Search

The objective of this three-treatment, 12-week study (involving 69 dairy cows) was to test three methods of concentrate allocation on milk production efficiency. All treatments were offered a basal mixed ration of grass silage and concentrates, with additional concentrates offered to individual cows based on either milk yield alone (Control), milk energy output (Precision 1) or energy intake and milk energy output (Precision 2). Concentrate requirements were calculated and adjusted weekly. Control cows had lower concentrate dry matter intake (DMI; p = 0.040) and milk protein content (p = 0.003) but yield of milk and energy-corrected milk (ECM), energy balance, bodyweight and condition score were unaffected by treatment. Efficiency measures such as ECM/DMI and ECM/metabolizable energy intake were also unaffected by treatment. Less concentrates were used per kg ECM yield in the Control compared to the Precision treatments (p < 0.001). In conclusion, accounting for individual cow milk composition or milk composition combined with individual cow energy intake did not improve production efficiency compared to an approach based on individual cow milk yield only.

More frequent harvesting of grass swards provides an opportunity to improve the nutritive value of grass silage. This study investigated the effect of offering silages produced within either a three- (3H) or four-harvest (4H) system on dairy cow performance when concentrate supplements were offered according to the individual cow’s milk yield (feed-to-yield). Cows (n = 80) were allocated to either 3H or 4H at calving and remained on experiment for 25 weeks. Within both treatments, cows were offered silage from each harvest consecutively in proportion to the dry matter (DM) yield for each harvest. Silage was offered as a mixed ration with concentrate added at a rate of 8 kg/cow/day. Additional concentrates were offered on a feed-to-yield basis. Herbage yields were reduced in the 4H system, but 4H silage contained higher metabolisable energy and crude protein content compared to 3H. Cows offered the 4H silage had greater silage DM intake, milk yield and milk protein content, while milk fat content was greater in cows offered 3H silages. In conclusion, increasing harvesting frequency from three to four harvests per year can improve silage feed value, silage intakes and milk yields when concentrates are offered on a feed-to-yield basis.

On dairy farms, the prophylactic use of antibiotics at drying-off is being increasingly challenged. The objective of this study was to examine the effect of antibiotic dry-cow therapy (DCT) or non-antibiotic DCT on dairy cow performance and udder health.Holstein cows (n = 285) with low risk of intramammary infection (200,000 cells/ml) were assigned to one of two treatments, either antibiotic DCT (A + TS; antibiotic treatment in combination with internal and external teat sealants) or non-antibiotic DCT (TS; internal and external teat sealant only).There was no statistically significant (p 0.05) difference between treatments for mean cow milk yield, composition or energy corrected milk yield. Mean somatic cell count was 0.16 logResults indicate that non-antibiotic DCT can be adopted in 'low-risk' cows who were offered grass silage-based diets in cubicle accommodation, with low risk of adverse effects on performance or udder health.

Objective: To evaluate the use of nurse sows and post-weaning nutrition strategies for low wean weight (WW) pigs on lifetime growth and efficiency.Methods: Animals (n = 270) were assigned to one of five treatments at 28 d. Low WW pigs (

Background A number of European countries currently conduct mandatory farm-level benchmarking for antimicrobial usage (AMU). This review describes the systems used, with emphasis on metric type and practical implications. Methods This report describes examples of four types of metrics used to measure AMU: count-based, mass-based, daily dose-based and course-based, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. Results The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark and Switzerland use daily dose-based metrics to benchmark AMU at farm-level, but each country diverges from the European Surveillance of Veterinary Antimicrobial Consumption methodology in its own way, including how the population ‘at risk’ is calculated. Germany operates a count-based system. Threshold AMU values have been specified at farm-level in the Netherlands, Belgium and Denmark, and action is required from producers to reduce AMU above these values. The Netherlands and Belgium also benchmark veterinarians. Conclusions For mixed species farms common in the UK and Ireland, splitting AMU by species is recommended. It is also recommended that high priority critically important antimicrobials are benchmarked separately to other antimicrobials. No one metric is optimum; however, for ruminant livestock a daily dose-based metric allows for country-specific adaptations which may allow a higher degree of precision at farm-level benchmarking in the UK and Ireland.