在相同条件下生长并作为青贮料或谷仓干干草保存的草料:对奶牛采食量、生产性能、表观全道消化率和粪便微生物群的影响

IF 4.4 1区 农林科学 Q1 AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE
Katrin Bauer, Thomas Hartinger, Mansour Eghbali, Andreas Haselmann, Birgit Fuerst-Waltl, Werner Zollitsch, Qendrim Zebeli, Wilhelm Knaus
{"title":"在相同条件下生长并作为青贮料或谷仓干干草保存的草料:对奶牛采食量、生产性能、表观全道消化率和粪便微生物群的影响","authors":"Katrin Bauer, Thomas Hartinger, Mansour Eghbali, Andreas Haselmann, Birgit Fuerst-Waltl, Werner Zollitsch, Qendrim Zebeli, Wilhelm Knaus","doi":"10.3168/jds.2025-26992","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>While 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 tended to be 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":354,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Dairy Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Grass forages grown under identical conditions and conserved as silage or barn-dried hay: Effects on feed intake, performance, apparent total-tract digestibility, and fecal microbiota in dairy cows.\",\"authors\":\"Katrin Bauer, Thomas Hartinger, Mansour Eghbali, Andreas Haselmann, Birgit Fuerst-Waltl, Werner Zollitsch, Qendrim Zebeli, Wilhelm Knaus\",\"doi\":\"10.3168/jds.2025-26992\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>While 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 tended to be 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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":354,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Dairy Science\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Dairy Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2025-26992\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Dairy Science","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2025-26992","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

虽然高草料日粮有利于人类的净粮食生产,但奶牛对不同保存草料(青贮与谷仓干燥)的反应可能会影响采食量和生产性能,并最终影响饲料利用效率。在本研究中,从相同的田地中获得的牧草,在相同的萎蔫条件下在相同的时间收获,并在仓仓中青贮或在仓仓中人工干燥。试验开始时,选取18头泌乳荷斯坦奶牛,根据日产奶量、体重、胎次和DIM分为2个饲喂组,在每头奶牛每天固定分配3.64 kg干物质的基础上,饲喂草青贮(38%干物质)或干草,饲喂35 d。预试期为14 d,采集数据21 d。化学分析表明,用热稳定淀粉酶测定的NDF组成相似,且不表达残灰(521和524 g/kg DM),但CP(136和117 g/kg DM)和水溶性碳水化合物(WSC, 23和177 g/kg DM)在草青贮和干草之间分别存在差异。结果表明,饲喂干草的奶牛DMI显著高于饲喂草青贮组(+2.4 kg/d),这可能与青贮产生的微生物代谢物有关,同时WSC和NFC含量也较低。丁酸的存在,以及青贮饲料乳酸含量低、乳酸与乙酸的比例不高,可能影响了青贮饲料的适口性,限制了采食量。因此,草饲奶牛的产乳性能显著高于青贮奶牛,分别为28.1 kg ECM/d和25.2 kg ECM/d。干草组乳脂浓度高于青贮组,分别为4.37%和4.06%。身体状况和营养物质的表观全道消化率未受治疗影响。同样,发酵特征和粪便细菌群落在两组之间相似。综上所述,将精料保留为干草而非青贮,可维持奶牛的WSC水平,并可显著提高采食量,从而提高精料限饲时奶牛的营养和能量供应。在实践中,这有助于减少每公斤牛奶的精料用量,增加净粮食产量。不同的草料保存方法对高产奶牛的效果有待进一步研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Grass forages grown under identical conditions and conserved as silage or barn-dried hay: Effects on feed intake, performance, apparent total-tract digestibility, and fecal microbiota in dairy cows.

While 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 tended to be 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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Dairy Science
Journal of Dairy Science 农林科学-奶制品与动物科学
CiteScore
7.90
自引率
17.10%
发文量
784
审稿时长
4.2 months
期刊介绍: The official journal of the American Dairy Science Association®, Journal of Dairy Science® (JDS) is the leading peer-reviewed general dairy research journal in the world. JDS readers represent education, industry, and government agencies in more than 70 countries with interests in biochemistry, breeding, economics, engineering, environment, food science, genetics, microbiology, nutrition, pathology, physiology, processing, public health, quality assurance, and sanitation.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信