AGRONOMIJAS VÄSTIS - Latvijas LauksaimniecÄ«bas universitÄte

More documents

Recommendations

Info

<strong>AGRONOMIJAS</strong> VĒSTIS (Latvian Journal of Agronomy), No.10, LLU, 2008determined in feeding and balance trials was taken from research results by Gruber et al. (2000).Simulation calculation derived from the nutrient need of 600 kg dairy cow according to stockfeedingcharts of nutrient needs (Sommer et al., 1994).Simulation calculation is carried out with the treatment of feeding rations without grain andwith added grain with daily milk yield of 20 kg of milk, that is about 6100 kg of FCM milk, that ison the level of the present average efficiency of dairy cows in the CR. Selected treatments were bycalculation determined daily and annual milk production, annual forage dry matter intake, totalconsumption of grain, necessary dairy cows herd size for particular methods of grassland utilisationand livestock size. Potential dry matter production of crop yield from the trials was reduced to theso called „feedable dry matter“ by deducting 30 % for losses during the harvest, conservation andfeeding.Over all sites the botanical composition of vegetation was recorded in proportion toagrobotanical groups (grasses, legumes, forbs) and the number of vascular plant species. Thecontribution evaluates the total number of detected plant species per treatment in all sites over aperiod of four years, and the effect of experimental interventions on the representation of botanicalgroups in the average of sites and evaluated years. The acquired results were statistically evaluatedwith analysis of variance, the differences between the averages were tested with the Tuckey test onthe level of significance of 95 % (D T0.05 ), resp. 99 % (D T0.01 ).Results and DiscussionsDry matter yields and forage quality are presented in Table 1. The simulated total annualintakes of forage from two, three and four cuts per year when fed without grain were 4.21, 4.79 and5.56 t DM cow -1 year -1 , respectively. Forage intake decreased when grain was added to the diet,possibly due to substitution, but the trend was similar at 3.26, 3.99 and 4.48 t DM cow -1 year -1 ,respectively.The size of a dairy cow herd, which includes young cattle, that is necessary to efficientlyutilise the forage harvested from 500 000 ha of grasslands under the three cutting regimes wasestimated based on the forage yield and intake results (Table 1).The production of feedable DM was 2 818 000 t in a two-cut system, 2 566 000 t in a threecutsystem and 2 247 000 t in a four-cut system, which was 20% less than the two-cut system.Therefore, the intensive level of utilisation decreased the total forage production from thegrassland, which is a major issue of grassland management in the Czech Republic and Slovakia.The size of a dairy cow herd necessary to utilise the feedable DM without grain rangedbetween 382 000 cows in the extensive two-cut system and 231 000 cows in the four-cut system(Table 1).On this basis, potential milk production per cow and per lactation ranged between 2340 and5637 kg of FCM milk. Therefore, the milk production from dairy cow herds that utilise grasslandforage from two, three and four cuts per year would be 894, 1212 and 1302 000 t of milk per year,respectively.The addition of grain into the diet, in order to reach a mean milk yield of 20 kg FCM head -1day -1 , led to an increase of 55-112 000 the cows necessary to convert of the amount forage given.The consumption of grain required to reach a target yield of 6100 kg of FCM milk year -1 was 1 045000 t in a two-cut system, 525 000 t in a three-cut system and 283 000 t in a four-cut system. Themilk production from these modelled herds was 3 013 000, 2 245 000 and 1 745 000 t of FCM milkper year, respectively.The relation between forage conversion by dairy cows and young cattle is about 4:3. It ispossible that an extensive system of grassland utilisation can require more cattle management whilean intensive system of grassland management can support a good level of milk production withouta large quantity of imported feedstuffs. Based on the simulations a four-cuts system seemed to beoptimal for the agricultural utilisation of 0.5 million ha of grasslands in the Czech Republic. Thiswill require the development of a dairy cow herd of 250 – 300 000 which produces about 6000 kgof FCM milk per year, together with young cattle, to utilise the forage produced.134
135Table 1 The effect of intensity of utilisation of grassland on yield, quality, voluntary intake (VI) of forage, milk and farmyard manure production.A model calculation of cattle herd size for utilisation of 500 thousand ha of grasslands harvested under different intensitiesParameterUnitUtilisation intensity (number of cuts a year)2 3 4 2 3 4Without grain With grain (to the level of 20 kg ofFCM milk)Dry matter yield t ha -1 8.05 7.33 6.42 8.05 7.33 6.42NEL concentration in forage dry matter MJ kg -1 5.28 5.70 5.85 5.28 5.70 5.85Crude protein concentration in forage dry matter g kg -1 127 164 181 127 164 181Crude fiber concentration in forage dry matter g kg -1 281 231 214 281 231 214Voluntary intake (VI) of dry matter by a dair cow(recalculated from Gruber, 2000)kg 100 kg -1 l.w.1.99 2.33 2.76 1.47 1.89 2.17Calculation of dry matter intake by a dairy cow weighing 600kgkg head -1 11.94 13.98 16.56 8.82 11.34 13.02NEL intake through forage (dairy cow weighing 600 kg) MJ head -1 day -1 63.04 79.69 96.88 46.57 64.64 76.17Grain dry matter intake (energy concentration 8 MJ NEL.kg -1DM)kg head -1 day -1 - - - 6.94 4.68 3.24NEL intake through grain MJ head -1 day -1 - - - 55.48 37.41 25.88Daily NEL intake by a dairy cow weighing 600 kg MJ head -1 day -1 63.04 79.69 96.88 102.05 102.05 102.05Calculation of daily milk production from forage (NEL) kg FCM head -1day -1 7.7 13.0 18.5 2.4 8.2 11.9Daily milk production kg FCM.head -1day -1 7.7 13.0 18.5 20 20 20Dairy cow efficiency per lactation kg FCM 2340 3962 5637 6100 6100 6100Annual dry matter forage intake t head -1 4.21 4.79 5.56 3.26 3.99 4.48Potential dry matter production of crop yield from 500 thousand t 4025 3665 3210 4025 3665 3210thousand ha of grasslandsFeedable dry matter production of crop yield after deducting thousand t 2818 2566 2247 2818 2566 224730 % lossesCow herd Thousand heads 382 306 231 494 368 286Cattle load per ha of grassland LU ha -1 1.61 1.28 0.97 2.08 1.54 1.20Slurry production thousand m 3 15545 11992 9897 20071 14407 12276N production in cattle slurry per ha of grassland kg ha -1 N 90.8 88.0 103.1 126.9 109.7 122.1<strong>AGRONOMIJAS</strong> VĒSTIS (Latvian Journal of Agronomy), No.10, LLU, 2008
Page 1 and 2:
LATVIJAS LAUKSAIMNIECĪBAS UNIVERSI
Page 4 and 5:
AGRONOMIJAS VĒSTIS (Latvian Journa
Page 6 and 7:
Page 8 and 9:
Page 10:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85: AGRONOMIJAS VĒSTIS (Latvian Journa
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 298 and 299:
Page 300 and 301:
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304 and 305:
Page 306 and 307:
Page 308 and 309:
show all

AGRONOMIJAS VÄSTIS - Latvijas LauksaimniecÄ«bas universitÄte

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?

AGRONOMIJAS VÄSTIS - Latvijas LauksaimniecÄ«bas universitÄte