Department of Animal and Poultry Science, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada, S7N 5A8.
Large Animal Clinical Sciences, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada, S7N 5B4.
J Dairy Sci. 2018 Nov;101(11):9941-9953. doi: 10.3168/jds.2018-14665. Epub 2018 Sep 13.
This study was conducted to evaluate the effects of the forage-to-concentrate ratio of the partial mixed ration (PMR) and the quantity of concentrate offered in an automated milking system (AMS), in a feed-first guided-flow barn, on the behavior and performance of dairy cows. Eight ruminally cannulated multiparous Holstein cows were used in a replicated 4 × 4 Latin square balanced for carry-over effects. Treatments were arranged in a 2 × 2 factorial consisting of a PMR that contained (dry matter basis) either a low (54:46; L-FOR) or a high (64:36; H-FOR) forage-to-concentrate ratio and AMS concentrate provision to achieve low (2 kg/d; L-AMS) or high (6 kg/d; H-AMS) intake. Each period consisted of 28 d with 6 d for dietary transition, 13 d for adaptation, and 9 d of collection. The first 4 d of data and sample collection were used to evaluate behavioral data (milking frequency, feeding behavior, and standing and lying behavior) and ruminal pH. Subsequently, a sampling device removal day was provided, and the last 4 d were used to evaluate ruminal fermentation and apparent total-tract digestibility. All 9 d were used for milk yield measurement, and the 8 d were used for dry matter intake measurement. Cows fed the H-AMS consumed 3.5 kg/d less PMR while consuming 4.2 kg/d more AMS concentrate, but total dry matter intake (PMR+AMS) was not affected by treatments averaging 27.3 kg/d. Although cows fed H-AMS had greater concentrate intake, they also had greater variability for AMS concentrate intake among days (0.85 vs. 0.25 kg/d, respectively). The number of PMR meals and PMR eating behavior were not affected by the PMR or AMS treatments. Feeding H-AMS did not affect milking frequency averaging 3.63 milkings/d, but tended to increase milk yield by 1.25 kg/d relative to L-AMS. Likewise, cows fed the L-FOR tended to have greater milk yield relative to H-FOR (39.3 vs 37.9 kg/d, respectively), but had greater holding area time. Minimum ruminal pH tended to be lower for cows fed L-FOR compared with cows fed H-FOR but was not affected by the AMS concentrate treatment. When fed the L-FOR, feeding the H-AMS increased total short-chain fatty acid concentration in the rumen relative to cows fed L-AMS, whereas the response for H-FOR was not affected by the AMS concentrate. These data suggest that feeding H-AMS may improve milk yield, but also increases the day-to-day variability in AMS concentrate consumption. Feeding a L-FOR PMR may increase milk yield without affecting variability in AMS concentrate consumption; however, it may reduce ruminal pH and increase the time spent in the holding area compared with cows fed a H-FOR PMR.
本研究旨在评估部分混合日粮(PMR)的饲草-精料比和自动挤奶系统(AMS)中提供的精料量对奶牛行为和性能的影响,在饲料优先导向式的散栏牛舍中。8 头瘤胃内置有瘘管的荷斯坦经产奶牛采用重复 4×4 拉丁方设计,以平衡继代效应。处理采用 2×2 因子设计,包含饲草-精料比低(54:46;L-FOR)或高(64:36;H-FOR)的 PMR 和 AMS 精料提供量,以实现低(2kg/d;L-AMS)或高(6kg/d;H-AMS)的摄入量。每个周期持续 28 天,其中 6 天用于日粮转换,13 天用于适应,9 天用于采集。前 4 天的数据和样本采集用于评估行为数据(挤奶频率、采食行为、站立和卧息行为)和瘤胃 pH。随后,提供了采样设备移除日,最后 4 天用于评估瘤胃发酵和表观全肠道消化率。所有 9 天都用于测量产奶量,8 天用于测量干物质采食量。与 H-AMS 组相比,H-AMS 组奶牛每天少消耗 3.5kg PMR,但多消耗 4.2kg AMS 精料,但总干物质采食量(PMR+AMS)不受处理影响,平均为 27.3kg/d。尽管 H-AMS 组奶牛的精料采食量更大,但它们的 AMS 精料采食量日变化也更大(分别为 0.85 和 0.25kg/d)。PMR 餐数和 PMR 采食行为不受 PMR 或 AMS 处理的影响。饲喂 H-AMS 不会影响挤奶频率,平均每天 3.63 次挤奶,但与 L-AMS 相比,产奶量有增加趋势,增加 1.25kg/d。同样,与 H-FOR 相比,饲喂 L-FOR 的奶牛产奶量更大(分别为 39.3 和 37.9kg/d),但躺卧时间更长。与 H-FOR 相比,饲喂 L-FOR 的奶牛瘤胃 pH 最低,但 AMS 精料处理对其没有影响。饲喂 L-FOR 时,与饲喂 L-AMS 的奶牛相比,H-AMS 增加了瘤胃中总短链脂肪酸的浓度,但 H-FOR 的反应不受 AMS 精料的影响。这些数据表明,饲喂 H-AMS 可能会提高产奶量,但也增加了 AMS 精料消耗的日变化。饲喂 L-FOR 的 PMR 可能会提高产奶量而不影响 AMS 精料消耗的日变化;然而,与饲喂 H-FOR 的 PMR 相比,它可能会降低瘤胃 pH 值并增加躺卧时间。