzen, HH 2005. Towards a revised coefficient for estimating N2O emissions from legumes. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 73, 171–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schils, RLM, Eriksen, J, Ledgard, SF, Vellinga, TV, Kuikman, PJ, Luo, J, Petersen, SO and Velthof, GL 2013. Strategies to mitigate nitrous oxide emissions from herbivore production systems. Animal 7, 29–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shingfield, KJ, Bernard, L, Leroux, C and Chilliard, Y 2010. Role of trans fatty acids in the nutritional regulation of mammary lipogenesis in ruminants. Animal 4, 1140–1166.Google Scholar
Spek, JW, Dijkstra, J, Van Duinkerken, G and Bannink, A 2013. A review of factors influencing milk urea concentration and its relationship with urinary urea excretion in lactating dairy cattle. Journal of Agricultural Science 151, 407–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistical Analysis Software (SAS) 1997. User’s Guide: Statistics, Version 6.12 Edition. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Steinfeld, H, Gerber, P, Wassenaar, T, Castel, V, Rosales, M and De Haan, C 2006. Livestock’s long shadow: environmental issues and options. FAO, Rome, 390pp.Google Scholar
Vaddella, VK, Ndegwa, PM, Joo, HS and Ullman, JL 2010. Impact of separating dairy cattle excretions on ammonia emissions. Journal of Environmental Quality 39, 1807–1812.Google Scholar
Van Dorland, HA, Wettstein, HR, Leuenberger, H and Kreuzer, M 2007. Effect of supplementation of fresh and ensiled clovers to ryegrass on nitrogen loss and methane emissions in dairy cows. Livestock Science 111, 57–69.Google Scholar
Van Soest, PJ, Robertson, JB and Lewis, BA 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3538–3597.Google Scholar
Vlaeminck, B, Fievez, V, Cabrita, ARJ, Fonseca, AJM and Dewhurst, RJ 2006. Factors affecting odd- and branched-chain fatty acids in milk: a review. Animal Feed Science and Technology 131, 389–417.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Doreau et al. Supplementary Material

Tables

Download Doreau et al. Supplementary Material(File)
File 78.8 KB