4.1 Article

Effects of feeding Aspergillus oryzae fermentation product to transition Holstein cows on performance and health

期刊

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE
卷 99, 期 2, 页码 237-243

出版社

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING, NRC RESEARCH PRESS
DOI: 10.1139/cjas-2018-0037

关键词

Aspergillus oryzae; dairy cows; transition; milk yield; health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Two experiments examined the effects of Aspergillus oryzae fermentation product (AO; Amaferm (R); BioZyme Inc., St. Joseph, MO, USA) on productive variables in transition dairy cows. In experiment 1, 33 Holstein cows (22 multiparous and 11 primiparous) were enrolled from -21 to 60 days in milk (DIM). Cows were individually fed either a control total mixed ration (TMR) diet consisting of primarily alfalfa hay and steam-flaked corn [62: 38 and 59: 41, forage: concentrate (F: C) for prepartum and postpartum phases, respectively] or the control diet along with 15 g d(-1) of AO. In experiment 2, 455 multiparous Holstein cows were enrolled from -21 to 121 DIM. Cows were group-fed either a control TMR diet (n = 228) consisting primarily of corn silage and rolled corn (44: 56, F: C) or the control diet (n = 227) with 15 g d(-1) of AO. In experiment 1, cows fed AO had increased (P < 0.05) milk production compared with controls (37.7 vs. 34.6 kg d(-1)). Milk composition, dry matter intake, body weight (BW), and BW loss both prepartum and postpartum did not differ (P > 0.10) between treatments. Cows fed AO tended to have decreased plasma nonesterified fatty acids levels (14%, P < 0.10), but plasma glucose concentration did not differ (P = 0.89). In experiment 2, cows fed AO had decreased milk yield (43.0 vs. 43.8; P < 0.05), and increased milk fat content (3.50% vs. 3.38%; P < 0.01) but similar quantities of 3.5% fat-corrected milk (42.5 vs. 42.7 kg d(-1); P > 0.10). Results suggest that AO has the potential to improve aspects of milk production efficiency, but the percentage and types of forage utilized may influence the response.

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

4.1
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