Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T00:09:55.412Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Integration of the effects of animal and dietary factors on total dry matter intake of dairy cows fed silage-based diets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 December 2010

P. Huhtanen ,
M. Rinne ,
P. Mäntysaari  and
J. Nousiainen
P. Huhtanen*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Research for Northern Sweden, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Umeå, Sweden
M. Rinne
Affiliation:
MTT Agrifood Research Finland, Animal Production Research, FI-31600 Jokioinen, Finland
P. Mäntysaari
Affiliation:
MTT Agrifood Research Finland, Animal Production Research, FI-31600 Jokioinen, Finland
J. Nousiainen
Affiliation:
Valio Ltd., Farm Services, PO Box 10, FI-00039 Valio, Finland
*
†E-mail: pekka.huhtanen@njv.slu.se
Get access

Abstract

An empirical regression model for the prediction of total dry matter intake (DMI) of dairy cows was developed and compared with four published intake models. The model was constructed to include both animal and dietary factors, which are known to affect DMI. For model development, a data set based on individual cow data from 10 change-over and four continuous milk production studies was collected (n = 1554). Relevant animal (live weight (LW), days in milk (DIM), parity and breed) and dietary (total and concentrate DMI, concentrate composition, forage digestibility and fermentation quality) data were collected. The model factors were limited to those that are available before the diets are fed to animals, that is, standardized energy corrected milk (sECM) yield, LW, DIM and diet quality (total diet DMI index (TDMI index)). As observed ECM yield is a function of both the production potential of the cow and diet quality, ECM yield standardized for DIM, TDMI index and metabolizable protein concentration was used in modelling. In the individual data set, correlation coefficients between sECM and TDMI index or DIM were much weaker (0.16 and 0.03) than corresponding coefficients with observed ECM (0.65 and 0.46), respectively. The model was constructed with a mixed model regression analysis using cow within trial as a random factor. The following mixed model was estimated for DMI prediction: DMI (kg DM/day) = −2.9 (±0.56)+0.258 (±0.011) × sECM (kg/day) + 0.0148 (±0.0009) × LW (kg) −0.0175 (±0.001) × DIM −5.85 (±0.41) × exp (−0.03 × DIM) + 0.09 (±0.002) × TDMI index. The mixed DMI model was evaluated with a treatment mean data set (207 studies, 992 diets), and the following relationship was found: Observed DMI (kg DM/day) = −0.10 (±0.33) + 1.004 (±0.019) × Predicted DMI (kg DM/day) with an adjusted residual mean square error of 0.362 kg/day. Evaluation of the residuals did not result in a significant mean bias or linear slope bias, and random error accounted for proportionally >0.99 of the error. In conclusion, the DMI model developed is considered robust because of low mean prediction error, accurate and precise validation, and numerically small differences in the parameter values of model variables when estimated with mixed or simple regression models. The Cornell Net Carbohydrate and Protein System was the most accurate of the four other published DMI models evaluated using individual or treatment mean data, but in most cases mean and linear slope biases were relatively high, and, interestingly, there were large differences in both mean and linear slope biases between the two data sets.

Keywords

intakedairy cowmodelinganimal factorsdiet factors
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 5 , Issue 5 , 04 April 2011 , pp. 691 - 702
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2010

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

References

Dulphy, JP, Faverdin, P, Jarrige, R 1989. Feed intake: the Fill Unit System. In Ruminant nutrition: recommended allowances and feed tables (ed. R Jarrige), pp. 61–67. INRA, John Libbey Eurotext, London, Paris.Google Scholar
Faba (Finnish Animal Breeding Association) 2009. Genetic trends. Retrieved November 13, 2009, from http://www.faba.fi/en/dairy/genetic_trendsGoogle Scholar
Faverdin, P, Delaby, L, Delagarde, R 2007. L'ingestion d'aliments par les vaches laitières et sa prévision au cours de la lactation. INRA Productions Animales 20, 151–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, DG, Tedeschi, LO, Tylutki, TP, Russell, JB, Van Amburgh, ME, Chase, LE, Pell, AN, Overton, TR 2004. The Cornell net carbohydrate and protein system for evaluating herd nutrition and nutrient excretion. Animal Feed Science and Technology 112, 29–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friggens, NC, Ridder, C, Løvendahl, P 2007. On the use of milk composition measures to predict the energy balance of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 5453–5467.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friggens, NC, Emmans, GC, Kyriazakis, I, Oldham, JD, Lewis, M 1998. Feed intake relative to stage of lactation for cows consuming total mixed diets with a high or low ratio of forage to concentrate. Journal of Dairy Science 81, 2228–2239.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garnsworthy, PC, Topps, JH 1982. The effect of body condition of dairy cows at calving on their food intake and performance when given complete diets. Animal Production 35, 113–119.Google Scholar
Hayrli, A, Grummer, RR, Nordheim, EV, Crump, PM 2003. Models for predicting dry matter intake of Holsteins during the prefresh transition period. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 1771–1779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heikkilä, T, Toivonen, V 2005. Effect of access time to feed and sodium bicarbonate in cows given different silages. In Silage production and utilisation. Proceedings of the XIVth International Silage Conference (ed. RS Park and MD Stronge) p. 142. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heuer, C, Van Straalen, WM, Schukken, YH, Dirkzwager, A, Noordhuizen, JPTM 2001. Prediction of energy balance in high yielding dairy cows with test-day information. Journal of Dairy Science 84, 471–481.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hristov, AN, Price, WJ, Shafii, B 2004. A meta-analysis examining the relationship among dietary factors, dry matter intake, and milk and milk protein yield in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 2184–2196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 758–770.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huhtanen, P, Rinne, M, Nousiainen, J 2008. Evaluation of concentrate factors affecting silage intake of dairy cows: a development of the relative total diet intake index. Animal 2, 942–953.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huida, L, Väätäinen, H, Lampila, M 1986. Comparison of dry matter contents in grass silage as determined by oven drying and gas chromatographic water analysis. Annales Agriculturae Fenniae 25, 215–230.Google Scholar
Ingvartsen, KL 1994. Models of voluntary food intake in cattle. Livestock Production Science 39, 19–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keady, TWJ, Mayne, CS, Offer, NW, Thomas, C 2004a. Prediction of voluntary intake. In Feed into milk – a new applied feeding system for dairy cows (ed. C Thomas), pp. 1–7. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham, UK.Google Scholar
Keady, TVJ, Mayne, CS, Kilpatrick, DJ 2004b. An evaluation of five models commonly used to predict food intake of lactating dairy cattle. Livestock Production Science 89, 129–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kristensen, VF, Ingvartsen, KL 2003. Forudsigelse af foderoptagelsen hos malkekøer og ungdyr [Prediction of feed intake in cows and young stock]. In: DJF rapport, Husdyrbrug nr. 53. Kvægets ernæring og fysiologi. Bind 1 – Næringsstofomsætning og fodervurdering [DIAS report, Animal Husbandry no. 53. Cattle nutrition and physiology. Vol. 1 – Nutrient turnover and feed evaluation] (ed. T Hvelplund and P Nørgaard). pp. 511–564.Google Scholar
Lewis, M 1981. Equations for predicting silage intake by beef and dairy cattle. In Summary of the 6th Silage Conference (ed. RD Harkeness and ME Castle), pp. 35–36. Edinburg, UK.Google Scholar
Littell, RC, Milliken, GA, Stroup, WW, Wolfinger, RD 1996. SAS System for Mixed Models. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Maltz, E, Devir, S, Kroll, O, Zur, B, Spahr, SL, Shanks, RD 1992. Comparative responses of lactating cows to total mixed rations or computerized individual concentrates feeding. Journal of Dairy Science 75, 1588–1603.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martinsson, K 1992. Effects of conservation method and access time on silage intake and milk production in dairy cows. Grass and Forage Science 47, 161–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinsson, K, Burstedt, E 1990. Effect of length of access time to feed and allotment of hay on grass silage intake and production in lactating dairy cows. Swedish Journal of Agricultural Research 20, 169–176.Google Scholar
Mertens, DR 1994. Regulation of forage intake. In Forage quality, evaluation and utilization (ed. GC Fahey Jr, M Collins, DR Mertens and LE Moser), pp. 450–493. American Society of Agronomy, Crop and Soil Science Societies of America, Madison, WI, USA.Google Scholar
MTT 2006. Rehutaulukot ja ruokintasuositukset (Feed tables and feeding recommendations). MTT Agrifood Research Finland. Retrieved November 3, 2009, from http://www.agronet.fi/rehutaulukot/englishGoogle Scholar
NRC (National Research Council) 2001. Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle, 7th revised edition. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Nousiainen, J, Rinne, M, Hellämäki, M, Huhtanen, P 2003. Prediction of the digestibility of the primary growth of grass silages harvested at different stages of maturity from chemical composition and pepsin cellulase solubility. Animal Feed Science and Technology 103, 97–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roseler, DK, Fox, DG, Chase, LE, Pell, AN, Stone, WC 1997. Development and evaluation of equations for predicting feed intake for lactating Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 80, 878–893.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sjaunja, LO, Baevre, L, Junkkarinen, L, Pedersen, J, Setälä, J 1991. A nordic proposal for an energy corrected milk (ECM) formula. In Performance recording of animals: state of the art 1990, EAAP Publication no. 50 (ed. P Gaillon and Y Chabert), pp. 156–157. PUDOC, Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
St-Pierre, NR 2001. Integrating quantitative findings from multiple studies using mixed model methodology. Journal of Dairy Science 84, 741–755.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
St-Pierre, NR 2003. Reassessment of biases in predicted nitrogen flows to the duodenum by NRC 2001. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 344–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilley, J, Terry, R 1963. A two-stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Grass and Forage Science 18, 104–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuori, M, Kaustell, KV, Huhtanen, P 1998. Comparison of the protein evaluation systems of feeds for dairy cows. Livestock Production Science 55, 33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vadiveloo, J, Holmes, W 1979. The prediction of the voluntary feed intake of dairy cows. Journal of Agricultural Science 93, 553–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilmink, JBM 1987. Adjustment of test-day milk, fat and protein yield for age, season and stage of lactation. Livestock Production Science 16, 335–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Appendix 1 References describing the Finnish dairy cow feeding experiments where the individual cow data has been derived from:

Heikkilä, T, Saarisalo, E, Taimisto, A-M, Jaakkola, S 2010. Effects of dry matter and additive on wilted bale silage quality and milk production. Grassland Science in Europe 15, 500–502.Google Scholar
Jaakkola, S, Saarisalo, E, Heikkilä, T 2009. Formic acid treated whole crop barley and wheat silages in dairy cow diets: effects of crop maturity, proportion in the diet, and level and type of concentrate supplementation. Agricultural and Food Science 18, 234–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaakkola, S, Saarisalo, E, Heikkilä, T, Nysand, M, Suokannas, A, Mäki, M, Taimisto, A-M 2008. The effect of silage making technology on production and quality of milk. Grassland Science in Europe 13, 642–644.Google Scholar
Khalili, H, Mäntysaari, P, Sariola, J, Kangasniemi, R 2006. Effect of concentrate feeding strategy on performance of dairy cows fed total mixed rations. Agricultural and Food Science 15, 269–279.Google Scholar
Mäntysaari, P, Khalili, H, Sariola, J 2006. Effect of feeding frequency of a total mixed ration on performance of high-yielding dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 4312–4320.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kokkonen, T, Tesfa, A, Tuori, M, Hissa, K, Jukola, E, Syrjälä-Qvist, L 2000. Effects of early lactation concentrate level and glucogenic feed on feed intake, milk production and energy metabolism in dairy cows and heifers. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences 9, 563–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. Livestock Science 116, 171–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rinne, M, Jaakkola, S, Kaustell, K, Heikkilä, T, Huhtanen, P 1999. Silages harvested at different stages of grass growth versus concentrate foods as energy and protein sources in milk production. Animal Science 69, 251–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saarisalo, E, Jaakkola, S, Huhtanen, P 2002. Effects of supplementing grass silage with protein on production of primiparous cows in late lactation. Grassland Science in Europe 7, 594–595.Google Scholar
Shingfield, KJ, Jaakkola, S, Huhtanen, P 2002. Effect of forage conservation method, concentrate level and propylene glycol on intake, feeding behaviour and milk production of dairy cows. Animal Science 74, 383–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shingfield, KJ, Jaakkola, S, Huhtanen, P 2003. Comparison of heat-treated rapeseed expeller and solvent-extracted soya-bean meal protein supplements for dairy cows given grass silage-based diets. Animal Science 77, 305–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sairanen, A, Nousiainen, JI, Khalili, H 1999. Korkean väkirehumäärän vaikutus maitotuotokseen ja tuotannon kannattavuuteen. In Mitä Suomi syö – ja millä hinnalla? Agro-Food ‘99, pp. 7. Agro-Food ry/Agronomiliitto ry., Helsinki, Finland.Google Scholar