Effects of concentrate supplementation and genotype on milk production and nitrogen utilisation efficiency in late-lactation, spring-calving grazing dairy cows

•HM genotype cows had a superior MR to concentrate compared to LM genotype cows.•Offering cows concentrate reduced cow level NUE.•Offering cows concentrate reduced protein % but increased fat + protein kg. The study objectives were to evaluate the effects of (1) concentrate supplementation (CS), (2)...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inLivestock science Vol. 261; p. 104962
Main Authors Doran, M.J., Mulligan, F.J., Lynch, M.B., Fahey, A.G., Rajauria, G., Brady, E.L., Pierce, K.M.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Elsevier B.V 01.07.2022
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:•HM genotype cows had a superior MR to concentrate compared to LM genotype cows.•Offering cows concentrate reduced cow level NUE.•Offering cows concentrate reduced protein % but increased fat + protein kg. The study objectives were to evaluate the effects of (1) concentrate supplementation (CS), (2) cow genotype, and (3) a potential interaction between CS and cow genotype on milk production, dry matter (DM) intake (DMI) and cow nitrogen (N) utilisation efficiency (NUE) in late lactation (+208 ± 14.1 days in milk), spring-calving grazing dairy cows. The experiment was a complete randomised block design with a 2 × 2 factorial arrangement of treatments and was conducted over a 52-day period. There were two feeding strategies (pasture-only (PO) and pasture + 2.7 kg DM CS) and two genotype groups [lower milk genotype (LM; milk kg PTA = -48 ± 59.9, fat kg PTA = +7 ± 4.7 and protein kg PTA = +3 ± 3.2) and higher milk genotype (HM; milk kg PTA = +190 ± 109.7, fat kg PTA = +12 ± 5.7 and protein kg PTA = +9 ± 3.6)]. Cows in their respective genotype group were randomly assigned to one of two feeding strategies, resulting in four treatment groups (n = 12). Cows grazed full time and were allocated 17 kg DM pasture/cow per d. No interactions were observed for any parameters measured. Cows offered CS had increased daily yields of fat + protein (+0.18 kg), lactose (+0.13 kg) and ECM (+2.46 kg) compared to cows offered PO. The HM cows had increased yields of daily fat + protein (+0.13 kg) and lactose (+0.1 kg) compared to the LM cows. Cows offered CS had decreased daily protein (-0.14%) but increased lactose (+0.08%) concentration compared to cows offered PO. The HM cows had decreased daily fat (-0.2%), protein (-0.16%) and casein (-0.07%) concentration compared to the LM cows. Cows offered CS had a reduced daily pasture DMI (-1.41 kg) but an increased daily total DMI (+1.29 kg) and feed N intake (+0.085 kg) compared to cows offered PO. Cows offered CS had decreased NUE (-0.1%) compared to cows offered PO. In conclusion, offering cows 2.7 kg DM CS per day improved milk production in late lactation but resulted in a poorer NUE. The poorer NUE was due to no difference in milk N output and an increase in the partitioning of feed N to urine. The HM cows had an increased milk response to CS with respect to milk fat + protein kg compared to the MR obtained from LM cows.
ISSN:1871-1413
1878-0490
DOI:10.1016/j.livsci.2022.104962