07.03.2013 Views

great lakes dairy sheep symposium - the Department of Animal ...

great lakes dairy sheep symposium - the Department of Animal ...

great lakes dairy sheep symposium - the Department of Animal ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Pre-grazing herbage mass (kg DM/ha) and pasture allowance (kg DM/ewe/d) were measured<br />

using a rising plate meter placed in 25 random locations throughout <strong>the</strong> paddock. The plate<br />

meter (1,254 g and 0.16 m 2 ) was calibrated to each pasture by correlating <strong>the</strong> DM and rising<br />

plate reading <strong>of</strong> 20 clipped samples, as described by Bransby et al. (1977). Pasture calibration<br />

was repeated twice in early and mid-grazing season to account for changes in pasture<br />

composition and maturity over time. Post-grazing pasture residue was estimated once per week<br />

with <strong>the</strong> rising plate meter to verify sufficient pasture allowance.<br />

Marker. Titanium dioxide (TiO2) was used as an external marker to estimate pasture intake<br />

<strong>of</strong> ten ewes randomly selected from each supplementation treatment. A pre-treatment fecal<br />

sample was taken from ewes in each treatment before administration <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> marker. Gelatin<br />

capsules <strong>of</strong> 2.5 g <strong>of</strong> TiO2 were administered to ewes twice daily for 11 days. After a seven day<br />

adjustment period, fecal grab samples were collected once per day, at 1630 h, for <strong>the</strong> following<br />

four days. A compiled fecal sample for each ewe was stored frozen and subsequently oven dried<br />

(60º C forced-air for 48 h) and ground to pass through a 1-mm screen in a UDY cyclone mill.<br />

Fecal samples were analyzed for <strong>the</strong> concentration <strong>of</strong> TiO2 using <strong>the</strong> colorimetric technique<br />

described by Myers et al. (2004). Total fecal output (FO; g/d) was estimated by <strong>the</strong> equation:<br />

FO = (g TiO2 administered per d) / (g TiO2 /g feces DM)<br />

Forage fecal output (FFO) was equal to FO for unsupplemented ewes. For supplemented ewes,<br />

FFO was estimated by subtracting <strong>the</strong> estimated fecal output <strong>of</strong> grain (0.82 kg grain * 97 % DM<br />

* 90 % digestibility) from <strong>the</strong> total FO. Based on FFO, pasture DMI was estimated using <strong>the</strong><br />

equation:<br />

Pasture DMI = FFO x (100/100-DMDpasture)<br />

Fecal and forage samples were analyzed for acid detergent lignin (ADL), using <strong>the</strong> technique <strong>of</strong><br />

Robertson and Van Soest (1981), to determine apparent forage digestibility:<br />

Dry matter digestibility (DMD) = 100 – ((% ADL forage / % ADL fecal) * 100)<br />

For unsupplemented ewes, pasture DMI represents total DMI. For supplemented ewes, total<br />

DMI was estimated by adding pasture DMI to grain DM (0.82 kg/d * 97 % DM) <strong>of</strong>fered in <strong>the</strong><br />

parlor.<br />

Statistical analyses. Weekly milk production, bi-weekly fat and protein percentage, BW<br />

and BCS were analyzed using <strong>the</strong> mixed model procedure <strong>of</strong> SAS 8.2 (PROC MIXED) for a<br />

factorial design (SAS, 1999) with repeated measures. The model for <strong>the</strong>se repeated measures<br />

included <strong>the</strong> fixed effects <strong>of</strong> stage <strong>of</strong> lactation, supplementation treatment, test date and <strong>the</strong>ir<br />

two- and three-way interactions, and <strong>the</strong> random effects <strong>of</strong> ewe and <strong>the</strong> residual. The general<br />

linear model procedure <strong>of</strong> SAS (PROC GLM) was used to analyze DMI and <strong>the</strong> total trial period<br />

production <strong>of</strong> milk, fat, protein, FCM and FPCM, and percentage <strong>of</strong> fat and protein. The model<br />

included <strong>the</strong> effects <strong>of</strong> stage <strong>of</strong> lactation, supplementation treatment, <strong>the</strong>ir interaction, and <strong>the</strong><br />

residual. All means presented are least squares means, and significance is declared at P < 0.05<br />

unless o<strong>the</strong>rwise noted. Forage CP was related to MUN using <strong>the</strong> correlation procedure <strong>of</strong> SAS<br />

(PROC CORR).<br />

Results and Discussion<br />

Milk production and composition. Figure 1 presents average test day milk yields for each<br />

<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> four stages <strong>of</strong> lactation and supplementation treatment combinations. On <strong>the</strong> first test day,<br />

59

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!