| Literature DB >> 28163916 |
M Cattani1, N Guzzo2, R Mantovani2, L Bailoni1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the last years, difficulties occurring in corn cultivation (i.e., groundwater shortages, mycotoxin contamination) have been forcing dairy farmers to consider alternative silages. Some experiments conducted on lactating cows have proven that the total replacement of corn silage with sorghum silage did not reduce milk yield. However, this kind of substitution involves supplementing sorghum-based diets with grains, to compensate for the lower starch content of sorghum silage compared to corn silage. Change of silage type and inclusion of starch sources in the diet would influence rumen fermentations, with possible effects on milk composition (i.e., fatty acid profile) and coagulation properties. A worsening of milk coagulation properties would have a negative economic impact in Italy, where most of the milk produced is processed into cheese. This study was designed to compare milk composition and quality, with emphasis on fatty acid profile and coagulation properties, in dairy cows fed two diets based on corn or sorghum silage.Entities:
Keywords: Dairy cows; Forage sorghum silage; Mean particle size; Milk coagulation properties; Milk fatty acid profile
Year: 2017 PMID: 28163916 PMCID: PMC5282808 DOI: 10.1186/s40104-017-0146-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Anim Sci Biotechnol ISSN: 1674-9782
Descriptive statistics for nutrient composition, fatty acid profile, and particle size of the two silages used in the study
| Component (g/kg DM unless noted) | Corn silage | Sorghum silage | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SEM | Mean | SEM | |
| Nutrients | ||||
| DM as fed | 331.9 | 4.8 | 222.7 | 0.8 |
| CP | 76.8 | 0.9 | 73.7 | 1.9 |
| Fat | 29.0 | 1.2 | 24.7 | 0.7 |
| Ash | 43.2 | 6.0 | 79.3 | 0.4 |
| NDF | 348.7 | 10.0 | 711.3 | 14.8 |
| ADF | 197.4 | 5.7 | 459.9 | 11.5 |
| ADL | 29.5 | 1.2 | 73.3 | 1.9 |
| Starch | 351.9 | 20.2 | 25.7 | 2.4 |
| NSCa | 502.4 | 10.6 | 111.9 | 15.8 |
| NEL b, Mcal/kg DM | 1.82 | 0.02 | 0.92 | 0.04 |
| pH | 3.68 | 0.02 | 4.08 | 0.07 |
| Fatty acid profile | ||||
| SFAc, % of total FAd | ||||
| C16:0 | 14.4 | 0.1 | 22.6 | 0.5 |
| C18:0 | 2.31 | 0.03 | 2.77 | 0.21 |
| Total SFA | 19.7 | 0.4 | 34.2 | 0.9 |
| MUFAe, % of total FA | ||||
| C18:1 n-9 | 15.3 | 2.0 | 5.2 | 1.1 |
| Total MUFA | 17.9 | 2.0 | 9.1 | 1.0 |
| PUFAf, % of total FA | ||||
| C18:2 n-6 | 54.4 | 1.5 | 22.6 | 1.2 |
| C18:3 n-3 | 7.0 | 0.3 | 32.5 | 1.9 |
| Total PUFA | 62.4 | 1.7 | 56.7 | 0.8 |
| n-6, % of total FA | 54.5 | 1.5 | 22.9 | 1.2 |
| n-3, % of total FA | 7.2 | 0.4 | 32.6 | 1.9 |
| Particle size fraction, % retained (as-fed basis) | ||||
| > 19 mm | 4.3 | 0.8 | 4.6 | 0.9 |
| > 8 to 19 mm | 68.0 | 1.4 | 80.7 | 0.9 |
| < 8 mm | 27.7 | 1.2 | 14.7 | 0.3 |
| pefg | 0.72 | 0.01 | 0.85 | 0.01 |
| peNDFh, % of DM | 24.6 | 0.6 | 62.1 | 0.4 |
| Mean particle sizei, mm | 6.2 | 0.2 | 8.7 | 0.1 |
a NSC non-structural carbohydrates, calculated as: 1000 – (CP + Fat + Ash + NDF), b NE L calculated according to NRC (2001 [8]), c SFA saturated fatty acids, d FA fatty acids, e MUFA monounsaturated fatty acids, f PUFA polyunsaturated fatty acids, g pef physical effectiveness factor, calculated as sum of the proportion of feed particles retained on sieves with openings of 19 and 8 mm, h peNDF physically effective NDF, calculated as pef multiplied by the corresponding NDF content, iMean particle size = calculated according to ASABE (2007 [17])
Ingredients ad descriptive statistics for nutrient composition, fatty acid profile, and particle size of the two experimental diets
| Component (g/kg DM unless noted) | Corn silage diet | Sorghum silage diet | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SEM | Mean | SEM | |
| Ingredients | ||||
| Corn silage | 295 | - | - | - |
| Sorghum silage | - | - | 195 | - |
| Alfalfa hay | 172 | - | 170 | - |
| Corn meal | 142 | - | 254 | - |
| Soybean meal | 87 | - | 85 | - |
| Barley meal | 65 | - | 63 | - |
| Cottonseeds | 65 | - | 63 | - |
| Dry sugar beet pulp | 53 | - | 52 | - |
| Distillers dried grains with solubles | 44 | - | 43 | - |
| Wheat straw | 44 | - | 43 | - |
| Soybean hulls | 30 | - | 30 | - |
| Urea | 2 | - | 2 | - |
| Nutrients | ||||
| DM, % fresh matter | 539.2 | 2.1 | 158.9 | 0.2 |
| CP | 141.6 | 3.3 | 142.6 | 2.7 |
| Fat | 38.3 | 2.4 | 33.1 | 1.1 |
| Ash | 67.7 | 0.8 | 69.4 | 2.4 |
| NDF | 365.1 | 2.9 | 397.0 | 9.1 |
| ADF | 218.8 | 2.5 | 238.4 | 3.9 |
| ADL | 41.9 | 1.5 | 47.7 | 1.0 |
| Starch | 229.5 | 8.2 | 202.3 | 10.7 |
| NSCa | 387.4 | 0.6 | 357.9 | 9.3 |
| NEL b, Mcal/kg DM | 1.61 | 0.02 | 1.59 | 0.02 |
| Fatty acid profile | ||||
| SFAc, % of total FAd | ||||
| C16:0 | 18.7 | 0.2 | 19.3 | 0.1 |
| C18:0 | 2.48 | 0.03 | 2.28 | 0.02 |
| Total SFA | 24.6 | 0.3 | 24.8 | 0.1 |
| MUFAe, % of total FA | ||||
| C18:1 n-9 | 18.8 | 0.3 | 19.3 | 0.3 |
| Total MUFA | 21.6 | 0.3 | 21.7 | 0.2 |
| PUFAf, % of total FA | ||||
| C18:2 n-6 | 49.3 | 0.2 | 48.6 | 0.7 |
| C18:3 n-3 | 4.0 | 0.2 | 4.2 | 0.4 |
| Total PUFA | 53.8 | 0.1 | 53.4 | 0.3 |
| n-6, % of total FA | 49.4 | 0.2 | 48.6 | 0.7 |
| n-3, % of total FA | 4.0 | 0.2 | 4.2 | 0.4 |
| Particle size fraction, % retained (as-fed basis) | ||||
| > 19 mm | 5.7 | 1.4 | 3.8 | 0.6 |
| > 8 to 19 mm | 27.8 | 0.7 | 33.7 | 0.9 |
| < 8 mm | 66.5 | 1.4 | 62.5 | 0.8 |
| pefg | 0.34 | 0.01 | 0.37 | 0.01 |
| peNDFh, % of DM | 12.3 | 0.5 | 15.2 | 0.5 |
| Mean particle sizei, mm | 2.2 | 0.1 | 2.4 | 0.1 |
a NSC non-structural carbohydrates, calculated as: 1000 – (CP + Fat + Ash + NDF), b NE calculated according to NRC (2001 [8]), c SFA saturated fatty acids,d FA fatty acids, e MUFA monounsaturated fatty acids, f PUFA polyunsaturated fatty acids, g pef physical effectiveness factor, calculated as sum of the proportion of feed particles retained on sieves with openings of 19 and 8 mm, h peNDF physically effective NDF, calculated as pef multiplied by the corresponding NDF content, iMean particle size = calculated according to ASABE (2007 [17])
Least square means and pooled standard error (SE) for DMI, milk yield and composition of cows fed the two experimental diets
| Item | Diet | Pooled SE |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Corn silage | Sorghum silage | |||
| DMI, kg/d | 24.88 | 24.52 | 1.44 | 0.878 |
| Yield, kg/d | ||||
| Milk | 31.63 | 29.79 | 1.97 | 0.043 |
| 4% FCMa | 31.83 | 31.54 | 1.92 | 0.848 |
| Fat | 1.23 | 1.25 | 0.07 | 0.781 |
| Protein | 1.11 | 1.07 | 0.06 | 0.229 |
| Lactose | 1.54 | 1.45 | 0.10 | 0.067 |
| SCMb | 31.63 | 31.02 | 1.73 | 0.589 |
| Milk composition, % | ||||
| Fat | 3.98 | 4.26 | 0.16 | 0.024 |
| Protein | 3.55 | 3.66 | 0.08 | 0.065 |
| Lactose | 4.85 | 4.84 | 0.04 | 0.634 |
| Urea, mg/L | 24.01 | 25.42 | 0.52 | 0.510 |
| SCSc, units | 3.59 | 3.65 | 0.44 | 0.897 |
| Milk coagulation properties | ||||
| RCTd, min | 19.75 | 19.76 | 1.26 | 0.986 |
| k20e, min | 6.66 | 6.50 | 0.35 | 0.732 |
| a30f, mm | 35.45 | 31.90 | 2.25 | 0.042 |
| pH | 6.84 | 6.86 | 0.02 | 0.008 |
| Feed efficiency, kg/kg | ||||
| SCM:DMI | 1.27 | 1.27 | 0.07 | 0.969 |
a FCM milk corrected milk, b SCM solids-corrected milk, calculated according to Tyrrell and Reid (1965 [19]), c SCS somatic cell score, calculated as: SCS = 3 + ln2(somatic cell count/100, 000), d RCT rennet coagulation time, e k20 time required to reach a curd firmness of 20 mm, f a30 curd firmness 30 min after the addition of rennet
Least square means and pooled standard error (SE) for milk fatty acids from cows fed the two experimental diets
| Item | Diet | Pooled SE |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Corn silage | Sorghum silage | |||
| SFAa, % of total FAb | ||||
| C4:0 | 3.02 | 3.24 | 0.06 | 0.003 |
| C6:0 | 2.09 | 2.08 | 0.02 | 0.507 |
| C8:0 | 1.31 | 1.21 | 0.02 | 0.003 |
| C10:0 | 3.11 | 2.71 | 0.09 | <0.001 |
| C12:0 | 3.69 | 3.13 | 0.12 | 0.080 |
| C14:0 | 11.90 | 11.00 | 0.36 | 0.062 |
| C16:0 | 30.76 | 32.05 | 0.56 | 0.010 |
| C18:0 | 9.93 | 10.94 | 0.35 | 0.019 |
| Others | 4.57 | 4.26 | 0.11 | 0.037 |
| Total SFA | 70.38 | 70.60 | 0.59 | 0.607 |
| MUFAc, % of total FA | ||||
| C14:1 | 0.92 | 0.87 | 0.05 | 0.116 |
| C16:1 | 1.28 | 1.26 | 0.05 | 0.563 |
| C18:1 n-7 | 1.87 | 2.03 | 0.06 | 0.018 |
| C18:1 n-9 | 17.75 | 18.39 | 0.50 | 0.124 |
| Others | 3.22 | 2.77 | 0.06 | <0.001 |
| Total MUFA | 25.04 | 25.32 | 0.51 | 0.496 |
| PUFAd, % of total FA | ||||
| C18:2 n-6 | 2.48 | 2.02 | 0.07 | <0.001 |
| C18:2 c9, t11 CLAe | 0.44 | 0.52 | 0.02 | 0.006 |
| C18:2 t10, c12 CLA | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.396 |
| C18:3 n-3 | 0.30 | 0.27 | 0.01 | 0.001 |
| C18:3 n-6 | 0.06 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.044 |
| C20:3 n-6 | 0.15 | 0.13 | 0.01 | <0.001 |
| C20:4 n-6 | 0.19 | 0.16 | 0.01 | <0.001 |
| Others | 0.97 | 0.91 | 0.03 | 0.031 |
| Total PUFA | 4.58 | 4.07 | 0.12 | <0.001 |
| SFA/(MUFA + PUFA) | 2.40 | 2.42 | 0.07 | 0.714 |
| MUFA/PUFA | 5.51 | 6.27 | 0.14 | <0.001 |
| n-6, % of total FA | 2.91 | 2.39 | 0.08 | <0.001 |
| n-3, % of total FA | 0.39 | 0.36 | 0.01 | 0.017 |
| n-6/n-3 | 7.49 | 6.73 | 0.16 | <0.001 |
| CLA, % of total FA | 0.49 | 0.58 | 0.02 | 0.004 |
a SFA saturated fatty acids, b FA fatty acids, c MUFA monounsaturated fatty acids, d PUFA polyunsaturated fatty acids, e CLA conjugated linoleic acid isomers