Skirtingų šėrimo technologijų įtaka karvių produktyvumui ir ekonominiams rodikliams ; The effect of different feeding technologies on productivity of cows and economical parameters
Description
This dissertation was completed at the Lithuanian Veterinary Academy, in the LITHUANIAN VETERINARY ACADEMY Research Center of Digestive Physiology and Pathology and Center of Practical training and experiments, during the period of 2001–2005. An extern defended dissertation. Research adviser: Prof. at incumbent dr. Antanas Sederevi čius (Lithuanian Veterinary Academy, biomedical sciences, zootechny –13B). The dissertation is defended at the Lithuanian Veterinary Academy Board of Zootechny science council: Chairman of the Zootechny science council – Prof. habil. dr. Česlovas Jukna (Lithuanian Veterinary Academy, biomedical sciences, zootechny – 13B). Saulius Makauskas Members: Prof. habil. dr. Vytautas Tarvydas (LVA Institute of Animal Sciences, biomedical sciences, zootechny – 13B); Prof. habil. dr. Henrikas Žilinskas (Lithuanian Veterinary Academy, biomedical sciences, veterinary medicine – 12B); Prof. habil. dr. Zigmas Lydeka (ISM University of management and THE EFFECT OF DIFFERENT FEEDING TECHNOLOGIES economics, social sciences, economy – 04S, business administration – 03S); Assoc. prof. dr. Vida Juozaitien ė (Lithuanian Veterinary Academy, ON PRODUCTIVITY OF COWS AND biomedical sciences, zootechny – 13B). ECONOMICAL PARAMETERS Opponents: Doc. dr. Jurgis Kulpys (Lithuanian Veterinary academy, biomedical sciences, zootechny – 13B); Dr.
Sujets
Informations
| Publié par | lithuanian_veterinary_academy |
| Publié le | 01 janvier 2005 |
| Nombre de lectures | 48 |
Extrait
LITHUANIAN VETERINARY ACADEMY Saulius Makauskas THE EFFECT OF DIFFERENT FEEDING TECHNOLOGIES ON PRODUCTIVITY OF COWS AND ECONOMICAL PARAMETERS Summary of doctoral dissertation Biomedical sciences, zootechny (13B) Kaunas, 2005
This dissertation was completed at the Lithuanian Veterinary Academy, in the Research Center of Digestive Physiology and Pathology and Center of Practical training and experiments, during the period of 20012005. An extern defended dissertation. Research adviser: Prof. at incumbent dr. Antanas Sederevi č ius (Lithuanian Veterinary Academy, biomedical sciences, zootechny 13B). The dissertation is defended at the Lithuanian Veterinary Academy Board of Zootechny science council: Chairman of the Zootechny science council Prof. habil. dr. Č eslovas Jukna (Lithuanian Veterinary Academy, biomedical sciences, zootechny 13B). Members: Prof. habil. dr. Vytautas Tarvydas (LVA Institute of Animal Sciences, biomedical sciences, zootechny 13B); Prof. habil. dr. Henrikas ilinskas (Lithuanian Veterinary Academy, biomedical sciences, veterinary medicine 12B); Prof. habil. dr. Zigmas Lydeka (ISM University of management and economics, social sciences, economy 04S, business administration 03S); Assoc. prof. dr. Vida Juozaitien ė (Lithuanian Veterinary Academy, biomedical sciences, zootechny 13B). O onents: Doc. dr. Jurgis Kulpys (Lithuanian Veterinary academy, biomedical sciences, zootechny 13B); Dr. Virginijus Uchocki s (LVA Institute of animal sciences, zootechny 13B). This doctoral dissertation will be defended on 16 December 2005 at 2 p.m. LT at the Lithuanian Veterinary Academy I auditorium. Address: Til ė s 18, 47181 Kaunas, Lithuania. A summary of the doctoral dissertation was sent on 16 th November 2005 according to the confirmed address list. This dissertation is available at the library of the Lithuanian Veterinary Academy.
LIETUVOS VETERINARIJOS AKADEMIJA Saulius Makauskas SKIRTING Ų Ė RIMO TECHNOLOGIJ Ų Į TAKA KARVI Ų PRODUKTYVUMUI IR EKONOMINIAMS RODIKLIAMS Daktaro disertacijos santrauka Biomedicinos mokslai, zootechnika (13B) Kaunas, 2005
Disertacija rengta 20022004 m. Lietuvos veterinarijos akademijoje Virkinimo fiziologijos ir patologijos bei Praktinio mokymo ir bandym ų centruose. Disertacija ginama eksternu. Konsultantas: e. prof. p. dr. Antanas Sederevi č ius (Lietuvos veterinarijos akademija, biomedicinos mokslai, zootechnika 13B). Disertacija ginama Lietuvos veterinarijos akademijos Zootechnikos krypties mokslo taryboje: Pirmininkas prof. habil. dr. Č eslovas Jukna (Lietuvos veterinarijos akademija, biomedicinos mokslai, zootechnika 13B). Nariai: prof. habil. dr. Vytautas Tarvydas (LVA Gyvulininkyst ė s institutas, biomedicinos mokslai, zootechnika 13B); prof. habil. dr. Henrikas ilinskas (Lietuvos veterinarijos akademija, biomedicinos mokslai, veterinarin ė medicina 12B); prof. habil. dr. Zigmas Lydeka (ISM vadybos ir ekonomikos universitetas, socialiniai mokslai, ekonomija 04S, vadyba ir administravimas 03S); doc. dr. Vida Juozaitien ė (Lietuvos veterinarijos akademija, biomedicinos mokslai, zootechnika 13B). O onentai: doc. dr. Jurgis Kulpys (Lietuvos veterinarijos akademija, biomedicinos mokslai, zootechnika 13B); dr. Virginijus Uchockis (LVA Gyvulininkyst ė s institutas, biomedicinos mokslai, zootechnika 13B). Disertacija bus ginama vieame Zootechnikos mokslo tarybos pos ė dyje 2005 m. gruodio 16 d. 14 val. Lietuvos veterinarijos akademijos I auditorijoje. Adresas: Til ė s g. 18, 47181 Kaunas. Disertacijos santrauka isiuntin ė ta 2005 m . lapkri č io 16 d. pagal patvirtint ą adres ų s ą ra ą . Disertacij ą galima peri ū r ė ti Lietuvos veterinarijos akademijos bibliotekoje.
INTRODUCTION Daily farming has always been a primary important branch of cattle breeding in our country. Dairy farming is considered to be the essential direction of the strategy of agricultural development in the country of Lithuania. Dairy production made 23% of total agricultural production during the year of 2004. Milk and dairy production is produced by more than 180 thousands of agricultural subjects (Mikelionyt ė , 2005). About 50% of produced milk has been exported recently. It explains why economical efficiency of the production is especially important. Despite the fact that an average milk production per cow has been increasing recently, but it remains among the lowest ones in the EU. During the year of 2004 an average milk production per cow made 4141 kg of milk, 13% more than in 2000 (Mikelionyt ė , 2005). It should be stated that our country is distinguished by quite favorable conditions for dairy farming. The cattle bred in the country are adjusted to the existing forage basis and the potential of their genetic productivity is rather high. Nevertheless, the higher requirements caused by the competition on the inner and foreign market force to seek for the more efficient development of dairy farming. About 60% of expenditure in milk production is spent on forage. That is why costs of forage production, quality and nutritional value mainly determine milk production economy. In order to decrease milk production costs it is primarily important to reach high conversion of forage nutritional substances. For more effective use of forages and getting higher production with the same resources seems to be quite useful the application of various methods of forage production and feeding technologies. In order to improve feeding technologies of high productive dairy cows the research of new, progressive forage preparation technologies may serve such a method as feeding of cows mixed rations. Ordinary daily rations of cows mainly consists of forage distinguished by different physical, mechanical and chemical properties. Such variety of forages is quite favorable for the formation of effective daily rations, but feeding each forage separately requires more labour expenditure. In this case the problems arise in the process of mechanization, thats why preparation of mixed rations seems to give better possibilities for the mechanization of the forage preparation. The aim of the research: To define the effect of the feeding of dairy cows roughage rations on their productivity, physiological state and economical parameters. The tasks of the research to define the effect of feeding technologies on: forage intake; milk production and quality; microbiological and biochemical parameters of the rumen; forage OM digestibility in vitro; biochemical parameters of blood; economical effect. Novelty of the research: The effect of different feeding technologies when forages were given as separate components and as the mixture of all components-on dairy cows 5
productivity, physiological state and economical parameters has been studied complexically for the first time. MATERIALS AND METHODS During the period of the year 2002 - 2004 in the Center of Practical training and experiments of the Lithuanian Veterinary Academy two scientific-industrial experiments were carried out with the Lithuanian Black&White dairy cows. Two analogous groups according to the lactation, time of calving, productivity during the previous lactation, body weight, milk production, amount of fat and proteins in milk were formed during each experiment. During the both experiments the cows were kept in the same condition, milked mechanically into milk lines twice daily, kept tidied, water was supplied from automatic drinking stations. The cows were fed twice daily. Both scientific-industrial experiments were divided into two periods: preparatory and experimental. The preparatory period of first experiment continued for 25 days. The cows of both groups were fed manually and daily ration was given as different forages. They were given the same according to nutritional value and structure ration, containing hay, straw, maize silage, silage of permanent grass silage of the slices of sugar beets and saladine. Concentrates was given individually according to the productivity. Daily ration corresponded to the required norms of nutritional substances (Tarvydas et al., 1995). The duration of the experimental period first experiment was 106 days. During this period the cows from the control group I were fed manually, the same daily ration as during the preparatory period, sharing forages individually. The ration of cows for the experimental group II consisted of the same constituents as the forages for the control group I. Only feeding technology was different saladine, hay, straw, maize silage, silage of permanent grass, silage of the slices of sugar beets were mixed and divided as a mixture by a mixer-divider OptiMix (DeLaval, 2002). The proportion of concentrates was given to each cow individually according to the productivity. The duration of the preparatory period of second experiment was 20 days. During this period, as well as in the first experiment, cows were fed manually, daily ration was given individually as particular forage. The cows were given the same according nutritional value and structure ration which consisted of hay, straw, maize silage, silage of yearly grass, silage of permanent grass and saladine. Concentrates, wheat flour, mineral-vitamin supplement were given individually taking into consideration milk yield. Daily ration corresponded to the nutritional standards (Tarvydas et al., 1995). The duration of the experimental period of second experiment was 75 days. During this period all experimental cows were fed the ration of the same composition and nutritional value, differed only feeding technologies: the cows of the control group I were fed manually sharing all forages individually. For the cows of the experimental group II part of the ration forages was given individually 6
(hay, straw, maize silage, yeraly grass silage, silage of permanent grass and saladine) were chopped, mixed and divided as amixture by the mixre-divider,,OptiMi . C tes, wheat flour and mineral-vitamin supplement x oncentra were given individually to each cow according to milk yield. During both experiments twice monthly were taken the samples of ration forages and unconsumed residual forages. Dry matter, crude protein, crude fat, crude fiber, extractive substances without nitrogen, calcium and phosphorus were investigated in these samples and their energetic value was calculated (Methods of forages investigation, 2003). In order to measure the amount of consumed forage residual forage was collected and weight daily after feeding. During the both experiments unconsumed hay, straw, silage forages and saladine of the control group of cows were weighted separately, and in the experimental group of cows residual mixture of forages. An average residual amount of unconsumed forage per cow was calculated dividing the amount of all residual forages on the number of cows in the group. An average residual amount of forage mixture was calculated according to the percentage composition of forage mixture. Residual amount of forage per cow was calculated from the weight results and structure of the mixture. I and II experiments were carried out according to the scheme presented in table 1.
7
Table 1. Scheme of the experiments
Feeding of cows pdeurriiondg the experimental Analyses
Daily ration given separately (kg): Hay - 2,5; straw - 1,0; maize silage - 8 14,0; silage of permanent grass - 14,0; silage of sugar beets slices -7,0; saladine - 5,0; concentrates - 7,3 . Daily ration (kg): Forage intake, 1. Mixture of roughage forages: hay productivity -2,5; straw -1,0; maize silage -14,0; and milk 8 silage of permanent grass - 14,0 kg; quality, silage of sugar beets slices - 7,0; biochemical saladine - 5,0. and 2. Separately: concentrates - 7,3 . microbiological parameters of Daily ration given separately (kg), : the rumen -Hay 3,7; straw - 2,0; silage of yearly fluid, forage grass - 12; silage of permanent grass -11 15,0; maize silage - 10,0; saladine - digesOtibMi lity, 9,3;wheat flour - 3,0; concentrates - biochemical 7,2; mineral-vitamin supplement - 0,12. parameters of Daily ration (kg): blood; 1. Mixture of roughage forages hay - economical 3,7; straw - 2,0; silage of yearly grass - efficiency 11 1m2a; izsei lsailgaeg of 1p0e,r0m; asanleandti nger a- s9s, 3-; 15,0; e -2. Separately: wheat flour 3,0; -concentrates - 7,2; mineral-vitamin supplement - 0,12. Methods of productivity and milk quality investigation The amount of produced milk was defined once a week during individual control milking. Milk samples for the investigation during control milking were collected according to the following requirements (LST EN ISO 707:1999+P:2003 Milk and milk products. Rules of sampling). The following parameters were studied in these samples: milk fat, milk protein, lactose, urea, somatic cell count. Milk fat, milk protein, lactose and urea were measured by the equipment 8
LactoScope FTIR (FT1.0. 2001; Delta Instruments, Holland); somatic cell count by the equipment SomaScope (CA-3A4,2004; Delta Instruments, Holland). Methods of the rumen fluid investigation Rumen fluid was taken by a throat oesophagus stomach tube GDZ-1 (Sederevi č ius, 2000). The rumen pH was measured by an electronic method using a pH-meter CP-315.The number of infusoria was calculated in 1 ml of rumen fluid using a Fuks-Rozental chamber. The bacterial reduction activity was evaluated by Dirksen (1969) method, and reaction of glucose fermentation was studied by an Einhorn sacharometer according to the method, described by J. Bak ū nas (2004). Total amount of free fatty acids was defined by the distillation of the rumen fluid in Markgam equipment as was suggested by В . В . Цюпко М . and В . Берус (1968). Total bacterial count was calculated according to Van Gylswyk (1990) method. The investigation of parameters mentioned above led to the evaluation of the rumen fluid fermentative activity. Organic matter digestibility of grass forages (hay, silage and grass) was defined by the I stage in vitro method (Monkevi č ien ė , 1999). Methods of blood biochemical investigation Blood samples of the experimental cows were taken from caudal vein into special vacuum tubes (Venoject II, Terumo Europe, Belgium) 2 hours after morning feeding. During each experiment blood samples were taken three times: once during the preparatory period and twice during the experimental period. GL Blood samples were centrifuged for 15 minutes 1500 rot./min by a Labofuge centrifuge (Heraeus Christ, Belgium). The following parameters were measured in blood serum: amounts of total amount of protein, glucose, calcium, phosphorus. The above mentioned parameters of blood were defined by the analyzer HITACHI-705 (Boehringen Mannheim, Japan). Methods of the calculation of the economical effect in relation with different feeding technologies During the both experiments economical efficiency was calculated on the basis of the costs of forages and other indicators calculated by the Center of Practical training and experiments of the LVA during the year 20022004 calculating the effect of different technologies were defined the main groups of expenditure: 1. The cost of daily ration produced in the Center of Practical Training and Experiments and bought forages; 2. The labour expenditure according to the daily ration structure and ways of forage distribution; 3. Cost of daily ration; 4. Cost and profitability of produced milk. In order to define labour expenditure on feeding was calculated the duration of forage loading and feeding of cows. During studying of feeding costs were defined expenditure on forage distribution, calculated the daily costs of cows feeding during the whole experimental period. During the calculation of ration cost were taken into consideration costs of the forages produced on the farm and cost of bought forages. 9
On the basis of the parameters of the main expenditure when cows were fed roughage rations and individual daily forages were calculated the following parameters: value of daily ration per cow; value of daily ration per cow during the experimental period; forage expenditure for 1 kg of milk; forage expenditure per cow; forage expenditure per cow during the experimental period; feeding expenditure for 1 kg milk with 4 % of fatness. The cost of 1 kg of milk was calculated according to these results. On the basis of the parameters mentioned above during both experiments (the duration of the experiment I was 106 d., of the experiment II 75 d.) was calculated economical results of feeding when cows were fed individual daily rations and mixtures of roughage forages. Statistical evaluation of the data The results of the experiments were evaluated by the method of statistical analysis R 1.7.1. (http://www.r-project.org) and WinExcel program. Arithmetical means of the parameters, average square deviations, coefficients of variations, errors of means were calculated. The reliability of arithmetic means (p) was defined according Stjudent (Juozaitien ė and Kerzien ė , 2001). The results are considered to be statistically reliable when p < 0.05, statistically unreliable when p > 0.05. The results of the experiments During both experiments all experimental cows were fed balanced ration of the indoor period. Nevertheless, technology of their preparation and feeding was different: the cows of the control group were fed manually giving forages separately. The cows of the experimental group were fed mixtures from the same forages produced and given by the van-mixture ,,OptiMix (DeLaval, 2002). Concentrates was given to each cow individually according to the productivity. During the first experiment the dairy cows of the experimental group II were given specially produced mixture of roughage forage containing (percents according to the mixture weight) hay of permanent grass − 5.75%, summer straw − 2.30%, maize silage − 32.18 %, silage of permanent grass − 32.18%, silage of sugar beets slices − 16.10% and saladine − 11.49%. One kilogram of the mixture averagely contained dry matter − 331 g, metabolizable energy − 3.21 MJ, crude protein − 31.87 g, crude fiber − 104.41 g, calcium − 2.37g, phosphorus − 0.81 g. During the experiment II dairy cows of the experimental group II were fed specially produced mixture of roughage forage, which contained hay of permanent grass 7.11%, summer straw 3.85%, maize silage 19.23%, silage of permanent grass 28.85%, silage of yearly grass 23.08% and saladine 17.88%. One kilogram of roughage ration contained averagely dry matter 323.08 g, metabolically energy 2.9 MJ, crude protein 35.69 g, crude fiber 102.5 g, calcium 2.47 g, phosphorus 0.71 g. During the experiment I all forages for the control group I of cows were given manually as separate components. The cows of this group consumed all the hay, straw, silage of sugar beets slices, concentrates and saladine, only 3.1% of maize silage and 2.7% of permanent grass silage were unconsumed, what made 5.8 % (2.8 kg) of daily ration weight. The cows of the experimental group II were fed the 10
mixture of roughage ration, which made 85.63 % of all daily ration weight and concentrates was given to each cow individually according to milk yield and made 14.37% of total daily ration. The cows of this group consumed 96.55% of given daily ration (table 6). They consumed all concentrates, only 3.45 % of given mixture of roughage forage was left: 0.2 % of hay; 0.08% of straw; 1.1% of maize and permanent grass silage; 0.58% of silage from sugar beets slices and 0.39% of saladine. The results of investigations demonstrated that each cow of the experimental group II given mixture of roughage ration didnt select forage and daily forage intake was on average by 2.48% higher than in the control group of cows, when all daily forage ration was given as separate components. The cows of the group II of cows consumed by 1.98% DM more than the cows of control group I (table 2). Table 2. Forage intake of cowsduring the experiment I 2 lentel ė . I-ame bandyme karvi ų su ė st ų paar ų kiekis Groups of cows / Karvi ų grup ė s Parameters / Rodikliai Control I Experimental II / I kontrolin ė / II tiriamoji Hay / ienas, kg 2.50 2.40* Summer straw / Vasariniai iaudai, kg 1.00 0.96* Maize silage / Kukur ū z ų silosas, kg 12.40 13.44* ermanent grass / 12.63 13.44 Silage of p * Daugiame č iu oli ų silosas, kg SCiulakrgien io ų f rsuungkaer lib ų e egtr iseliciensi ų / silosas, k7.00 6.71* g Saladine / Saladinas, kg 5.00 4.80* Concentrates / Kombinuotas paaras, kg 7.30 7.30 Wre ipgahrt ą osfu d ė asitloy draatviionni o/ s voris, kg47.83 49.05 Pe Daily ration contains: / Paros davinyje yra: Dry matter / saus ų mediag ų , kg 19.8 20.2 Metabolizable energy / apyka 2 MJ itos energijos, 08.10 209.78 Crude protein / ali ų baltym ų , g 2960.48 2958.45 Crude fiber / alios l ą stelienos, g 4823.74 4971.70 Ca, g 187.20 190.36 P, g 110.32 109.10 Note: * forages given as the mixture Pastaba: * paarai suerti miinio pavidalu.
11
During the second experiment daily ration for the control group I of cows was given manually as separate components. The cows of the group mentioned consumed all straw, concentrates, wheat flour, vitamin-mineral supplement and saladine, only 0.03 % of hay, 3.35% of maize silage, 0.57% of permanent grass silage and 1.50% of yearly grass silage was left. All unconsumed forages made 5.42% (3.37 kg) of the daily ration weight. The forage intake in the control group I of cows made 94.59% of given daily ration. Table 3. Forage intake during the experiment II 3 lentel ė . II ame bandyme su ė st ų paar ų kiekis Groups of cows / Karvi ų grup ė s Parameters / Rodikliai Control I / Experimental II / I kontrolin ė II tiriamoji Hay / ienas, kg 3.68 3.56 * Straw / iaudai, kg 2.00 1.94 * Maize silage / Kukur ū z ų silosas, kg 7.89 9.59 * Silage of permanent grass / Daugiame č i ų oli ų silosas, kg 14.63 14.41 * SViileangem eo č fi ų y eaorlliy ų gsrialosss a/ s, kg 11.06 11.53 * Saladine / Saladinas, kg 9.35 9.06 * Concentrates / kg 7.18 7.18 Kombinuotas paaras, Wheat flour / Kvietiniai miltai, kg 3.04 3.04 Vitamin-mineral supplement / Vitamininismineralinis papildas, kg 0.12 0.12 daily ration intake / 60.43 PWere ipgahrt ą osfu ė sto davinio svoris, kg 58.95 Daily ration contains / Paros davinyje yra : Dry matter / saus ų mediag ų , kg 24.87 25.28 eMneetragbijoolisz, aMblJe energy/apykaitos .39 248.62 244 Crude protein / ali ų baltym ų , g 3909.55 3929.38 Crude fiber / alios l ą stelienos, g 6097.69 6187.97 Ca, g 239.95 243.09 P, g 135.13 135.77 Note: *forages given as the mixture Pastaba: * paarai suerti miinio pavidalu.
12
During the experiment II the cows of the experimental group II were given mixture of roughage ration which made 83.44% of all daily ration weight. Concentrates, wheat flour and mineral-vitamin supplements were given to each cow individually according to milk yield and made respectively 11.55%; 4.81% and 0.19% of total daily ration. It was defined that forage intake of each cow from the experimental group II given the ration of roughage forage mixture didnt select forages and daily forage intake was by 2.45% higher than in the control group I of cows given forages separately. DM consumption in the mentioned group of cows was by 1.70 % higher than in the control group I of cows, given forages as separate components (table 3). Summarizing the results of both experiments it can be concluded that in both experiments when cows were fed the mixture of roughage ration, which made 85.63 % (exp. I) and 83,44% (exp. II) of all daily ration the cows average daily intake made on average by 2.46% more than in case when these components were given separately. Statistically reliable differences of forage intake when cows were fed the mixture of forages and separate components of them were not observed (p > 0.05). However, the cows fed the mixture of roughage forages consumed the greater variety of forages because they were not able to select the most favorite ones. The results of investigations evidently demonstrate that the highest amount of unconsumed forage made silage (4.46 % - 5.27% of all given silage), especially maize silage (3.1% - 3.35%), but silage of sugar beet slices was totally consumed. The data mentioned above led to the conclusion that when dairy cows are fed mixtures of roughage forages, better forage intake is ensured. Polan et.al. (1985), Bargo et.al. (2002), Berschl (2003) and other scientists state that feeding of cows the mixture of forages leads to the increase of productivity. It explains why our experiments were carried out in order to define the effect of roughage forage mixture on milk production. During the I experiment, when dairy cows were fed the mixture of roughage rations, which consisted of (% according to the weight) hay of permanent grass − 5.75%, summer straw − 2.30%, maize silage − 32.18%, silage of permanent grass − 32.18%, silage of sugar beet slices − 16.10% and saladine − 11.49%, milk yield of natural fatness was averagely by 3.3 % (if recalculated to 4 % of milk fatness by 2.52 % higher) than from the cows when daily ration forages were given as separate components.The results of cows productivity during the experiment I are presented in table 4.
13
Table 4. Productivity of cows kg/daily (Experiment I) 4 lentel ė . Karvi ų produktyvumas, kg/par ą (I bandymas) M Group of cows / ilfka tonf enssa t/u ral FPiaetnneos rsi eofb ummilaks ,/ Mfialtkn oefs s4 / % Karvi ų grup ė Nat ū ralaus riebumo % 4 % riaesb, ukm o pienas, kg pien g II ckoonnttrrooll i/n ė 22.49 ± 0.82 4.45 ± 0.08 24.00 ± 0.83 IEI xtpireiraimmoejnit al II / 23.26 ± 0.90 4.39 ± 0.11 24.62 ± 0.97 During the II experiment when cows were fed the mixture of roughage ration which contained 7.11% of hay, 3.85% of straw, 23.08% of the yearly grass silage, 19.23% of maize silage, 28.85% of permanent grass silage and 17.88% of saladine, the milk yield of natural fatness was by 1.69% higher (if recalculated to 4% fatness by 1.28% higher) if to compare to the cows fed separate forages of daily ration. The results of productivity in the II experiment are presented in table 5. Table 5. Productivity of cows, kg /daily (Experiment II) 5 lentel ė . Karvi ų produktyvumas, kg/par ą I bandymas) Milk of natural Fatness of milk Milk of 4% Group of cows / fatness / / Pieno fatness / Karvi ų grup ė Nat ū ralaus riebumo riebumas, 4 % riebumo pienas, kg % pienas, kg IC kontrtool lIi n/ ė 28.92 ± 0.58 4.63 ± 0.09 31.65 ± 0.54 on r IEI xtpireiraimejnit al II / 29.42 ± 0.62 4.60 ± 0.10 32.06 ± 0.60 mo Despite the fact, that during both experiments it was defined that when cows were fed the mixture of roughage rations, milk production increased. statistically reliable differences were not obtained in case of different feeding technologies (p > 0.05). Bargo et al. (2002) stated that when cows were fed forage mixture, milk fatness tended to increase. Our results of the effect of feeding technologies on milk fatness failed to prove this fact and to obtain statistically reliable results (p > 0.05). The results of the studies of the most important milk quality indicators amount of protein demonstrated that when cows were fed the mixture of roughage rations, which made 85.63% of daily ration weight, the amount of protein in milk was by 0.12% lower if to compare to the cows, fed separate forages of daily ration. The investigations also proved that the amount of lactose in the experimental group II of cows was by 0.05% higher and urea by 1.89 mg% lower 14
than in the control group I of cows. The parameters of milk composition during the experiment I are presented in table 6. Table 6. Chemical composition of milk (Experiment I) 6 lentel ė . Karvi ų pieno chemin ė sud ė tis (I bandymas) Group of cow/ Protein / Lactose / Urea / Karvi ų grup ė Baltymai, % Laktoz ė , % lapalas, mg% Control I / 3.24 ± 0.03 4.73 ± 0.04 29.79 ± 0.74 I kontrolin ė mental II / IEI xtipreiraimoji 3.12 ± 0.04 4.78 ± 0.03 27.90 ± 0.96 The results of milk chemical composition during the experiment II are presented in table 7. It was defined that when cows were fed ration consisting of 7.11 % of hay, 3.85% of straw, 22% of yearly grass silage, 19.23% of maize silage, 28.85% silage of permanent grass and 17.88% of saladine, the amount of protein in milk tended to be lower as usually found in Lithuanian Black& White cows (Juozaitien ė et al., 2004). The amount of lactose decreased by 0.53 % and the amount of urea by 3.38 mg% when cows were fed the mixture of roughage ration (p < 0.05). Table 7 . Chemical composition of milk (Experiment II) 7 lentel ė . Karvi ų pieno chemin ė sud ė tis (II bandymas) Group of cows / Protein / Lactose / Urea / Karvi ų grup ė Baltymai, % Laktoz ė , % lapalas, mg% Control I / I kontrolin ė 2.97 ± 0.03 5.43 ± 0.40 29.86 ± 1.19 Experimental II / II tiriamoji 3.00 ± 0.05 4.90 ± 0.03 26.48 ± 1.04 Frand et al. (2003) indicate that the amount of urea in milk greatly depends on the ratio of protein and energy and their balance in the ration. It seems necessary to state that we found the tendency of decrease in the amount of urea when cows were fed the mixture of roughage ration and concentrates was given individually according to the productivity. Geerts et al. (2004) stated that feeding technologies dont effect the amount of urea in milk, daily fluctuations of urea concentration tended to be lower. It can be concluded from our experiments that statistically reliable increase in milk production, milk fatness and the amount of protein was not reached as cows were fed the mixture of roughage ration. concentrates were given separately and thats why we failed to ensure required supply of nitrogen and energy to the rumen
15
microorganisms. Because cows were fed the mixture of roughage ration and concentrates was given separately (Chanjula et. al., 2004). It seems necessary to point out that feeding of dairy cows mixtures prepared and shared by the van-mixer had no considerable effect on milk chemical composition and quality parameters. The results obtained during our experiments only confirm the data of other scientists, that feeding of dairy cows forage mixture may not effect productivity (Owen, 1984) and milk quality (Yrjanen et.al., 2003; Londau et.al., 2004). The results of the investigation of different feeding technologies on the somatic cell count in milk (SCC) demonstrated that in the experiment I, when cows were fed the mixture of roughage ration which made 85.63% of total ration weight, SCC in milk decreased by 1.4 times if to compare to the control group of cows, fed separate forages. During the experiment II, when cows were fed the mixture of roughage ration which made 83.44% of total ration weight, SCC in the milk tended to be by 3.7% higher if to compare to the control group of cows (p>0.005). The results of SCC investigations during both experiments are presented in table 8. Table 8. Somatic cell count in milk x10 3 /ml (Experiments I and II) 8 lentel ė . Somatini ų l ą steli ų skai č ius piene x10 3 /ml (I ir II bandymai) Group of cows/ Experiment I / I Experiment II / II Karvi ų grup ė bandymas SLx10 3 /ml bandymas SLx10 3 /ml Control I / I kontrolin ė 365.10 ± 59.06 407.0 42.41 ± Experimental II / II tiriamoji 258.43 ± 40.67 422.2 ± 64.56 During the experiments it was defined that in both groups of cows fed balanced rations, somatic cell count was typical for Lithuanian Black&White cows (Juozaitien ė et al., 2004). However, we failed to define statistically reliable effect of feeding technologies on the changes in somatic cell count (p > 0.05). The investigations of the effect of feeding technologies on the activity of fermentative processes in the rumen of cows showed that the pH of all experimental cows fluctuated in the ranges of physiological norm (Czerkawski, 1986). It was defined that during the experiment I when cows of the experimental group II were fed the mixture, consisting of (percents according to the weight) silage of permanent grass − 5.75%. summer straw − 2.30 %, maize silage − 32.18 %, silage of permanent grass − 32.18 %, silage of sugar beet slices − 16.10% and saladine − 11.49%, rumen pH was by 0.06 units (p > 0.05) higher than in the control group of cows. It was defined that when cows were fed the mixture of roughage ration, the production of free fatty acids (FFA) in the rumen fluid increased by 18.99% (p<0.01) if to compare to the control group of cows given forage as separate components ( table 9). 16
Table 9. Biochemical and microbiological parameters of cows rumen fluid (Experiment I) 9 lentel ė . Karvi ų didiojo prieskrandio turinio biocheminiai ir mikrobiologiniai rodikliai (I bandymas) Reduction Glucose Total amount of activity Group of cows / pHBenFdrFaAs /L RR bBaacktteerriiaj o ų /f f/e rrG ū mlgieiunmktaoatszi ė osn Karvi ų grup ė kiekis, mmol/L redukcinis cm 3 /h , aktyvumas, s Control I / 6.66± I kontrolin ė 0.11 85.67 ± 9.57 133.8 ± 11.39 1.08 ± 0.03 Extpireiraimmoejnit al II / ±60..7026 104.66 ± 8.22 104.3 ± 10.46 1.37± 0.08 II During the experiment II it was defined that when the cows of the experimental group II were fed forage mixture in which roughage forage made 82.89% and concentrates was given separately, the rumen pH was by 0.25 units lower (p > 0.05) than in the control group of cows. The data are presented in table 10. Table 10. Biochemical and microbiological parameters of cows rumen fluid (Experiment II) 10 lentel ė . Karvi ų didiojo prieskrandio turinio biocheminiai ir mikrobiologiniai rodikliai (II bandymas) Reduction activity of KGrarovuip ų ogfr cuop ė w s / pH TBoetanld arams oLunRt Ro fk iFeFkiAs, / bacteria / ferGGmlileuunkctoaotzsi ė eo sn / mmol/L Bakatekrtiyj ų v uremdaus,k csi nis ū gimas, cm 3 /h r IC koonntrtrolo lIi /n ė 70..0142 ± 92.00 ± 7.89 79.00 ± 9.97 2.42 ± 0.39 IEI xtipreiraimmoejni tal II / 6.07.192 ± 108.0 ± 5.39 58.11 ± 6.50 2.48 ± 0.54 In case when the cows of the II experimental group were fed mixture of roughage ration consisting of II 7.1% of hay, 3.85% of straw, 22% of yearly grass silage, 19.23 % of maize silage, 28.85% of permanent grass silage and 17.88% of saladine, total FFA production in their rumen was by 16 mmol/L (14.8%) higher (p<0.05) than in the control group of cows, given daily ration as separate components (table 20). As Cunningham (1997a) indicates, FFA serve as a main resource of energy for the ruminants and cause higher milk yield. The studies of the effect of different feeding technologies on the fermentative processes in the rumen during both 17
experiments evidently demonstrated that feeding cows roughage ration, FFA production in the rumen fluid increased statistically reliably when cows were fed the mixture of roughage ration than when the forages were given as separate components. The investigations of the effect of different feeding technologies on the bacterial reduction activity of bacteria led to the conclusion that when cows were fed ration, consisting of 85.63% mixture of roughage rations, the reduction activity in the rumen increased by 29.5 s (p < 0.05), glucose fermentation reaction by 26.85% (p < 0.05) if to compare to the control group I of cows, given daily ration as separate components (table 9). During the experiment II when cows were fed the mixture of roughage ration which made 83.44% of total daily ration weight, reduction activity of bacteria improved by 20.89 s (p < 0.05), glucose fermentation reaction remained unchanged (p > 0.05) in comparison with the control group I of cows, given daily ration as separate components (table 10). The results of the investigations carried out evidently demonstrated that during both experiments, when cows were fed the mixture of forages reduction activity of bacteria tended to remain higher (p<0.05). It was also defined that during the experiments when cows were fed balanced ration during the indoor period the number of bacteria and protozoa in the rumen fluid fluctuated in the range of physiological norm (Church, 1976; Czerkawski, 1986.) independently on feeding technologies applied. During the experiment I when dairy cows were fed the mixture of roughage ration containing hay (2.5 kg), straw (1.0 kg), maize silage (14.0 kg), silage of permanent grass (14.0 kg), silage of sugar beet slices (7.0 kg) and saladine (5.0 kg), the number of protozoa in the rumen fluid was by 29.54 x 10 3 /ml higher (p < 0.001) than when cows were fed separate forages (table 11). Total bacterial count (TBC) in this case was by 49.10% higher if to compare to the cows fed separate components of the daily ration (p < 0.001). Table 11. The number of protozoa and bacteria in the rumen fluid of cows (Experiment I) 11 lentel ė . Infuzorij ų ir bakterij ų kiekis karvi ų didiojo prieskrandio turinyje (I bandymas) Group of cows/ Infusoria / Infuzorijos, TBC / BBS Karvi ų grup ė x10 3 /ml x10 9 /ml Control I / I kontrolin ė 120.61±2.14 87.54 ± 10.38 Experimental II / II tiriamoji 150.15 ± 13.99 172.01 ± 11.50 During the II experiment the cows of the experimental group were fed the mixture of roughage ration containing hay (3.7 kg), straw (2.0 kg), yearly grass silage (12.0kg), maize silage (10.0 kg); silage of permanent grass (15.0 kg) and saladine (9.3 kg). In this case the number of protozoa in the rumen fluid increased 18
© 2010-2024 YouScribe