Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research
  • Open Access

Effects of the dietary nonfiber carbohydrate content on lactation performance, rumen fermentation, and nitrogen utilization in mid-lactation dairy cows receiving corn stover

Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology20189:20

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40104-018-0239-z

  • Received: 24 July 2017
  • Accepted: 22 January 2018
  • Published:

Abstract

Background

Corn stover (CS) is an abundant source of feed for livestock in China. However, it is low in nutritional value that we have been seeking technologies to improve. Previous studies show that non-fiber carbohydrate (NFC) might limit the utilization of a CS diet by lactating dairy cows. Thus, this study was conducted to investigate the lactation performance and rumen fermentation characteristics in lactating cows consuming CS with two contents of NFC compared to an alfalfa hay-containing diet. Twelve Holstein cows were used in a replicated 3 × 3 Latin square design with three dietary treatments: (1) low-NFC diet (NFC = 35.6%, L-NFC), (2) high-NFC diet (NFC = 40.1%, H-NFC), and (3) alfalfa hay diet (NFC = 38.9%, AH).

Results

Intake of DM was lower for cows fed H-NFC compared to L-NFC and AH, while the milk yield was higher in AH than in H-NFC and L-NFC (P < 0.01). The feed efficiency (milk yield/DM intake, 1.15 vs. 1.08, P < 0.01) were greater for cows fed H-NFC than L-NFC. The contents of milk protein and lactose were not different among the groups (P > 0.11), but milk fat content was higher for cows fed H-NFC and L-NFC compared to AH (P < 0.01). The rumen ammonia nitrogen concentration and the concentrations of urea nitrogen in blood and milk were lower for cows fed H-NFC and AH compared to L-NFC (P < 0.05). The concentrations of rumen propionate and total volatile fatty acids were different among groups (P < 0.05) with higher concentration for cows fed AH compared to H-NFC and L-NFC, and acetate concentration tended to be different among groups (P = 0.06).

Conclusions

From the results obtained in this study, it was inferred that the increased NFC content in a diet containing corn stover can improve the feed efficiency and benefit the nitrogen conversion.

Keywords

  • Corn stover
  • Dairy cows
  • Lactation performance
  • Nonfiber carbohydrate
  • Rumen fermentation

Background

With the rapid development of the Chinese dairy industry with its population of 14 million [1], the requirement for high quality forage increased greatly with nearly 1 million tons of alfalfa hay imported from abroad recently [2]. In contrast, approximately 220 million tons of corn stover (CS) were produced annually [3], indicating a great potential forage source for dairy cows. Compared to high quality forage, the deficiency in available energy and low content of crude protein (CP) can reduce the degradability of low quality forage [4]. The cows fed an alfalfa diet produced greater milk and milk protein compared to cows fed a CS diet [5, 6]. There is a need to improve the utilization of low quality forage in feeding strategies.

Non-fiber carbohydrates (NFC), including starch, sugars and pectin, are estimated by subtracting CP, neutral detergent fiber (NDF), and ether extract (EE) from organic matter [7]. Increasing levels of dietary NFC or starch can improve lactation performance and is beneficial for utilization of energy and nitrogen (N) in dairy cows [8, 9]. Supplementation with an NFC source (e.g. corn starch) in a CS diet provided readily fermentable carbohydrates in the rumen and achieved a similar microbial protein (MCP) yield and metabolizable protein (MP) supply compared to an alfalfa diet [10, 11]. In a study by Wang et al. [6], higher milk protein yield in the alfalfa-fed cows compared to CS-fed cows was partly attributed to higher NFC content in the AH diet.

Therefore, it was hypothesized that NFC content may be an important factor that limits utilization of a CS diet by lactating dairy cows. The objective of this study was to investigate the differences in lactation performance, blood metabolites, and rumen fermentation in dairy cows consuming CS with low or high NFC content compared to an alfalfa-containing diet.

Methods

Animals, feeds and design

The experimental procedures were approved by the Animal Care Committee at Zhejiang University (Hangzhou, China). Twelve Holstein cows in mid-lactation (159 ± 15 d in milk; 704 ± 72 kg of BW; mean ± SD) were used in a replicated 3 × 3 Latin square design with three dietary treatments: (1) low-NFC diet (NFC = 35.6%, L-NFC), (2) high-NFC diet (NFC = 40.1%, H-NFC), and (3) alfalfa hay diet (NFC = 38.9%, AH) (Table 1). In both L-NFC and H-NFC diets, corn stover was included at approximately 15% of total dietary dry matter (DM) to replace alfalfa hay in the AH diet. All the experimental diets were isonitrogenous and isocaloric, and they were formulated according to the NRC [7] to meet the requirements of cows for milk production of 29 kg/d with 3.9% milk fat and 3.3% milk protein.
Table 1

Ingredients and chemical compositions of the 3 experimental diets

Items

Treatmenta

AH

L-NFC

H-NFC

Dietary ingredient, g/kg of DM

 Alfalfa hay

149

0.0

0.0

 Oat hay

49.5

44.1

46.8

 Corn stover

0.0

147

148

 Corn silage

267

257

266

 Ground corn grain

297

229

299

 Wheat bran

49.5

103

5.4

 Soybean meal

99.0

177

175

 Cottonseed meal

49.5

4.9

21.2

 Premixb

39.6

38.2

39.4

Chemical compositionc, % of DM

 Dry matter

46.2

46.4

45.5

 Crude protein

15.0

14.9

14.5

 RDP, % of Crude protein

64.2

63.3

62.1

 RUP, % of Crude protein

35.8

36.7

37.9

 Ether extracts

3.8

3.6

3.6

 Crude ash

7.7

8.3

7.5

 Neutral detergent fiber

34.6

37.5

34.3

 Acid detergent fiber

19.5

19.9

19.0

 Non-fiber carbohydratec

38.9

35.6

40.1

 NEL, MJ/kg

6.73

6.57

6.69

 Diet priced, $/kg DM

0.388

0.353

0.360

aAH = Total mixed rations containing alfalfa hay. L-NFC = Total mixed rations containing corn stover with low content of non-fiber carbohydrates; H-NFC = Total mixed rations containing corn stover with high content of non-fiber carbohydrates similar to AH

bContained (per kilogram of DM): 250,000 IU of vitamin A, 50,000 IU of vitamin D, 1,100 IU of vitamin E, 600 mg of Fe, 650 mg of Cu, 3,000 mg of Zn, 630 mg of Mn, 17 mg of Se, 36 mg of I, 8 mg of Co, 150-180 g of salt, water ≤100 g

cNon-fiber carbohydrate = 100 – % neutral detergent fiber − % crude protein − % ether extract − % ash; RDP, RUP and NEL were estimated according to CPM dairy 3.0

dDiet price was calculated based on the ingredient purchase prices by the farm

All cows were housed in a tie-stall barn and had free access to drinking water. The corn silage we used was from the same silo, and all the other ingredients used in the experiment were from the same batch which were prepared at the beginning of the experiment, thus the diets were consistent from day to day through the experiment period. Total mixed rations (TMR) were offered ad libitum to allow at about 10% orts. The cows were fed 3 times daily at 07:00, 13:30 and 19:30 h, and milked 3 times daily at 08:00, 14:30 and 20:30 h, respectively. Each period lasted for 21-d each with the first 14 d dedicated to adaptation. To change the diet between periods, cows were gradually changed to new diet in four days, with 25% daily increase to the new diet. Milk yield and milk composition were recorded during d 15–21, and rumen fluid samples were taken on d 19 of each period.

Sampling, measurements, and analyses

The amounts of feed offered and refused by each cow were weighed and recorded daily during d 15–21 of each period. The samples of TMR and orts were taken three times at each feeding time on d 18 of each period. The collected samples were stored in sealed plastic bags at − 20 °C before analysis. The samples were dried at 65 °C for 48 h and ground in a Wiley mill with a 2-mm mesh screen (Thomas-Wiley Laboratory Mill) followed by 1 mm mesh screen (Tecator 1093, Hoganas, Sweden). After grinding, the samples of TMR and orts were composited by period, treatment and cow, respectively, and then used for chemical analysis. Corn stover and alfalfa hay were sampled at the beginning and end of each period, and the samples were stored and ground using the same approach as TMR samples. All the samples were analyzed for DM (105 °C for 5 h), CP (#988.05), ether extract (EE, #920.39), crude ash (#942.05), and acid detergent fiber (ADF, #973.18) according to AOAC methods [12]. The NDF content was analyzed using the methods of Van Soest et al. [13], with sodium sulfite and amylase added. An ANKOM2000 fiber analyzer (Ankom Technology Corp., Macedon, USA) was used to extract and filter NDF and ADF. Ingredients and chemical compositions of the diets are presented in Table 1, and the chemical composition of alfalfa hay and corn stover used in the study are presented in Table 2.
Table 2

Nutrient composition of alfalfa hay and corn stover used in the experimental diets

Items, % of DM

Alfalfa hay

Corn stover

Dry matter

90.0 ± 0.56

90.8 ± 0.51

Crude protein

15.1 ± 1.26

6.3 ± 0.36

Crude ash

8.4 ± 1.25

9.7 ± 0.04

Ether extracts

2.2 ± 0.62

1.1 ± 0.59

Neutral detergent fiber

52.1 ± 2.74

74.4 ± 3.39

Acid detergent fiber

37.0 ± 4.41

42.6 ± 1.62

Non-fiber carbohydratea

22.2 ± 1.23

8.5 ± 3.67

aNon-fiber carbohydrate = 100 – % neutral detergent fiber − % crude protein − % ether extract − % ash

Milk yield was recorded daily during the sampling periods, and milk samples were collected on d 17, 18, and 19 of each period with milk-sampling devices (Waikato Milking Systems NZ Ltd., Hamilton, New Zealand). The samples of each day were composited proportionally (4:3:3 according to three times of milking). Samples were stored with added bronopol tablets (milk preservative; D & F Control System Inc., San Ramon, CA) for later analysis of milk protein, fat, lactose, total solids, urea N (MUN) and somatic cell counts using a Combi Foss FT+ instrument (Foss Electric, Hillerød, Denmark).

Diet cost in current study was calculated based on the ingredient purchase prices by the farm. The feed cost per kilogram of milk was also calculated by dividing the feed costs by milk yield.

Blood samples were obtained from the mammary vein into heparinized vacuum tubes every 6 h on d 18 and d 19 during each period, then centrifuged at 3,000×g for 15 min to obtain plasma, and stored at − 20 °C for later analysis. Plasma samples were analyzed using an Auto Analyzer 7020 instrument (Hitachi High-technologies Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) with colorimetric commercial kits (Ningbo Medical System Biotechnology Co., Ltd., Ningbo, China) to determine the blood concentrations of total protein, albumin, urea N (BUN), glucose, cholesterol, non-esterified fatty acid (NEFA) and β-hydroxybutyric acid (BHBA).

Rumen fluid samples (approximately 150 mL) were collected approximately 3 h after morning feeding using an oral stomach tube [14] on d 19 of each experimental period. The rumen fluid pH was measured immediately using a pH meter (FE20-FiveEasy Plus™; Mettler Toledo Instruments Co. Ltd., Shanghai, China). Triplicate 1-mL samples were acidified with 20 μL of orthophosphoric acid; and the other triplicate 1-mL samples were acidified with 6 N HCl and frozen at − 20 °C for later analysis of volatile fatty acids (VFA) and ammonia N (NH3-N), as described by Hu et al. [15].

Estimation of microbial protein

Urinary purine derivatives (PD) were used to indirectly estimate the MCP yield in the rumen [16]. Spot urine samples from each cow were collected four times daily at approximately 06:00, 10:00, 14:00 and 18:00 h on d 17 of each experimental period. The daily urine samples were pooled by cow, and 20 mL of each subsample was acidified immediately with 80 mL of 0.072 N H2SO4 and stored at − 20 °C for later analysis. The PD (allantoin and uric acid) were analyzed using the procedures of Chen and Gomes [16] and creatinine was analyzed using a colorimetric picric acid assay [17]. Creatinine has been validated as a marker to estimate urine volume [18], and was assumed to be excreted at a rate of 29 mg/kg of BW for calculating the urine volume excretion rate [19]. Urea N was analyzed using a colorimetric method [20].

Statistical analysis

Data on lactation performance, DM intake, feed cost per kilogram of milk, and feed efficiency were analyzed using the PROC MIXED procedure with repeated measurement in SAS software [21]. The model included the square, period, treatment, day, interaction of treatment by square, period and day as the fixed effects as well as cow within the square as a random effect. Plasma parameters were analyzed using the same procedure in SAS, except sampling hour instead of day was used as a repeated measure. The covariance structure was selected according to best fit with Schwarz’s Bayesian information criterion. For rumen fermentation variables and urine parameters, the model included square, period, treatment, and interaction of treatment by square and period as the fixed effects, and cow within the square as a random effect. The results listed as least squares means were separated using the pdiff option when the fixed effects were significant. A significant difference was declared as having P < 0.05, and 0.05 ≤ P ≤ 0.10 was defined as a statistical trend.

Results

Feed intake and lactation performance

The results of feed intake and lactation performance are presented in Table 3. The DM intake was lower (P < 0.01) for cows fed H-NFC compared to L-NFC and AH, with no difference between L-NFC and AH. Milk yield was higher (P < 0.01) for cows fed AH compared to H-NFC and L-NFC, although the difference was not significant (P = 0.20) in energy-corrected milk yield (ECM) among the three diets. Feed efficiency (milk yield/DM intake) was higher (P < 0.01) for cows fed H-NFC and AH compared to cows fed L-NFC; and the efficiency based on ECM (ECM/DM intake) was numerally higher for cows fed H-NFC than L-NFC, though the difference was not significant among three groups (P = 0.16). The contents of milk protein (P = 0.65) and lactose (P = 0.11) were not different among three groups, but milk fat content was higher (P < 0.01) in cows fed H-NFC and L-NFC compared to AH-fed cows, and the content of total solids was higher (P < 0.01) in cows fed L-NFC compared to cows fed AH with no difference between cows fed H-NFC and AH or L-NFC. The MUN was lower (P < 0.01) for cows fed H-NFC and AH compared to cows fed L-NFC. The feed cost per kg of milk was different among groups (P < 0.01) with lowest value for cows fed H-NFC (Table 3).
Table 3

Lactation performance in dairy cows fed 3 experimental diets

Items

Treatmentd

SEM

P-value

AH

L-NFC

H-NFC

DM intake, kg/d

21.9a

21.5a

20.1b

0.44

< 0.01

Milk yield, kg/d

24.8a

23.2b

22.8b

0.76

< 0.01

ECMe, kg/d

27.7

27.0

26.4

1.01

0.20

Milk composition, %

 Fat

3.90b

4.25a

4.11a

0.12

< 0.01

 Protein

3.48

3.52

3.50

0.06

0.56

 Lactose

5.00

4.95

4.98

0.06

0.11

 Total solid

12.6b

12.9a

12.8ab

0.17

< 0.01

 Milk urea nitrogen, mg/dL

18.1b

20.3a

18.3b

0.72

< 0.01

Feed efficiency, kg/kg

 Milk/DM intake

1.15a

1.08b

1.15a

0.03

< 0.01

 ECM/DM intake

1.28

1.27

1.32

0.04

0.16

 Somatic cell count, ×103/mL

94.8

64.2

70.6

20.6

0.26

 Feed cost per kg milk, $/kg

0.342a

0.331b

0.319c

0.01

< 0.01

a-cLeast squares means within a row with different superscripts differ significantly (P < 0.05)

dAH = Total mixed rations containing alfalfa hay. L-NFC = Total mixed rations containing corn stover with a low content of non-fiber carbohydrates; H-NFC = Total mixed rations containing corn stover formulated to have similar non-fiber carbohydrate concentrations as the AH diet

eECM = Energy-corrected milk. ECM (kg) = 0.3246 × milk yield (kg) + 13.86 × fat yield (kg) + 7.04 × protein yield (kg) [39]

Nitrogen utilization

Urinary PD, and estimated MCP yield were not different (P > 0.10) among 3 groups (Table 4), but the urinary urea nitrogen concentration tended to be lower in AH and H-NFC compared to L-NFC (P = 0.09), and the estimated urine volume of cows fed H-NFC was lower than cows fed L-NFC and AH (P < 0.05). The results for N utilization are presented in Table 5. Similar to the DM intake, N intake was lower (P < 0.01) for cows fed H-NFC compared to L-NFC and AH, with no difference between L-NFC and AH. The N excreted in the urine (g/d) was lower (P = 0.03) in the H-NFC-fed cows than that in cows fed L-NFC and AH; and the ratio of urinary N to N intake was relatively lower in cows fed H-NFC than that in cows fed L-NFC and AH (Table 5). There was no difference in the ratio of milk N (P = 0.20) among the three groups.
Table 4

Urinary nitrogen, purine derivatives (PD), and estimated microbial protein (MCP) supply to the dairy cows fed 3 experimental diets

Itemsd

Treatmentc

SEM

P-value

AH

L-NFC

H-NFC

Urine volume, L/d

34.3a

32.7a

28.6b

1.52

0.02

Urinary PD, mmol/d

 Allantoin

358

377

325

22.0

0.26

 Uric acid

60.8

59.2

52.7

4.97

0.22

 Endogenous PD

52.6

52.7

52.5

1.28

0.68

MCP, g/d

1690

1766

1516

117

0.31

Urea nitrogen, mg/dL

670

730

664

30.1

0.09

a-b Least squares means within a row with different superscripts differ significantly (P < 0.05)

cAH = Total mixed rations containing alfalfa hay; L-NFC = Total mixed rations containing corn stover with a low content of non-fiber carbohydrates; H-NFC = Total mixed rations containing corn stover formulated to have similar non-fiber carbohydrate concentrations as the AH diet

dUrine volume (L/d) = BW (kg) × 29 (mg/d)/creatinine (mg/L) [18]; Microbial protein (MCP) was indirectly estimated by the following eq. [15]: MCP = (allantoin + uric acid − endogenous PD) × 70 × 6.25/(0.116 × 0.83 × 1000)

Table 5

Urine and milk nitrogen (N) excretion in dairy cows fed 3 experimental diets

Items

Treatmentc

SEM

P-value

AH

L-NFC

H-NFC

N intake, g/d

504a

497a

451b

1.29

< 0.01

Urinary N excretion, g/d

230a

235a

191b

10.7

0.03

N excretions, % of N intake

 Urinary N

46.2

48.0

42.6

1.79

0.11

 Milk N

27.5

26.0

28.0

1.14

0.20

a-bLeast squares means within a row with different superscripts differ significantly (P < 0.05)

cAH = Total mixed rations containing alfalfa hay; L-NFC = Total mixed rations containing corn stover with a low content of non-fiber carbohydrates; H-NFC = Total mixed rations containing corn stover formulated to have similar non-fiber carbohydrate concentrations as the AH diet

Rumen fermentation and plasma variables

The rumen pH at 3 h post-feeding tended to be different (P = 0.09) among groups with a lower value for cows fed AH compared to cows fed H-NFC and L-NFC (Table 6). Rumen NH3-N concentration tended to be different among 3 groups (P = 0.06), with higher concentration for cows fed L-NFC compared to cows fed H-NFC and AH. The concentration of total VFA was higher for cows fed AH compared to cows fed H-NFC (P < 0.01) and L-NFC P = 0.06) with no difference between cows fed L-NFC and H-NFC (P > 0.10). The molar proportion of acetate tended to be different among 3 groups (P = 0.06) with lower proportion for cows fed AH compared to cows fed H-NFC and L-NFC, while the propionate proportion was higher for cows fed AH compared to cows fed H-NFC and L-NFC (P = 0.02), with a lower ratio of acetate to propionate for cows fed AH compared to cows fed H-NFC (P = 0.02). There was no difference (P > 0.05) in the molar proportions of butyrate and valerate among the three groups, but the molar proportion of isobutyrate were different among 3 groups (P = 0.01).
Table 6

Ruminal fermentation variables in dairy cows fed 3 experimental diets

Itemsc

Treatmentd

SEM

P-value

AH

L-NFC

H-NFC

pH

6.28

6.42

6.37

0.05

0.09

Ammonia nitrogen, mg/dL

21.4

23.7

21.1

0.85

0.06

Total VFA, mmol/L

120a

111ab

106b

3.08

0.02

Molar proportion, mmol/100 mmol

 Acetate

64.8

65.3

65.8

0.28

0.06

 Propionate

20.7a

19.7b

19.2b

0.32

0.02

 Butyrate

10.4

10.8

10.6

0.23

0.43

 Isobutyrate

0.96b

1.03a

1.07a

0.03

0.01

 Valerate

1.40

1.42

1.31

0.04

0.15

 Isovalerate

1.72

1.75

1.95

0.07

0.08

 Acetate: Propionate

3.15b

3.32ab

3.44a

0.06

0.02

a-bLeast squares means within a row with different superscripts differ significantly (P < 0.05)

cThe results are from rumen fluid samples collected 3 h post-feeding. VFA = Volatile fatty acids

dAH = Total mixed rations containing alfalfa hay; L-NFC = Total mixed rations containing corn stover with a low content of non-fiber carbohydrates; H-NFC = Total mixed rations containing corn stover formulated to have similar non-fiber carbohydrate concentrations as the AH diet

Plasma concentration of total protein tended to be different (P = 0.07) among groups with a lower value for cows fed L-NFC compared to cows fed H-NFC and AH (Table 7), while the BUN concentration was highest (P < 0.01) for cows fed L-NFC, followed by the AH-fed cows, and the lowest BUN occurred in cows fed H-NFC. Plasma concentrations of albumin (P = 0.16), glucose (P = 0.21), cholesterol (P = 0.30), NEFA (P = 0.87), and BHBA (P = 0.19) were not different among the three groups.
Table 7

Effects of 3 experimental diets on plasma metabolites in cows

Items

Treatmentd

SEM

P-value

AH

L-NFC

H-NFC

Total protein, g/L

80.0

78.8

80.4

1.36

0.07

Albumin, g/L

26.5

26.8

26.6

0.40

0.16

Blood urea nitrogen, mmol/L

5.92b

6.44a

5.61c

0.28

< 0.01

Glucose, mmol/L

2.48

2.49

2.44

0.05

0.21

Cholesterol, mmol/L

5.73

5.62

5.67

0.12

0.30

Non-esterified fatty acids, μmol/L

202

204

206

6.81

0.87

β-Hydroxybutyric acid, μmol/L

467

511

470

30.3

0.19

a-cLeast squares means within a row with different superscripts differ (P < 0.05)

dAH = Total mixed rations containing alfalfa hay; L-NFC = Total mixed rations containing corn stover with a low content of non-fiber carbohydrates; H-NFC = Total mixed rations containing corn stover formulated to have similar non-fiber carbohydrate concentrations as the AH diet

Discussion

It is well known that DM intake is closely related to the rumen digesta passage rate, and a rapid passage rate facilitates high DM intake [2224]. Previous studies regarding the effects of NFC on the passage rate of rumen digesta have been inconsistent. In the study by Linden et al. [25] who supplemented corn stover with corn grain containing high NFC content, the ruminal solid passage rate increased with increasing levels of corn grain, while Batajoo et al. [26] found that rumen digesta passage rate was not affected by the percentage of dietary NFC. There were other reports in which cows consuming diets with lower NFC content had a higher ruminal solid passage rate [27] and liquid passage rate [28]. In the current study, the H-NFC fed cows had a lower DM intake than those fed L-NFC and AH, which might be attributed to the lower ruminal solid passage rate and higher retention time of diet residues in H-NFC fed cows. The chemical composition, physical and digestion characteristics may cause alfalfa particles to have a shorter ruminal retention time compared to other forage particles [2931], which might result in higher DM intake for cows fed AH compared to cows fed H-NFC even though both diets had a similar NFC content.

Higher DM intake resulted in higher energy intake for the AH-fed cows that produced more milk compared to cows fed H-NFC and L-NFC (Table 3). Milk fat content was lower in AH-fed cows than that in cows fed L-NFC or H-NFC (3.90% vs. 4.25% or 4.11%), indicating that less energy might be needed for per kilogram of milk synthesis in the AH cows, which may also be the reason for more milk produced in AH-fed cows. Although AH-fed cows had lower milk fat content, milk yield was higher in those cows, thus, no significant difference was found in ECM yield among the three groups. Decreased milk fat content resulting from an increased dietary NFC has been reported previously [26, 28], which occurred in part due to changes in ruminal pH and VFA profiles. Increasing NFC content can increase molar proportion of propionate and decrease acetate proportion [26, 32] or have no effect on individual VFA [33]. The results in this study showed no differences in the molar proportion of individual VFA between L-NFC and H-NFC, but a higher propionate proportion was found in the AH-fed cows than in cows fed L-NFC or H-NFC.

The feed cost per kilogram milk was the lowest for cows fed H-NFC compared to other two groups (Table 3), indicating the highest feed efficiency in cows fed H-NFC. In addition, because shifting nitrogen excretion from urine to feces can reduce environmental nitrogen pollution from dairy cows [34], the lower nitrogen excretion from urine in cows fed H-NFC compared with L-NFC and AH (Table 5) indicated that H-NFC is also a better diet for environmental benefit. Overall, from both economic and environmental points of view, the CS contained diet with high NFC content could be a better choice for dairy farms instead of an alfalfa-based diet.

Urinary N [35] and BUN [7] arise largely from excess RDP because ammonia absorbed through the rumen wall may be converted to urea in the liver and excreted in the urine and milk [36]. In our study, the MUN concentrations greater than 18 mg/dL may be attributed to the oversupply of RDP relative to RUP. However, relatively higher rumen ammonia-N content in L-NFC may result in higher urea N in blood, urine and milk, compared to cows fed H-NFC and AH. The proportion of urinary N in N intake also tended to be highest in L-HFC fed cows, suggesting a decreased N conversion compared to cows fed H-NFC and AH. Feed efficiency was also lower in cows fed L-NFC compared to cows fed H-NFC and AH. Urinary concentration of PD and estimated MCP were not different among groups, but urine volume and urinary N excretion in cows fed H-NFC were lower compared to cows fed L-NFC and AH (Table 4). The DM intake is closely related to water intake [37, 38]. The higher urine volume in AH and L-NFC might be attributed to higher DM intake in these two groups.

Conclusion

Increased NFC content in a diet containing corn stover improved feed efficiency that reached a value similar to the AH diet. The lower concentration of rumen ammonia N as well as lower BUN and MUN and lower urinary N proportion of N ingested in cows fed H-NFC indicated an increased N conversion compared to the cows fed L-NFC.

Abbreviations

ADF: 

Acid detergent fiber

AH: 

Total mixed ration containing alfalfa hay as the main forage

BHBA: 

β-hydroxybutyric acid

BUN: 

Blood urea nitrogen

BW: 

Body weight

CG: 

Chest girth

CP: 

Crude protein

CS: 

Corn stover

DM: 

Dry matter

H-NFC: 

Total mixed rations containing corn stover with a high content of non-fiber carbohydrate similar to that of AH

L-NFC: 

Total mixed rations containing corn stover with a low content of non-fiber carbohydrate

MCP: 

Microbial protein

ME: 

Metabolizable energy

MUN: 

Milk urine nitrogen

N: 

Nitrogen

NDF: 

Neutral detergent fiber

NEFA: 

Non-esterified fatty acids

NFC: 

Non-fiber carbohydrate

NH3-N: 

Ammonia nitrogen

PD: 

Purine derivatives

RDP: 

Rumen degradable protein

RUP: 

Rumen undegraded protein

SCC: 

Somatic cell count

TMR: 

Total mixed ration

TS: 

Total solids

VFA: 

Volatile fatty acids

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully thank the staff of the Hangjiang Dairy Farm (Hangzhou, China) for their assistance in milking and caring for the animals, and Prof. Dr. F.Q. Zhao (University of Vermont, USA) for the critical reading and assistance in revision. The members of the Institute of Dairy Science Zhejiang University (Hangzhou, China) are acknowledged for their assistance with sampling and analysis of the samples of feeds, blood and urine.

Funding

This study was financially supported by the China Agriculture (Dairy) Research System (CARS-36).

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this article.

Authors’ contributions

ZHW carried out the experiment design, data interpretation and manuscript writing and editing; JXL were involved in the experiment design and manuscript revision; BXZ were involved in the animal experiment. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval

The procedures of this study were approved by the Animal Care and Use Committee of Zhejiang University (Hangzhou, China) and were in accordance with the university’s guidelines for animal research.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Institute of Dairy Science, MoE Key Laboratory of Molecular Animal Nutrition, College of Animal Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310058, People’s Republic of China

References

  1. Li SL, Cao ZJ, Liu YM, Xia JM, Wang YJ, Yang DQ, et al. Review and prospect of China dairy industry in 2014. Chn. J Anim Sci. 2015;51:22–8.Google Scholar
  2. Jiang YZ, Zhang JB, Nan ZB, Wang LJ. Competitiveness analysis of alfalfa international trade in China. Pratacult Sci. 2016;33:322–9.Google Scholar
  3. Lv K, Qiu H, Bai J, Xu Z. Development of direct return of corn stalk to soil: current status, driving forces and constraints. China Pop Resour Environ. 2013;23:171–6.Google Scholar
  4. Khan M, Chaudhry A. A comparative study of low and high quality forages for chemical composition and in vitro degradability. J Anim Plant Sci. 2011;21:715–23.Google Scholar
  5. Zhu W, Fu Y, Wang B, Wang C, Ye J, Wu Y, et al. Effects of dietary forage sources on rumen microbial protein synthesis and milk performance in early lactating dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2013;96:1727–34.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Wang B, Mao SY, Yang HJ, Wu YM, Wang JK, Li SL, et al. Effects of alfalfa and cereal straw as a forage source on nutrient digestibility and lactation performance in lactating dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2014;97:7706–15.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. NRC, 2001. Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle. 7th rev ed. Natl. Acad Sci. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  8. Cantalapiedra-Hijar G, Peyraud J-L, Lemosquet S, Molina-Alcaide E, Boudra H, Nozière P, et al. Dietary carbohydrate composition modifies the milk N efficiency in late lactation cows fed low crude protein diets. Animal. 2014;8:275–85.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Macgregor CA, Stokes MR, Hoover WH, Leonard HA, Jr JL, Sniffen CJ, et al. Effect of dietary concentration of total nonstructural carbohydrate on energy and nitrogen metabolism and milk production of dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 1983;66:39–50.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Zhu W, Tang C, Sun X, Liu J, Wu Y, Yuan Y, et al. Rumen microbial protein synthesis and milk performance in lactating dairy cows fed the fortified corn stover diet in comparison with alfalfa diet. J Anim Vet Adv. 2013;12:633–9.Google Scholar
  11. Liu J. Effects of dietary pectin on microbial structure and microbial protein synthesis in the rumen. Hangzhou: A PhD Dissertation, Zhejiang University; 2014.Google Scholar
  12. AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis. 17th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 2012; Arlington, VA, USA.Google Scholar
  13. Pv VS, Robertson J, Lewis B. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci. 1991;74:3583–97.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Shen J, Chai Z, Song L, Liu J, Wu Y. Insertion Depth of oral stomach tubes may affect the fermentation parameters of ruminal fluid collected in dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2012;95:5978–84.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Hu W-L, Liu J-X, Ye J-A, Wu Y-M, Guo Y-Q. Effect of tea saponin on rumen fermentation in vitro. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2005;120:333–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Chen XB, Gomes MJ. Estimation of microbial protein supply to sheep and cattle based on urinary excretion of purine derivatives: an overview of technical details. 1992; Int. feed res. Unit, occasional Publ. Rowett research institute, Aberdeen, UK.Google Scholar
  17. Oser BL. Hawk's Physiological Chemistry. 14th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-hill; 1965.Google Scholar
  18. Leonardi C, Stevenson M, Armentano L. Effect of two levels of crude protein and methionine supplementation on performance of dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2003;86:4033–42.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Valadares R, Broderick G, Valadares Filho S, Clayton M. Effect of replacing alfalfa silage with high moisture corn on ruminal protein synthesis estimated from excretion of total purine derivatives1. J Dairy Sci. 1999;82:2686–96.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Rahmatullah M, Boyde T. Improvements in the determination of urea using diacetyl monoxime; methods with and without deproteinisation. Clin Chim Acta. 1980;107:3–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. SAS User’s Guide: Statistics, version 8.01. 2000. SAS Inst., Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
  22. Campling R. The effect of concentrates on the rate of disappearance of digesta from the alimentary tract of cows given hay. J Dairy Res. 1966;33:13–23.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Colucci P, Chase L, Van Soest P. Feed intake, apparent diet digestibility, and rate of particulate passage in dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci. 1982;65:1445–56.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Shaver R, Satter L, Jorgensen N. Impact of forage fiber content on digestion and digesta passage in lactating dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 1988;71:1556–65.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Van der Linden Y, Van Gylswyk N, Schwartz HM. Influence of supplementation of corn stover with corn grain on the fibrolytic bacteria in the rumen of sheep and their relation to the intake and digestion of fiber. J Anim Sci. 1984;59:772–83.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Batajoo K, Shaver R. Impact of nonfiber carbohydrate on intake, digestion, and milk production by dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 1994;77:1580–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Tafaj M, Kolaneci V, Junck B, Maulbetsch A, Steingass H, Drochner W. Influence of fiber content and concentrate level on chewing activity, ruminal digestion, digesta passage rate and nutrient digestibility in dairy cows in late lactation. Asian-Aust J Anim Sci. 2005;18:1116–24.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Sievert S, Shaver R. Effect of nonfiber carbohydrate level and Aspergillus oryzae fermentation extract on intake, digestion, and milk production in lactating dairy cows. J Anim Sci. 1993;71:1032–40.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Waghorn G, Shelton I, Thomas V. Particle breakdown and rumen digestion of fresh ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) and lucerne (Medicago sativa L.) fed to cows during a restricted feeding period. Br J Nutr. 1989;61:409–23.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Okine E, Tesfaye A, Mathison G. Relationships between reticular contractions and digesta passage in steers consuming alfalfa hay and barley straw combinations ad libitum. J Anim Sci. 1993;71:3043–51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Linton JV, Allen M. Nutrient demand interacts with forage family to affect intake and digestion responses in dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2008;91:2694–701.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Ma T, Tu Y, Zhang N, Deng K, Diao Q. Effect of the ratio of non-fibrous carbohydrates to neutral detergent fiber and protein structure on intake, digestibility, rumen fermentation, and nitrogen metabolism in lambs. Asian-Aust J Anim Sci. 2015;28:1419–26.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Stokes S, Hoover W, Miller T, Blauweikel R. Ruminal digestion and microbial utilization of diets varying in type of carbohydrate and protein. J Dairy Sci. 1991;74:871–81.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Castillo AR, Kebreab E, Beever DE, France J. A review of efficiency of nitrogen utilisation in lactating dairy cows and its relationship with environmental pollution. J Anim Feed Sci. 2000;9:1–32.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Tamminga S. Nutrition management of dairy cows as a contribution to pollution control. J Dairy Sci. 1992;75:345–57.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Linn J, Olson J. Using milk urea nitrogen to evaluate diets and reproductive performance of dairy cattle. 4-State Appl Nutr Manag Conf. La Crosse, University of Wisconsin, Madison. 1995; 4:155–167.Google Scholar
  37. Murphy M, Davis C, McCoy G. Factors affecting water consumption by Holstein cows in early lactation1. J Dairy Sci. 1983;66:35–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Murphy M. Symposium: Nutritional factors affecting animal water and waste quality. J Dairy Sci. 1992;75:326–33.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Orth R. Sample day and lactation report, DHIA 200. Fact Sheet A-2. Mid-States Dairy Records Processing Center (DRPC), Ames, IA. 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2018

Advertisement