School of Agriculture and Food Science, College of Agriculture, Food Science and Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin Lyons Research Farm, Newcastle, Co. Dublin, Ireland.
J Anim Sci. 2013 Aug;91(8):3867-74. doi: 10.2527/jas.2013-5900.
The objective of this study was to determine the effect of pregrazing pasture herbage mass (HM) on CH4 emissions, ruminal fermentation, and ADG of grazing beef heifers at 2 stages of the grazing season. Thirty Limousin cross heifers were allocated to 1 of 2 target pregrazing HM treatments [a low HM (LHM) or high HM (HHM) treatment] for 126 d in a randomized block design experiment. Pasture herbage and heifer rumen fluid samples were collected, and enteric CH4 emissions were determined using an SF6 tracer technique during two 5-d measurement periods [MP; MP 1 (25 to 29 May) and MP 2 (6 to 10 September)]. Both DMI and GE intake (GEI) were measured during MP 2, and ADG of the heifers was measured every 14 d throughout the 126-d grazing period. Mean HM for the LHM and HHM treatments were 1,300 and 2,000 kg DM/ha, respectively, during MP 1 and 2,800 and 3,200 kg DM/ha, respectively, during MP 2. The CP concentration of the offered herbage was greater (P < 0.01) for the LHM treatment during MP 1 and tended (P < 0.1) to be greater for the LHM herbage during MP 2. No difference (P > 0.10) in the NDF concentration of the herbage was found between the HM treatments during MP 1 or 2. There was no effect (P > 0.10) of HM treatment on total CH4 emissions (g/d) for either MP [mean value across HM treatments of 121 (SED 5.4) g/d during MP 1 and 132 (8.8) g/d during MP 2], but CH4 emissions (g) per kilogram of ADG were reduced (P < 0.05) from heifers fed the LHM treatment during MP 1 and 2 [mean values for LHM and HHM of 135 and 163 (SED 9.5) g/kg, respectively, during MP 1 and corresponding values of 150 and 194 (9.9) g/kg during MP 2]. Heifers fed the LHM treatment had greater (P < 0.001) ADG throughout the grazing period [mean value across the 126-d grazing period of 0.88 (SEM 0.032) kg/d] than those fed the HHM treatment [corresponding value of 0.73 (0.034)]. For MP 2, CH4 emissions per kilogram of DMI (g CH4/kg DMI) and per megajoule of GEI (MJ CH4/MJ GEI) tended (P ≤ 0.08) to be less for heifers fed the LHM [19.3 (0.08) g/kg and 0.056 (0.0020) MJ/MJ, respectively] than for the HHM (21.1 g/kg and 0.061 MJ/MJ) treatment, and there were no differences (P > 0.10) in DMI or GEI of the heifers between the HM treatments. The results of this study suggest that offering a low pregrazing HM sward will reduce enteric CH4 emissions relative to ADG throughout the grazing season because of increased ADG.
本研究旨在确定放牧前草地生物量(HM)对 2 个放牧季节阶段放牧肉牛小母牛 CH4 排放、瘤胃发酵和 ADG 的影响。30 头 Limousin 杂交小母牛被随机分为 2 个目标放牧前 HM 处理组[低 HM(LHM)或高 HM(HHM)处理组],每个处理组在 126d 的随机块设计实验中进行了 126d 的处理。在两个 5d 测量期[测量期 1(5 月 25 日至 29 日)和测量期 2(9 月 6 日至 10 日)]期间,使用 SF6 示踪剂技术收集了牧草和小母牛瘤胃液样本,并确定了肠道 CH4 排放。在测量期 2 期间测量了 DMI 和 GEI,并且在整个 126d 放牧期间每隔 14d 测量一次小母牛的 ADG。在测量期 1 和 2 期间,LHM 和 HHM 处理组的 HM 均值分别为 1300 和 2000kg DM/ha,在测量期 2 期间,LHM 和 HHM 处理组的 HM 均值分别为 2800 和 3200kg DM/ha。在测量期 1 期间,LHM 处理组的饲草 CP 浓度较高(P<0.01),并且在测量期 2 期间,LHM 饲草的 CP 浓度趋于较高(P<0.1)。在测量期 1 或 2 期间,HM 处理对饲草的 NDF 浓度没有影响(P>0.10)。HM 处理对每个测量期的总 CH4 排放(g/d)没有影响[HM 处理组在测量期 1 的平均值为 121(SED 5.4)g/d,在测量期 2 的平均值为 132(8.8)g/d],但 CH4 排放(g/kg ADG)降低(P<0.05),在测量期 1 和 2 期间,LHM 处理组的小母牛[LHM 和 HHM 处理组的平均值分别为 135 和 163(9.5)g/kg,相应值分别为 150 和 194(9.9)g/kg]。在整个放牧期间,LHM 处理组的小母牛 ADG 较高(P<0.001)[126d 放牧期的平均值为 0.88(SEM 0.032)kg/d],高于 HHM 处理组[相应值为 0.73(0.034)kg/d]。对于测量期 2,LHM 处理组的 CH4 排放/kg DMI(g CH4/kg DMI)和每兆焦耳 GEI(MJ CH4/MJ GEI)分别为 19.3(0.08)g/kg 和 0.056(0.0020)MJ/MJ,低于 HHM 处理组的 21.1g/kg 和 0.061MJ/MJ,并且在 HM 处理组之间,小母牛的 DMI 或 GEI 没有差异(P>0.10)。本研究结果表明,与 ADG 相比,放牧前提供低 HM 草地会降低整个放牧季节的肠道 CH4 排放,因为 ADG 增加。