Loading…

The inclusion of forage mixtures in the diet of growing dairy heifers: Impacts on digestion, energy utilisation, and methane emissions

•Heifers were fed 4 forage mixture sand their methane emissions and digestion measured.•Methane emission and forage digestibility were reduced by a wild flower mixture.•Forage CP content, intake, and ME supply were also reduced by the wild flower mixture.•Forage mixtures have environmental benefits...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Agriculture, ecosystems & environment ecosystems & environment, 2014-12, Vol.197, p.88-95
Main Authors: Hammond, K.J., Humphries, D.J., Westbury, D.B., Thompson, A., Crompton, L.A., Kirton, P., Green, C., Reynolds, C.K.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c396t-27b4ff2149126d70f8801924a9f8e9d04c54425dc54141e75c5999bf916ec98f3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c396t-27b4ff2149126d70f8801924a9f8e9d04c54425dc54141e75c5999bf916ec98f3
container_end_page 95
container_issue
container_start_page 88
container_title Agriculture, ecosystems & environment
container_volume 197
creator Hammond, K.J.
Humphries, D.J.
Westbury, D.B.
Thompson, A.
Crompton, L.A.
Kirton, P.
Green, C.
Reynolds, C.K.
description •Heifers were fed 4 forage mixture sand their methane emissions and digestion measured.•Methane emission and forage digestibility were reduced by a wild flower mixture.•Forage CP content, intake, and ME supply were also reduced by the wild flower mixture.•Forage mixtures have environmental benefits for sustainable animal production systems. Intensive farming focusing on monoculture grass species to maximise forage production has led to a reduction in the extent and diversity of species-rich grasslands. However, plant communities with higher species number (richness) are a potential strategy for more sustainable production and mitigation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Research has indicated the need to understand opportunities that forage mixtures can offer sustainable ruminant production systems. The objective of the two experiments reported here were to evaluate multiple species forage mixtures in comparison to ryegrass-dominant pasture, when conserved or grazed, on digestion, energy utilisation, N excretion, and methane emissions by growing 10–15 month old heifers. Experiment 1 was a 4×4 Latin square design with five week periods. Four forage treatments of: (1) ryegrass (control); permanent pasture with perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne); (2) clover; a ryegrass:red clover (Trifolium pratense) mixture; (3) trefoil; a ryegrass:birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus) mixture; and (4) flowers; a ryegrass:wild flower mixture of predominately sorrel (Rumex acetosa), ox-eye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare), yarrow (Achillea millefolium), knapweed (Centaurea nigra) and ribwort plantain (Plantago lanceolata), were fed as haylages to four dairy heifers. Measurements included digestibility, N excretion, and energy utilisation (including methane emissions measured in respiration chambers). Experiment 2 used 12 different dairy heifers grazing three of the same forage treatments used to make haylage in experiment 1 (ryegrass, clover and flowers) and methane emissions were estimated using the sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) tracer technique. Distribution of ryegrass to other species (dry matter (DM) basis) was approximately 70:30 (clover), 80:20 (trefoil), and 40:60 (flowers) for experiment 1. During the first and second grazing rotations (respectively) in experiment 2, perennial ryegrass accounted for 95 and 98% of DM in ryegrass, and 84 and 52% of DM in clover, with red clover accounting for almost all of the remainder. In the flowers mixture, perennial ryegrass was 52% o
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.agee.2014.07.016
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1660066226</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0167880914003764</els_id><sourcerecordid>1660066226</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c396t-27b4ff2149126d70f8801924a9f8e9d04c54425dc54141e75c5999bf916ec98f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNUctuFDEQtBBILEl-ICdfkDgwg-3x-IG4oIhHpEi5hLPl2O1Zr-ax2B5gf4DvxqONOCJ8aam6urrahdA1JS0lVLw7tHYAaBmhvCWyrdAztKNKdg3rSP8c7SoiG6WIfole5Xwg9bFO7dDvhz3gOLtxzXGZ8RJwWFLVwlP8VdYEuTZxqRwfoWztIS0_4zxgb2M64T3EACm_x7fT0bqScdXwcYBcqtpbDDOk4YTXEseY7Rmzs8cTlL2dAcMU87Y3X6IXwY4Zrp7qBfr2-dPDzdfm7v7L7c3Hu8Z1WpSGyUceAqNcUya8JKFeRDXjVgcF2hPues5Z72uhnILsXa-1fgyaCnBahe4CvTnrHtPyfa02TXXgYByrm2XNhgpBiBCMif-gckmIokRVKjtTXVpyThDMMcXJppOhxGz5mIPZ8jFbPoZIU6E69PpJ32Znx5Ds7GL-O8mUklKzvvI-nHlQ_-VHhGSyizA78DGBK8Yv8V9r_gBDyqay</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1647008108</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The inclusion of forage mixtures in the diet of growing dairy heifers: Impacts on digestion, energy utilisation, and methane emissions</title><source>Elsevier</source><creator>Hammond, K.J. ; Humphries, D.J. ; Westbury, D.B. ; Thompson, A. ; Crompton, L.A. ; Kirton, P. ; Green, C. ; Reynolds, C.K.</creator><creatorcontrib>Hammond, K.J. ; Humphries, D.J. ; Westbury, D.B. ; Thompson, A. ; Crompton, L.A. ; Kirton, P. ; Green, C. ; Reynolds, C.K.</creatorcontrib><description><![CDATA[•Heifers were fed 4 forage mixture sand their methane emissions and digestion measured.•Methane emission and forage digestibility were reduced by a wild flower mixture.•Forage CP content, intake, and ME supply were also reduced by the wild flower mixture.•Forage mixtures have environmental benefits for sustainable animal production systems. Intensive farming focusing on monoculture grass species to maximise forage production has led to a reduction in the extent and diversity of species-rich grasslands. However, plant communities with higher species number (richness) are a potential strategy for more sustainable production and mitigation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Research has indicated the need to understand opportunities that forage mixtures can offer sustainable ruminant production systems. The objective of the two experiments reported here were to evaluate multiple species forage mixtures in comparison to ryegrass-dominant pasture, when conserved or grazed, on digestion, energy utilisation, N excretion, and methane emissions by growing 10–15 month old heifers. Experiment 1 was a 4×4 Latin square design with five week periods. Four forage treatments of: (1) ryegrass (control); permanent pasture with perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne); (2) clover; a ryegrass:red clover (Trifolium pratense) mixture; (3) trefoil; a ryegrass:birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus) mixture; and (4) flowers; a ryegrass:wild flower mixture of predominately sorrel (Rumex acetosa), ox-eye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare), yarrow (Achillea millefolium), knapweed (Centaurea nigra) and ribwort plantain (Plantago lanceolata), were fed as haylages to four dairy heifers. Measurements included digestibility, N excretion, and energy utilisation (including methane emissions measured in respiration chambers). Experiment 2 used 12 different dairy heifers grazing three of the same forage treatments used to make haylage in experiment 1 (ryegrass, clover and flowers) and methane emissions were estimated using the sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) tracer technique. Distribution of ryegrass to other species (dry matter (DM) basis) was approximately 70:30 (clover), 80:20 (trefoil), and 40:60 (flowers) for experiment 1. During the first and second grazing rotations (respectively) in experiment 2, perennial ryegrass accounted for 95 and 98% of DM in ryegrass, and 84 and 52% of DM in clover, with red clover accounting for almost all of the remainder. In the flowers mixture, perennial ryegrass was 52% of the DM in the first grazing rotation and only 30% in the second, with a variety of other flower species occupying the remainder. Across both experiments, compared to the forage mixtures (clover, trefoil and flowers), ryegrass had a higher crude protein (CP) content (P<0.001, 187 vs. 115gkg −1 DM) and DM intake (P<0.05, 9.0 vs. 8.1kgday −1). Heifers in experiment 1 fed ryegrass, compared to the forage mixtures, had greater total tract digestibility (gkg −1) of DM (DMD; P<0.008, 713 vs. 641) and CP (CPD, P<0.001, 699 vs. 475), and used more intake energy (%) for body tissue deposition (P<0.05, 2.6 vs. −4.9). For both experiments, heifers fed flowers differed the most compared to the ryegrass control for a number of measurements. Compared to ryegrass, flowers had 40% lower CP content (P<0.001, 113 vs. 187gkg −1), 18% lower DMD (P<0.01, 585 vs. 713gkg −1), 42% lower CPD (P<0.001, 407 vs. 699gkg −1), and 10% lower methane yield (P<0.05, 22.6 vs. 25.1gkg −1 DM intake). This study has shown inclusion of flowers in forage mixtures resulted in a lower CP concentration, digestibility and intake. These differences were due in part to sward management and maturity at harvest. Further research is needed to determine how best to exploit the potential environmental benefits of forage mixtures in sustainable ruminant production systems.]]></description><identifier>ISSN: 0167-8809</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-2305</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.agee.2014.07.016</identifier><identifier>CODEN: AEENDO</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Achillea millefolium ; Agronomy. Soil science and plant productions ; Animal productions ; Biological and medical sciences ; Cattle ; Centaurea nigra ; Clover ; Digestion ; Energy ; Flowers ; Forage mixtures ; Forages ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; General agroecology ; General agroecology. Agricultural and farming systems. Agricultural development. Rural area planning. Landscaping ; General agronomy. Plant production ; Generalities. Agricultural and farming systems. Agricultural development ; Grazing ; Greenhouse gas emission ; Growth ; Inclusions ; Intakes ; Leucanthemum vulgare ; Lolium perenne ; Lotus corniculatus ; Methane ; Nitrogen ; Plantago lanceolata ; Rumex acetosa ; Ruminantia ; Terrestrial animal productions ; Trifolium pratense ; Vertebrates</subject><ispartof>Agriculture, ecosystems &amp; environment, 2014-12, Vol.197, p.88-95</ispartof><rights>2014</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c396t-27b4ff2149126d70f8801924a9f8e9d04c54425dc54141e75c5999bf916ec98f3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c396t-27b4ff2149126d70f8801924a9f8e9d04c54425dc54141e75c5999bf916ec98f3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27923,27924</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=28877925$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hammond, K.J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Humphries, D.J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Westbury, D.B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thompson, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Crompton, L.A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kirton, P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Green, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reynolds, C.K.</creatorcontrib><title>The inclusion of forage mixtures in the diet of growing dairy heifers: Impacts on digestion, energy utilisation, and methane emissions</title><title>Agriculture, ecosystems &amp; environment</title><description><![CDATA[•Heifers were fed 4 forage mixture sand their methane emissions and digestion measured.•Methane emission and forage digestibility were reduced by a wild flower mixture.•Forage CP content, intake, and ME supply were also reduced by the wild flower mixture.•Forage mixtures have environmental benefits for sustainable animal production systems. Intensive farming focusing on monoculture grass species to maximise forage production has led to a reduction in the extent and diversity of species-rich grasslands. However, plant communities with higher species number (richness) are a potential strategy for more sustainable production and mitigation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Research has indicated the need to understand opportunities that forage mixtures can offer sustainable ruminant production systems. The objective of the two experiments reported here were to evaluate multiple species forage mixtures in comparison to ryegrass-dominant pasture, when conserved or grazed, on digestion, energy utilisation, N excretion, and methane emissions by growing 10–15 month old heifers. Experiment 1 was a 4×4 Latin square design with five week periods. Four forage treatments of: (1) ryegrass (control); permanent pasture with perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne); (2) clover; a ryegrass:red clover (Trifolium pratense) mixture; (3) trefoil; a ryegrass:birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus) mixture; and (4) flowers; a ryegrass:wild flower mixture of predominately sorrel (Rumex acetosa), ox-eye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare), yarrow (Achillea millefolium), knapweed (Centaurea nigra) and ribwort plantain (Plantago lanceolata), were fed as haylages to four dairy heifers. Measurements included digestibility, N excretion, and energy utilisation (including methane emissions measured in respiration chambers). Experiment 2 used 12 different dairy heifers grazing three of the same forage treatments used to make haylage in experiment 1 (ryegrass, clover and flowers) and methane emissions were estimated using the sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) tracer technique. Distribution of ryegrass to other species (dry matter (DM) basis) was approximately 70:30 (clover), 80:20 (trefoil), and 40:60 (flowers) for experiment 1. During the first and second grazing rotations (respectively) in experiment 2, perennial ryegrass accounted for 95 and 98% of DM in ryegrass, and 84 and 52% of DM in clover, with red clover accounting for almost all of the remainder. In the flowers mixture, perennial ryegrass was 52% of the DM in the first grazing rotation and only 30% in the second, with a variety of other flower species occupying the remainder. Across both experiments, compared to the forage mixtures (clover, trefoil and flowers), ryegrass had a higher crude protein (CP) content (P<0.001, 187 vs. 115gkg −1 DM) and DM intake (P<0.05, 9.0 vs. 8.1kgday −1). Heifers in experiment 1 fed ryegrass, compared to the forage mixtures, had greater total tract digestibility (gkg −1) of DM (DMD; P<0.008, 713 vs. 641) and CP (CPD, P<0.001, 699 vs. 475), and used more intake energy (%) for body tissue deposition (P<0.05, 2.6 vs. −4.9). For both experiments, heifers fed flowers differed the most compared to the ryegrass control for a number of measurements. Compared to ryegrass, flowers had 40% lower CP content (P<0.001, 113 vs. 187gkg −1), 18% lower DMD (P<0.01, 585 vs. 713gkg −1), 42% lower CPD (P<0.001, 407 vs. 699gkg −1), and 10% lower methane yield (P<0.05, 22.6 vs. 25.1gkg −1 DM intake). This study has shown inclusion of flowers in forage mixtures resulted in a lower CP concentration, digestibility and intake. These differences were due in part to sward management and maturity at harvest. Further research is needed to determine how best to exploit the potential environmental benefits of forage mixtures in sustainable ruminant production systems.]]></description><subject>Achillea millefolium</subject><subject>Agronomy. Soil science and plant productions</subject><subject>Animal productions</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Cattle</subject><subject>Centaurea nigra</subject><subject>Clover</subject><subject>Digestion</subject><subject>Energy</subject><subject>Flowers</subject><subject>Forage mixtures</subject><subject>Forages</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>General agroecology</subject><subject>General agroecology. Agricultural and farming systems. Agricultural development. Rural area planning. Landscaping</subject><subject>General agronomy. Plant production</subject><subject>Generalities. Agricultural and farming systems. Agricultural development</subject><subject>Grazing</subject><subject>Greenhouse gas emission</subject><subject>Growth</subject><subject>Inclusions</subject><subject>Intakes</subject><subject>Leucanthemum vulgare</subject><subject>Lolium perenne</subject><subject>Lotus corniculatus</subject><subject>Methane</subject><subject>Nitrogen</subject><subject>Plantago lanceolata</subject><subject>Rumex acetosa</subject><subject>Ruminantia</subject><subject>Terrestrial animal productions</subject><subject>Trifolium pratense</subject><subject>Vertebrates</subject><issn>0167-8809</issn><issn>1873-2305</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNUctuFDEQtBBILEl-ICdfkDgwg-3x-IG4oIhHpEi5hLPl2O1Zr-ax2B5gf4DvxqONOCJ8aam6urrahdA1JS0lVLw7tHYAaBmhvCWyrdAztKNKdg3rSP8c7SoiG6WIfole5Xwg9bFO7dDvhz3gOLtxzXGZ8RJwWFLVwlP8VdYEuTZxqRwfoWztIS0_4zxgb2M64T3EACm_x7fT0bqScdXwcYBcqtpbDDOk4YTXEseY7Rmzs8cTlL2dAcMU87Y3X6IXwY4Zrp7qBfr2-dPDzdfm7v7L7c3Hu8Z1WpSGyUceAqNcUya8JKFeRDXjVgcF2hPues5Z72uhnILsXa-1fgyaCnBahe4CvTnrHtPyfa02TXXgYByrm2XNhgpBiBCMif-gckmIokRVKjtTXVpyThDMMcXJppOhxGz5mIPZ8jFbPoZIU6E69PpJ32Znx5Ds7GL-O8mUklKzvvI-nHlQ_-VHhGSyizA78DGBK8Yv8V9r_gBDyqay</recordid><startdate>20141201</startdate><enddate>20141201</enddate><creator>Hammond, K.J.</creator><creator>Humphries, D.J.</creator><creator>Westbury, D.B.</creator><creator>Thompson, A.</creator><creator>Crompton, L.A.</creator><creator>Kirton, P.</creator><creator>Green, C.</creator><creator>Reynolds, C.K.</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7U6</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>KR7</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20141201</creationdate><title>The inclusion of forage mixtures in the diet of growing dairy heifers: Impacts on digestion, energy utilisation, and methane emissions</title><author>Hammond, K.J. ; Humphries, D.J. ; Westbury, D.B. ; Thompson, A. ; Crompton, L.A. ; Kirton, P. ; Green, C. ; Reynolds, C.K.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c396t-27b4ff2149126d70f8801924a9f8e9d04c54425dc54141e75c5999bf916ec98f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Achillea millefolium</topic><topic>Agronomy. Soil science and plant productions</topic><topic>Animal productions</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Cattle</topic><topic>Centaurea nigra</topic><topic>Clover</topic><topic>Digestion</topic><topic>Energy</topic><topic>Flowers</topic><topic>Forage mixtures</topic><topic>Forages</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>General agroecology</topic><topic>General agroecology. Agricultural and farming systems. Agricultural development. Rural area planning. Landscaping</topic><topic>General agronomy. Plant production</topic><topic>Generalities. Agricultural and farming systems. Agricultural development</topic><topic>Grazing</topic><topic>Greenhouse gas emission</topic><topic>Growth</topic><topic>Inclusions</topic><topic>Intakes</topic><topic>Leucanthemum vulgare</topic><topic>Lolium perenne</topic><topic>Lotus corniculatus</topic><topic>Methane</topic><topic>Nitrogen</topic><topic>Plantago lanceolata</topic><topic>Rumex acetosa</topic><topic>Ruminantia</topic><topic>Terrestrial animal productions</topic><topic>Trifolium pratense</topic><topic>Vertebrates</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hammond, K.J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Humphries, D.J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Westbury, D.B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thompson, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Crompton, L.A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kirton, P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Green, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reynolds, C.K.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Agriculture, ecosystems &amp; environment</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hammond, K.J.</au><au>Humphries, D.J.</au><au>Westbury, D.B.</au><au>Thompson, A.</au><au>Crompton, L.A.</au><au>Kirton, P.</au><au>Green, C.</au><au>Reynolds, C.K.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The inclusion of forage mixtures in the diet of growing dairy heifers: Impacts on digestion, energy utilisation, and methane emissions</atitle><jtitle>Agriculture, ecosystems &amp; environment</jtitle><date>2014-12-01</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>197</volume><spage>88</spage><epage>95</epage><pages>88-95</pages><issn>0167-8809</issn><eissn>1873-2305</eissn><coden>AEENDO</coden><abstract><![CDATA[•Heifers were fed 4 forage mixture sand their methane emissions and digestion measured.•Methane emission and forage digestibility were reduced by a wild flower mixture.•Forage CP content, intake, and ME supply were also reduced by the wild flower mixture.•Forage mixtures have environmental benefits for sustainable animal production systems. Intensive farming focusing on monoculture grass species to maximise forage production has led to a reduction in the extent and diversity of species-rich grasslands. However, plant communities with higher species number (richness) are a potential strategy for more sustainable production and mitigation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Research has indicated the need to understand opportunities that forage mixtures can offer sustainable ruminant production systems. The objective of the two experiments reported here were to evaluate multiple species forage mixtures in comparison to ryegrass-dominant pasture, when conserved or grazed, on digestion, energy utilisation, N excretion, and methane emissions by growing 10–15 month old heifers. Experiment 1 was a 4×4 Latin square design with five week periods. Four forage treatments of: (1) ryegrass (control); permanent pasture with perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne); (2) clover; a ryegrass:red clover (Trifolium pratense) mixture; (3) trefoil; a ryegrass:birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus) mixture; and (4) flowers; a ryegrass:wild flower mixture of predominately sorrel (Rumex acetosa), ox-eye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare), yarrow (Achillea millefolium), knapweed (Centaurea nigra) and ribwort plantain (Plantago lanceolata), were fed as haylages to four dairy heifers. Measurements included digestibility, N excretion, and energy utilisation (including methane emissions measured in respiration chambers). Experiment 2 used 12 different dairy heifers grazing three of the same forage treatments used to make haylage in experiment 1 (ryegrass, clover and flowers) and methane emissions were estimated using the sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) tracer technique. Distribution of ryegrass to other species (dry matter (DM) basis) was approximately 70:30 (clover), 80:20 (trefoil), and 40:60 (flowers) for experiment 1. During the first and second grazing rotations (respectively) in experiment 2, perennial ryegrass accounted for 95 and 98% of DM in ryegrass, and 84 and 52% of DM in clover, with red clover accounting for almost all of the remainder. In the flowers mixture, perennial ryegrass was 52% of the DM in the first grazing rotation and only 30% in the second, with a variety of other flower species occupying the remainder. Across both experiments, compared to the forage mixtures (clover, trefoil and flowers), ryegrass had a higher crude protein (CP) content (P<0.001, 187 vs. 115gkg −1 DM) and DM intake (P<0.05, 9.0 vs. 8.1kgday −1). Heifers in experiment 1 fed ryegrass, compared to the forage mixtures, had greater total tract digestibility (gkg −1) of DM (DMD; P<0.008, 713 vs. 641) and CP (CPD, P<0.001, 699 vs. 475), and used more intake energy (%) for body tissue deposition (P<0.05, 2.6 vs. −4.9). For both experiments, heifers fed flowers differed the most compared to the ryegrass control for a number of measurements. Compared to ryegrass, flowers had 40% lower CP content (P<0.001, 113 vs. 187gkg −1), 18% lower DMD (P<0.01, 585 vs. 713gkg −1), 42% lower CPD (P<0.001, 407 vs. 699gkg −1), and 10% lower methane yield (P<0.05, 22.6 vs. 25.1gkg −1 DM intake). This study has shown inclusion of flowers in forage mixtures resulted in a lower CP concentration, digestibility and intake. These differences were due in part to sward management and maturity at harvest. Further research is needed to determine how best to exploit the potential environmental benefits of forage mixtures in sustainable ruminant production systems.]]></abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><doi>10.1016/j.agee.2014.07.016</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0167-8809
ispartof Agriculture, ecosystems & environment, 2014-12, Vol.197, p.88-95
issn 0167-8809
1873-2305
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1660066226
source Elsevier
subjects Achillea millefolium
Agronomy. Soil science and plant productions
Animal productions
Biological and medical sciences
Cattle
Centaurea nigra
Clover
Digestion
Energy
Flowers
Forage mixtures
Forages
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
General agroecology
General agroecology. Agricultural and farming systems. Agricultural development. Rural area planning. Landscaping
General agronomy. Plant production
Generalities. Agricultural and farming systems. Agricultural development
Grazing
Greenhouse gas emission
Growth
Inclusions
Intakes
Leucanthemum vulgare
Lolium perenne
Lotus corniculatus
Methane
Nitrogen
Plantago lanceolata
Rumex acetosa
Ruminantia
Terrestrial animal productions
Trifolium pratense
Vertebrates
title The inclusion of forage mixtures in the diet of growing dairy heifers: Impacts on digestion, energy utilisation, and methane emissions
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-12T13%3A57%3A02IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20inclusion%20of%20forage%20mixtures%20in%20the%20diet%20of%20growing%20dairy%20heifers:%20Impacts%20on%20digestion,%20energy%20utilisation,%20and%20methane%20emissions&rft.jtitle=Agriculture,%20ecosystems%20&%20environment&rft.au=Hammond,%20K.J.&rft.date=2014-12-01&rft.volume=197&rft.spage=88&rft.epage=95&rft.pages=88-95&rft.issn=0167-8809&rft.eissn=1873-2305&rft.coden=AEENDO&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.agee.2014.07.016&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1660066226%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c396t-27b4ff2149126d70f8801924a9f8e9d04c54425dc54141e75c5999bf916ec98f3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1647008108&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true