Differential response to stocking rates and feeding by two genotypes of Holstein-Friesian cows in a pasture-based automatic milking system

作者: C.C. Nieman , K.M. Steensma , J.E. Rowntree , D.K. Beede , S.A. Utsumi

DOI: 10.1017/S1751731115001901

关键词: Animal sciencePastureDairy cattleAutomatic milkingFeed conversion ratioBiologyCompletely randomized designAgroforestryDry matterGrazingMilking

摘要: The throughput of automatic milking systems (AMS) is likely affected by differential traffic behavior and subsequent effects on the frequency milk production cows. This study investigated effect increasing stocking rate partial mixed ration (PMR) production, dry matter intake (DMI), feed conversion efficiency (FCE) use AMS two genotypes Holstein-Friesian cows in mid-lactation. lasted 8 weeks consisted a factorial arrangement dairy cattle, United States Holstein (USH) or New Zealand Friesian (NZF), pasture-based feeding treatments, low system (2 cows/ha) fed temperate pasture concentrate, high (HSR; 3 same concentrate plus PMR. A total 28 cows, 14 USH NZF, were used for comparisons, with 12 six also tracking animal movements. Data analyzed repeated measure models completely randomized design. No differences (P>0.05) pre- post-grazing herbage mass, DMI FCE detected response to increases PMR HSR. However, there was significant (P<0.05) grazing treatment×genotype×week interaction explained responses changes mass over time (P<0.001). reduction (P<0.01) hours spent supplementation HSR; this greater (P=0.01) than NZF (6 v. 2 h, respectively). Regardless treatment, had (P=0.02) (2.51 2.26±0.08 milkings/day) yield (27.3 16.0±1.2 kg/day), energy-corrected (24.8 16.5±1.0 (22.1 16.6±0.8 kg/day) (1.25 1.01±0.06 kg/kg) There different distribution milkings/h between (P<0.001), patterns shifting (P<0.001) as consequence Results confirmed improved suggested potential tactical decision managing HSR milkings/day farms.

参考文章(35)
Field and laboratory methods for grassland and animal production research Field and laboratory methods for grassland and animal production research.. ,(2000) , 10.1079/9780851993515.0000
M. Woolford, J. Jago, A. Jackson, Dominance effects on the time budget and milking behaviour of cows managed on pasture and milked in an automated milking system Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production. ,vol. 63, pp. 120- 123 ,(2003)
Tuñon G, Lopez-Villalobos N, O’donovan M, Kennedy E, Hennessy D, Kemp Pd, Effect of pre-grazing herbage mass on grazing behaviour, grass dry matter intake and milk production of dairy cows Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production. ,vol. 71, pp. 28- 32 ,(2011)
Ramon C. Littell, SAS System for Mixed Models ,(1996)
S. R. Fariña, S. C. Garcia, W. J. Fulkerson, I. M. Barchia, Pasture‐based dairy farm systems increasing milk production through stocking rate or milk yield per cow: pasture and animal responses Grass and Forage Science. ,vol. 66, pp. 316- 332 ,(2011) , 10.1111/J.1365-2494.2011.00795.X
H.F. Tyrrell, J.T. Reid, Prediction of the Energy Value of Cow's Milk Journal of Dairy Science. ,vol. 48, pp. 1215- 1223 ,(1965) , 10.3168/JDS.S0022-0302(65)88430-2
J. Dijkstra, J. France, J. L. Ellis, A. B. Strathe, E. Kebreab, A. Bannink, Productions efficiency of ruminants: feed, nitrogen and methane Sustainable Animal Agriculture. pp. 10- 25 ,(2013) , 10.1079/9781780640426.0010
L.A. Holden, L.D. Muller, G.A. Varga, P.J. Hillard, Ruminal digestion and duodenal nutrient flows in dairy cows consuming grass as pasture, hay, or silage. Journal of Dairy Science. ,vol. 77, pp. 3034- 3042 ,(1994) , 10.3168/JDS.S0022-0302(94)77245-3