Title: Critical Analysis of Research Journal

Material: Published Research Journal entitled “Using estimated nutrient intake from pasture to
formulate supplementary concentrate mixes for grazing dairy cows”.

Author: M. L. Douglas,M. J. Auldist, M. M. Wright, L. C. Marett, V. M. Russo, M. C.

Hannah,S.C. Garcia and W. J. Wales

Objectives:

At the end of the activity, the student will be able to:

1. To construct a critique analysis and reaction regarding on research article entitled,

Using estimated nutrient intake from pasture to formulate supplementary concentrate
mixes for grazing dairy cows;

` 2. To keep abreast of recent innovations in nutrient management used in dairy cattle;

3. Discuss how these feed formulations are useful in the future of the dairy industry.

I. Introduction

The study article "Using predicted nutrient intake from pasture to construct
supplementary concentrate mixtures for grazing dairy cows" was published in the Dairy Science
Journal in 2020. It describes a cost-effective feeding formulation that also results in a higher
milk output. This research serves as a guide for farmers, particularly those who embark into the
dairy industry, to be conscious and identify alternate feeding formulas for potential milk yield and
maximize the available grasses in the pasture in order to save money on feeds.

Due to its ease of development and intrinsic low cost, grazed pastures currently make up
the majority of the feed source for the dairy business. There are numerous pasture species that
can be utilized as feeds, but because pasture grasses cannot support the milk output of high-
yielding dairy cows, purchased feeds must be added to pasture to raise stocking rates, per-cow
production, or both. Changes in the availability and nutritional qualities of pasture have an
impact on milk output. It is hypothesized that the feeds that are purchased should shift over time
to complement the pasture's changing nutritional properties. In pasture-based systems,
supplementation is accomplished by giving cereal grain or pelleted concentrates to the cows in
the milking parlor. By modifying the composition of the concentrate mix so that it complements
the nutrients already provided by perennial ryegrass pasture at different times of the year, the
current experiment seeks to either further increase milk production responses or reduce the cost
of the supplement while maintaining milk production. Understanding the numerous elements
that influence the nutritional properties of perennial grasses, such as season, stage of growth,
grass physiology, and heading date, is necessary when combining the concentrate mix with the
available pasture.
 By modifying the composition of the concentrate mix so that it complements the nutrients
already provided by perennial ryegrass pasture at different times of the year, the current
experiment seeks to either further increase milk production responses or reduce the cost of the
supplement while maintaining milk production. Understanding the numerous elements that
influence the nutritional properties of perennial grasses, such as season, stage of growth, grass
physiology, and heading date, is necessary when combining the concentrate mix with the
available pasture.

II. Summary

Ninety-six (96) spring-calving Holstein-Friesian cows participated in the experiment at

the Agriculture Victoria Research Centre in Ellinbank, Victoria, Australia, from mid-October to
mid-November. The trial lasted for 28 days and included 14 days of adaptation to the treatment
meals for the cows and 14 days of measurement for the collection of data on (Dry Matter Intake)
DMI, milk production, (Body Weight) BW, and ruminal fluid pH. The allocation of cows to
treatments was aided by the collection of milk yield and BW data during the 14-day covariate
period that preceded the trial. The 96 cows were divided into 8 shifts of 12 cows. One shift
consisted of his 12 cows with ruminal fistulas and the remaining 84 of his cows he was
classified into 7 shifts based on his 7-day average milk production. Then, 12 groups of 8 cows
were formed and each group was assigned 1 cow from each stratum, simultaneously using the
GenStat software, method COVDESIGN (GenStat 17, 2016; VSN International Ltd., Hemel). to
define cowherd, DIM, BW and milk production groups (Hempstead, UK). This ensured that one
cow in each group had a ruminal fistula and that milk yield and other variables had similar
ranges. Finally, his 3 replicates of the 4 treatments were randomly assigned to 12 groups. Each
group of eight cows was grazed separately in four strips in each of three blocks as a
randomized full block design, using blocks corresponding to paddocks.

The purpose of this experiment was to test whether additional milk production benefits
could be produced by adjusting the composition of the concentrated mix to match the nutrient
intake expected from pasture in late spring. Each treatment group was offered 1 of 4 diets at the
time of milking in the parlor .a control consisting of ground wheat and barley grains; a
formulated grain mix (FGM) consisting of finely chopped wheat, barley, corn grains and
rapeseed flour. Designer Grain Blend 1 (DGM1) is composed of the same ingredients as the
FGM grain blend, but formulated using the CPM Daily Nutrition Model to account for expected
nutrient uptake from pasture. Designer Grain Blend 2 (DGM2) consists of the same ingredients
as DGM1, but replaces the canola flour with urea and fat additives. Concentrated feed mixtures
were provided at 8.0 kg dry matter/cow per day, except for DGM2 cows, which were provided
with 7.5 kg dry matter/cow per day.

Based on their observation that cows given FGM treatments produced more milk and
milk constituents than cows given CON treatments, FGM treatments containing canola meal
and corn kernels could be responsible. Alternatively, the increased yield compared to using only
wheat and barley grains in the CON treatment may be due to the presence of different forms of
carbohydrate in the FGM-enriched blend compared to the CON-enriched blend. This may be
because Corn kernels are a more slowly fermenting source of starch than barley and wheat,
and high feeding of concentrated mixes containing corn kernels can reduce diurnal variation in
rumen pH and increase milk production. has been previously reported.

According to the authors, although cows given the DGM2 treatment consumed less
concentrate, there was no difference in estimated daily grass or total dry matter intake among
the four treatment groups (7.5 kg of An average of 6.5 kg of dry matter per cow when fed dry
matter (substance/cattle) per day. This study used a nutrient model to demonstrate the
feasibility of formulating a concentrated feed mixture (DGM1) considering the expected nutrient
intake from pasture to achieve similar milk yields, but We also emphasized the need for near
real-time analysis of pastures. It is also pastured for profit in terms of milkfat and protein yield.

They also found that replacing 1.0 kg of DM rapeseed meal (a normally expensive
ingredient) with urea and a concentrated blend of fat additives could produce the same amount
of milk, but at a higher cost. While these results highlight the milk production benefits that can
potentially be achieved by understanding the nutritional properties of pasture grasses, they also
highlight the need for real-time estimation of the amount of grass consumed.

Further studies needs to be examined the benefits of using the dietary model in other
seasons, and the authors determined that not only the milk production benefits achieved by
incorporating improved supplemental grain blends, but also the economic It suggests that the
advantage can also be determined.

III. Analysis and Critique

The research journal titled "Using Estimate Nutrient Uptake from Pasture to Formula

Supplemental Feed Concentrates for Pasture Dairy Cows" is quite good, but if I were the author
I would change it to "Formulation of Supplemental Feed Concentrates for Dairy Cattle" so that
readers can easily and directly understand the content of the paper. Creating a catchy
title for a search is very important to capture the reader's intent and will. On the
other hand, most of the dairy industry when it comes to feed formulations will consider them, we
cannot deny the fact of the high cost of feed these days.

I was impressed with how the authors create their abstract, however, it is very important

to include the experimental design they use so that readers are not confused and fully
understand the purpose of the study. It is also necessary to include in their summary the
possible reasons why there was no uptake between the four
treatment groups despite the cows being fed the designer grain mix, with two treatments
receiving less of concentrated mix on average 6.5 kg dry matter/cow per day consumed when
7.5 kg dry matter/cow per day was offered.

The introductory part of the research journal in question points out that most dairy farms
rely heavily on pasture as their primary source of forage, due to its ease of growth
and low inherent cost. In this part, the author should present reliable percentages of these
dairy products to industries that practice and use pasture grasses and incorporate them
into feed formulation for further verification, as milk production is affected by changes in the
availability and nutritional properties of pastures. Part of their goal is to save money by replacing
and adjusting the composition of a concentrated mix to supplement the
nutrients ingested by cows in the milking parlor during milking. However, she
believes this method has limitations as there may be a reduction in marginal milk production
responses to increasing levels of supplementation. Therefore, the right amount of feed mixtures
should be applied.

In the material and method, authors should include the research design used to give the

reader an idea of how the research works. As quoted by a reader of the study, I noticed
that they only presented treatments and study length. The introduction of the research design is
very important for the readers so that they can see if the design is really suitable for the type of
experiment being conducted. But on the other hand, the data, methods and formulas used are
well presented to analyze the results of the study. What I like best about this study is that they
have their own economic analysis to evaluate the difference between concentrate mix costs and
expected feed milk yield of each concentrate mix needed to compare feed costs and benefits of
the mixtures concentrated in different conditions .to understand. that the research could also be
feasible and profitable so that farmers continue to adopt the technology. The authors follow a
step-by-step procedure and template for determining the amounts of each component of
the concentrated blends needed to obtain milk yields.

The way the authors presented their results is very enlightening and promising for me as
a reader. Thus, milk yield (kg) was higher in cows with the formulated cereal
mixture treatment than with the control treatment. However, the only problem I see with these
treatments is the availability of these pasture and concentrate feed mixes, and yet you will come
back to other alternative mixes that can be used to complement the other ingredients of the feed
that was higher than that of control cows, however, was not different from cows fed Designer
Grain Blend 1 and Designer Grain Blend 2. However, milk fat and protein yields (kg)
were higher in cows fed the MGF diet than all other diets. There was no difference in estimated
daily grazing or total dry matter intake between the 4 treatment groups, although cows fed the
DGM2 treatment consumed less of the concentrate mixture.

In the middle of their discussion, the authors highlight the purpose of evaluating the

value of adjusting supplemental concentrate mixes for grazing dairy cows to account for
nutrients already taken from the pasture. Their observation that cows receiving the FGM
treatment produced more milk and milk solids than cows receiving the control treatment was
most likely due to the FGM treatment with rapeseed meal and corn kernels,
versus wheat kernels alone and barley in control treatment. The increase in yield may be due to
the inclusion of a different form of carbohydrate in the MGF concentrate mix compared to the
CON concentrate mix. Maize kernel is a slower fermenting source of starch than barley or wheat
and has previously been reported to reduce diurnal rumen pH variation and lead to increased
milk yield when large amounts of feed are fed. a concentrated blend of corn kernels.
This experiment demonstrated the potential to produce comparable amounts of milk from low-
cost diets by adjusting the components in supplemental concentrate blends to match the
expected levels of nutrient intake from whey. However, the study also highlighted the need to
use accurate data on the nutritional characteristics of the pasture to be grazed, essential for
optimizing nutrition. The results also showed that rapeseed meal could potentially replace other
components in diets and still elicit the same response to milk yield, but not the same response
to milk components. A comprehensive economic analysis would need to be performed to
determine the profitability of the grain mix for individual farms.

The final statement of the research review in question impresses dairy farmers in

particular with its importance in terms of reducing the current high feed costs and higher
milk yields. The potential benefits of dairy production could be achieved by understanding
the nutrient properties of pasture to graze and concentrates to mix, but also highlighted the
need for real-time estimation of the amount of pasture consumed

IV. Conclusion

This research showed the potential of using a feeding model to account for

predicted nutrient uptake from whey to formulate a concentrated blend for increased milk yield.
The aforementioned research will serve as a guide for those dairy industries and local farmers
to consider alternative feed formulations in case of unavailability of other feed blends in the
pasture and on the market. What we consider today is profit. Balancing the two factors, such as
higher milk yield and at the same time cost-effective technology, is therefore very important to
achieve economic viability.