Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T12:09:33.089Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of wheat hay particle size and replacement of wheat hay with wheat silage on rumen pH, rumination and digestibility in ruminally cannulated non-lactating cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 September 2016

Y. Shaani ,
M. Nikbachat ,
E. Yosef ,
Y. Ben-Meir ,
N. Friedman ,
J. Miron  and
I. Mizrahi
Y. Shaani
Affiliation:
Department of Ruminant Science, Agricultural Research Organization, PO Box 6, Bet Dagan 50250, Israel Department of Animal Sciences, The Robert H. Smith Faculty of Agriculture, Food, and Environment, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, PO Box 12, Rehovot 76100, Israel
M. Nikbachat
Affiliation:
Department of Ruminant Science, Agricultural Research Organization, PO Box 6, Bet Dagan 50250, Israel
E. Yosef
Affiliation:
Department of Ruminant Science, Agricultural Research Organization, PO Box 6, Bet Dagan 50250, Israel
Y. Ben-Meir
Affiliation:
Department of Ruminant Science, Agricultural Research Organization, PO Box 6, Bet Dagan 50250, Israel
N. Friedman
Affiliation:
Department of Life Science, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, PO Box 653, Beer-Sheva 8410501, Israel
J. Miron*
Affiliation:
Department of Ruminant Science, Agricultural Research Organization, PO Box 6, Bet Dagan 50250, Israel
I. Mizrahi
Affiliation:
Department of Life Science, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, PO Box 653, Beer-Sheva 8410501, Israel
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

This study examined the effects on intake, diurnal rumen pH changes, rumination and digestibility of feeding ruminally cannulated non-lactating cows in a Latin square design (four cows×four periods) with four total mixed rations (TMRs) typical for lactating cows. TMRs were based on: long wheat hay or short wheat hay, wheat silage or wheat silage+1.5% NaHCO3 buffer, as the sole roughage source (30% of TMR dry matter (DM)). The level of physically effective NDF remaining above the 8 mm screen (peNDF) was similar in the long hay and silage-based TMRs (9.45% to 9.64% of DM) and lower in the short hay TMR (7.47% of DM). The four TMRs were offered individually at 95% of ad libitum intake to avoid orts within 24 h. Cows fed long hay consumed less DM than the short hay and silage groups (9.6 v. 10.5 and 10.8 kg/day, respectively) and sorted against large hay particles at 12 h post-feeding. Under the limitations of this study (non-lactating cows fed at restricted intake) short hay TMR prevented sorting within 12 h post-feeding, encouraged rumination per kg peNDF ingested, and had higher average rumen pH (6.24), whereas preventing sub acute ruminal acidosis (SARA, defined as pH<5.8 for at least 5 h/day). In contrast, the long hay and silage-based groups were under SARA. In vitro methane production of rumen fluid was higher in the hay-fed cows than in their silage-fed counterparts, and in all treatments lower at 1 h pre-feeding than at 6 h post-feeding. In vivo DM and NDF digestibility were similar for the short hay and silage TMRs, and higher than those of the long hay TMR. Under the conditions of this study, addition of 1.5% buffer to the wheat silage TMR had no effect on intake, rumen pH, creation of SARA and digestibility.

Keywords

cannulated cowsrumen pHruminationdigestibilityparticles size
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , March 2017 , pp. 426 - 435
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adin, G, Solomon, R, Nikbachat, M, Zenou, A, Yosef, E, Brosh, A, Shabtay, A, Mabjeesh, SJ, Halachmi, I and Miron, J 2009. Effect of feeding cows in early lactation with diets differing in roughage-neutral detergent fiber content on intake behavior, rumination, and milk production. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 3364–3373.Google Scholar
Ann, J, Van Kessel, S and Russell, JB 1996. The effect of pH on ruminal methanogenesis. FEMS Microbiology and Ecology 20, 205–210.Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemistry (AOAC) 1990. Official methods of analysis Vol. 1, 15th edition. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, VA, USA.Google Scholar
Ben-Ghedalia, D, Kabala, A and Miron, J 1995. Composition and in vitro digestibility of carbohydrates of wheat plants harvested at bloom and soft-dough stages. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 68, 111–116.Google Scholar
Doepel, L and Hayirli, A 2011. Exclusion of dietary sodium bicarbonate from a wheat-based diet: effects on milk production and ruminal fermentation. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 370–375.Google Scholar
Garrett, EF, Nordlund, KV, Goodger, WJ and Oetzel, G 1997. A cross-sectional field study investigating the effect of periparturient dietary management on ruminal pH in early lactation dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 80, 169.Google Scholar
Harinder, P, Makkar, P and Vercoe, P 2007. Measuring methane production from ruminants. Springer Science & Business Media, p. 152. Retrieved on 27 March 2016 from https://books.google.com/books?id=8WcliN_ETlMC&pgis=1 Google Scholar
Hu, W and Murphy, MR 2005. Statistical evaluation of early- and mid-lactation dairy cow responses to dietary sodium bicarbonate addition. Animal Feed Science and Technology 119, 43–54.Google Scholar
Hunerberg, M, McGinn, SM, Beauchemin, KA, Entz, T, Okine, EK, Harstad, OM and McAllister, TA 2015. Impact of ruminal pH on enteric methane emissions. Journal of Animal Science 93, 1760–1766.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jaakkola, S and Huhtanen, P 1993. The effects of forage preservation method and proportion of concentrate on nitrogen digestion and rumen fermentation in cattle. Grass and Forage Sciences 48, 146–154.Google Scholar
Jami, E, Shabtay, A, Miron, J and Mizrachi, I 2012. Effects of adding a concentrated pomegranate-residue extract to the ration of lactating cows on in vivo digestibility and profile of rumen bacterial population. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 5996–6005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khorasani, GR and Kennelly, JJ 2001. Influence of carbohydrate source and buffer on rumen fermentation characteristics, milk yield, and milk composition in late-lactation Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science 84, 1707–1716.Google Scholar
Kononoff, PJ, Heinrichs, AJ and Lehman, HA 2003. The effect of corn silage particle size on eating behavior chewing activity, and rumen fermentation in lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 3343–3353.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kovacs, A, Yacoby, K and Gophna, U 2010. A systematic assessment of automated ribosomal intergenic spacer analysis (ARISA) as a tool for estimating bacterial richness. Research Microbiology 161, 192–197.Google Scholar
Lammers, B, Buckmaster, D and Heinrichs, A 1996. A simple method for the analysis of particle sizes of forage and total mixed rations. Journal of Dairy Science 79, 922–928.Google Scholar
Lana, RP, Russell, JB and Van Amburgh, ME 1998. The role of pH in regulating ruminal methane and ammonia production. Journal of Animal Science 76, 2190–2196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leonardi, C and Armentano, LE 2003. Effect of quantity, quality, and length of alfalfa hay on selective consumption by dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 557–564.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miron, J, Ben-Ghedalia, D and Morrison, M 2001. Invited review: adhesion mechanisms of rumen cellulolytic bacteria. Journal of Dairy Science 84, 1294–1309.Google Scholar
Mooney, CS and Allen, MS 2007. Effect of dietary strong ions on chewing activity and milk production in lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 5610–5618.Google Scholar
Murphy, M, Akerlind, M and Holtenius, K 2000. Rumen fermentation in lactating cows selected for milk fat content fed two forage to concentrate ratios with hay or silage. Journal of Dairy Science 83, 756–764.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nutrient Requirement of Cattle (NRC) 2001. Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle, 7th revised edition. Subcommittee on Dairy Cattle Nutrition, Committee on Animal Nutrition and Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Penner, GB, Aschenbach, JR, Gabel, G, Rackwitz, R and Oba, M 2009. Epithelial capacity for apical uptake of short chain fatty acids is a key determinant for intraruminal pH and the susceptibility to subacute ruminal acidosis in sheep. Journal of Nutrition 139, 1714–1720.Google ScholarPubMed
Plaizier, JC, Krause, DO, Gozho, GN and McBride, BW 2008. Subacute ruminal acidosis in dairy cows: the physiological causes, incidence and consequences. The Veterinary Journal 176, 21–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Russell, JB and Chow, JM 1993. Another theory for the action of ruminal buffer salts: decreased starch fermentation and propionate production. Journal of Dairy Science 76, 826–830.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
SAS Institute 2003. SAS for windows ver. 9.1.3. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Thaiss, CA, Zeevi, D, Levy, M, Zilberman-Schapira, G, Suez, J, Tengeler, AC, Abramson, L, Katz, MN, Korem, T, Zmora, N, Kuperman, Y, Biton, I, Gilad, S, Harmelin, A, Shapiro, H, Halpern, Z, Segal, E and Elinav, E 2014. Transkingdom control of microbiota diurnal oscillations promotes metabolic homeostasis. Cell 159, 514–529.Google Scholar
Tilley, JMA and Terry, RA 1963. A two-stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Grass and Forage Science 18, 104–111.Google Scholar
Van Soest, PJ, Robertson, JB and Lewis, BA 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3583–3597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinberg, ZG, Chen, Y, Miron, D, Raviv, I, Nahim, E, Bloch, A, Yosef, E, Nikbahat, M and Miron, J 2011. Preservation of total mixed rations for dairy cows in bales wrapped with polyethylene stretch film – a commercial scale experiment. Animal Feed Science and Technology 164, 125–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welkie, DG, Stevenson, DM and Weimer, PJ 2010. ARISA analysis of ruminal bacterial community dynamics in lactating dairy cows during the feeding cycle. Anaerobe 16, 94–100.Google Scholar
Yang, WZ and Beauchemin, KA 2006. Effects of physically effective fiber on chewing activity and ruminal pH of dairy cows fed diets based on barley silage. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 217–228.Google Scholar
Zebeli, Q, Aschenbach, JR, Tafaj, M, Boguhn, J, Ametaj, BN and Drochner, W 2012. Invited review: role of physically effective fiber and estimation of dietary fiber adequacy in high producing dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 1041–1056.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zebeli, Q, Mansmann, D, Ametaj, BN, Steingass, H and Drochner, W 2010. A model to optimise the requirements of lactating dairy cows for physically effective neutral detergent fibre. Archieves in Animal Nutrition 64, 265–278.Google Scholar
Zebeli, Q, Tafaj, M, Weber, I, Dijkstra, J, Steingass, H and Drochner, W 2007. Effects of varying dietary forage particle size in two concentrate levels on chewing activity, ruminal mat characteristics, and passage in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 1929–1942.Google Scholar