Comparison of three techniques for estimating the forage intake of lactating dairy cows on pasture

Quantifying DMI is necessary for estimation of nutrient consumption by ruminants, but it is inherently difficult on grazed pastures and even more so when supplements are fed. Our objectives were to compare three methods of estimating forage DMI (inference from animal performance, evaluation from fec...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of animal science 2003-09, Vol.81 (9), p.2357-2366
Hauptverfasser: Macoon, B, Sollenberger, L.E, Moore, J.E, Staples, C.R, Fike, J.H, Portier, K.M
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 2366
container_issue 9
container_start_page 2357
container_title Journal of animal science
container_volume 81
creator Macoon, B
Sollenberger, L.E
Moore, J.E
Staples, C.R
Fike, J.H
Portier, K.M
description Quantifying DMI is necessary for estimation of nutrient consumption by ruminants, but it is inherently difficult on grazed pastures and even more so when supplements are fed. Our objectives were to compare three methods of estimating forage DMI (inference from animal performance, evaluation from fecal output using a pulse-dose marker, and estimation from herbage disappearance methods) and to identify the most useful approach or combination of approaches for estimating pasture intake by lactating dairy cows. During three continuous 28-d periods in the winter season, Holstein cows (Bos taurus; n = 32) grazed a cool-season grass or a cool-season grass-clover mixture at two stocking rates (SR; 5 vs. 2.5 cows/ha) and were fed two rates of concentrate supplementation (CS; 1 kg of concentrate [as-fed] per 2.5 or 3.5 kg of milk produced). Animal response data used in computations for the animal performance method were obtained from the latter 14 d of each period. For the pulse-dose marker method, chromium-mordanted fiber was used. Pasture sampling to determine herbage disappearance was done weekly throughout the study. Forage DMI estimated by the animal performance method was different among periods (P < 0.001; 6.5, 6.4, and 9.6 kg/d for Periods 1, 2, and 3, respectively), between SR (P < 0.001; 8.7 [low SR] vs. 6.3 kg/d [high SR]) and between CS (P < 0.01; 8.4 [low CS] vs. 6.6 kg/d [high CS]). The period and SR effect seemed to be related to forage mass. The pulse-dose marker method generally provided greater estimates of forage DMI (as much as 11.0 kg/d more than the animal performance method) and was not correlated with the other methods. Estimates of forage DMI by the herbage disappearance method were correlated with the animal performance method. The difference between estimates from these two methods, ranging from −4.7 to 5.4 kg/d, were much lower than their difference from pulse-dose marker estimates. The results of this study suggest that, when appropriate for the research objectives, the animal performance or herbage disappearance methods may be useful and less costly alternatives to using the pulse-dose method.
doi_str_mv 10.2527/2003.8192357x
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_73628800</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>73628800</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-f262t-6eecb4ff642c968f79f4e84527743c362ef09f6646bd1fc88cbafed2c37247c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpFUctOwzAQtBAISuHIFXLiFrDXieMcUcVLQuIAnC3HXbeGPIrtqPTvcdUiTivtzI5mZgm5YPQGSqhugVJ-I1kNvKx-DsiElVDmnAl-SCaUAsulZHBCTkP4pJRBWZfH5IRBLWTFYEKa2dCttHdh6LPBZnHpEbOIZtm77xFDZgefYYiu09H1i4TjdqUXmLk-6i_cHrXaxB08185vMjOsQ5b0VjrE0eMZObK6DXi-n1Py_nD_PnvKX14fn2d3L7kFATEXiKYprBUFmOTOVrUtUBYpY1VwwwWgpbUVohDNnFkjpWm0xTkYXkFRGT4l1zvZlR-21qPqXDDYtrrHYQyqShJSpram5HJPHJsO52rlUzq_UX-l_Cst3WK5dh5V6HTbJjpTnzpIpmq1rTsRr3ZEqwelF6lF9fEGlBWU0rpOn-C_w6l7Pg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>73628800</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of three techniques for estimating the forage intake of lactating dairy cows on pasture</title><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>MEDLINE</source><creator>Macoon, B ; Sollenberger, L.E ; Moore, J.E ; Staples, C.R ; Fike, J.H ; Portier, K.M</creator><creatorcontrib>Macoon, B ; Sollenberger, L.E ; Moore, J.E ; Staples, C.R ; Fike, J.H ; Portier, K.M</creatorcontrib><description>Quantifying DMI is necessary for estimation of nutrient consumption by ruminants, but it is inherently difficult on grazed pastures and even more so when supplements are fed. Our objectives were to compare three methods of estimating forage DMI (inference from animal performance, evaluation from fecal output using a pulse-dose marker, and estimation from herbage disappearance methods) and to identify the most useful approach or combination of approaches for estimating pasture intake by lactating dairy cows. During three continuous 28-d periods in the winter season, Holstein cows (Bos taurus; n = 32) grazed a cool-season grass or a cool-season grass-clover mixture at two stocking rates (SR; 5 vs. 2.5 cows/ha) and were fed two rates of concentrate supplementation (CS; 1 kg of concentrate [as-fed] per 2.5 or 3.5 kg of milk produced). Animal response data used in computations for the animal performance method were obtained from the latter 14 d of each period. For the pulse-dose marker method, chromium-mordanted fiber was used. Pasture sampling to determine herbage disappearance was done weekly throughout the study. Forage DMI estimated by the animal performance method was different among periods (P &lt; 0.001; 6.5, 6.4, and 9.6 kg/d for Periods 1, 2, and 3, respectively), between SR (P &lt; 0.001; 8.7 [low SR] vs. 6.3 kg/d [high SR]) and between CS (P &lt; 0.01; 8.4 [low CS] vs. 6.6 kg/d [high CS]). The period and SR effect seemed to be related to forage mass. The pulse-dose marker method generally provided greater estimates of forage DMI (as much as 11.0 kg/d more than the animal performance method) and was not correlated with the other methods. Estimates of forage DMI by the herbage disappearance method were correlated with the animal performance method. The difference between estimates from these two methods, ranging from −4.7 to 5.4 kg/d, were much lower than their difference from pulse-dose marker estimates. The results of this study suggest that, when appropriate for the research objectives, the animal performance or herbage disappearance methods may be useful and less costly alternatives to using the pulse-dose method.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0021-8812</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1525-3163</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2527/2003.8192357x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 12968712</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Am Soc Animal Sci</publisher><subject>Animal Feed - analysis ; Animal Nutritional Physiological Phenomena ; animal performance ; Animals ; Body Composition - physiology ; Cattle - metabolism ; Cattle - physiology ; cool season grasses ; dairy cows ; Dairying - methods ; Dietary Supplements ; Eating ; Edible Grain ; Energy Intake - physiology ; feed intake ; Female ; forage ; foraging ; Holstein ; lactation ; Lactation - physiology ; milk ; pastures ; Poaceae ; Seasons ; stocking rate</subject><ispartof>Journal of animal science, 2003-09, Vol.81 (9), p.2357-2366</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12968712$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Macoon, B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sollenberger, L.E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moore, J.E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Staples, C.R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fike, J.H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Portier, K.M</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of three techniques for estimating the forage intake of lactating dairy cows on pasture</title><title>Journal of animal science</title><addtitle>J Anim Sci</addtitle><description>Quantifying DMI is necessary for estimation of nutrient consumption by ruminants, but it is inherently difficult on grazed pastures and even more so when supplements are fed. Our objectives were to compare three methods of estimating forage DMI (inference from animal performance, evaluation from fecal output using a pulse-dose marker, and estimation from herbage disappearance methods) and to identify the most useful approach or combination of approaches for estimating pasture intake by lactating dairy cows. During three continuous 28-d periods in the winter season, Holstein cows (Bos taurus; n = 32) grazed a cool-season grass or a cool-season grass-clover mixture at two stocking rates (SR; 5 vs. 2.5 cows/ha) and were fed two rates of concentrate supplementation (CS; 1 kg of concentrate [as-fed] per 2.5 or 3.5 kg of milk produced). Animal response data used in computations for the animal performance method were obtained from the latter 14 d of each period. For the pulse-dose marker method, chromium-mordanted fiber was used. Pasture sampling to determine herbage disappearance was done weekly throughout the study. Forage DMI estimated by the animal performance method was different among periods (P &lt; 0.001; 6.5, 6.4, and 9.6 kg/d for Periods 1, 2, and 3, respectively), between SR (P &lt; 0.001; 8.7 [low SR] vs. 6.3 kg/d [high SR]) and between CS (P &lt; 0.01; 8.4 [low CS] vs. 6.6 kg/d [high CS]). The period and SR effect seemed to be related to forage mass. The pulse-dose marker method generally provided greater estimates of forage DMI (as much as 11.0 kg/d more than the animal performance method) and was not correlated with the other methods. Estimates of forage DMI by the herbage disappearance method were correlated with the animal performance method. The difference between estimates from these two methods, ranging from −4.7 to 5.4 kg/d, were much lower than their difference from pulse-dose marker estimates. The results of this study suggest that, when appropriate for the research objectives, the animal performance or herbage disappearance methods may be useful and less costly alternatives to using the pulse-dose method.</description><subject>Animal Feed - analysis</subject><subject>Animal Nutritional Physiological Phenomena</subject><subject>animal performance</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Body Composition - physiology</subject><subject>Cattle - metabolism</subject><subject>Cattle - physiology</subject><subject>cool season grasses</subject><subject>dairy cows</subject><subject>Dairying - methods</subject><subject>Dietary Supplements</subject><subject>Eating</subject><subject>Edible Grain</subject><subject>Energy Intake - physiology</subject><subject>feed intake</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>forage</subject><subject>foraging</subject><subject>Holstein</subject><subject>lactation</subject><subject>Lactation - physiology</subject><subject>milk</subject><subject>pastures</subject><subject>Poaceae</subject><subject>Seasons</subject><subject>stocking rate</subject><issn>0021-8812</issn><issn>1525-3163</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2003</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpFUctOwzAQtBAISuHIFXLiFrDXieMcUcVLQuIAnC3HXbeGPIrtqPTvcdUiTivtzI5mZgm5YPQGSqhugVJ-I1kNvKx-DsiElVDmnAl-SCaUAsulZHBCTkP4pJRBWZfH5IRBLWTFYEKa2dCttHdh6LPBZnHpEbOIZtm77xFDZgefYYiu09H1i4TjdqUXmLk-6i_cHrXaxB08185vMjOsQ5b0VjrE0eMZObK6DXi-n1Py_nD_PnvKX14fn2d3L7kFATEXiKYprBUFmOTOVrUtUBYpY1VwwwWgpbUVohDNnFkjpWm0xTkYXkFRGT4l1zvZlR-21qPqXDDYtrrHYQyqShJSpram5HJPHJsO52rlUzq_UX-l_Cst3WK5dh5V6HTbJjpTnzpIpmq1rTsRr3ZEqwelF6lF9fEGlBWU0rpOn-C_w6l7Pg</recordid><startdate>20030901</startdate><enddate>20030901</enddate><creator>Macoon, B</creator><creator>Sollenberger, L.E</creator><creator>Moore, J.E</creator><creator>Staples, C.R</creator><creator>Fike, J.H</creator><creator>Portier, K.M</creator><general>Am Soc Animal Sci</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20030901</creationdate><title>Comparison of three techniques for estimating the forage intake of lactating dairy cows on pasture</title><author>Macoon, B ; Sollenberger, L.E ; Moore, J.E ; Staples, C.R ; Fike, J.H ; Portier, K.M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-f262t-6eecb4ff642c968f79f4e84527743c362ef09f6646bd1fc88cbafed2c37247c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2003</creationdate><topic>Animal Feed - analysis</topic><topic>Animal Nutritional Physiological Phenomena</topic><topic>animal performance</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Body Composition - physiology</topic><topic>Cattle - metabolism</topic><topic>Cattle - physiology</topic><topic>cool season grasses</topic><topic>dairy cows</topic><topic>Dairying - methods</topic><topic>Dietary Supplements</topic><topic>Eating</topic><topic>Edible Grain</topic><topic>Energy Intake - physiology</topic><topic>feed intake</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>forage</topic><topic>foraging</topic><topic>Holstein</topic><topic>lactation</topic><topic>Lactation - physiology</topic><topic>milk</topic><topic>pastures</topic><topic>Poaceae</topic><topic>Seasons</topic><topic>stocking rate</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Macoon, B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sollenberger, L.E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moore, J.E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Staples, C.R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fike, J.H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Portier, K.M</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of animal science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Macoon, B</au><au>Sollenberger, L.E</au><au>Moore, J.E</au><au>Staples, C.R</au><au>Fike, J.H</au><au>Portier, K.M</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of three techniques for estimating the forage intake of lactating dairy cows on pasture</atitle><jtitle>Journal of animal science</jtitle><addtitle>J Anim Sci</addtitle><date>2003-09-01</date><risdate>2003</risdate><volume>81</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>2357</spage><epage>2366</epage><pages>2357-2366</pages><issn>0021-8812</issn><eissn>1525-3163</eissn><abstract>Quantifying DMI is necessary for estimation of nutrient consumption by ruminants, but it is inherently difficult on grazed pastures and even more so when supplements are fed. Our objectives were to compare three methods of estimating forage DMI (inference from animal performance, evaluation from fecal output using a pulse-dose marker, and estimation from herbage disappearance methods) and to identify the most useful approach or combination of approaches for estimating pasture intake by lactating dairy cows. During three continuous 28-d periods in the winter season, Holstein cows (Bos taurus; n = 32) grazed a cool-season grass or a cool-season grass-clover mixture at two stocking rates (SR; 5 vs. 2.5 cows/ha) and were fed two rates of concentrate supplementation (CS; 1 kg of concentrate [as-fed] per 2.5 or 3.5 kg of milk produced). Animal response data used in computations for the animal performance method were obtained from the latter 14 d of each period. For the pulse-dose marker method, chromium-mordanted fiber was used. Pasture sampling to determine herbage disappearance was done weekly throughout the study. Forage DMI estimated by the animal performance method was different among periods (P &lt; 0.001; 6.5, 6.4, and 9.6 kg/d for Periods 1, 2, and 3, respectively), between SR (P &lt; 0.001; 8.7 [low SR] vs. 6.3 kg/d [high SR]) and between CS (P &lt; 0.01; 8.4 [low CS] vs. 6.6 kg/d [high CS]). The period and SR effect seemed to be related to forage mass. The pulse-dose marker method generally provided greater estimates of forage DMI (as much as 11.0 kg/d more than the animal performance method) and was not correlated with the other methods. Estimates of forage DMI by the herbage disappearance method were correlated with the animal performance method. The difference between estimates from these two methods, ranging from −4.7 to 5.4 kg/d, were much lower than their difference from pulse-dose marker estimates. The results of this study suggest that, when appropriate for the research objectives, the animal performance or herbage disappearance methods may be useful and less costly alternatives to using the pulse-dose method.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Am Soc Animal Sci</pub><pmid>12968712</pmid><doi>10.2527/2003.8192357x</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0021-8812
ispartof Journal of animal science, 2003-09, Vol.81 (9), p.2357-2366
issn 0021-8812
1525-3163
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_73628800
source Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); MEDLINE
subjects Animal Feed - analysis
Animal Nutritional Physiological Phenomena
animal performance
Animals
Body Composition - physiology
Cattle - metabolism
Cattle - physiology
cool season grasses
dairy cows
Dairying - methods
Dietary Supplements
Eating
Edible Grain
Energy Intake - physiology
feed intake
Female
forage
foraging
Holstein
lactation
Lactation - physiology
milk
pastures
Poaceae
Seasons
stocking rate
title Comparison of three techniques for estimating the forage intake of lactating dairy cows on pasture
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-28T05%3A20%3A20IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20three%20techniques%20for%20estimating%20the%20forage%20intake%20of%20lactating%20dairy%20cows%20on%20pasture&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20animal%20science&rft.au=Macoon,%20B&rft.date=2003-09-01&rft.volume=81&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=2357&rft.epage=2366&rft.pages=2357-2366&rft.issn=0021-8812&rft.eissn=1525-3163&rft_id=info:doi/10.2527/2003.8192357x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E73628800%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=73628800&rft_id=info:pmid/12968712&rfr_iscdi=true