Efficiency of utilization of energy and nitrogen for milk secretion by buffaloes fed various levels of concentrates

Abstract

Twenty-four Murrah buffalo cows were divided into 4 groups and were fed 0-3, 0*4, 0-5 or 0-6 kg of concentrate mixture per litre of milk produced. Energy and N balance studies were conducted on 2 animals from each group in the sixteenth and seventeenth weeks of the study. The efficiency of conversion of gross energy into milk energy ranged from 10-9 to 12-7 %. The efficiency of conversion of metabolizable energy (ME) and ME above maintenance into milk energy ranged from 25-0 to 32-2 % and from 51-7 to 78-6 % respectively. Differences amongst groups were not significant for all the 3 parameters.The conversion of digestible N into milk N varied between 23-6 and 27-3% in different groups. The efficiency of utilization of metabolizable N for milk production ranged between 47-6 and 56-4%. Various groups however did not differ significantly from each other in these respects.The efficiency of utilization of metabolizable energy (ME) for milk production is governed by the energy utilized for maintenance and the energy deposited in or obtained from the tissues. ME required for maintenance in its turn seems to be regulated by the composition of the diet (Brouwer, Van Es & Nijkamp, 1961;Flatt, Coppock & Moore, 1965) and the season of the year (Brouwer et at. 1961). Lactating animals have been shown to have a higher requirement for maintenance than nonlactating animals (Brody, 1945;Hutton, 1962;Neville & McCullough, 1969); data presented by Flatt et al. (1965), however, indicate that it could be lower than that for dry, non-pregnant animals. Blaxter (1962) concluded, from his review of numerous experimental studies, that ration composition has a marked effect on the efficiency of conversion of dietary energy into body tissues. Those rations which are relatively high in roughages and thus tend to produce more acetic acid would be less efficient in this respect than those which increase the production of propionic acid (Armstrong & Blaxter, 1965). Recent studies by Moe, Tyrrell & Flatt (1971) indicate that the efficiency of conversion of ME into tissue energy is higher in lactating animals than in dry animals. That the utilization of dietary energy by an animal is considerably • Present address: Veterinary College,

Comparative dry matter intake and nutrient utilisation efficiency in lactating cattle and buffaloes

“…When compared at fixed levels of MBS, FCM, WC and TDNL (significant covariates), TDNI kg −1 FCM was significantly lower in buffaloes at all levels of FCM production (Table 4). Earlier, Shukla et al 57 reported that GEE and NEE in buffalo ranged from 25 to 32.2% and from 51.8 to 78.6% respectively, which compare very well with the values obtained in the present study. The values of NEE for lactation obtained for cattle in the present study also compare very well with the range of values reported from other studies on Indian cattle (62.6–64.4% by Patle and Mudgal,52 65.4–68.5% by Patle and Mudgal51).…”

“…The ME requirement for production of 1 kg of FCM in buffaloes was estimated to be 4654 kJ. This estimate was slightly lower than the value of 5004 kJ reported by Shukla et al 57 in studies with lactating buffaloes, comparable to the value of 4771 kJ recommended by ICAR56 and 12.5% less than the value of 5319 kJ calculated using AFRC54 equations.…”

Effects of maize (Zea mays L.) silage feeding on dry matter intake and milk production of dairy buffalo and cattle in Tarai, Nepal

“…Since the TDNI p was increased with the MS substitution, the efficiency of the energy utilized for lactation was possibly reduced when the MS substituted for RS in the present study. Shukla et al. (1972) showed that the conversion efficiency of ME above maintenance into milk energy ranged from 51.7 to 78.6% in buffaloes.…”

Feeding standards for lactating riverine buffaloes in tropical conditions

“…However, the comparison of total DM requirements (Table 3) with the existing standard revealed that the present requirements matched well with those from Sen et al (1978) but were much lower than those from ICAR (1985) and Kearl (1982). ; 3, Shukla et al (1972) ; 4, Singh et al (1972) ; 5, Tiwari & Patle (1997) ; 6, Tiwari & Patle (1983) ; 7, Srivastava (1970) ; 8, Gupta (1973) ; 9, Gupta et al (1966) ; 10, Kurar & Mudgal (1981) ;11, Singh (1965).…”