4.7 Article

Interactions between forage and wet corn gluten feed as sources of fiber in diets for lactating dairy cows

期刊

JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE
卷 83, 期 2, 页码 322-331

出版社

AMER DAIRY SCIENCE ASSOC
DOI: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(00)74882-X

关键词

effective fiber; fibrous coproducts; corn gluten feed; rumination

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Twelve early lactation Holstein cows (4 fistulated) were used in replicated 4 x 4 Latin squares with 4-wk periods to determine the effective neutral detergent fiber (NDF) content of wet corn gluten feed and to measure the effect of forage particle size on ruminal mat consistency and passage rate of wet corn gluten feed. Diets were 1) 23.3% NDF (17.4 percentage units of NDF from alfalfa silage), 2) diet 1 plus 11.1 additional percentage units of NDF from alfalfa silage, 3) diet 1 plus 10.7 percentage units of NDF from wet corn gluten feed, and 4) 8.6 percentage units of NDF from alfalfa silage plus 8.9 percentage units of NDF from coarsely chopped alfalfa hay and 10.7 percentage units of NDF from wet corn gluten feed. The calculated effective NDF factor for wet corn gluten feed, using change in milk fat concentration per unit change in NDF, was 0.74 compared with an assumed 1.0 for alfalfa silage. Rumination activity was measured to calculate a physically effective NDF factor for wet corn gluten feed, which was only 0.11 compared with 1.0 for alfalfa silage. Physically effective NDF also was determined for wet corn gluten feed by wet sieving; 22% of the particles were retained on the 3.35-mm screen or greater. Ruminal mat consistency increased and passage rate of wet corn gluten feed decreased with added hay. The inclusion of chopped alfalfa hay to a diet containing wet corn gluten feed increased ruminal mat consistency, rumination activity, and slowed passage rate, resulting in greater ruminal. digestion of NDF from wet corn gluten feed. Depending on the response variable, the effectiveness of NDF from wet corn gluten feed varied from 0.11 to 0.74.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据