CSIRO PUBLISHING

Animal Production Science

https://doi.org/10.1071/AN17513

Milk performance and grazing behaviour of dairy cows

in response to pasture allowance

A. M. Zanine A,F, G. P. R. Motta B, D. J. Ferreira A, A. L. de Souza C, M. D. Ribeiro D,

L. J. V. Geron E, M. Fajardo B, M. Sprunk B and R. M. A. Pinho A
A
Universidade Federal do Maranhão (UFMA), Departamento de Zootecnia, Rodovia BR 222, km 4,
s/n. CEP: 65500-000, Chapadinha, MA, Brazil.
B
Facultad de La Agronomía, Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria (INIA), Garzón 780,
Montevideo, 12900, Uruguay.
C
Universidade Federal do Mato Grosso (UFMT), Avenida Fernando Corrêa da Costa, no. 2.367,
Bairro Boa Esperança, CEP 78060-900, Cuiabá, MT, Brazil.
D
Universidade Federal de Goiás (UFG), Departamento de Zootecnia, Avenida Esperança,
s/n. CEP: 74690-900, Goiânia, GO, Brazil.
E
Universidade Estadual do Mato Grosso, Departamento de Zootecnia, Rodovia BR 174,
s/n. CEP: 78250-000, Pontes e Lacerda, MT, Brazil.
F
Corresponding author. Email: anderson.zanine@ibest.com.br

Abstract. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of pasture allowances on forage production, milk yield and composition,
and grazing behaviour of Holstein cows during autumn. Thirty-six Holstein cows calving in the autumn were allocated to
blocks considering: calving date, bodyweight, and body score. Treatments consisted of three pasture allowances as follows:
high (HA; 38.4 kg DM/cow.day), medium (MA; 30.3 kg DM/cow.day), and low (LA; 26.8 kg DM/cow.day) pasture
allowances. Forage mass and forage height pre-grazing were similar (P > 0.05) for all grazing targets. Pasture-use efficiency
was affected (P < 0.05) by the pasture allowance. The highest and lowest efficiency was obtained with treatments LA and HA,
respectively. The neutral detergent fibre content of forage harvesting was affected (P < 0.05) by the pasture allowance, with
average of 44.8, 47.0, and 49.4 to HA, MA, and LA, respectively. There was an effect of pasture allowances (P < 0.05) on the
milk yield per hectare and milk yield per cow. The highest production was observed in LA (438 L/ha.day) and the lowest in
HA (314 L/ha.day). The percentage of milk fat, milk protein, and milk fat (g/cow.day) did not differ (P > 0.05) among pasture
allowances. There was effect (P < 0.05) of pasture allowance with higher grazing time (369 min) and lower rumination time
(23.3 min) observed to HA. Pasture allowances affected (P < 0.05) the total number of bites/day and bites/min, but did not
affect (P > 0.05) bite mass. The pasture managements with low (26.8 kg DM/cow.day) pasture allowances provided better
conditions for milk yield per area, likely due to the better grazing efficiency. However, pasture allowance provide little
measurable changes on grazing behaviour.

Additional keywords: fodder crops, grazing management, milk production, pasture utilisation.

Received 26 July 2017, accepted 15 February 2018, published online 14 May 2018

Introduction and sometimes confinement system, with supply of food

Mixed legume-grass pastures in rotation with annual crops are
the basis of dairy production in Uruguay (Chilibroste et al. 2010;
Dini et al. 2012). Results from the Agricultural Statistics of
Uruguay show that average milk production per cow varied
from 15.0 to 18.6 L/day during the period 2006–2015, with an
annual milk production increase in the range of 14.0–15.0% over
the past 10 years (DIEA-MGAP 2015). However, the low
pasture production combined with the concentration of calving
in the autumn period constitutes one of the challenges of the
nutritional management of dairy cows in Uruguay. Thus, to
maintain productivity of the livestock the semi confinement,
concentrates and silage (Ibarra et al. 2004; Chilibroste et al.
2007) have been used. Previous research studies reported that the
use of supplements has intensified dairy cattle production systems
(Pulido et al. 2010; Soca et al. 2014). The type and daily amount
of supplement per cow is generally allocated according to pasture
factors (e.g. forage allowance and organic matter digestibility)
and daily milk production.
The requirements of animals in dairy cattle systems are
relatively constant, requiring a good fodder supply year round.
However, pastures are seasonal and climate-dependent, meaning
supplementary feeding of livestock is necessary. In autumn,

Journal compilation  CSIRO 2018 www.publish.csiro.au/journals/an

B Animal Production Science A. M. Zanine et al.

30–70% of dairy systems are in transition phase between Climate measures

renovation and/or planting of new pastures (Chilibroste et al. Climatic variables such as maximum, minimum, and mean
2010). According to the same authors, this condition contributes temperature, relative humidity of the air, and precipitation
to a decrease in the effective grazing area, increasing the were recorded daily by the automatic weather station of the
defoliation intensity and decreasing post-grazing sward height experimental station. Temperatures and precipitation were
in the pastures that remain. higher compared with the average of the years 2000–2010
High grazing intensity may negatively influence the (13.3  3.46 vs 16.5  3.42
C and 245  10 vs 273  92.8
persistence and productivity of pastures (Hodgson 1990; mm, respectively).
Delagarde et al. 2000; Parga et al. 2000, 2002), modifying the
horizontal and vertical structure of the pasture (Delagarde
et al. 2000; Parga et al. 2000), compromising selection ability, Grazing management and animals
digestibility of harvested forage and, consequently, intake and Total area was divided into four blocks of 4.5 ha, and each block
animal performance (Hargreaves et al. 2001; Parga et al. 2002; was divided into three grazing paddocks (GP) of 1.5 ha. Twenty-
Kennedy et al. 2008; McEvoy et al. 2009). four multiparous and 12 primiparous purebred Holstein cows of
Different pasture allowances promote changes in herbage American origin, free of sanitary and reproductive problems, with
characteristics and cow ingestive behaviour (Williams et al. an average bodyweight (BW) of 527  67 kg and a body score
2014) as well as affecting pasture utilisation (Stockdale 1993; (BS) of 2.79  0.31 (according to the methodology of Ferguson
Wales et al. 1998). This may affect animal performance and et al. 1994), at 14  10 days post-calving were used. Cows were
milk composition of dairy cows. The objective of this study was blocked by lactation number, calving date and BS, and randomly
to evaluate the effect of pasture allowances on milk yield and assigned within block to one of three treatments being: high (HA,
composition, and grazing behaviour of Holstein cows in autumn. 38.4 kg DM/cow.day), medium (MA, 30.3 kg DM/cow.day), and
The hypothesis tested in this study was that animal performance low (LA, 26.8 kg DM/cow.day) pasture allowances. Different
and grazing behaviour of Holstein cows are influenced by pasture allowances were obtained using the put-and-take
pasture allowance. technique. Each treatment received from one to five extra
lactating dairy cows maintained on the paddocks with similar
structure at the experimental pastures (Le Du et al. 1981).
Materials and methods All animals were managed in a rotational stocking with
As milking samples and other samplings conducted in this animals remaining in each GP for 14 days, according to forage
study are non-invasive and non-troublesome procedures, the availability, area size and number of animals (Astigarraga et al.
trial was carried out in accordance with Uruguay Legislation 2002). No GP was re-grazed during the experiment. While GP
on Animal Care (no. 18.471 of 27 March 2009). were not under grazing they kept growing. Pasture allowance was
kept above 20 kg DM/cow.day (Table 1). Animals grazed from
0700 hours to 1400 hours. Cows were milked twice a day (0500
hours and 1500 hours). After afternoon milking, cows were
Experimental site and pastures individually supplemented with 3 kg of DM of Festuca
The experiment was conducted at the Experimental Station arundinacea, Trifolium repens and Lotus corniculatus silages
Antonio Cassinoni (Estação Experimental Mario Antonio (crude protein (CP) = 16.1  0.7%, neutral detergent fibre (NDF)
Cassinoni) Paysandú-Uruguay, belonging to the Faculty of = 52.6  2%, acid detergent fibre (ADF) = 33.2  1.6% on a DM
Agronomy – Universidad de La República during autumn basis) and 5.5 kg of DM of energetic supplement mainly based on
from 9 April to 3 June of 2010. This research station is located grain corn, wheat, expeller soybean and sunflower meal. The
at 32
220 S latitude and 58
030 W longitude and the mean, concentrations of CP, NDF and ADF were determined as
maximum, and minimum historical temperatures (average  described by AOAC (1990).
s.d.) are 18.3  2.4
C, 24.1  3.7
C, and 12.4  3.1
C,
respectively, with a monthly average precipitation of 113  31
mm. Table 1. Characteristics of the treatments with different pasture
The soils of the experimental area are described in the group of allowances
soils CONEAT 11.3 (Duran 1987), classified according to the Values are expressed as mean  s.d.
American Soil Taxonomy (Soil Survey Staff 2003) as a typical
Argiudoles associated with Argiaboles, and typical Argiudoles Items Pasture allowance
associated with typical Hapludoles. High Medium Low
Eighteen hectares of pasture with Tall Fescue (Festuca Animals 12 12 12
arundinacea) intercropped for the second productive year with Put-and-take 0 3 5
legumes white clover (Trifolium repens) and bird’s-foot-trefoil Paddock area (ha) 1.5 1.5 1.5
(Lotus corniculatus), seeded at a density of 15, 2 and 8 kg/ha, Occupation days (days) 14 14 14
respectively, was utilised in this study. Fertiliser was applied at Initial forage mass 4300 ± 311 4240 ± 416 4251 ± 329
planting with 100 kg/ha NPK (18–46–0). Before starting the (kg DM/ha)
experiment, a pasture botanical composition was determined by Pasture allowance 38.4 30.3 26.8
(kg DM/cow.day)
Botanal’s method (Tothill et al. 1994), represented by 56%
Pre-grazing height (cm) 17.1 ± 2.0 16.8 ± 1.9 16.8 ± 1.8
fescue, 37% legume plants, 5% dead material, and 2% invaders.
Pasture allowance for grazing dairy cows
Pasture and supplement measurements
Forage mass (kg DM/ha) cut at ground level was estimated using a
direct visual estimation double-sampling technique with a 5-point
scale (Haydock and Shaw 1975), which was defined according to
general heterogeneity of the pasture in each GP, based on density
and height. In this methodology, point 1 represented the lowest
forage mass value that can be found in the GP, and 5 represented
the highest forage mass in the GP, avoiding the extremities. When
the quantity of points scale per GP was established (generally a
10–15-points scale was used, according to pasture structure),
fresh samples were cut at ground level using 0.25-m2 square
frames and weighed to calculate kg DM/ha. This measurement
can represent pasture variability due to its high homogeneity.
Each point shows the measurement of height made with a ruler at
five points; in addition, height was quantified by a disk meter
(Rising Plate Meter® – Ashgrove Co., Palmerston North, New
Zealand) to determine the pasture height : density ratio.
Afterwards, samples were oven-dried at 60
C for 72 h. Pasture
utilisation was calculated by the difference between pre-grazing
forage mass, and the post-grazing forage mass according to Clark
et al. (2016). The pasture-use efficiency was calculated by
dividing pasture utilisation with pre-grazing forage mass.
Daily supplement intake was measured for each cow by the
difference between the amount of supplement offered and
refused.
Once these data were collected (pasture height, disk-meter
height, and DM (kg DM/m2), two linear regressions
(Yi ¼ aðxi Þ þ b) were established, correlating the value of the
disk meter with forage height and with forage mass of each GP. The
forage mass and pasture height in each GP were calculated from
300 measurements per treatment in a zigzag pattern using the disk
meter and replacing the values obtained from the equation
calculated based on the forage harvests. Heights were measured
on Days 1, 4, 11, and 14 of occupation, to determine the evolution of
pasture height throughout the grazing cycle.
Animal measurements
The BW and BS of the cows before, during and at the end of the
experimental period were taken (Ferguson et al. 1994). These
variables were measured weekly. For milk yield, daily
evaluations were undertaken individually in two milking
sessions, using automated Waikato® meters. Milk was
sampled in both milking sessions twice weekly, with samples
preserved with commercial bacteriostatic Bronopol® (Sigma-
Aldrich, São Paulo, Brazil).
In the laboratory, milk samples were placed in a water bath at
37
C and homogenised into a daily composite sample per cow for
the subsequent determination of concentrations of fat and protein.
The determination of fat concentration was estimated by infrared
absorption, using a Bentley 2000 device (Bentley Instruments®,
Chaska, MN, USA). Protein concentration was determined using
a Lacto Scope Delta machine (Delta Instruments®, Drachten,
Netherlands).
In order to estimate DM intake, relationship between milk
yield and DM intake and possible limitations of the diet on milk
yield, energy requirements, supplement net energy, and DM
intake of the animals were calculated based on the NRC
(2001), using information such as BW, BS, age, age at first
Animal Production Science C
calving, adult weight, lactation number, days in milk, daily
temperature, soil conditions (dry, moist, muddy), distance
walked daily, topography, daily milk yield, and milk solids
content.
Grazing behaviour
On the 1st, 5th, 8th, 12th, and 14th day of occupation of each GP,
the grazing behaviour activities were visually assessed by
quantifying, every 15 min, the grazing, rumination, and idle
time spent by all animals during the grazing period (Mattiauda
et al. 2003). At the same time, on the 12th and 14th day of
occupation, grazing behaviour was recorded using jaw movement
recorders (IGER) – Grazing Recorders® (Rutter et al. 1997) on
three animals per treatment belonging to the same block. The
forage selected by the animals was sampled by the simulated
grazing method (Coates and Penning 2000) using as reference
those animals visually assessed. Samples were oven-dried at
60
C for 72 h and then ground in a Wiley mill (TE-625,
TECNAL, Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil) with a 1-mm sieve
for chemical analysis. The concentrations of CP and NDF were
determined as described by AOAC (1990).
Statistical analyses
Data of milk yield, milk solids, change in BS and BW, and
variables referring to animal behaviour were analysed considering
the animal as a sampling unit. Data from forage height and pre-
grazing allowance were analysed considering the GP as a sampling
unit. All statistical procedures were conducted by using 0.05 as the
critical probability level for a type I error.
Data from forage height and pre-grazing allowance were
analysed in a time-repeated-measurement using the MIXED
procedure of SAS, considering the following statistical model:
Yijk ¼ m þ ai þ pj þ qk þ ðaqÞik þ eijk
where Yijk = dependent variable, m: overall mean; ai: effect of
treatment i; pj: effect of paddock block j; qk: effect of the kth day;
(aq)ik: effect of the interaction between treatment and day; and
eijk: random error associated with each observation.
The effect of pasture allowance on milk yield, milk
composition, BW, and BS was analysed in a time-repeated-
measurement using the MIXED procedure of SAS,
considering the following statistical model:
Yijkl ¼ m þ ai þ pj þ qk þ ll þ ðalÞil þ ðapÞij þ ðplÞjl þ eijkl
where Yijk = dependent variable, m: overall mean; ai: effect of
treatment i; pj: effect of lactation number j; qk: effect of block k; ll:
effect of the lth day; (al)il: effect of the interaction between
treatment and day; (ap)ij: effect of the interaction between
treatment and lactation number; (pl)jl: effect of the interaction
between lactation number and day; and eijkl: random error
associated with each observation.
Data from bite rate were analysed in a time-repeated-
measurement using the MIXED procedure of SAS considering
the following statistical model:
Yijkl ¼ mþai þpj þqk þ ðaqÞik þ ll þ ðqlÞkl þ ðaqlÞikl þeijkl
where Yijk = dependent variable, m: overall mean; ai: effect of
treatment i; pj: effect of j; effect of block; qk: effect of the kth day k;
D Animal Production Science A. M. Zanine et al.

30 25

25
20

Precipitation (mm)

Temperature (°C)
20
15

15

10
10

5
5

0 0
13

17

21

25

29

33

37

41

45

49

53
1

Day of experiment

Fig. 1. Weather conditions during the experiment.

(aq)ik: effect of the interaction between treatment and day; ll:

Table 2. Fescue height, disk-meter height, and estimated forage mass
effect of the lth day; (al)il: effect of the interaction between pre-grazing and post-grazing according to pasture allowance (high – HA,
treatment and day; (ap)ij: effect of the interaction between medium – MA, or low – LA)
treatment and lactation number; ll: effect of the lth time; Means without an uppercase or lowercase letter in the column are different
(ql)kl: effect of the interaction between day and time; (aql)ikl: (P < 0.05). Values are expressed as mean  s.d.
effect of the interaction among treatment, day, and hour; and
eijkl: random error associated with each observation. Treatment Fescue height Disk-meter height Forage mass
Grazing behaviour was analysed as a negative binomial using (cm) (cm) (kg DM/ha)
the GLIMMIX procedure of SAS considering the following
statistical model: Pre-grazing HA 16.2 ± 1.8a 15.2 ± 1.8a 4300 ± 311a
Pre-grazing MA 15.9 ± 1.8a 15.0 ± 1.7a 4240 ± 416a
Yijk ¼ m þ ai þ pj þ qk þ ðaqÞik þ eijk Pre-grazing LA 15.8 ± 1.2a 14.9 ± 1.2a 4251 ± 329a
Post-grazing HA 10.7 ± 0.5A 10.8 ± 0.7A 2882 ± 83A
where Yijk = dependent variable, m: overall mean; ai: effect of Post-grazing MA 8.6 ± 0.4B 9.0 ± 0.6B 2446 ± 71B
treatment i; pj: effect of animal block j; qk: effect of the kth Post-grazing LA 7.3 ± 0.5C 8.0 ± 0.5B 2081 ± 60C
time; (aq)ik: effect of the interaction between treatment and time;
and eijk: random error associated with each observation.
Table 3. Pasture-use efficiency in the experimental period according to
Results pasture allowance (high – HA, medium – MA and low – LA)
Characteristics of the treatments with different pasture Means without a common letters in the column are different (P < 0.05). Values
allowances and the dominant weather conditions are shown in are expressed as mean  s.d.
Table 1 and Fig. 1.
Treatment Grazing efficiency (%)
Pasture characteristics
HA 33.1 ± 0.9C
Forage mass and forage height pre-grazing were similar (P > 0.05) MA 42.5 ± 1.1B
for all grazing targets (Table 2). However, there was a difference LA 51.2 ± 2.4A
(P < 0.05) in forage mass and forage height post-grazing due to
the difference in pasture allowance between treatments. Pasture-
use efficiency was affected (P < 0.05) by the pasture allowance block of the experiment. In contrast the CP concentration of
(Table 3). The highest and lowest efficiency was obtained with forage on offer tended to decreased with day of grazing (Fig. 4).
treatments LA and HA, respectively. The change in pasture The CP concentration was significantly higher in the HA
height is shown in Fig. 2. The decline in forage disappearance treatment compared with the MA and LA treatments on Day
heights was markedly greater for low grazing pasture with 14 of grazing. The results of the intake estimates are shown in
a greater asymptotic tendency towards the end of the grazing Table 4, with an average of 12.7 kg DM/cow.day.
for LA. This shows an apparent difficulty in forage harvesting at
the lower pasture extracts. Animal performance
For each treatment, the NDF concentration of pasture There was an effect of pasture allowance (P < 0.05) on the milk
available to cows increased with number of days of grazing yield per hectare and milk yield per cow (Table 5). The highest
(Fig. 3). Concentration of NDF was highest at Day 14 of each production per hectare was observed in LA (438 L/ha.day) and
Pasture allowance for grazing dairy cows Animal Production Science E

17 the lowest in HA (314 L/ha.day). The percentage milk protein

15
and milk fat (g/cow.day) did not differ (P > 0.05) among
Pasture height (cm)

treatments. There was a higher yield of milk protein (P < 0.05)

13 in the MA management compared with LA, but this did not
differ (P > 0.05) between LA and HA (Table 5). Pasture
11
allowances did not affect BW and BS (P > 0.05) with an
9 average of 526 kg of BW and 2.65 of BS.

7 Grazing behaviour
5 Visually, pasture allowance did not affect (P > 0.05) grazing and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
rumination time as percentage of time at pasture (Table 6), but
Day of grazing
when these variables were measured with jaw recorders, there was
Fig. 2. Pasture change at high (HA; D), medium (MA; &), and low (LA; *) an effect (P < 0.05) of pasture allowance with higher grazing time
pasture allowances in the animal occupation period. (369 min) and lower rumination time (23 min) observed in HA
compared with MA and LA treatments. Idleness time, measured
both visually and with jaw recorders, was higher for HA
65 compared with MA and LA (Table 6).
Pasture allowances affected (P < 0.05) the total number of
60 bites/day and bites/min, but did not affect (P > 0.05) bite mass
55 (Table 7). The lowest bites/day (16 430) and bites/min (51) was
found at MA, with highest values observed in HA.
% NDF

50

45 Discussion
40
The forage mass at the beginning of the experiment was high – on
average 4264  352 kg of DM/ha. Consequently, there was
35 accumulation of dead material due to the low grazing efficiency in
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
the period immediately before the beginning of the experiment.
Day of grazing

Fig. 3. Change in neutral detergent fibre percentage (% NDF) of pasture
selected at high (HA; D), medium (MA; &), and low (LA; *) pasture
allowances in the animal occupation period.
24
Table 5. Milk yield, liveweight, and body score in the experimental
period according to pasture allowance (high – HA, medium – MA, or low –
LA)
Means without a common letters in the row are different (P < 0.05). Values are
expressed as mean  s.d.

22 Variable HA MA LA

20 Milk yield (L/cow.day) 25.6 ± 0.4a 26.6 ± 0.4a 23.8 ± 0.5b

Milk yield (L/ha.day) 314 +5.6c 410+5.6b 438 +5.6a
% CP

18 % Fat 3.8 ± 0.9a 3.6 ± 0.1a 3.8 ± 0.1a

16 % Protein 3.2 ± 0.06a 3.2 ± 0.05a 3.1 ± 0.05a
Fat (g/cow.day) 962 ± 45a 966 ± 44a 875 ± 49a
14 Protein (g/cow.day) 820 ± 30ab 846 ± 29a 718 ± 33b
12
Liveweight (kg) 523 ± 11a 527 ± 12a 527 ± 11a
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Body score (1–5) 2.6 ± 0.05a 2.6 ± 0.05a 2.7 ± 0.05a
Day of grazing
Table 6. Grazing behaviour of dairy cows in the experimental period
Fig. 4. Evolution of crude protein percentage (% CP) of pasture selected at
by daytime visual assessment (days within GP 1, 5, 8, 12 and 14) and
high (HA; D), medium (MA; &), and low (LA; *) pasture allowances in the
electronic device recording (days within GP 12 and 14), according to
animal occupation period.
pasture allowance (high – HA, medium – MA, or low – LA)
Means without a common letters in the row are different (P < 0.05). Values are
expressed as mean  s.d.
Table 4. Total-lactation net energy (NE) requirements, supplement’s
net energy for lactation, and forage intake estimated by NRC (2001), HA MA LA
according to pasture allowance (high – HA, medium – MA, or low – LA)
Daytime feeding Grazing 80.2 ± 5.2a 80.5 ± 5.1a 82.1 ± 5.3a
behaviour (%) Rumination 10.5 ± 5.2a 12.9 ± 5.1a 10.9 ± 5.2a
Variable HA MA LA
Idleness 6.9 ± 0.5a 4.6 ± 0.5b 2.1 ± 0.1b
NE requirement (Mcal/cow.day) 34.7 34.3 32.5 Jaw movement Grazing 369.1 ± 7.1a 317.0 ± 7.0c 335.1 ± 7.2b
Supplement NE (Mcal/cow.day) 14.3 14.3 14.3 recorder (min) Rumination 23.3 ± 7.4b 50.4 ± 7.4a 52.6 ± 7.5a
Forage intake (kg DM/cow.day) 12.7 13.3 12.2 Idleness 20.8 ± 1.2a 19.9 ± 1.1b 17.7 ± 1.2c
F Animal Production Science
Table 7. Bite rate per treatment determined by jaw movement
recorders (IGER) and bite mass according to pasture allowance (high
– HA, medium – MA, or low – LA)
Means without a common letters in the row are different (P < 0.05). Values
are expressed as mean  s.d.
Variable HA MA LA
Bites/day 21996 ± 779.6a 16430 ± 817.6b 21884 ± 791.7a
Bites/min 64 ± 2.0a 51 ± 2.0b 60 ± 1.9a
Bite mass 0.58 0.81 0.56
(g DM/bite)
Gonnet (2007) reported that the highest pre-grazing pasture
allowance for temperate grasses was on average 3700 kg of
DM/ha. Delagarde and O’Donovan (2005), evaluating several
production and intake models with up to 4000 kg DM/ha, reported
that the larger the difference in disk-meter height between entry
and exit of GP, the grater the forage disappearance per cm of
height. This can be explained due to the fact lower extracts have a
higher amount of kg of DM/cm of pasture (Holmes et al. 2002).
These factors may affect the grazing behaviour variables, such as
bite rate and bite mass (Gibb et al. 1999) when the animals reach
the lower pasture extracts.
The higher percentage in idleness time (Table 6) found for
animals kept under conditions of HA may be associated with
physiological satiety responses (Gibb et al. 1999), due to forage
intake of higher nutritional value in pasture managements with
HA. When observing results from jaw movement recorders,
which give more precise information on grazing behaviour, the
lower grazing times in MA and LA compared with HA are
assignments prompt to the competitive demands between
intake and rumination (Gibb 2006).
The higher rumination times of the LA treatment compared
with HA and MA are related to the higher NDF contents of the
pasture selected (Fig. 3). Sauvant et al. (1996) reported that
rumination activity is directly related to NDF content of the
harvested pasture, particle size of fibres to be digested in the
rumen, as well as retention time. These factors cause decreases in
DMI and increases in rumination time. Animals grazing pasture
of MA tended to increase their bite mass (0.81 g DM/bite) as
a form of compensation in order to increase total DMI, as they
had lower bites/day and bites/min.
The higher NDF contents in the forage selected in LA (Fig. 3)
decrease pasture digestibility, which consequently can reduce
milk production as presented in Table 5. The LA generated the
lowest per-cow milk production, most likely because of the lower
DMI and nutritional value of pasture selected as shown in
Table 4 and Fig. 3 (Bargo et al. 2002; McEvoy et al. 2009;
Curran et al. 2010). Animals managed in HA and MA may
consume forage with a higher concentration of soluble
carbohydrates, due to the lower NDF content of the pasture
selected (Fig. 3), modified proportions of volatile fatty acids,
increased propionate concentration and reduced acetate
concentration, which ultimately increases blood glucose
concentration and lactose synthesis in the mammary gland
(Reksen et al. 2002). This increase in lactose concentration
leads to an increase in milk volume in the mammary gland
(Rearte 1992), which could explain the better performance of
A. M. Zanine et al.
the animals in HA and MA in relation to LA (Table 5). However,
LA provides higher milk production per hectare due the higher
stocking rate. This management increases grazing efficiency
instantly, but brings as a consequence the reduction of pasture
height and changes in the growth rates with implications in the
seasonal or total production (Cullen et al. 2006).
Results from milk solids, mainly of fat percentage, were not
expected (Table 5). It was assumed that animals in LA would
probably have a higher fat concentration than cows in the HA and
MA treatments because of the higher NDF intake, which would
increase acetate : propionate ratio leading to an increase in the
percentage of milk fat. Protein production was the only variable
that differed among managements strategies, due mainly to the
higher milk production in HA and MA in relation to LA
(Table 5). The higher pasture intake in these treatments may
have increased rumen microbial protein production, increasing
the amount of rumen non-degradable protein and positively
affecting the absorption of amino acids in the intestine, which
ultimately increases milk and protein production (Stakelum et al.
2007; McEvoy et al. 2009; Baudracco et al. 2010; Curran et al.
2010; Chilibroste et al. 2012).
Conclusions
The present experiment showed that different pasture allowances
affected animal performance and modified the grazing behaviour
of dairy cows, which confirm the hypothesis in the present
experiment. The pasture managements with low (26.8 kg DM/
cow.day) pasture allowance provided better conditions for milk
yield per area, likely due to the better grazing efficiency. Thus,
farmers may increase stocking rate to reach higher milk
production when lactating dairy cows graze mixed pasture
swards. However, the impact of higher stocking rates on the
persistence of pasture species needs to be investigated.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher
Education Personnel (CAPES) and the Experimental Station Mario Antonio
Cassinoni (EEMAC) in Paysandú-Uruguay. The authors also wish to thank
the FAPEMA (Maranhão State Research Foundation) for its financial support.
References
Association of Official Analytical Chemistry (AOAC) (1990) ‘Official
methods of analysis.’ 15th edn. (AOAC International: Arlington)
Astigarraga L, Peyraud JL, Delaby L (2002) Effect of nitrogen fertiliser
rate and protein supplementation on the herbage intake and the nitrogen
balance of grazing dairy cows. Animal Research 51, 279–293.
doi:10.1051/animres:2002022
Bargo F, Muller LD, Delahoy JE, Cassidy TW (2002) Milk response to
concentrate supplementation of high producing dairy cows grazing at
two pasture allowances. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 1777–1792.
doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(02)74252-5
Baudracco J, Lopez-Villalobos N, Holmes CW, Macdonal KA (2010)
Effects of stocking rate, supplementation, genotype and their interactions
on grazing dairy systems: a review. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural
Research 53, 109–133. doi:10.1080/00288231003777665
Pasture allowance for grazing dairy cows
Chilibroste P, Mattiauda O, Bentacor A (2007) Short term fasting as a tool to
design effective grazing strategies for lactating dairy cattle: a review.
Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 47, 1075–1084.
doi:10.1071/EA06130
Chilibroste P, Artagaveytia J, Guidice G (2010) Rol del riego en sistemas
pastoriles de producción de leche: ruta de intensificación o estabilizador
del sistema. In ‘Potencial del Riego Extensivo en Cultivos y Pasturas,
Primer Seminario Internacional’. (Eds L Giménez, B Böcking, MG
Petillo, C García, J Sawchik) pp. 155–164. (INIA: Paysandú, Uruguay)
Chilibroste P, Mattiauda O, Bentancur O (2012) Effect of herbage allowance
on grazing behavior and productive performance of early lactation
primiparous Holstein cows. Animal Feed Science and Technology 173,
201–209. doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2012.02.001
Clark CEF, Farina SR, Garcia SC, Islam MR, Kerrisk KL, Fulkerson WJ
(2016) A comparison of conventional and automatic milking system
pasture utilization and pre- and post-grazing pasture mass. Grass and
Forage Science 71, 153–159. doi:10.1111/gfs.12171
Coates DB, Penning P (2000) Measuring animal performance. In ‘Field and
laboratory methods for grassland and animal production research’. (Eds
E L‘Tmannetj, RM Jones) pp. 353–402. (CAB International: Wallingford)
Cullen BR, Chapman DF, Quigley PE (2006) Comparative defoliation
tolerance of temperate perennial grasses. Grass and Forage Science
61, 405–412. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2494.2006.00548.x
Curran J, Delaby L, Kennedy E, Murphy JP, Boland TM, O’Donovan M
(2010) Sward characteristics, grass dry matter intake and milk production
performance are affected by pre-grazing herbage mass and pasture
allowance. Livestock Science 127, 144–154. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2009.
09.004
Delagarde R, O’Donovan M (2005) Modelling of herbage intake and milk
production by grazing dairy cows. In ‘Utilisation of grazed grass in
temperate animal system’. (Ed. JJ Murphy) pp. 89–104. (Wageningen
Academic Publishers: Cork, Ireland)
Delagarde R, Peyraud JL, Delaby L, Faverdin P (2000) Vertical distribution
of biomass, chemical composition and pepsin-cellulase digestibility in
a perennial ryegrass sward: interaction with moth of year, regrowth age
and time of day. Animal Feed Science and Technology 84, 49–68.
doi:10.1016/S0377-8401(00)00114-0
DIEA-MGAP (2015) Estadísticas Agropecuarias. Estadisticas del Sector
Lacteo. Available at http://www.mgap.gub.uy/sites/default/files/
estadisticas_del_sector_lacteo_-_ano_2007_-_octubre_2008_-_no_266.
pdf [Verified 21 October 2017]
Dini Y, Gere J, Briano C, Manetti M, Juliarena P, Picasso V, Gratton R,
Astigarra L (2012) Methane emission and milk production of dairy cows
grazing pastures rich in legumes or rich in grasses in uruguay. Animals
(Basel) 2, 288–300. doi:10.3390/ani2020288
Duran A (1987) ‘La Cartografía de Suelos CONEAT y sus posibilidades de
utilización.’ (Facultad de Agronomía: Montevideo)
Ferguson JD, Galligan DT, Thomsen N (1994) Principal descriptors of body
condition score in Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science 77,
2695–2703. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(94)77212-X
Gibb MJ (2006) Grassland management with emphasis on grazing behaviour.
In ‘Fresh herbage for dairy cattle: the key to a sustainable food chain’. (Eds
A Elgersma, J Dijkstra, S Tamminga) pp. 141–157. (Springer Publishing:
Dordrecht, The Netherlands)
Gibb MJ, Huckle CA, Nuthall R, Rook AJ (1999) The effect of physiological
state (lactating or dry) and sward surface height on grazing behaviour and
intake by dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 63, 269–287.
doi:10.1016/S0168-1591(99)00014-3
Gonnet MG (2007) Efecto de la asignación de forraje sobre la producción y
composición de leche de vacas Holando primíparas durante la primer etapa
de lactancia. PhD Thesis, Facultad de Agronomía, Universidade de la
República, Uruguay.
Animal Production Science G
Hargreaves A, Strauc HO, Teuber N (2001) Efecto de la carga animal y de la
suplementación reguladora a vacas lecheras en primavera y verano sobre
la producción de leche. Ciencia e Investigación Agraria 28, 89–102.
Haydock K, Shaw H (1975) The comparative yield method for estimating dry
matter yield of pasture. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture
and Animal Husbandry 15, 663–670.
Hodgson J (1990) ‘Grazing management. Science into practice.’ (Longman
Scientific and Technical: Harlow, Essex)
Holmes CW, Brookes IM, Garrick DJ, Mackenzie DDS, Parkinson TJ, Wilson
GF (2002) ‘Milk from pasture.’ (Massey University, Palmerston North,
New Zealand)
Ibarra D, Chilibroste P, Zibil S, Laborde D (2004) Monitoreo de vacas de
parición de otoño en sistemas comerciales: 4. Performance reproductiva.
Revista Argentina de Producción Animal 24, 46–51.
Kennedy E, O’Donovan M, Delaby L, O’Mara FP (2008) Effect of herbage
allowance and concentrate supplementation on dry matter intake, milk
production and energy balance of early lactating dairy cows. Livestock
Science 117, 275–286. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2007.12.025
Le Du YLP, Baker RD, Newberry RD (1981) Herbage intake and milk
production by grazing dairy cows. 3. The effect of grazing severity under
continuous stocking. Grass and Forage Science 36, 307–318.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2494.1981.tb01568.x
Mattiauda DA, Elizondo F, Tamminga S, Chilibroste P (2003) Effect of
the length and moment of grazing session on milk production and
composition of grazing dairy cows. Tropical and Subtropical
Agroecosystems 3, 87–90.
McEvoy M, O’donovan M, Kennedy E (2009) Effect of pre-grazing herbage
mass and pasture allowance on the lactation performance of Holstein-
Friesian dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 414–422. doi:10.3168/
jds.2008-1313
National Research Council (NRC) (2001) ‘Nutrient requirements of dairy
cattle.’ (National Academy Press: Washington, DC)
Parga J, Peyraud JL, Delagarde R (2000) Effect of the sward structure and
herbage allowance on the herbage intake and digestion by strip-grazing
dairy cows. In ‘Grazing management: the principles and practice of
grazing, for profit and environmental gain, within temperate grassland
systems’. (Eds AJ Rook, PD Penning) pp. 61–66. (British Grassland
Society)
Parga J, Peyraud JL, Delagarde R (2002) Age of regrowth affects grass intake
and ruminal fermentations in grazing dairy cows. In ‘Proceedings of the
19th general meeting of the European Grassland Federation’. (Eds JL
Durand, JC Emile, C Huyghe, G Lemaire) pp. 209–212. (European
Grassland Federation:La Rochelle, France)
Pulido R, Muñoz R, Jara C, Balocchi O, Smulders JP, Wittwer F, Orellana P,
O’Donovan MA (2010) The effect of pasture allowance and concentrate
supplementation type on milk production performance and dry matter
intake of autumn-calving dairy cows in early lactation. Livestock Science
132, 119–125. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2010.05.010
Rearte D (1992) ‘Alimentación y composición de la leche en los sistemas
pastoriles.’ (CERBAS. INTA: Buenos Aires, ARG)
Reksen O, Havrevoll O, Grohn YT, Bolstad T, Waldmann A, Ropstad E
(2002) Relationships among body condition score, milk constituents, and
postpartum luteal function in Norwegian dairy cows. Journal of Dairy
Science 85, 1406–1415. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(02)74208-2
Rutter SM, Champion RA, Penning PD (1997) An automatic system to record
foraging behavior in free-ranging ruminants. Applied Animal Behaviour
Science 54, 185–195. doi:10.1016/S0168-1591(96)01191-4
Sauvant D, Baumont R, Faverdin P (1996) Development of mechanistic
model of intake and chewing activities of sheep. Journal of Animal
Science 74, 2785–2802. doi:10.2527/1996.74112785x
Soca P, González H, Manterola H, Bruni M, Mattiauda D, Chilibroste P,
Gregorini P (2014) Effect of restricting time at pasture and concentrate
supplementation on herbage intake, grazing behavior and performance of
H Animal Production Science
lactating dairy cows. Livestock Science 170, 35–42. doi:10.1016/j.
livsci.2014.07.011
Soil Survey Staff (2003) ‘Keys to soil taxonomy.’ 9th edn. (USDA-NRCS:
Washington, DC)
Stakelum G, Maher J, Rath M (2007) Effects of daily herbage allowance and
stage of lactation on the intake and performance of dairy cows in early
summer. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 46, 47–61.
Stockdale CR (1993) The productivity of lactating dairy cows fed irrigated
Persian clover (Trifolium resupinatum). Australian Journal of
Agricultural Research 44, 1591–1608. doi:10.1071/AR9931591
www.publish.csiro.au/journals/an
A. M. Zanine et al.
Tothill JC, Hargreaves JNG, Jones RM (1994) ‘Botanal – a comprehensive
sampling and computing procedure for estimating pasture yield and
composition. 1. Field sampling.’ (CSIRO Division of Tropical Crops
and Pastures: Brisbane, Queensland)
Wales WJ, Doyle PT, Dellow DW (1998) Dry matter intake and nutrient
selection by lactating cows grazing irrigated pastures at different pasture
allowances in summer and autumn. Australian Journal of Experimental
Agriculture 38, 451–460. doi:10.1071/EA98043
Williams YJ, Doyle PT, Egan AR (2014) Diurnal variation in rumen fill of
dairy cows grazing Persian clover at different pasture allowances. Animal
Production Science 54, 1388–1393.