LAUSR.org creates dashboard-style pages of related content for over 1.5 million academic articles. Sign Up to like articles & get recommendations!

The effect of the forage-to-concentrate ratio of the partial mixed ration and the quantity of concentrate in an automatic milking system for lactating Holstein cows.

Photo by markusspiske from unsplash

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),… Click to show full abstract

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.

Keywords: concentrate ratio; milk yield; forage concentrate; cows fed; concentrate; ams concentrate

Journal Title: Journal of dairy science
Year Published: 2018

Link to full text (if available)


Share on Social Media:                               Sign Up to like & get
recommendations!

Related content

More Information              News              Social Media              Video              Recommended



                Click one of the above tabs to view related content.