| Literature DB >> 29767071 |
Shuaiwang Liu1, Runhou Zhang1, Rong Kang1, Jinzhu Meng2, Changjin Ao1.
Abstract
Thirty lactating Holstein cows were used to investigate the effects of different forages quality on milk fatty acids (FA) profiles and production. The cows were assigned to 3 dietary treatments (n = 10 per treatment) in a randomized block design with 3 repeated measures. They were fed the experimental diets for 90 d with 3 days of collection of samples for analysis at about 27 d intervals (samples were collected on days 28, 29, 30, 58, 59, 60, 88, 89 and 90). The treatments were (DM basis): 1) mixed forages diet (MF) consisting of 3.7% Chinese wild rye, 26.7% corn silage and 23.4% alfalfa hay; 2) corn stalk diet 1 (CS1) where corn stalk was used to formulate a similar chemical nutrient level to MF; 3) corn stalk diet 2 (CS2) which used corn stalk to formulate a similar forage level to MF for the diet. Dry matter intake and BW were similar between treatments, but daily milk yield, milk fat and protein yield decreased (P < 0.05) in CS1 and CS2 compared with MF, with CS2 being the lowest (P < 0.05). In total FA of milk, the compositions of C18:1c9, C18:3 and unsaturated FA increased (P < 0.05) in CS1 and CS2 compared with MF, and C18:0 and trans-C18:1 were trended to increase (P < 0.10), but C4:0-C16:0 were decreased (P < 0.05). Compared with cows fed CS2, cows receiving CS1 increased the compositions of C4:0 to C12:0 and C18:2 (P < 0.05). The results suggests feeding corn stalk could produce a greater proportion of unsaturated fatty acid (UFA) in milk fat without resulting in milk fat depression (MFD) in mid lactation cows, but simply increasing the ratio of concentrate in low forages diets is not an effective way to increase milk fat synthesis and milk production.Entities:
Keywords: Dairy cow; Forage quality; Milk fatty acids profiles; Milk production
Year: 2016 PMID: 29767071 PMCID: PMC5941052 DOI: 10.1016/j.aninu.2016.08.008
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Anim Nutr ISSN: 2405-6383
Ingredients of the experimental diets (% of DM).
| Item | Diets | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| MF | CS1 | CS2 | |
| Hay | 3.7 | 0 | 0 |
| Corn silage | 26.7 | 0 | 0 |
| Alfalfa hay | 23.4 | 0 | 0 |
| Corn stalk | 0 | 35 | 53.8 |
| Ground corn grain | 24.6 | 34.61 | 24.6 |
| Soybean meal (49.0% CP) | 14.8 | 20.82 | 14.8 |
| Whole cottonseed | 5.1 | 7.18 | 5.1 |
| Calcium bicarbonate | 0.6 | 0.84 | 0.6 |
| Sodium chloride | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.5 |
| Mineral-vitamin mix | 0.6 | 0.84 | 0.6 |
| Total | 100 | 100 | 100 |
MF = mixed forages; CS1 = corn stalk diet 1; CS2 = corn stalk diet 2.
The MF diet consisted of 3.7% Chinese wild rye, 26.7% corn silage and 23.4% alfalfa hay; CS1 used corn stalk to formulate similar chemical nutrients levels with MF; and CS2 used corn stalk to formulate similar forages level as MF diet.
The mineral-vitamin mix per kilogram of DM provided: 500,000 to 700,000 IU vitamin A; 110,000 to 120,000 IU vitamin D3; 8,000 to 10,000 IU vitamin E; 7,000 to 10,000 mg Zn; 40 to 80 mg Se; 84 mg I; 1,400 to 1,750 mg Fe; 30 to 40 mg Co; 1,400 to 3,500 mg Mn; and 1,400 to 1,600 mg Cu.
Chemical composition (% of DM).
| Item | Diets | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| MF | CS1 | CS2 | |
| Chemical composition | |||
| CP | 18.14 | 18.38 | 13.61 |
| EE | 3.97 | 4.10 | 2.84 |
| NDF | 32.30 | 33.10 | 44.30 |
| ADF | 21.30 | 20.20 | 29.10 |
| Ash | 7.47 | 7.39 | 7.93 |
| Starch | 21.50 | 25.39 | 15.32 |
| NEL | 1.57 | 1.58 | 1.04 |
| Fatty acid composition in diets (g per 100 g of total fatty acid) | |||
| C16:0 | 24.35 | 21.22 | 19.98 |
| C16:1 | 0.62 | 0.42 | 0.51 |
| C18:0 | 3.01 | 3.38 | 3.38 |
| C18:1c9 | 21.73 | 23.1 | 24.58 |
| C18:2c6 | 44.16 | 44.8 | 42.69 |
| C18:3n3 | 2.55 | 4.75 | 3.92 |
| others | 3.58 | 4.16 | 3.11 |
| UFA | 67.23 | 71.38 | 69.74 |
| LCFA | 86.71 | 85.62 | 83.34 |
MF = mixed forages diet; CS1 = corn stalk diet 1; CS2 = corn stalk diet 2; EE = crude fat (ether extract); NDF = neutral detergent fiber; ADF = acid detergent fiber; NEL = Net energy for lactation; UFA = unsaturated fatty acid; LCFA = total long chain fatty acid.
The MF diet consisted of 3.7% Chinese wild rye, 26.7% corn silage and 23.4% alfalfa hay; CS1 used corn stalk to formulate chemical nutrients levels similar to that of MF; and CS2 used corn stalk to formulate forages level similar to that of MF.
Starch and NEL were calculated by near-infrared spectroscopy (FOSS NIRS DS 250).
The effects of dietary treatments on milk performance.
| Item | Diets | SEM | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MF | CS1 | CS2 | |||
| Milk yield, kg/d | 26.43a | 22.62b | 17.41c | 1.36 | <0.01 |
| DMI, kg/d | 16.75 | 16.71 | 16.19 | 0.41 | 0.58 |
| Fat, % | 4.26a | 3.71b | 4.03ab | 0.14 | 0.04 |
| Fat yield, kg/d | 1.11a | 0.83b | 0.70c | 0.05 | <0.01 |
| Protein, % | 3.20a | 3.10ab | 3.00b | 0.05 | 0.02 |
| Protein yield, kg/d | 0.84a | 0.70b | 0.53c | 0.041 | <0.01 |
| SCC, × 1000/mL | 24.67 | 25.24 | 29.87 | 6.59 | 0.35 |
| Weight, kg/cow | 568 | 534 | 554 | 21 | 0.98 |
MF = mixed forages; CS1 = corn stalk diet 1; CS2 = corn stalk diet 2; SEM = pooled standard error of the means; DMI = dry matter intake; SCC = somatic cell count.
a–c Means within a row with different superscripts differ (P < 0.05).
The MF consisted of 3.7% Chinese wild rye, 26.7% corn silage and 23.4% alfalfa hay; CS1 was using corn stalk to formulate a chemical nutrient level similar to that of MF; CS2 was using corn stalk to formulate a forages level similar to that of MF.
Effects of dietary treatments on milk profiles of fatty acids (FA) (g/100 g of total FA).
| Item | Diets | SEM | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MF | CS1 | CS2 | |||
| C4:0 | 0.71a | 0.68b | 0.60c | 0.03 | 0.01 |
| C6:0 | 0.62a | 0.55b | 0.47c | 0.03 | 0.02 |
| C8:0 | 0.86a | 0.70b | 0.61c | 0.04 | <0.01 |
| C10:0 | 2.83a | 2.45b | 2.07c | 0.11 | <0.01 |
| C12:0 | 3.77a | 3.22b | 2.79c | 0.14 | <0.01 |
| C14:0 | 12.49a | 11.47b | 11.10b | 0.32 | 0.02 |
| C14:1 | 0.98 | 0.91 | 0.95 | 0.94 | 0.86 |
| C15:0 | 1.21a | 1.04b | 1.03b | 0.38 | <0.01 |
| C16:0 | 36.14a | 33.09b | 34.08b | 0.68 | 0.01 |
| C16:1 | 1.25 | 1.11 | 1.36 | 0.98 | 0.20 |
| C17:0 | 0.60 | 0.62 | 0.66 | 0.07 | 0.87 |
| C18:0 | 11.84 | 13.34 | 13.12 | 0.58 | 0.08 |
| trans-18:1 | 1.08 | 1.28 | 1.13 | 0.08 | 0.09 |
| C18:1c9 | 21.44b | 24.71a | 26.09a | 0.78 | <0.01 |
| C18:2c6 | 2.72b | 3.08a | 2.76b | 0.11 | 0.03 |
| C18:3n3 | 0.47b | 0.58a | 0.63a | 0.03 | <0.01 |
| Others | 0.99 | 1.17 | 0.55 | 0.86 | 0.46 |
| SFA | 72.98a | 69.23b | 68.24b | 0.76 | <0.01 |
| UFA | 27.02b | 30.77a | 31.76a | 0.76 | <0.01 |
| DNFA | 39.44a | 36.33b | 35.64b | 0.71 | <0.01 |
| LCFA | 77.67b | 79.36a | 80.15a | 0.68 | 0.04 |
FA = fatty acids; MF = mixed forages; CS = corn stalk; SEM = pooled standard error of the means; SFA = saturated fatty acid; UFA = unsaturated fatty acid; DNFA = de novo FA; LCFA = total long chain FA.
a–c Means within a row with different superscripts differ (P < 0.05).
The DNFA included C4:0, C6:0, C8:0, C10:0, C12:0, C14:0, and half of C16 content; LCFA included 16C and more than 16C content.
The MF consisted of 3.7% Chinese wild rye, 26.7% corn silage and 23.4% alfalfa hay; CS1 was using corn stalk to formulate a chemical nutrient level similar to that of MF; CS2 was using corn stalk to formulate a similar forages level similar to that of MF.