The effect of perennial ryegrass ploidy and white clover inclusion on milk production of dairy cows

Animal Production Science - Tập 60 Số 1 - Trang 143 - 2020
Bríd McClearn1,2, T. J. Gilliland3,1, C. Guy1,2, Michael Dineen2, F. Coughlan2, B. McCarthy2
1Institute of Global Food Security, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, BT9 5AG, Northern Ireland.
2Teagasc, Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, P61 C996 Ireland
3Agri-food and Biosciences Institute, Large Park, Hillsborough, BT26 6DR, Northern Ireland.

Tóm tắt

Grazed grass is considered the cheapest feed available for dairy cows in temperate regions, and to maximise profits, dairy farmers must utilise this high-quality feed where possible. Recent research has reported that including white clover (Trifolium repens L.) in grass swards can have a positive effect on milk production. The aim of the present study was to quantify the effect of tetraploid and diploid perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.; PRG) swards sown with and without white clover on the milk production of grazing dairy cows. Four grazing treatments were used for the study; tetraploid-only PRG swards, diploid-only PRG swards, tetraploid PRG with white clover swards and diploid PRG with white clover swards. Thirty cows were assigned to each treatment and swards were rotationally grazed at a stocking rate of 2.75 cows/ha and a nitrogen-fertiliser application rate of 250 kg/ha annually. There was no significant effect of ploidy on milk production. Over the present 4-year study, cows grazing the PRG–white clover treatments had greater milk yields (+597 kg/cow.year) and milk-solid yield (+48 kg/cow.year) than cows grazing the PRG-only treatments. This significant increase in milk production suggests that the inclusion of white clover in grazing systems can be effectively used to increase milk production of grazing dairy cows.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Balocchi, 2010, Chilean Journal of Agricultural Science, 69, 331

Castle, 1971, The Journal of Agricultural Science, 77, 69, 10.1017/S0021859600023480

Cosgrove, 2006, Proceedings of the New Zealand Grassland Association, 68, 267, 10.33584/jnzg.2006.68.2606

Egan, 2018, Journal of Dairy Science, 101, 3412, 10.3168/jds.2017-13233

Enriquez-Hidalgo, 2018, The Journal of Agricultural Science, 156, 378, 10.1017/S0021859618000370

Finneran, 2012, The Journal of Agricultural Science, 150, 123, 10.1017/S002185961100061X

Gowen, 2003, Animal Research, 52, 321, 10.1051/animres:2003025

Guy, 2018, The Journal of Agricultural Science, 156, 188, 10.1017/S0021859618000199

Hanrahan, 2017, Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 136, 193, 10.1016/j.compag.2017.01.029

10.1080/00288233.1973.10421159

Humphreys, 2009, Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research, 48, 189

Ledgard, 1999, The Journal of Agricultural Science, 132, 215, 10.1017/S002185969800625X

Lüscher, 2014, Grass and Forage Science, 69, 206, 10.1111/gfs.12124

McNeill, 1990, Plant and Soil, 128, 265, 10.1007/BF00011118

O’Donovan, 2005, Animal Research, 54, 337, 10.1051/animres:2005027

Phillips, 1998, Animal Science, 67, 195, 10.1017/S1357729800009954

Ribeiro Filho, 2005, Animal Feed Science and Technology, 119, 13, 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2004.12.009

Rutter, 2004, Journal of Dairy Science, 87, 1317, 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(04)73281-6

Schils, 2000, NJAS Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 48, 305, 10.1016/S1573-5214(00)80020-2

Schils, 2000, NJAS Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 48, 291, 10.1016/S1573-5214(00)80019-6

Smith, 2001, The Journal of Agricultural Science, 136, 65, 10.1017/S0021859600008480

Søegaard, 1993, REUR Technical Series, 29, 17

Stilmant, 2005, Journal Agronomy & Crop Science, 191, 233, 10.1111/j.1439-037X.2005.00164.x

Tuñon, 2011, Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production, 71, 28

Wims, 2013, Animal, 7, 410, 10.1017/S1751731112001814

Wims, 2014, Animal, 8, 141, 10.1017/S1751731113001973

Woodward, 2001, Proceedings of the New Zealand Grassland Association, 63, 97, 10.33584/jnzg.2001.63.2437