Nutritional efficiency of feed-restricted F1 Holstein/Zebu cows in early lactation
- 14 Downloads
The quantitative feed restriction of lactating cows has been used in intensive production systems as a strategy to reduce production costs. However, the effects of this restriction in F1 Holstein/Zebu cows are unclear. The objective of this work was to evaluate the effect of quantitative feed restriction on nutrient intake and digestibility, nitrogen balance, feed efficiency, feed behavior, and productive performance in F1 Holstein/Zebu cows during early lactation. Sixty F1 Holstein × Zebu cows were used at the stage of initial lactation (50 ± 13 days of lactation), and they had an initial body weight (BW) of 482 ± 43 kg. The experimental arrangement adopted was a completely randomized design, with five feed restriction levels (3.39, 2.75, 2.50, 2.25, and 2.00% of BW) and 12 cows in each treatment group. In the short term (63 days), there were reductions of 45.9% and 47.2% in dry matter intake (P < 0.01) and crude protein (P < 0.01), respectively, when the diet supply was limited from 3.39% BW to 2.00% of BW. There were declines in intake of ether extract (P < 0.01) and nonfibrous carbohydrates (P < 0.01), but there was no change in daily milk production (P = 0.44) nor the daily milk production corrected to 3.5% fat (P = 0.12); the averages were 14.01 kg/day and 13.25 kg/day, respectively. Considering the lower body weight loss, feed restriction is recommended up to 2.5% of the BW.
KeywordsCrossing Dairy cattle Intake Nitrogen balance Performance
The authors thank the Foundation for Research Support of the State of Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG), the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), EPAMIG, and Instituto Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia (INCT–Ciência Animal).
This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior-Brasil (CAPES)-Finance Code 001.
Compliance with ethical standards
All animal care and handling procedures were approved by the Animal Care and Use Committee of the Universidade Estadual de Montes Claros, Brazil (protocol CEBEA-Unimontes 128/2016).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Association of official Analytical Chemists – International [AOAC]. 1990. Official Methods of Analysis, 12ed. AOAC, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
- Borges, A.M.; Martins, T.M.; Nunes, P.P.; Ruas, J.R.M. 2015. Reproduction of crossbreeding dairy cows: potentiality and challenges. Revista Brasileira de Reprodução Animal 39: 155–163.Google Scholar
- Burke, C.R.; Willians, J.Y.; Hofmann, L.; Kay, J.K.; Phyn, C.V.C.; Meier, S. 2010. Effects of an acute feed restriction at the on set of the seasonal breeding period on reproductive performance and milk production in pasture – grazed dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 93: 1116–1125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Coelho, S.G.; Campos, B.G.; Lima, J.A.M.; Carvalho, A.Ú. 2013. Mechanisms of action of BSTr and use in crossbred cows. Revista V e Z de Minas 116: 6-15 (in Portuguese, with abstract in English).Google Scholar
- Detmann, E.; Souza, M.A.; Valadares Filho, S.C.; Queiroz, A.C.; Berchielli, T.T.; Saliba, E.O.S.; Cabral, L.S.; Pina, D.S.; Ladeira, M.M.; Azevedo, J.A.G. 2012. Methods for food analysis = Métodos para análise de alimentos. Suprema, Visconde do Rio Branco, MG, Brasil (in Portuguese).Google Scholar
- Félix, A.; Repetto, J.L.; Hernández, N.; Pérez-Ruchel, A.; Cajarville, C. 2017. Restricting the time of access to fresh forage reduces intake and energy balance but does not affect the digestive utilization of nutrients in beef heifers. Animal Feed Science and Technology 226: 103–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Mertens, D.R. 2002. Gravimetric determination of amylase-treated neutral detergent fiber in feeds with refluxing in beaker or crucibles: collaborative study. Journal of AOAC International 85: 1217–1240.Google Scholar
- Mezzalira, J.C.; Carvalho, P.C.F.; Fonseca, L.; Bremm, C.; Reffatti, M.V.; Poli, C.H.E.C.; Trindade, J.K. 2011. Methodological aspects of ingestive behavior of grazing cattle. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 40: 1114-1120 (in Portuguese, with abstract in English).Google Scholar
- Mishra, S.; Kumari, K.; Dubey, A. 2016. Body Condition Scoring of Dairy Cattle: a review. Research & Reviews: Journal of Veterinary Sciences 2:58–65.Google Scholar
- National Research Council – International [NRC]. 2001. Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle, 7th rev. ed. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
- Sampaio, R.L.; Resende, F.D.; Reis, R.A.; Oliveira, I.M.; Custódio, L.; Fernandes, R.M.; Pazdiora, R.D.; Siqueira, G.R. 2017. The nutritional interrelationship between the growing and finishing phases in crossbred cattle raised in a tropical system. Tropical Animal Health and Production 49: 1015–1024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- SAS Institute. 2008. SAS/STAT 9.2 Users Guide. SAS Institute, Inc. Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar