Brunette T, Baurhoo B, Mustafa A F
Department of Animal Science, MacDonald Campus, McGill University, Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, Quebec, H9X 3V9, Canada.
Bélisle Solution Nutrition Inc., St-Mathias-sur-Richelieu, Quebec, J3L 6A7, Canada.
J Dairy Sci. 2014 Oct;97(10):6440-9. doi: 10.3168/jds.2014-7998. Epub 2014 Aug 6.
This study investigated the effects of dietary replacement of corn silage (CS) with 2 cultivars of forage millet silages [i.e., regular millet (RM) and sweet millet (SM)] on milk production, apparent total-tract digestibility, and ruminal fermentation characteristics of dairy cows. Fifteen lactating Holstein cows were used in a replicated 3 × 3 Latin square experiment and fed (ad libitum) a high-forage total mixed ration (68:32 forage:concentrate ratio). Dietary treatments included CS (control), RM, and SM diets. Experimental silages constituted 37% of each diet DM. Three ruminally fistulated cows were used to determine the effect of dietary treatments on ruminal fermentation and total-tract nutrient utilization. Relative to CS, RM and SM silages contained 36% more crude protein, 66% more neutral detergent fiber (NDF), and 88% more acid detergent fiber. Cows fed CS consumed more dry matter (DM; 24.4 vs. 22.7 kg/d) and starch (5.7 vs. 3.7 kg/d), but less NDF (7.9 vs. 8.7 kg/d) than cows fed RM or SM. However, DM, starch and NDF intakes were not different between forage millet silage types. Feeding RM relative to CS reduced milk yield (32.7 vs. 35.2 kg/d), energy-corrected milk (35.8 vs. 38.0 kg/d) and SCM (32.7 vs. 35.3 kg/d). However, cows fed SM had similar milk, energy-corrected milk, and solids-corrected milk yields than cows fed CS or RM. Milk efficiency was not affected by dietary treatments. Milk protein concentration was greatest for cows fed CS, intermediate for cows fed SM, and lowest for cows fed RM. Milk concentration of solids-not-fat was lesser, whereas milk urea nitrogen was greater for cows fed RM than for those fed CS. However, millet silage type had no effect on milk solids-not-fat and milk urea nitrogen levels. Concentrations of milk fat, lactose and total solids were not affected by silage type. Ruminal pH and ruminal NH3-N were greater for cows fed RM and SM than for cows fed CS. Total-tract digestibility of DM (average=67.9%), NDF (average=53.9%), crude protein (average=63.3%), and gross energy (average=67.9%) were not influenced by dietary treatments. It was concluded that cows fed CS performed better than those fed RM or SM likely due to the higher starch and lower NDF intakes. However, no major differences were noted between the 2 forage millet silage cultivars.
本研究调查了用2个品种的饲用粟青贮料[即普通粟(RM)和甜粟(SM)]替代玉米青贮料(CS)对奶牛产奶量、表观全消化道消化率和瘤胃发酵特性的影响。15头泌乳期荷斯坦奶牛用于重复的3×3拉丁方试验,自由采食高粗饲料全混合日粮(粗饲料与精饲料比例为68:32)。日粮处理包括CS(对照)、RM和SM日粮。试验青贮料占各日粮干物质的37%。选用3头瘤胃造瘘奶牛来确定日粮处理对瘤胃发酵和全消化道养分利用的影响。相对于CS,RM和SM青贮料的粗蛋白含量高36%,中性洗涤纤维(NDF)含量高66%,酸性洗涤纤维含量高88%。与饲喂RM或SM的奶牛相比,饲喂CS的奶牛消耗更多的干物质(DM;24.4对22.7千克/天)和淀粉(5.7对3.7千克/天),但NDF摄入量较少(7.9对8.7千克/天)。然而,不同类型饲用粟青贮料之间的DM、淀粉和NDF摄入量没有差异。与饲喂CS相比,饲喂RM降低了产奶量(32.7对35.2千克/天)、能量校正乳(35.8对38.0千克/天)和标准乳(32.7对35.3千克/天)。然而,饲喂SM的奶牛与饲喂CS或RM的奶牛相比,产奶量、能量校正乳和固体校正乳产量相似。日粮处理对牛奶效率没有影响。饲喂CS的奶牛乳蛋白浓度最高,饲喂SM的奶牛居中,饲喂RM的奶牛最低。饲喂RM的奶牛非脂乳固体浓度较低,而乳尿素氮含量高于饲喂CS的奶牛。然而,粟青贮料类型对非脂乳固体和乳尿素氮水平没有影响。乳脂肪、乳糖和总固体浓度不受青贮料类型影响。饲喂RM和SM的奶牛瘤胃pH值和瘤胃氨氮含量高于饲喂CS的奶牛。日粮处理对DM(平均=67.9%)、NDF(平均=53.9%)、粗蛋白(平均=63.3%)和总能(平均=67.9%)的全消化道消化率没有影响。得出的结论是,饲喂CS的奶牛表现优于饲喂RM或SM的奶牛,这可能是由于淀粉摄入量较高和NDF摄入量较低。然而,在这2个饲用粟青贮料品种之间未发现重大差异。