Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qlrfm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T16:07:36.936Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Choices by lactating cows between concentrates high or low in digestible undegraded protein

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

R. E. Lawson ,
E. J. Redfern  and
J. M. Forbes
R. E. Lawson
Affiliation:
Centre for Animal Sciences, Leeds Institute of Biotechnology and Agriculture, University of Leeds, Leeds LSI 9JT
E. J. Redfern
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics, School of Mathematics, University of Leeds, Leeds LSI 9JT
J. M. Forbes
Affiliation:
Centre for Animal Sciences, Leeds Institute of Biotechnology and Agriculture, University of Leeds, Leeds LSI 9JT
Get access

Abstract

To determine whether lactating cows select a nutritionally appropriate diet when given grass silage ad libitum and a choice of concentrates high or low in digestible undegradable protein (DUP), 24 mid-lactation Holstein-Friesian cows were given, in different 3-week periods, a concentrate high in DUP (HP), one low in DUP (LP), or a choice between the two (CHOICE), all at an allowance of 5·4 kg dry matter per day. Milk yield was significantly lower, and silage intake slightly but significantly higher, on LP than on either HP or CHOICE. The mean proportion of HP taken in the CHOICE period was 0·47 which was greater than the proportion required to satisfy the cows’ calculated requirements for effective rumen degradable protein, DUP or metabolizable protein but not significantly different from the ratio of 0·50 expected if no choice was made. Individual cows had a strong tendency initially to continue to eat from the feeder from which they had obtained concentrates in the period before CHOICE but this changed to eating significant amounts of both foods within about a week. The fact that the relationship between the proportion of HP in the concentrate intake and milk protein output was significant and positive, and became more so as the CHOICE period progressed, supports the hypothesis that protein demand was directing diet selection but must be viewed with caution as it was heavily influenced by the results of one animal: the highest-yielding cow which also chose to eat the greatest proportion of HP.

Keywords

choice feedingconcentratesdairy cowsgrass silagemilk protein yield
Type
Ruminant nutrition, behaviour and production
Information
Animal Science , Volume 70 , Issue 3 , June 2000 , pp. 515 - 525
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agricultural and Food Research Council. 1993. Energy and protein requirements of ruminants. CAB International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
Chamberlain, A. T. and Wilkinson, J. M. 1996. Feeding the dairy cow. Chalcombe Publications, Lincoln.Google Scholar
Cooper, S. D. B., Kyriazakis, I. and Nolan, J. V. 1995. Diet selection in sheep — the role of the rumen environment in the selection of a diet from two feeds that differ in their energy density. British Journal of Nutrition 74: 39–54.Google Scholar
Dewar, W. A. and McDonald, P. 1961. Determination of dry matter in silage by distillation with toluene. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 12: 790–795.Google Scholar
Edmonson, A. J., Farver, T. and Webster, G. 1989. A body condition scoring chart for Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 72: 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forbes, J. M. 1995. Voluntary food intake and diet selection in farm animals. CAB International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
Forbes, J. M., Jackson, D. A., Johnson, C. L., Stockill, P. and Hoyle, B. 1986. A method for the automatic monitoring of food intake and feeding behaviour of individual cattle kept in a group. Research and Development in Agriculture 3: 175–180.Google Scholar
Forbes, J. M. and Kyriazakis, I. 1995. Food preferences in farm animals: why don’t they always choose wisely? Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 54: 429–440.Google Scholar
Forbes, J. M. and Provenza, F. D. 2000. Integration of learning and metabolic signals into a theory of dietary choice and food intake. Proceedings of the IX international symposium on ruminant physiology. CAB International, Wallingford. In press.Google Scholar
Kovalcik, K. and Kovalcik, M. 1986. Learning ability and memory testing in cattle of different ages. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 15: 27–29.Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I., Emmans, G. C. and Whittemore, C. T. 1990. Diet selection in pigs: choices made by growing pigs given foods of different protein concentrations. Animal Production 51: 189–199.Google Scholar
Kyriazakis, I. and Oldham, J. D. 1993. Diet selection in sheep: the ability of growing lambs to select a diet that meets their crude protein (nitrogen X 6-25) requirements. British Journal of Nutrition 69: 617–629.Google Scholar
Murphy, M. R., Geijsel, A. W. P., Hall, E. C. and Shanks, R. D. 1997. Dietary variety via sweetening and voluntary feed intake of lactating dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science 80: 894–897.Google ScholarPubMed
Tolkamp, B. J., Dewhurst, R. J., Friggens, N. C, Kyriazakis, I., Veerkamp, R. F. and Oldham, J. D. 1998a. Diet choice by dairy cows. 1. Selection of feed protein content during the first half of lactation. Journal of Dairy Science 81: 2657–2669.Google Scholar
Tolkamp, B. J., Kyriazakis, I., Oldham, J. D., Lewis, M., Dewhurst, R. J. and Newbold, J. R. 1998b. Diet choice by dairy cows. 2. Selection for metabolizable protein or for rumen-degradable protein? Journal of Dairy Science 81: 2670–2680.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. 1994. Nutritional ecology of the ruminant. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Weiler, R. F. and Phipps, R. H. 1985. The effect of silage preference on the performance of dairy cows. Animal Production 42: 435 (abstr.).Google Scholar