Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T19:31:13.520Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Maize silage and Italian ryegrass silage as high-energy forages in organic dairy cow diets: Differences in feed intake, milk yield and quality, and nitrogen efficiency

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 August 2013

L. Baldinger ,
W. Zollitsch  and
W.F. Knaus
L. Baldinger*
Affiliation:
Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Gregor Mendel Strasse 33, 1180 Vienna, Austria
W. Zollitsch
Affiliation:
Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Gregor Mendel Strasse 33, 1180 Vienna, Austria
W.F. Knaus
Affiliation:
Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Gregor Mendel Strasse 33, 1180 Vienna, Austria
*
* Corresponding author: lisa.baldinger@boku.ac.at
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

During the winter feeding period in organic dairy production systems in the alpine and pre-alpine regions of Austria and its neighboring countries, maize silage is an energy-rich forage that is regularly included in grass-silage-based diets to improve the energy supply of the cows. Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum Lam.) is also a high-energy fodder grass popular as forage for dairy cows, but it is rarely cultivated in Austrian organic agriculture. The two crops differ in their cultivation demands and characteristics. Italian ryegrass establishes rapidly and may reduce the risk of soil erosion. Italian ryegrass would be a beneficial addition to crop rotation, which is an essential tool in successful organic farming. In a 15-week feeding trial, Italian ryegrass silage and maize silage were fed to 22 lactating Holstein dairy cows. Organically produced Italian ryegrass silage and maize silage were included at a rate of 40% [of dry matter (DM)] in grass-silage-based mixed basal diets. The mixed basal diets were supplemented with modest amounts of additional concentrates (2.7–3.0 kg DM day−1). Owing to the higher energy content of maize silage as compared to Italian ryegrass silage, the maize diet provided more energy [6.3 MJ net energy for lactation (NEL) kg−1 DM] than the ryegrass diet (6.15 MJ NEL kg−1 DM). The protein supply of the maize diet and the ryegrass diet was intended to be equal, but in fact the protein content of the maize diet was significantly lower (122 g crude protein kg−1 DM) than that of the ryegrass diet (141 g kg−1 DM). When the maize diet was fed, feed intake, milk yield and milk protein content were significantly higher as compared to the ryegrass diet. Also, intake of crude protein was significantly lower when feeding the maize diet, and in combination with the higher milk protein yield, this enabled an efficiency of gross nitrogen (N) utilization as high as 0.304. This level of N efficiency can be considered as above average and was significantly and considerably higher than the level of 0.259 observed when the ryegrass diet was fed. Therefore, maize silage upholds its reputation as an ideal energy-rich component in grass-silage-based dairy cow diets.

Keywords

Italian ryegrassmaize silageorganicdairy cownitrogen efficiency
Type
Research Papers
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 29 , Issue 4 , December 2014 , pp. 378 - 387
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 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

1 Statistik Austria. 2010. Agrarstrukturerhebung 2010 [Agricultural Structure Survey 2010]. Self-publishing, Vienna, Austria. p. 33.Google Scholar
2 Weller, R.F. and Bowling, P.J. 2007. The importance of nutrient balance, cropping strategy and quality of dairy cow diets in sustainable organic systems. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 87:2768–2773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3 Burke, F., Murphy, J.J., O'Donovan, M.A., O'Mara, F.P., Kavanagh, S., and Mulligan, F.J. 2007. Comparative evaluation of alternative forages to grass silage in the diet of early lactation dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90:908–917.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4 Keady, T.W.J., Kilpatrick, D.J., Mayne, C.S., and Gordon, F.J. 2008. Effects of replacing grass silage with maize silages, differing in maturity, on performance and potential concentrate sparing effect of dairy cows offered two feed value grass silages. Livestock Science 119:1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Kliem, K.E., Morgan, R., Humphries, D.J., Shingfield, K.J., and Givens, D.I. 2008. Effect of replacing grass silage with maize silage in the diet on bovine milk fatty acid composition. Animal 2(12):1850–1858.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6 George, R.A.T. 2011. Agricultural Seed Production. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7 Tamburini, A., Rapetti, L., Crovetto, G.M., and Succi, G. 1995. Rumen degradability of dry matter, NDF and ADF in Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) and winter cereal silages. Zootecnica e Nutrizione Animale 21(Suppl.):75–80.Google Scholar
8 Baldinger, L., Baumung, R., Zollitsch, W., and Knaus, W.F. 2011. Italian ryegrass silage in winter feeding of organic dairy cows: Forage intake, milk yield and composition. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 91(3):435–442.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9 Bernard, J.K., West, J.W., and Trammell, D.S. 2002. Effect of replacing corn silage with annual ryegrass silage on nutrient digestibility, intake, and milk yield for lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 85(9):2277–2282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10 Cooke, K.M., Bernard, J.K., and West, J.W. 2008. Performance of dairy cows fed annual ryegrass silage and corn silage with steam-flaked or ground corn. Journal of Dairy Science 91(6):2417–2422.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11 FAO [Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations]. 2009. Crop Water Information: Maize. Available at Web site http://www.fao.org/nr/water/cropinfo_maize.html (verified May 21, 2013).Google Scholar
12 Dietl, W. and Lehmann, J. 2004. Ökologischer Wiesenbau [Organic Grassland Production]. Österreichischer Agrarverlag, Leopoldsdorf, Austria.Google Scholar
13 Freyer, B. 2003. Fruchtfolgen—Konventionell, Integriert, Biologisch [Crop Rotations—Conventional, Integrated, Organic]. Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart, Germany.Google Scholar
14 The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. 2010. Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. Official Journal of the European Union 276:33–79.Google Scholar
15Federal Law Gazette 198/2000 for the Austrian republic of 30 June 2000 on the Act of Animal Experiments. Available at Web site http://www.bmwf.gv.at/fileadmin/user_upload/forschung/recht/tierversuche/tvvo.pdf (accessed July 28, 2013).Google Scholar
16 VDLUFA [Association of German Agricultural Analytic and Research Institutes] (ed.). 1993. Handbuch der Landwirtschaftlichen Versuchs- und Untersuchungsmethodik (VDLUFA-Methodenbuch), Band III: Die chemische Untersuchung von Futtermitteln [Handbook of Agricultural Experimental and Analytical Methods, Volume III: The chemical analysis of feedstuffs]. VDLUFA-Verlag, Darmstadt, Germany.Google Scholar
17 Lebzien, P. and Voigt, J. 1999. Calculation of utilizable crude protein at the duodenum of cattle by two different approaches. Archives of Animal Nutrition 52(4):363–369.Google ScholarPubMed
18 GfE [Society of Nutrition Physiology]. 2001. Empfehlungen zur Energie- und Nährstoffversorgung der Milchkühe und Aufzuchtrinder [Recommendations on the energy and nutrient supply for dairy cows and heifers]. DLG-Verlag, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.Google Scholar
19 SAS. 2002. Software, Release 9.1.3. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
20 Wang, Z. and Goonewardene, L.A. 2004. The use of MIXED models in the analysis of animal experiments with repeated measures data. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 84(1):1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21 Wilkinson, J.M. 2005. Silage. Chalcombe Publications, Lincoln, UK.Google Scholar
22 Gruber, L., Schwarz, F.J., Erdin, D., Fischer, B., Spiekers, H., Steingaß, H., Meyer, U., Chassot, A., Jilg, T., Obermaier, A., and Guggenberger, T. 2005. Prediction equations for feed intake of lactating dairy cows. Proceedings of the Society of Nutrition Physiology 14:42.Google Scholar
23 Huhtanen, P., Khalili, H., Nousiainen, J.I., Rinne, M., Jaakkola, S., Heikkilä, T., and Nousiainen, J. 2002. Prediction of the relative intake potential of grass silage by dairy cows. Livestock Production Science 73(2–3):111–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24 Krizsan, S.J., Westad, F., Ådnøy, T., Odden, E., Aakre, S.E., and Randby, Å.T. 2007. Effect of volatile compounds in grass silage on voluntary intake by growing cattle. Animal 1(2):283–292.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25 Cooke, K.M., Bernard, J.K., and West, J.W. 2009. Performance of lactating dairy cows fed ryegrass silage and corn silage with ground corn, steam-flaked corn, or hominy feed. Journal of Dairy Science 92(3):1117–1123.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26 Murphy, J.J. and O´Mara, F. 1993. Nutritional manipulation of milk protein concentration and its impact on the dairy industry. Livestock Production Science 35(1–2):117–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27 Nielsen, T.S., Straarup, E.M., Vestergaard, M., and Sejrsen, K. 2006. Effect of silage type and concentrate level on conjugated linoleic acids, trans-C18:1 isomers and fat content in milk from dairy cows. Reproduction Nutrition Development 46(6):699–712.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28 Walker, G.P., Dunshea, F.R., and Doyle, P.T. 2004. Effects of nutrition and management on the production and composition of milk fat and protein: A review. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 55(10):1009–1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29 Calabro, S., Caligiuri, A., Piccolo, V., and Infascelli, F. 2004. Insilato di loiessa e silomais nell'alimentazione della vacca [Italian ryegrass silage and maize silage as feed for cows]. Informatore Agrario 60(32):37–44.Google Scholar
30 Chalupa, W. and Sniffen, C.J. 2000. Balancing rations for milk components. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 13(Suppl.):388–396.Google Scholar
31 Khan, N.A., Cone, J.W., Fievez, V., and Hendriks, W.H. 2012. Causes of variation in fatty acid content and composition in grass and maize silages. Animal Feed Science and Technology 174(1–2):36–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32 Bauman, D.E., Lock, A.L., Corl, B.A., Ip, C., Salter, A.M., and Parodi, P.W. 2006. Milk fatty acids and human health: Potential role of conjugated linoleic acids and trans fatty acids. In Sejrsen, K., Hvelplund, T., and Nielsen, M.O. (eds). Ruminant Physiology—Digestion, Metabolism and Impact of Nutrition on Gene Expression, Immunology and Stress. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Netherlands. p. 529–561.Google Scholar
33 Fall, N. and Emanuelson, U. 2011. Fatty acid content, vitamins and selenium in bulk tank milk from organic and conventional Swedish dairy herds during the indoor season. Journal of Dairy Research 78(3):287–292.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34 DACH. 2008. Referenzwerte für die Nährstoffzufuhr [Reference Values for the Nutrient Supply]. Umschau Braus, Frankfurt am Main, Deutschland.Google Scholar
35 Chilliard, Y., Ferlay, A., Mansbridge, R.M., and Doreau, M. 2000. Ruminant milk fat plasticity: Nutritional control of saturated, polyunsaturated, trans and conjugated fatty acids. Annales de Zootechnie 49(3):181–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36 Hof, G., Vervoorn, M.D., Lenaers, P.J., and Tamminga, S. 1997. Milk urea nitrogen as a tool to monitor the protein nutrition of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 80(12):3333–3340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37 Nousiainen, J., Shingfield, K.J., and Huhtanen, P. 2004. Evaluation of milk urea nitrogen as a diagnostic of protein feeding. Journal of Dairy Science 87(2):386–398.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38 National Research Council. 2001. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle. 7th ed. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
39 Van Soest, P.J. 1994. Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant. 2nd ed. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40 Velik, M., Baumung, R., Zollitsch, W., and Knaus, W.F. 2007. Effects of partial substitution of concentrates by maize silage on performance and feed efficiency in organic dairy cow rations. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 87(14):2657–2664.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
41 Steinshamn, H. and 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. Livestock Science 119(1–3):202–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42 Velik, M., Baumung, R., and Knaus, W.F. 2007. Maize silage as an energy supplement in organic dairy cow rations. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 23(2):155–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
43 Chase, L.E. 2003. Nitrogen utilization in dairy cows—what are the limits of efficiency? In Proceedings of the Cornell Nutrition Conference for Feed Manufacturers, Syracuse, New York, October 21–23, 2003. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, USA. p. 233–245.Google Scholar
44 Powell, J.M., Gourley, C.J.P., Rotz, C.A., and Weaver, D.M. 2010. Nitrogen use efficiency: A potential performance indicator and policy tool for dairy farms. Environmental Science and Policy 13(3):217–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45 Givens, D.I. and Rulquin, H. 2004. Utilisation by ruminants of nitrogen compounds in silage-based diets. Animal Feed Science and Technology 114(1–4):1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar