Effects on milk production of feeding silage and sugar‐beet pulp as separate components, in a mixed ration or as an ensiled blend

Abstract

Twenty early‐lactation British Friesian dairy cows were used in a five‐treatment, partially balanced change‐over design experiment, consisting of four periods each of 4 weeks' duration. Three treatments consisted of offering ensiled blends of silage and sugar‐beet pulp produced by mixing 40 (S40), 80 (S80) and 120 (S120)kg beet pulp t−1 herbage at ensiling. In two further treatments, an untreated silage was supplemented with 5 kg of beet pulp daily, either mixed with the silage prior to feeding (SM) or offered in two equal feeds each day (ST). Silage was offered ad libitum in all treatments, while in addition all cows received 1 kg d−1 of a concentrate supplement containing 470 g crude protein kg−1 fresh weight. Dry‐matter intakes and milk fat + protein yields increased with increasing level of beet pulp inclusion in the diet, irrespective of whether it was offered in the form of an ensiled blend or as a supplement to an untreated silage. With the exception of D‐value (digestible organic matter in the dry matter), which was significantly higher with treatments SM and ST than with the ensiled blend treatment (S80), no significant differences were identified in total ration digestibility or in the efficiency of nitrogen or energy utilization between methods of beet pulp inclusion in the diet. However, offering beet pulp in the form of an ensiled blend reduced the acetate/propionate ratio in rumen fluid compared with offering best pulp as a supplement to an untreated silage. When account is taken of differences in the efficiency of recovery of edible silage dry matter between ensilage systems and of differences in dry‐matter intakes between treatments, total milk fat + protein outputs per 10000 kg herbage dry matter ensiled were 55 (s.e. 50·9) and 78 (s.e. 47·5) kg lower when equal quantities of beet pulp were offered as part of an ensiled blend rather than as a supplement to an untreated silage, as in treatments SM and ST respectively. However, these differences were non‐significant. Alternatively, in order to produce an equal milk output from ensiling a given quantity of herbage, 12·5 and 16·2% more beet pulp would have been required if the beet pulp had been mixed with the herbage at ensiling, rather than offered as a supplement, as in treatments SM and ST respectively.

The effects of incorporating sugar beet pulp with forage maize at ensiling on silage fermentation and effluent output using drum silos

“…Various experiments have evaluated the effect of adding sugar beet pulp ( Offer and Al‐Rwidah, 1989a; b; Ferris and Mayne, 1994a ; b; c) or rolled barley ( Jones et al ., 1990 ) to grass silages in order to reduce ensiling losses. These studies showed that the addition of MSBP or barley to grass silages reduced ensiling losses, and the reduction was mainly due to the reduced DM losses associated with effluent flow.…”

“…The relative merits of feeding MSBP ensiled with grass silage or as a separate feed are inconsistent between experiments both with dairy cows ( Dulphy and Demarquilly, 1975; Ferris and Mayne, 1994a; b; c) and with beef cattle ( Jones and Jones, 1988 ; O’Kiely, 1990; Moore and Kennedy, 1994). The addition of MSBP might improve the balance of nutrients available to the rumen microbes, providing readily available sugars in addition to starch.…”

“…This could be an additional benefit of MSBP addition to maize silage. However, Ferris and Mayne (1994b) reported an increase in surface wastage at the pit for ensiled mixtures containing MSBP and this possibly should be tested for maize silage/MSBP mixtures.…”

“…A strategy that might reduce the DM losses because of effluent loss and reduce the pollution potential of forage maize silages with a low DM content is the use of absorbent materials. This strategy has been tested for grass silages ( Offer and Al‐Rwidah, 1989a; b; Jones et al ., 1990 ; Ferris and Mayne, 1994a; b; c; O’Doherty et al ., 1998 ). Several absorbent materials have been tested, such as rolled barley ( Jones et al ., 1990 ), dried sugar beet pulp ( Ferris and Mayne, 1994a; b; c), and barley straw and pressed grain distillers grains ( Offer and Al‐Rwidah, 1989a).…”

Effectiveness of chopped lucerne hay as a moisture absorbent for low dry‐matter maize silage: Effluent reduction, fermentation quality and intake by sheep

“…Also, Moseley and Ramanathan () reported increased DM and metabolizable energy intake by sheep of mixed perennial ryegrass and white clover silage prepared with the addition of either 25 g/kg rolled barley or sugar beet pulp (Moseley & Ramanathan, ). In contrast, when beet pulp was incorporated in the silo, it decreased energy intake and digestible organic matter of the grass silage (Ferris & Mayne, ) as well as weight gain of growing cattle (Moore & Kennedy, ) compared to when it was offered either separately or as a component mixed with the silage before feeding.…”