Martins L F, Cueva S F, Wasson D E, Silvestre T, Stepanchenko N, Hile M L, Hristov A N
Department of Animal Science, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802.
Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park 16802.
J Dairy Sci. 2024 Jul;107(7):4587-4604. doi: 10.3168/jds.2023-24261.
The objective was to evaluate the effects of separate offering of feed ingredients (SF) and frequency of concentrate feeding versus offering a TMR, on lactational performance, ruminal fermentation, enteric CH emissions, nutrient digestibility, N use efficiency, milk fatty acid profile, and blood variables in mid-lactation dairy cows. Twenty-four Holstein cows (12 primi- and 12 multiparous) averaging (±SD) 141 ± 35 DIM and 43 ± 6 kg/d of milk yield (MY) at the beginning of the study were used in a replicated 3 × 3 Latin square design experiment with 3 periods of 28 d each, composed of 7 d for adaptation to the diets, 11 d for estimation of net energy and metabolizable protein requirements, and 10 d for data and samples collection. Cows were grouped based on parity, DIM, and MY into 4 Latin squares. Treatment allocation was balanced for carryover effects, and cows within square were assigned to (1) basal diet fed ad libitum as TMR; (2) basal diet fed as SF with forages fed ad libitum and concentrates fed 3×/d (SF×3); or (3) basal diet fed as SF with forages fed ad libitum and concentrates fed 6×/d (SF×6). Compared with TMR, SF decreased total DMI by 1.2 kg/d. Treatments did not affect MY, milk components, or ECM yield, except for a decrease in milk fat concentration and an increase in milk urea N by SF×3, compared with TMR. Feed efficiency (kg of MY/kg of DMI) was increased by 7% in SF, compared with TMR. Ruminal molar proportion of acetate and acetate-to-propionate ratio were decreased, whereas molar proportion of propionate was increased by SF×3, compared with TMR and SF×6. There was a 9% decrease in daily CH production by SF, compared with TMR. Enteric CH yield (per kg of DMI) was not affected by treatments in the current study. Methane intensity per kilogram of MY tended to be decreased by 10% in SF, compared with TMR. The sums of odd- and branched-chain, odd-chain, and anteiso milk fatty acids tended to be or were increased by SF, compared with TMR. Intake of nutrients tended to be or were decreased by SF, compared with TMR. The digestibility of amylase-treated NDF tended to be decreased and ADF digestibility was decreased by 3% in SF, compared with TMR. Urinary and fecal N excretions were not affected by treatments. As a percentage of total N intake, separate offering of feed ingredients increased milk N secretion, indicating an increased N use efficiency by SF, compared with TMR. Blood total fatty acid concentration was decreased by SF relative to TMR. Compared with both TMR and SF×6, SF×3 increased blood urea N concentration. Overall, feed and N use efficiencies were increased by separate offering of feed ingredients, and increasing the frequency of concentrate feeding promoted ruminal fermentation effects similar to those obtained by feeding a TMR.
本研究旨在评估分别提供饲料原料(SF)和精料饲喂频率与全混合日粮(TMR)相比,对泌乳中期奶牛的泌乳性能、瘤胃发酵、肠道甲烷排放、养分消化率、氮利用效率、乳脂肪酸谱和血液指标的影响。选用24头荷斯坦奶牛(12头初产牛和12头经产牛),在研究开始时平均(±标准差)泌乳天数为141±35天,日产奶量(MY)为43±6千克,采用重复3×3拉丁方设计试验,共3个周期,每个周期28天,其中7天用于适应日粮,11天用于估算净能和可代谢蛋白质需求,10天用于数据和样本采集。奶牛根据胎次、泌乳天数和日产奶量分为4个拉丁方。处理分配对残留效应进行了平衡,每个方内的奶牛被分配到:(1)自由采食基础日粮作为TMR;(2)以SF形式提供基础日粮,自由采食粗饲料,精料每日饲喂3次(SF×3);或(3)以SF形式提供基础日粮,自由采食粗饲料,精料每日饲喂6次(SF×6)。与TMR相比,SF使总干物质采食量(DMI)每天减少1.2千克。处理对日产奶量、乳成分或能量校正乳产量没有影响,但与TMR相比,SF×3使乳脂肪浓度降低,乳尿素氮增加。与TMR相比,SF的饲料效率(千克日产奶量/千克DMI)提高了7%。与TMR和SF×6相比,SF×3使瘤胃乙酸摩尔比例和乙酸与丙酸比例降低,而丙酸摩尔比例增加。与TMR相比,SF使每日甲烷产量降低了9%。本研究中,处理对每千克DMI的肠道甲烷产量没有影响。与TMR相比,SF每千克日产奶量的甲烷强度倾向于降低10%。与TMR相比,SF使奇数和支链、奇数链以及反异丁酸乳脂肪酸的总量倾向于增加或增加。与TMR相比,SF使养分摄入量倾向于降低或降低。与TMR相比,SF中淀粉酶处理的中性洗涤纤维(NDF)消化率倾向于降低,酸性洗涤纤维(ADF)消化率降低了3%。处理对尿氮和粪氮排泄没有影响。作为总氮摄入量的百分比,分别提供饲料原料增加了乳氮分泌,表明与TMR相比,SF提高了氮利用效率。与TMR相比,SF使血液总脂肪酸浓度降低。与TMR和SF×6相比,SF×3使血液尿素氮浓度增加。总体而言,分别提供饲料原料提高了饲料和氮利用效率,增加精料饲喂频率促进了瘤胃发酵效应,类似于饲喂TMR所获得的效果。