Sustainable Agriculture Systems and Technologies. Группа авторов

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ 67.54 ± 0.23^a 60.07 ± 0.01^a CPD (%) 47.84 ± 1.48 43.51 ± 1.16 44.70 ± 0.53^a 31.42 ± 1.57^a DE (Kcal/kg) 2754 ± 34 2687 ± 13 2542 ± 16^a 2288 ± 08^a Average initial milk yield (kg/d/head) 6.13 ± 0.16 6.24 ± 0.39 5.13 ± 0.06 6.55 ± 0.44 Average final milk yield (kg/d/head) 7.17 ± 0.12 6.91 ± 0.28 6.13 ± 0.24 6.97 ± 0.09

      ^a TMR, Total mixed ration; Av, Average; DMD, Dry matter digestibility; CPD, Crude protein digestibility; DE, Digestible energy.

The DM and CP digestibility and DE values of ration are presented in Table 3.2. The DM and CP digestibility and DE value of ration were nonsignificant between the groups in experiment 1, when multicut sorghum and rice bean forage were included in TMR, However, the values increased significantly (p < 0.01) in cows when berseem and oat were used as green fodder in experiment II. The values of DM, CP, and DE were also observed higher in crossbred cows fed densified complete feed by Khan et al. (2010). Gupta et al. (2016) observed that feeding of concentrate feed at 1.5% of body weight in TMR was beneficial and economical for higher DMI, nutrient digestibility, and growth rate in crossbred heifers. Hundal et al. (2004) reported the beneficial effect of feeding TMR than separate feeding as organic matter and neutral detergent fiber digestibility were observed significantly (P < 0.05) higher in TMR fed group. This may be attributed to the higher concentration of total volatile fatty acids and different nitrogen fractions in rumen of calves fed TMR as compared to the conventional feeding system. Similar trends in the rumen fermentation pattern have been reported by Reddy and Reddy (1983) in calves. Raja Kishore et al. (2013) observed that the digestibility of CP, fat, fiber, neutral detergent fiber, acid detergent fiber, hemi‐cellulose, and cellulose were higher (P < 0.01) in buffalo bulls fed complete rations than those fed conventional ration. Kajla et al. (2019) reported significantly (P < 0.05) higher digestibility of DM, CP, ADF, NDF, and TDN in crossbred cows fed TMR as compared to non‐TMR fed cows. However, OM, EE, and CHO digestibility were not affected by mode of feeding.

In the present study, overall increase in milk production by 16.96 and 19.49% was recorded in cows fed TMR during experiment I and II, respectively in comparison to separate feeding system (Table 3.3). Similarly, an increase in milk production by 10.74 and 6.41% was observed in cows fed different feeds separately during experiment I and II, respectively. Feeding of balanced ration either in mixed form or individually had increased milk production but impact was greater when fed with TMR (Figure 3.1). This might be due to higher DMI and nutrients digestibility. The results corroborate with the observations of Khan et al. (2010) in crossbred cows fed densified complete feed. It is reported that the use of complete feeds over three lactations had no effect on herd health or milk production as compared to the conventional system in which cows were fed forage and grain separately (Larkin and Fosgate 1970). However, Bae et al. (1994) and Su and Hsieh (1999) indicated significant (P < 0.05) impact of feeding system on milk yield and its composition. Efficient utilization of nutrients, favorable rumen environment and blood profile were responsible for higher milk production. Kajla et al. (2019) reported significantly positive (P < 0.05) effect on milk production and milk energy yield on TMR feeding except the milk protein percent, which was observed higher in non‐TMR group. Gupta et al. (2016) observed that feeding of TMR was beneficial in respect of milk production, which was attributed by proportionate intake of all feed ingredients, overall feed intake, and better digestibility of nutrients. Schraufnagel (2007) also observed positive impact on milk yield and thereby profits on TMR feeding. Similar results are reported by Bargo et al. (2002), Sarker et al. (2019), and Awlad Mohammad et al. (2017). Kerketta et al. (2020) observed that the milk yield (kg/day) was found significantly higher (P < 0.05) in TMR (7.90 ± 0.14) than non‐TMR (6.82 ± 0.11) with average increase by 1.13 l/d. TMR fed buffaloes also showed increased milk protein content (3.15% vs 3.3%). The milk fat, SNF percentage also found higher in TMR with no significant difference. Percent increase in milk yield was found to be 14.3% by TMR feeding in buffalo. However, Hundal et al. (2004) reported nonsignificant impact by feeding system on milk production and its composition except lactose content, which was significantly (P < 0.05) higher in animals fed TMR in comparison to conventional feeding system. They concluded that 15–16 kg of milk production per day could be sustained by feeding TMR based on berseem and oat hay. Several workers reported increased milk production in animals fed TMR compared to conventional method. This is because of the steady state of rumen environment conducive to the continuous rumen function and digestive flow achieved by TMR feeding. Animals fed with TMR reported a trend for more milk and higher efficiency of metabolizable energy utilization for milk production. Blending reduces the individual animal variation in feed consumption and results in better balance of nutrients than feeding the same ingredients individually (Holter et al. 1977). In on‐farm trial, increased milk production was reported in lactating Murrah buffaloes fed maize stover‐based TMR compared to conventional feeding system (Raja Kishore et al. 2013).

Figure 3.1 Milk yield of crossbred cows fed on TMR.

3.3.2 Effect of Homemade Balanced Concentrate Feed on Milk Yield and Nutrients Intake in Crossbred Cows

The effect of various concentrate mixtures on body weight changes and milk yield of crossbred cows has been depicted in Table 3.4. It is observed that all the groups maintained the body weight during the experimental period. The initial milk yield varied from 7.10 to 7.30 kg/day in all the animals fed concentrate feed available in the market along with ad libitum wheat straw and Sorghum fodder. After feeding of test concentrates, there was an increase of 2.5–11.85% milk yield as compared to initial milk yield of cows fed balanced concentrate feed available in the market, which indicates that the homemade balanced concentrates are comparable to the commercial concentrate available in the market. The concentration of milk constituents like fat varied from 3.21 to 3.46% and did not vary significantly among the groups. Singh et al. (2019) also evaluated cow cost concentrate feed at farmers' field in Bihar. They reported that milk yield of dairy animals increased by 14.3% per day fed on test diets and 0.7 l/kg of concentrate feed with increase in fat percentage by 21.3%. Farmers' income, on an average, was increased by Rs. 44 per day per animal. However, Sherasia et al. (2016) observed that balanced feeding improved daily fat corrected milk yield by 0.7 kg/cow. They also reported that balanced feeding increased the dietary protein and energy intake by 25.0 and 12.7% whereas, calcium and phosphorus intake were reduced by 30.0 and 27.0%, respectively. Atturi et al. (2018) also observed that feeding balanced ration improved body weight and milk production of dairy animals. Garg (2012) reported that balanced feeding improved milk yield and milk fat content significantly (P < 0.05) by 0.68 kg/day and 0.55% units, respectively, in cows and 0.19 kg/day and 0.34% units, respectively, in buffaloes in the northern region of India. In the southern and central regions of India, milk yield of cows increased by 0.42 and 0.46 kg/day, respectively.

СКАЧАТЬ