C. Loza, J. Gere, M. S. Orcasberro, A. Casal, M. Carriquiry, P. Juliarena, E. Ramírez-Bribiesca, L. Astigarraga
{"title":"放牧奶牛采食量、能量消耗和甲烷排放对两种牧草的影响","authors":"C. Loza, J. Gere, M. S. Orcasberro, A. Casal, M. Carriquiry, P. Juliarena, E. Ramírez-Bribiesca, L. Astigarraga","doi":"10.4236/ojas.2021.113031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A grazing experiment was undertaken to assess the \neffects of two levels of herbage mass (HM) on herbage DM intake (DMI), fat and \nprotein corrected milk yield (FPCM), grazing behaviour, energy expenditure \n(HP), and methane emissions (CH4) of grazing dairy cows \nin spring. Treatments were a low HM (1447 kg DM/ha; LHM) or a high HM (1859 kg \nDM/ha; HHM). Pasture was composed mainly of cocksfoot (Dactylis glomerata) and lucerne (Medicago \nsativa), offered \nat a daily herbage allowance of 30 kg DM/cow, above 5 cm. Eight multiparous \nHolstein cows were used in a 2 × 2 Latin Square design in \ntwo 10-day periods. Despite the differences in pre-grazing HM between \ntreatments, OM digestibility was not different (P = 0.28). Herbage mass did not \naffect DMI or FPCM. Grazing time was not different between treatments, but cows \nhad a greater bite rate when grazing on LHM swards. However, HP did not differ \nbetween treatments. Daily methane emission (per cow), methane emission \nintensity (per kg FPCM) and methane yield (as percentage of gross energy \nintake) were not different. The lack of effect of the amount of pre-grazing HM \non energy intake, confirms that the difference between HM treatments was beyond the limits that impose \nextra energy expenditure during grazing.","PeriodicalId":62784,"journal":{"name":"动物科学期刊(英文)","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Intake, Energy Expenditure and Methane Emissions of Grazing Dairy Cows at Two Pre-Grazing Herbage Masses\",\"authors\":\"C. Loza, J. Gere, M. S. Orcasberro, A. Casal, M. Carriquiry, P. Juliarena, E. Ramírez-Bribiesca, L. Astigarraga\",\"doi\":\"10.4236/ojas.2021.113031\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A grazing experiment was undertaken to assess the \\neffects of two levels of herbage mass (HM) on herbage DM intake (DMI), fat and \\nprotein corrected milk yield (FPCM), grazing behaviour, energy expenditure \\n(HP), and methane emissions (CH4) of grazing dairy cows \\nin spring. Treatments were a low HM (1447 kg DM/ha; LHM) or a high HM (1859 kg \\nDM/ha; HHM). Pasture was composed mainly of cocksfoot (Dactylis glomerata) and lucerne (Medicago \\nsativa), offered \\nat a daily herbage allowance of 30 kg DM/cow, above 5 cm. Eight multiparous \\nHolstein cows were used in a 2 × 2 Latin Square design in \\ntwo 10-day periods. Despite the differences in pre-grazing HM between \\ntreatments, OM digestibility was not different (P = 0.28). Herbage mass did not \\naffect DMI or FPCM. Grazing time was not different between treatments, but cows \\nhad a greater bite rate when grazing on LHM swards. However, HP did not differ \\nbetween treatments. Daily methane emission (per cow), methane emission \\nintensity (per kg FPCM) and methane yield (as percentage of gross energy \\nintake) were not different. The lack of effect of the amount of pre-grazing HM \\non energy intake, confirms that the difference between HM treatments was beyond the limits that impose \\nextra energy expenditure during grazing.\",\"PeriodicalId\":62784,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"动物科学期刊(英文)\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"动物科学期刊(英文)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1091\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4236/ojas.2021.113031\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"动物科学期刊(英文)","FirstCategoryId":"1091","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4236/ojas.2021.113031","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
通过放牧试验,研究了两个水平的牧草质量(HM)对春季放牧奶牛牧草DM摄入量(DMI)、脂肪和蛋白质校正产奶量(FPCM)、放牧行为、能量消耗(HP)和甲烷排放(CH4)的影响。处理为低HM(1447 kg DM/公顷;LHM)或高HM(1859 kg DM/ha;HHM)。牧场主要由鸡爪(Dactylis glomerata)和苜蓿(Medicago sativa。尽管不同处理的放牧前HM存在差异,但OM的消化率没有差异(P=0.28)。牧草质量不影响DMI或FPCM。不同处理的放牧时间没有差异,但奶牛在LHM草地上放牧时有更高的咬合力。然而,HP在不同治疗之间没有差异。甲烷日排放量(每头牛)、甲烷排放强度(每公斤FPCM)和甲烷产量(占总能量摄入的百分比)没有差异。放牧前HM的量对能量摄入没有影响,这证实了HM处理之间的差异超出了放牧期间额外能量消耗的限制。
Intake, Energy Expenditure and Methane Emissions of Grazing Dairy Cows at Two Pre-Grazing Herbage Masses
A grazing experiment was undertaken to assess the
effects of two levels of herbage mass (HM) on herbage DM intake (DMI), fat and
protein corrected milk yield (FPCM), grazing behaviour, energy expenditure
(HP), and methane emissions (CH4) of grazing dairy cows
in spring. Treatments were a low HM (1447 kg DM/ha; LHM) or a high HM (1859 kg
DM/ha; HHM). Pasture was composed mainly of cocksfoot (Dactylis glomerata) and lucerne (Medicago
sativa), offered
at a daily herbage allowance of 30 kg DM/cow, above 5 cm. Eight multiparous
Holstein cows were used in a 2 × 2 Latin Square design in
two 10-day periods. Despite the differences in pre-grazing HM between
treatments, OM digestibility was not different (P = 0.28). Herbage mass did not
affect DMI or FPCM. Grazing time was not different between treatments, but cows
had a greater bite rate when grazing on LHM swards. However, HP did not differ
between treatments. Daily methane emission (per cow), methane emission
intensity (per kg FPCM) and methane yield (as percentage of gross energy
intake) were not different. The lack of effect of the amount of pre-grazing HM
on energy intake, confirms that the difference between HM treatments was beyond the limits that impose
extra energy expenditure during grazing.