Cited by 30Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyAgronomic Practices and Intercropping SystemsPasture and Agricultural Systems

Forage intake, meal patterns, and milk production of lactating dairy cows fed grass silage or pea-wheat bi-crop silages

Open access
Salawu, M.B., Adesogan, A.T., Dewhurst, R.J.·2002·Journal of Dairy Science

Abstract

This study investigated the feed intake, milk production, and plasma nutrient status in dairy cows fed inter-cropped pea-wheat (bi-crop) silages comprised of contrasting ratios of pea to wheat. Spring peas (cv. Magnus) and wheat (cv. Axona) sown at either high (75:25) or low (25:75) pea inclusion rates were harvested after 13 (Cut 1) or 15 (Cut 2) wk. Eighteen Holstein-Friesian cows between wk 9 and 10 of lactation were used in a cyclical changeover design with three 28-d periods. Cows were fed the bi-crop silages and 6 kg of concentrates or second-cut grass silage supplemented with 6 (GS6) or 9 (GS9) kg/d of concentrates. Forage intakes were higher when bi-crops were fed (10.3 to 11.4 kg dry matter [DM]/d) than when grass silage was fed (8.6 kg DM/d). Total DM intake was similar among cows fed the bi-crop silages and GS9 diets, but intakes for GS6 were at least 1.7 kg DM/d lower. Increasing the pea inclusion rate increased the crude protein (CP) content of the ration, but it did not enhance forage quality or animal performance. The rate of intake of the different forages was similar, so that the higher intakes of bi-crop silages were associated with more time spent at the feedbunk and an increased number of meals. Diet digestibility ranged from 531 to 650 g/kg, and the highest value was given by the Cut 1 bi-crop silage diet. Milk yield tended to be similar for cows fed the Cut 2 bi-crop and GS9 diets, and these values were at least 1.7 kg higher than those for cows fed on other treatments. Generally, the bi-crop diets resulted in higher milk fat contents and lower polyunsaturated fatty acid contents. Milk protein content was highest for cows fed the GS9 diet. Blood metabolite content was unaffected by treatment except for blood urea nitrogen content, which was higher in cows fed the bi-crop silages, reflecting reduced N-use efficiency with these diets. The study showed that pea-wheat bi-crop silages can be used to replace moderate-quality grass silage in dairy cow rations, but their role as alternatives to high-quality forages requires additional investigation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(02)74389-0

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • High-quality silage feed promotes the health of lactating cows and increases milk production.

    “High-quality silage feed has been reported to promote the health of lactating cows and increase milk production [21,22].”

    From Analysis on Fermentation Quality, Chemical Composition and Bacterial Communities of Corn Straw and Soybean Straw Mixed Silage (2023) · cites this paper as [22]

    The Conclusions (page unavailable) report 1–2.6 kg more milk from cows fed pea-wheat bi-crop silages than from cows fed moderate-quality grass silage at similar concentrate supplementation. The paper does not establish that high-quality silage promotes cow health; its Plasma Metabolites section (page unavailable) reports no treatment effect on most measured blood constituents and higher blood urea with the bi-crop diets. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 36 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Kristensen, V. F. 1992. The production and feeding of whole-crop cereals and legumes in Denmark. Pages 21-38 in Whole-crop Cereals. 2nd ed. B. A. Stark and J. M. Wilkinson, ed. Chalcombe Publications, Canterbury, United Kingdom.
  2. Salawu, M. B., and A. T. Adesogan. 1999. Aerobic stability of pea- wheat bi-crop silages treated with different additives. Pages 282- 283 in Proc. 12th Int. Silage Conf., Uppsala, Sweden.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Salawu, M. B., Adesogan, A. T., & Dewhurst, R. J.
Affiliations
Aberystwyth University (GB)
Corresponding author
Adesogan, A.T.
Venue
Journal of Dairy Science
Published
2002-11
Volume
85
Issue
11
Pages
3035-3044
ISSN
0022-0302 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2119363350
Cited by
30
References
36
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1
FWCI
2.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Dairy Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Milk Development Council
  • Aberystwyth University
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Agronomic Practices and Intercropping Systems
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Forestry › Pasture and Agricultural Systems
Keywords
dairy cattle, lactation, forage intake, meal patterns, milk production, milk fat, polyunsaturated fatty acids, milk protein, blood urea nitrogen, nitrogen use efficiency, grass silage, crude protein, diet digestibility, Holstein cows, intercropping, concentrate supplementation, forage quality
MeSH terms
Animals, Animal Nutritional Physiological Phenomena, Blood Urea Nitrogen, Cattle, Dietary Proteins, Digestion, Eating, Fats, Female, Poaceae, Lactation, Milk, Milk Proteins, Silage, Triticum, Pisum sativum, Cross-Over Studies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review