Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T05:55:14.204Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The interaction between dietary fibre level and protein degradability in dairy cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

P. C. Garnsworthy
P. C. Garnsworthy
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture and Horticulture, University of Nottingham School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough LE12 5RD
Get access

Abstract

A trial was performed to investigate the interaction between energy and protein source for cows in negative energy balance. Six cows were assigned to each of four types of concentrate (metabolizable energy (ME) 12 MJ/kg dry matter (DM), crude protein (CP) 180 g/kg DM) with low or high fibre contents (LF or HF) and protein degradability (LD or HD). For groups HDLF, LDLF, HDHF and LDHF respectively, acid-detergent fibre contents (g/kg diet DM) were 69·2, 66·1, 117·5 and 113·3; protein degradability values were determined as 0·78, 0·61, 0·72 and 0·66. Low-fibre diets were given at the rate of 11 kg/day concentrates with 6 kg/day hay (ME 8 MJ/kg DM, CP 84·5 g/kg DM) and high-fibre diets at the rate of 10 kg/day concentrates with 7·5 kg/day hay from weeks 4 to 13 of lactation. Cows were given a standard diet over the first 3 weeks of lactation and performance in week 3 was used as a covariate.

Milk yield was not affected by treatment but the butterfat content of milk from cows given the high-fibre diets (44·9 g/kg) was higher than the low-fibre diets (36·4 g/kg; P < 0·01), which resulted in significant differences in fat-corrected milk yield (HDHF: 25·1, LDHF: 26·2, HDLF: 22·7, LDLF: 21·5, s.e.d. 1·5 kg/day). ME balance was lower for the LDHF group (−4·1 MJ/day) than for groups LDLF and HDLF (-15·4 and -16·8 MJ/day; P < 0·05) but was not significantly different from the HDHF group (-29·4 MJ/day). Undegradable protein (UDP) balances were 53·4, 93·8, -21·2 and 193·8 (s.e.d. 45, P < 005) g/day for groups HDLF, LDLF, HDHF and LDHF respectively. Differences from zero in ME and UDP balance were accounted for in all groups except LDHF by changes in live weight plus a systematic correction of approximately 10 MJ/day. It is considered that the cows given high-fibre diets responded to high UDP by increasing fat-corrected milk production but mobilization of body fat to support this increase was accompanied by retention of protein with associated water, resulting in very little change in live weight. It is also probable that the high UDP levels improved the digestion of fibre i n the rumen, but this is unlikely to have been sufficient to have accounted for all of the response.

Information

Type
Papers
Information
Animal Production , Volume 48 , Issue 2 , April 1989, pp. 271 - 281
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1989

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Agricultural Research Council. 1980. The Nutrient Requirements of Ruminant Livestock. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough.Google Scholar
Agricultural Research Council. 1984. The Nutrient Requirements of Ruminant Livestock. Supplement No. 1. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux. Slough.Google Scholar
Binnerts, W. T., Klooster, A. Th. vant and Frens, A. M. 1968. Soluble chromium indicator measured by atomic absorption in digestion experiments. Veterinary Record 82: 470.Google Scholar
Buttery, P. J. and Lewis, D. 1982. Nitrogen metabolism in the rumen. In Forage Protein in Ruminant Animal Production (ed Thomson, D. J., Beever, D. E. and Gunn, R. G.), Occasional Publication, British Society of Animal Production, No. 6, pp. 1–11.Google Scholar
Garnsworthy, P. C. 1988. The effect of energy reserves at calving on performance of dairy cows. In Nutrition and Lactation in the Dairy Cow (ed. Garnsworthy, P. C.), pp. 157–170. Butterworths, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garnsworthy, P. C. and Jones, G. P. 1987. The influence of body condition at calving and dietary protein supply on voluntary food intake and performance in dairy cows. Animal Production 44: 347–353.Google Scholar
Lees, J. A. 1985. Influence of level and source of dietary protein on milk production in dairy cows. PhD Thesis, University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
Lees, J. A., Garnsworthy, P. C. and Oldham, J. D. 1982. The response of dairy cows in early lactation to supplements of protein given with rations designed to promote different patterns of rumen fermentation. In Forage Protein in Ruminant Animal Production (ed. Thomson, D. J., Beever, D. E. and Gunn, R. G.), Occasional Publication, British Society of Animal Production, No. 6, pp. 157–159.Google Scholar
Lees, J. A., Garnsworthy, P. C. and Oldham, J. D. 1983. The response of dairy cows in early lactation to isonitrogenous concentrates containing different levels of digestible undegradable protein. Animal Production 36: 501–502 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. and McDonald, I. 1979. The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 92: 499–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Reid, G. W. and McDonald, I. 1981. The effects of protein degradability and food intake on milk yield and composition in cows in early lactation. British Journal of Nutrition 45: 547–555.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sloan, B. K., Rowlinson, P. and Armstrong, D. G. 1988. The influence of a formulated excess of rumen degradable protein or undegradable protein on milk production in dairy cows in early lactation. Animal Production 46: 13–22.Google Scholar
Sutton, J. D., Bines, J. A., Morant, S. V., Napper, D. J. and Givens, D. I. 1987. A comparison of starchy and fibrous concentrates for milk production, energy utilization and hay intake by Friesian cows. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 109: 375–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, C. and Rae, R. C. 1988. Concentrate supplementation of silage for dairy cows. In Nutrition and Lactation in the Dairy Cow (ed. Garnsworthy, P. C.), pp. 327–354. Butterworths, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, P. C. and Martin, P. A. 1988. The influence of nutrient balance on milk yield and milk composition. In Nutrition and Lactation in the Dairy Cow (ed. Garnsworthy, P. C.), pp. 97–118. Butterworths, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, P. C., Robertson, S., Chamberlain, D. G., Livingstone, R. M., Garthwaite, P. H., Dewey, P. J. S., Smart, R. and Whyte, C. 1988. Predicting the metabolizable energy (ME) content of compounded feeds for ruminants. In Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition — 1988 (ed. Haresign, W. and Cole, D. J. A.), pp. 127–146. Butterworths, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United Kingdom Agricultural Supply Trade Association, Agricultural Development and Advisory Service and Council of Scottish Agricultural Colleges. 1985. Prediction of energy values of compound feed. Report of UKASTA, ADAS, COSAC working party. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, London.Google Scholar