Tropical grasses are the primary nutrient resource for cattle production in the tropics, and they provide low-cost nutrients to cattle. However, its production is constrained by seasonal changes and quality; hence, appropriate usage of relatively inexpensive agricultural by-products is important to profitable livestock production. The objective of the study was to evaluate the effect of supplementing coffee pulp to dairy cows grazing tropical grasses on milk yield and forage intake. Four multiparous crossed Holstein-Brown Swiss-Zebu cows of similar weight and milk yield were used. The effect of 10%, 15% and 20% inclusion of coffee pulp in dairy concentrates on milk yield and forage intake was analysed using a 4 × 4 Latin square design. Results showed that there were no significant effects (P > 0.05) in grass dry matter intake, milk yield, milk composition body weight and body condition score due to the inclusion of coffee pulp in the dairy concentrates. It is concluded that coffee pulp can be included at levels of 20% in the concentrate without compromising significantly (P > 0.05) milk yield, milk composition and grass dry matter intake. It also was concluded that cost of concentrate is reduced in 20% by the inclusion of coffee pulp.
Coffee is one of the main traded commodities worldwide, unfortunately, it generates massive amounts of by-products like coffee pulp (CoP), which could be utilized as an alternative feedstuff for cattle contributing to mitigate coffee production environmental damage. The objective of this work was to evaluate the effect of increasing levels of CoP supplementation on milk production, milk composition, and grass dry matter intake (GDMI) by dual-purpose tropical cows. A 4 × 4 Latin square experimental design was conducted, where four multiparous dual-purpose Holstein x Cebu cows with an average live weight of 477 ± 7 kg and milk yield of 12.1 ± 2.7 kg/d were used. The cows grazed 10 h/d on a Cynodon plectostachius sward with a stocking rate of three cows/ha. All cows received 6 kg/d DM of an experimental concentrate (EC), and the treatments consisted of four supplementation levels of CoP: T1 = 0, T2 = 0.6, T3 = 0.9, and T4 = 1.2 kg DM/d, which was provided on top of the concentrate and mixed with the EC. Grass intake was determined by the n-alkanes technique. A significant difference was observed for the average total daily DM intake (p < 0.02). No significant differences (p > 0.05) were observed for milk yield, milk composition, body weight, and GDMI for all the inclusion levels of CoP. It was concluded that CoP can be included at levels of 0.6 to 0.9 kg DM/d in the diets of cows without compromising milk yield or GDMI.
El objetivo del trabajo fue evaluar el efecto de la incorporación de diferentes fuentes de saponinas sobre la producción total de gas in vitro (GT) y la producción de metano ruminal (CH4), la cinética de fermentación, la digestibilidad de materia seca (DIVMS) y digestibilidad de la materia orgánica (DIVMO). Los tratamientos tratamientos evauados fueron la interacción de tres concentraciones (3.5, 7.0 y 14.0 mg/g de materia seca) de saponinas de Yucca schidigera (YS), Gliricidia sepium (GS), Enterolobium cyclocarpum (EC) y un control (Pennisetum purpureum [PP] solo). Se incubó una muestra de 1,0 g de cada tratamiento in vitro en un diseño completamente al azar con arreglo factorial con tres repeticiones por tratamiento. GT de PP no se vio afectado (P> 0.05) por la inclusión de saponinas de YS, GS y EC. La producción de metano no fue afectada (P> 0.05) por ningún nivel de inclusión de saponinas de YS. Cuando las saponinas de GS y EC se incorporaron a concentraciones de 7.0 y 14.0 mg/g de MS, la producción de metano se incrementó (P
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.