Bauer Katrin, Hartinger Thomas, Eghbali Mansour, Haselmann Andreas, Fuerst-Waltl Birgit, Zollitsch Werner, Zebeli Qendrim, Knaus Wilhelm
Department of Agricultural Sciences, Institute of Livestock Sciences, BOKU University, 1180 Vienna, Austria.
Centre for Animal Nutrition and Welfare, Clinical Department for Farm Animals and Food System Science, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, 1210 Vienna, Austria; Animal Nutrition Unit, Institute of Animal Science, University of Bonn, 53115 Bonn, Germany.
J Dairy Sci. 2025 Nov;108(11):12314-12327. doi: 10.3168/jds.2025-26992. Epub 2025 Sep 18.
Although high-forage diets benefit net human food production, cows' responses to differently conserved grass forages (ensiling vs. barn-drying) may affect feed intake and performance and eventually the efficiency of forage utilization. In the present study, forages were obtained from the same fields, harvested at the same time after equal wilting conditions, and either ensiled in a bunker silo or artificially dried in the barn. At the onset of the feeding trial, 18 lactating Holstein cows were divided into 2 feeding groups based on daily milk yield, BW, parity, and DIM. Cows received either grass silage (38% DM) or hay ad libitum for 35 d in addition to a fixed allocation of 3.64 kg DM dairy concentrate per cow and day. Data were collected for 21 d, after a 14-d adaptation period. Chemical analysis showed similar composition of NDF assayed with a heat-stable amylase and expressed exclusive of residual ash (521 and 524 g/kg DM), but differences in CP (136 and 117 g/kg DM) and water-soluble carbohydrates (WSC; 23 and 177 g/kg DM) between grass silage and hay, respectively. Results showed that cows fed hay had a significantly higher DMI (+2.4 kg/d) when compared with the group receiving grass silage, presumably due to microbial metabolites from ensiling, as well as lower content of WSC and NFC. Butyric acid, as well as the silage's low lactic acid content and uncommon lactic to acetic acid ratio, may have affected palatability and limited feed intake. Consequently, dairy performance was significantly higher, that is, 28.1 kg ECM/d versus 25.2 kg ECM/d in hay-fed cows versus silage-fed cows, respectively. Milk fat concentration was significantly higher in the hay group than in the silage-fed cows, with 4.37% and 4.06%, respectively. Body condition and apparent total-tract digestibility of nutrients remained unaffected by the treatment. Likewise, fermentation profile and bacterial community in feces were similar between groups. In conclusion, conserving grass forages as hay rather than silage maintains the level of WSC and can significantly increase feed intake and the resulting nutrient and energy supply to cows when concentrates are fed restrictively. In practice, this can help reduce concentrate feed usage per kilogram of milk, increasing net food production. Further research is needed to evaluate the effect of different conservation methods of grass forages in high-producing dairy cattle.
尽管高粗饲料日粮有利于人类净食物生产,但奶牛对不同保存方式的禾本科牧草(青贮与在畜舍干燥)的反应可能会影响采食量和生产性能,最终影响牧草利用效率。在本研究中,牧草取自相同地块,在相同萎蔫条件下于同一时间收获,然后一部分青贮于青贮窖中,另一部分在畜舍中人工干燥。在饲养试验开始时,根据日产奶量、体重、胎次和泌乳天数,将18头泌乳期荷斯坦奶牛分为2个饲养组。奶牛除了每头每天固定饲喂3.64千克干物质的奶牛浓缩料外,还可自由采食青贮牧草(干物质含量38%)或干草,持续35天。在14天的适应期后,收集21天的数据。化学分析表明,用热稳定淀粉酶测定的中性洗涤纤维(NDF)组成相似,且不包括残余灰分(分别为521和524克/千克干物质),但青贮牧草和干草的粗蛋白(分别为136和117克/千克干物质)及水溶性碳水化合物(WSC;分别为23和177克/千克干物质)存在差异。结果表明,与采食青贮牧草的组相比,采食干草的奶牛干物质采食量显著更高(+2.4千克/天),这可能是由于青贮产生的微生物代谢产物,以及WSC和非纤维性碳水化合物(NFC)含量较低。丁酸以及青贮饲料中较低的乳酸含量和不常见的乳酸与乙酸比例,可能影响了适口性并限制了采食量。因此,奶牛的生产性能显著更高,即采食干草的奶牛与采食青贮饲料的奶牛相比,分别为28.1千克能量校正乳/天和25.2千克能量校正乳/天。干草组的乳脂率显著高于采食青贮饲料的奶牛,分别为4.37%和4.06%。体况和养分的表观全肠道消化率不受处理影响。同样,两组粪便中的发酵概况和细菌群落相似。总之,将禾本科牧草保存为干草而非青贮饲料可维持WSC水平,并且在限制性饲喂浓缩料时,可显著增加奶牛的采食量以及由此产生的养分和能量供应。在实际生产中,这有助于减少每千克牛奶的浓缩饲料用量,增加净食物产量。需要进一步研究来评估禾本科牧草不同保存方法对高产奶牛的影响。