Ideal concentrate feeds for grazing dairy cows

Grazing is a valuable, low cost resource for feeding high-yielding dairy cows. However, the balance between providing sufficient energy and managing grassland is delicate. Full exploitation of grazing systems to maximise milk yield requires that concentrate feeding is also optimised.
By Jean Louis Peyraud

imitations have been imposed on intensive milk production systems with the introduction of milk quotas, the necessity to take into account environmental concerns and the GATT proposals. These limitations increase pressure on milk prices and lead to an increased emphasis on production efficiency. Despite some differences in the grass-growing seasons between European countries, grazing should form the basis of sustainable dairying systems in the future. Grazing is the cheapest source of nutrients for dairy cows and contributes to the competitiveness of milk production, preserves the rural landscape and projects a good image of dairy production. Full exploitation of grazing will require development of grazing systems designed to maximise daily forage intake per cow and improve the efficiency of nutrient use through supplementary feeding. Supplements are generally provided to grazing dairy cows to increase total energy intake and animal performances above that which can be produced from pasture alone. However, the efficiency of supplementation (in kg increase in milk per kg increase in supplement DM intake) is largely dependent upon the effect of supplementation on forage intake and the objective is now to define the conditions where use of supplementary feeds will minimise the reduction in forage intake.

Milk yield with and without supplements

Milk yield in unsupplemented cows increases by 1.0 kg/day for every 4 kg increase in herbage allowance (Delaby et al., 1999). However, increased herbage allowance in early season also increases residual sward height, and this may result in a deterioration of sward quality in mid and late season. From a practical point of view, there is not much room for manoeuvre. Hoden et al. (1991) and Delaby et al. (1999) found that milk yield can be increased by no more than 1.5 kg/cow per day by increasing herbage

There is a delicate balance between conserving grazing resources, adding supplement and milk yield. (Photo Theo Tangelder)

www.AgriWorld.nl

FEED MIX Volume 9 Number 4/5 2001

11

Table 1 - Response of milk yield, protein and fat content of milk to concentrate supplements (after Delaby and Peyraud, unpublished)
n All data Concentrate intake (kg DM/day) Milk (kg/kg DM concentrate) Protein content (g/kg per kg DM concentrate) Fat content (g/kg per kg DM concentrate) Data published after 1990 Concentrate intake (kg DM/day) Milk (kg/kg DM concentrate) Protein content (g/kg per kg DMconcentrate) Fat content (g/kg per kg DM concentrate) 141 141 107 133 Mean 2.8 1.2 0.66 0.46 0.23 0.32 - 0.29 0.53 Min 0.90 - 0.56 - 0.52 - 1.92 Max 5.90 2.39 1.34 1.06

55 55 54 54

2.9 1.2 0.89 0.43 0.20 0.29 - 0.21 0.46

0.90 - 0.18 - 0.51 - 1.25

5.40 2.00 0.81 0.80

Table 2 - Effect of the amount of concentrate on milk response to concentrate supplements in grazing dairy cows
Concentrate (kg DM/day) C 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 M 2.6 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 3.4 2.7 H 4.3 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6 6.7 5.4 Global Efficiency (kg milk/kg concentrate) 0 to M 0 to H 0.8 1.4 0.9 1.3 0.7 0.9 1.1 0.5 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.8 1.0 Marginal efficiency M to H 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.7 1.0 Authors Meijs and Hoekstra (1984) Wilkins et al. (1994) OBrien, Crosse and Dillon (1996) Delaby and Peyraud (1997) Dillon, Crosse, and OBrien (1997) Robaina et al. (1998) Delaby, Peyraud and Delagarde (2001)

C : control, M : medium, H high level of concentrate

lished) are quite variable, indicating high responses can be achieved in some circumstances. Indeed, milk responses to concentrate are higher in data published after 1990. The incremental increase in milk response averages + 0.1 kg/ kg DM concentrate every ten years. Indeed, overall efficiencies close to or higher than 1.0 kg of milk per kg DM concentrate were recently reported when less than 4.5 kg of concentrate are provided to cows producing more than 25-30 kg milk at turnout (Table 2). It is probable that these higher responses are related to the genetic merit of the cow that has appreciably increased since the early bibliographical reviews. The response of milk yield to incremental supplementation does not vary with the potential of the animals as observed at turnout (from 25 to 40 kg milk) when allocation of concentrate is constant between cows, at least up to levels of 4-6 kg of concentrate (Delaby et al., 2001). This probably reflects the inability of the cows to cover their requirements with herbage alone even for the moderate producing animals which are far from reaching their expected milk yield and the ability of high producing cows to increase herbage intake according to their potential yield. The incremental increase in intake averages 250 g OM / kg expected milk yield (eMY; Peyraud et al. 1996). Whether these identical responses between cows also apply at higher concentrate allocation is unknown but responses to concentrate might decrease progressively for higher levels of concentrate in low producing animals when they reach their expected milk yield.

Figure 1 - Effect of the level of supplementation and energy balance on the substitution rate between fresh grass and concentrate (after Delagarde and Peyraud, unpublished)

Interaction between supplement and grazing

Delagarde and Peyraud (unpublished) summarised the responses of 48 grazing experiments in which the net energy balance of the unsupplemented cows was calculated from measured herbage intake, grass digestibility and milk yield. They demonstrated that the substitution rate between grass and concentrate is poorly related to the level of concentrate but is primarily a function of the net energy balance (EB in MJ/day) of unsupplemented cows (Figure 1). In practice energy balance may differ according to the amount of grass ingested. This explains why numerous studies have concluded the substitution rate is positively related to herbage allowance, herbage intake increasing with increased herbage allowance. For the same reason, the substitution rate between fresh grass and conserved forages dramatically increases when sward surface height increases. In our experiments, there was a linear response in milk up to 6kg of concentrate when herbage was restricted, whereas at high allowance the response reached a plateau after 4 kg of concentrate (Figure 2). Energy balance may also differ according

allowance in spring without very serious effects upon sward quality later in the season. Feeding supplements is a more powerful tool to control performance. It has long been generally accepted that concentrates are not very efficient at grazing, with an average response of 0.4 to 0.6

kg milk per kg DM of concentrate, mainly because feeding concentrate generally reduces herbage intake. From two comprehensive reviews of the literature we showed recently that the efficiency of supplementation (Table 1) and the substitution rate (0.4 0.3; n = 57; Delagarde and Peyraud, unpub-

12

FEED MIX Volume 9 Number 4/5 2001

www.AgriWorld.nl

Figure 2 - Interaction between the level of concentrate and herbage allowance on milk response to supplementation (after Delaby et al. 2001 experiment 1)

Figure 3 - Interaction between the grass crude protein content and the response to supplementation with metabolisable protein (after Delaby et al. 1996)

to the quality of grass, so substitution rate is positively related to herbage digestibility (Grainger and Mathews, 1989). This also explains why milk response can increase during the grazing season when grass quality and availability are lowered. For a given stocking rate, the method of grazing does not affect the performance of dairy cows and thus the energy balance of the cows (Hoden et al. 1987, Le Du, 1980). Therefore responses to concentrate are similar between rotational grazing systems in which fresh pasture is allocated either daily (strip grazing) or over several days (paddock system) (Hoden et al. 1987). Responses are also similar between rotational and continuous grazing systems (Arriaga Jordan and Holmes, 1986).

Nature of the supplement

Herbage intake is more drastically lowered when cows are supplemented with forages than with concentrates (Mayne and Wright, 1988). On good grazing conditions, when the supply of fresh grass is large, giving conserved forages (grass silage, hay or maize silage) as a buffer feed, results in large substitution rates, often over 1.0. In these situations, very low milk responses or even a decrease in milk yield compared to control cows were obtained (Leaver, 1985) because net energy content is lower in conserved than in fresh forages. The substitution rate between fresh grass and buffer forages decreases to 0.3 when the availability of fresh forage is restricted. Thus forage supplements must be provided only during periods of grass shortage or in the areas where availability of grass is not sufficient. The response to supplementary forage is then much higher in summer than in spring (Phillips and Leaver, 1985). The large substitution rates obtained with forages appears to be mediated by a large reduction in grazing time which can reach 40 min/kg of silage DM (Mayne, 1991) whereas the

Table 3 - Effect of the nature of energy reduction in grazing time per kg on milk yield by dairy cows DM of concentrate averages 10 to grazing on vegetative perennial 15 min. ryegrass swards (after Delaby et In the current context of dairy al. 1994) production, it is generally assumed that energy is the first factor which limits animal performances Wheat Dried Soya bean at grazing. Readily fermentable Beet Pulp hulls starch (barley, wheat) is generally considered to decrease milk fat Milk yield (kg/day) 26.7 27.2 27.3 content and acetate:propionate Protein content (g/kg) 30.0 29.4 29.5 Fat content (g/kg) 36.2 36.6 37.5 ratio in the rumen compared to fibre concentrate or less readily Intake of concentrate : 3.5 kg DM/day fermentable starch (maize). Indeed, energy source in the concentrate has little effect on milk output and composition when moderate levels er the response to the MP supplementation. of concentrate are fed. Compared to 3.5 kg On low N sward, the replacement of carof wheat, feeding 3.5 kg of a concentrate bohydrate concentrate by protected soybean rich in soya-bean hulls, which is a slowly meal makes it possible to increase the degraded cellulose increased milk fat conamount of ingested forage. Delagarde, et al. tent (+ 1.3 g/kg, Table 3) and marginally (1999) reported an increase in herbage decreased protein content (- 0.5 g/kg) intake (+ 0.8 kg / kg concentrate) when cows (Delaby and Peyraud, 1994). are supplemented with protected soybean In most cases milk production from pasmeal (Table 4). This positive effect of MP tures is not limited by metabolisable prosupplementation on grass intake is clearly tein (MP) supply but in some circumstances attributable its low protein content as it was the crude protein content of grass can previously observed with poor quality condecrease and the supplementation with MP served forages (Journet et al. 1983). Thus, on may be beneficial. This might occur when N low N sward, MP supply increases milk yield fertilisation is reduced or during summer because it alleviates a shortfall in MP supply grazing. Delaby et al. (1996) described the response curve of milk yield when increasbut part of the increase in milk yield can ing MP was provided by progressively replacalso be assigned to an increase in herbage ing 3 kg of wheat by protected soya-bean intake. At pasture with high crude protein meal. On highly N fertilised sward, with content, MP supply in the concentrate has crude protein content greater than 160 g/kg generally no large effect on herbage intake DM, milk yield marginally increases with (Vadiveloo and Holmes, 1979; Delagarde et al., 1997). MP supply whereas on low N fertilised sward, with crude protein content lower Supplementation strategies than 130 g/kg DM, the response is markedly Supplementation can be administered as greater (Figure 3). The provision of 600 g/day of supplementary MP produced similar milk constant single doses to all cows whatever yield to that obtained with high-fertilised the milk potential or computed as a funcsward without MP supplementation. The tion of the cows potential: the higher the lower the protein content of grass the highcow potential the higher the level of con-

www.AgriWorld.nl

FEED MIX Volume 9 Number 4/5 2001

13

Table 4 - Effect of energy and protein source on herbage intake and digestion by dairy cows grazing on plots of perennial ryegrass with a low CP content (after Delagarde, et al. 99)
No Energy concentrate Concentrate intake (kg DM/day) Grass intake (kg DM/day) Grass digestibility Rumen VFA (mmoles/l) NH3 (mg/l) Protein flowing into the duodenum (kg/day) Milk yield (kg/day) 0 14.6 0.774 99 11 2.2 19.6 2.8 14.9 0.761 101 11 2.5 22.0 Soybean meal 2.8 17.2 0.793 111 21 3.5 24.8

Figure 4 - The benefits of grazing and supplements also depend on the cows genetic potential

centrate allocated (Hoden et al. 1991). This latter strategy assumes a cow is unable to adjust her grass consumption according to requirements. Delaby and Peyraud (1997) compared 3 kg of concentrate administered either at a constant rate for all cows or at a rate of 1 kg of concentrate for each 3 kg of milk above 20 kg of milk at turnout, observing similar animal performances. Thus it is possible to use a single dose of concentrate for all dairy cows, if grazing conditions favour maximum grass intake.

Theoretically, increased frequency of concentrate feeding should result in less diurnal variations in ruminal pH (Sutton et al. 1986), which in turn might increase the amount of grass a cow can consume and thus animal performance. On pasture, grain is normally fed twice daily to cows, during or after milking. Recently some mobile computerised grain feeders were developed to manipulate the temporal pattern of supplementation for cows fed with more than 8 to 10 kg DM of concentrate. Cows tend to con-

sume less concentrate with the grain feeder due to missing occasional meals and this had resulted in lower milk yield (Hongerholt et al., 1997; Gibb et al., 2000). But even for cows which have consumed the same amount of concentrate in the parlour and from the grain feeder, increasing the frequency of concentrate meals did not improve animal performance. G
References are available on request.

14

FEED MIX Volume 9 Number 4/5 2001

www.AgriWorld.nl