Wheat or maize silage in feeding strategies for cows in small-scale dairy systems during the dry season

IF 1.7 4区 农林科学 Q2 Agricultural and Biological Sciences
Cloe D. Álvarez-García, C. Arriaga-Jordán, J. Estrada-Flores, F. López-González
{"title":"Wheat or maize silage in feeding strategies for cows in small-scale dairy systems during the dry season","authors":"Cloe D. Álvarez-García, C. Arriaga-Jordán, J. Estrada-Flores, F. López-González","doi":"10.4067/s0718-58392023000400398","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The conservation of forage as silage allows its application during the dry season in dairy cattle feeding. The most commonly used forage for this purpose is maize ( Zea mays L.), but due to the possible effects of climate change, the diversification of crops with shorter agronomic cycles as wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.) should be considered. Therefore, the objective was to evaluate the chemical composition of silages, the productive response of dairy cows fed wheat and maize silage, as well as their feeding costs. Three treatments were evaluated with 9.8 kg DM cow -1 d -1 silage plus 4.6 kg DM cow -1 d -1 commercial concentrate each. Treatments were 100% wheat silage (WS), 50% wheat silage-50% maize silage (WMS), and 100% maize silage (MS). Six Holstein cows were used in groups of three randomly assigned to treatment sequence in a 3×3 Latin square design repeated twice. There were significant differences (P < 0.05) between treatments in silage chemical composition, except in NDF and ADF (P > 0.05). There were nonsignificant differences in animal variables (P > 0.05) with mean milk yield of 15.4 kg cow -1 d -1 , 33.7 g kg -1 milkfat, 30.5 g kg -1 milk protein, 481.2 kg live weight and 2.1 body condition score. There were significant differences (P < 0.05) in silage and total DM intake in the third experimental period (three periods, 14 d each one) with 8.1 and 12.7 kg DM cow -1 d -1 , respectively. Although cost for wheat silage were higher than maize silage, all three treatments showed positive margins on feeding costs.","PeriodicalId":9851,"journal":{"name":"Chilean Journal of Agricultural Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chilean Journal of Agricultural Research","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-58392023000400398","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Agricultural and Biological Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The conservation of forage as silage allows its application during the dry season in dairy cattle feeding. The most commonly used forage for this purpose is maize ( Zea mays L.), but due to the possible effects of climate change, the diversification of crops with shorter agronomic cycles as wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.) should be considered. Therefore, the objective was to evaluate the chemical composition of silages, the productive response of dairy cows fed wheat and maize silage, as well as their feeding costs. Three treatments were evaluated with 9.8 kg DM cow -1 d -1 silage plus 4.6 kg DM cow -1 d -1 commercial concentrate each. Treatments were 100% wheat silage (WS), 50% wheat silage-50% maize silage (WMS), and 100% maize silage (MS). Six Holstein cows were used in groups of three randomly assigned to treatment sequence in a 3×3 Latin square design repeated twice. There were significant differences (P < 0.05) between treatments in silage chemical composition, except in NDF and ADF (P > 0.05). There were nonsignificant differences in animal variables (P > 0.05) with mean milk yield of 15.4 kg cow -1 d -1 , 33.7 g kg -1 milkfat, 30.5 g kg -1 milk protein, 481.2 kg live weight and 2.1 body condition score. There were significant differences (P < 0.05) in silage and total DM intake in the third experimental period (three periods, 14 d each one) with 8.1 and 12.7 kg DM cow -1 d -1 , respectively. Although cost for wheat silage were higher than maize silage, all three treatments showed positive margins on feeding costs.
小麦或玉米青贮在旱季小规模奶牛饲养策略中的应用
饲料作为青贮饲料的保护使其能够在旱季用于奶牛饲养。为此,最常用的饲料是玉米(Zea mays L.),但由于气候变化的可能影响,应考虑小麦(Triticum aestivum L.)等农艺周期较短的作物的多样化。因此,目的是评估青贮饲料的化学成分、饲喂小麦和玉米青贮饲料的奶牛的生产反应以及它们的饲养成本。对三个处理进行了评估,分别用9.8公斤DM奶牛-1天-1的青贮饲料和4.6公斤DM奶牛-1天-1的商业浓缩物。处理为100%小麦青贮(WS)、50%小麦青贮50%玉米青贮(WMS)和100%玉米青贮(MS)。六头荷斯坦奶牛被随机分为三组,每组三头,按照3×3拉丁方设计的处理顺序重复两次。除NDF和ADF外,不同处理的青贮饲料化学成分差异有显著性(P<0.05)。15.4kg奶牛-1 d-1、33.7 g kg-1乳脂、30.5 g kg-1乳蛋白、481.2 kg活重和2.1身体状况评分的动物变量差异无显著性(P>0.05)。在第三个实验期(三个阶段,每个阶段14天),8.1和12.7kg DM奶牛的青贮饲料和总DM摄入量分别存在显著差异(P<0.05)。尽管小麦青贮饲料的成本高于玉米青贮饲料,但三种处理都显示出饲料成本的正利润。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
11.80%
发文量
60
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: ChileanJAR publishes original Research Articles, Scientific Notes and Reviews of agriculture, multidisciplinary and agronomy: plant production, plant protection, genetic resources and biotechnology, water management, soil sciences, environment, agricultural economics, and animal production (focused in ruminant feeding). The editorial process is a double-blind peer reviewing, Editorial Office checks format, composition, and completeness, which is a requirement to continue the editorial process. Editorial Committee and Reviewers evaluate relevance and scientific merit of manuscript.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信