Nutritional efficiency of feed restricted F1 Holstein/Zebu cows during the middle third of lactation

  • Received : 2018.10.24
  • Accepted : 2019.04.30
  • Published : 2020.02.01


Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of different levels of quantitative feed restriction on nutrient intake and digestibility, nitrogen balance, efficiency and feeding behavior, and productive performance in F1 Holstein/Zebu cows during the middle third of their lactation. Methods: Sixty F1 Holstein/Zebu cows with 111.5±11.75 days of lactation and an initial body weight (BW) of 499±30 kg (mean±standard error of the mean) were used. The experimental design was completely randomized with the following diet levels of feed restriction: 3.39%, 2.75%, 2.50%, 2.25%, and 2.00% of BW, with 12 replications for each level. The experiment lasted for 63 days, of which each period lasted 21 days with the first 16 days for diet adaptation followed by 5 days for collection of data and samples. Results: For each 1% of BW diet restriction, there was a decrease in dry matter intake of 5.26 kg/d (p<0.01). There was no difference in daily milk production (p = 0.09) under the restriction levels of 3.39% to 2.0% of BW. When corrected for 3.5% fat, milk production declined (p = 0.05) 3.46 kg/d for each percentage unit of feed restriction. Conclusion: Restricting the feed supply for F1 Holstein/Zebu cows in the middle third of their lactation period altered nutrient intake, nitrogen balance and ingestive behavior but did not affect milk production or feed efficiency. However, considering the observed BW loss and decrease in milk production corrected for 3.5% fat, restriction of no less than 2.5% BW is recommended.


  1. Canaza-Cayo AW, Cobuci JA, Lopes PS, et al. Genetic trend estimates for milk yield production and fertility traits of the Girolando cattle in Brazil. Livest Sci 2016;190:113-22.
  2. Santos SA, Valadares Filho SC, Detmann E, et al. Voluntary intake and milk production in F1 Holstein$\times$zebu cows in confinement. Trop Anim Health Prod 2012;44:1303-10.
  3. Oliveira AS. Meta-analysis of feeding trials to estimate energy requirements of dairy cows under tropical condition. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2015;210:94-103.
  4. Keogh K, Kenny DA, Cormican P, McCabe MS, Kelly AK, Waters SM. Effect of dietary restriction and subsequent Re-alimentation on the transcriptional profile of bovine skeletal muscle. PLoS One 2016;11:e0149373.
  5. Schutz KE, Cox NR, Macdonald KA, et al. Behavioral and physiological effects of a short-term feed restriction in lactating dairy cattle with different body condition scores at calving. J Dairy Sci 2013;96:4465-76.
  6. Gabbi AM, McManus CM, Zanela MB, et al. Milk traits of lactating cows submitted to feed restriction. Trop Anim Health Prod 2016;48:37-43.
  7. Zanela MB, Fischer V, Ribeiro MER, et al. Unstable nonacid milk and milk composition of Jersey cows on feed restriction. Braz Agric Res 2006;41:835-40.
  8. Barbosa RS, Fischer V, Ribeiro MER, et al. Electrophoretic characterization of proteins and milk stability of cows submitted to feeding restriction. Braz Agric Res 2012;47:621-8.
  9. Van Straten M, Friger M, Shpigel NY. Events of elevated somatic cell counts in high-producing dairy cows are associated with daily body weight loss in early lactation. J Dairy Sci 2009; 92:4386-94.
  10. Latimer GW. AOAC International. Official methods of analysis of AOAC International. 19th ed. Gaithersburg, MD, USA: AOAC International; 2012.
  11. Mertens DR. Gravimetric determination of amylase-treated neutral detergent fiber in feeds with refluxing in beaker or crucibles: collaborative study. J AOAC Int 2002;85:1217-40.
  12. Licitra G, Hernandez TM, Van Soest PJ. Standardization of procedures for nitrogen fractionation of ruminant feeds. Anim Feed Sci Technol 1996;57:347-58. 0377-8401(95)00837-3
  13. Detmann E, Souza MA, Valadares Filho SC, et al. Methods for food analysis. Visconde do Rio Branco. Suprema; 2012.
  14. Committee on Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle, National Research Council. Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle, 7th rev. ed. Washington, DC, USA: National Academy Press; 2001.
  15. Oliveira AS, Valadares RFD, Valadares Filho SC, et al. Microbial protein production, purine derivatives and urea excretion estimate in lactating dairy cows fed isoprotein diets with different non protein nitrogen compounds levels. Rev Bras Zootec 2001; 30:1621-9. 600032
  16. Chizzotti ML, Valadares Filho SC, Valadares RFD, et al. Intake, digestibility and nitrogen metabolism in Holstein cows with different milk production levels. Rev Bras Zootec 2007;36:138-46.
  17. Broderick GA. Effects of varying dietary protein and energy levels on the production of lactating dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 2003;86:1370-81. 73721-7
  18. Valadares Filho SC, Broderick GA, Valadares RF, Clayton MK. Effect of replacing alfalfa silage with high moisture corn on nutrient utilization and milk production. J Dairy Sci 2000;83: 106-14.
  19. Renno FP, Pereira JC, Leite CAM, et al. Bioeconomic evaluation of feeding strategies in milk production systems: 1. Production per animal and per area. Braz J Anim Sci 2008;37: 743-53.
  20. Mezzalira JC, Carvalho PCF, Fonseca L, et al. Methodological aspects of ingestive behavior of grazing cattle. Rev Bras Zootec 2011;40:1114-20.
  21. Burger PJ, Pereira JC, Queiroz AC, et al. Ingestive behavior in Holstein calves fed diets with different concentrate levels. Rev Bras Zootec 2000;29:236-42.
  22. Sklan D, Ashkenazi R, Braun A, Devorin A, Tabori K. Fatty acids, calcium soaps of fatty acids, and cottonseeds fed to high yielding cows. J Dairy Sci 1992;75:2463-72.
  23. Ferguson JD, Galligan DT, Thomsen N. Principal descriptors of body condition score in Holstein cows. J Dairy Sci 1994;77: 2695-703. 77212-X
  24. SAS Institute. SAS/STAT 9.2 User's guide. Cary, NC, USA: SAS Institute, Inc.; 2008.
  25. Murta RM, Veloso CM, Pires AJV, et al. Intake, apparent digestibility, production, and composition of milk from cows fed diets with different sources of lipids. Rev Bras Zootec 2016; 45:56-62. 003
  26. Menezes CCC, Valadares Filho SC, Magalhaes FA, et al. Total and partial digestibility, rates of digestion obtained with rumenevacuation and microbial protein synthesis in bovines fed fresh or ensiled sugar cane and corn silage. Rev Bras Zootec 2011;40:1104-13. 11000500023
  27. Schwartzkopf-Genswein KS, Beauchemin KA, Gibb DJ, et al. Effect of bunk management on feeding behavior, ruminal acidosis and performance of feedlot cattle: a review. J Anim Sci 2003;81:E149-58. 2E149x
  28. Dado TG, Allen MS. Intake limitations, feeding behavior, and rumen function of cows challenged with rumen fill from dietary fiber or inert bulk. J Dairy Sci 1995;78:118-33.
  29. Doska MC, Silva DFF, Horst SA, Valloto AA, Rossi Junior P, Almeida R. Sources of variation in milk urea nitrogen in Parana dairy cows. Rev Bras Zootec 2012;41:692-7.
  30. Roche JR, Heiser A, Mitchell MD, et al. Strategies to gain body condition score in pasture-based dairy cows during late lactation and the far-off nonlactating period and their interaction with close-up dry matter intake. J Dairy Sci 2017;100:1720-38.