Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T09:20:47.677Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Diet choice by goats as effect of milk production level during late lactation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 March 2013

M. Avondo ,
R. I. Pagano ,
A. De Angelis  and
P. Pennisi
M. Avondo*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Food Science (DISPA), University of Catania, Via Valdisavoia 5, 95123 Catania, Italy
R. I. Pagano
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Food Science (DISPA), University of Catania, Via Valdisavoia 5, 95123 Catania, Italy
A. De Angelis
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Food Science (DISPA), University of Catania, Via Valdisavoia 5, 95123 Catania, Italy
P. Pennisi
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Food Science (DISPA), University of Catania, Via Valdisavoia 5, 95123 Catania, Italy
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The diet self-regulation ability of goats during late lactation has been studied with regard to their production level. Two groups of seven Girgentana goats producing 1100 ± 157 g/day (H group) and 613 ± 138 g/day (L group) were housed in individual pens and were given alfalfa pelleted hay (1.5 kg), whole grains of maize (0.5 kg), barley (0.5 kg), faba bean (0.5 kg) and pelleted sunflower cake (0.5 kg) on a daily basis. During a 7-day pre-experimental period, goats received a mixed ration based on the same feeds used during the experimental period (1.5 kg of hay and 0.4 kg of each concentrate). Individual choice of feeds was continuously recorded for 7 days using a 24-h IR video surveillance system equipped with four video cameras. The nutrient intake in both groups was much higher than needed. Goats in the H group ate more (2016.3 v. 1744.3 g dry matter (DM)/day) and selected less hay (26.9% v. 34.6% DM), more high-protein feeds (faba bean and sunflower cake: 14.0% and 15.9% v. 8.8% and 7.9% DM, respectively) and less maize (21.5% v. 25.0% DM), reaching a higher CP concentration in the diet (17.3% v. 15.0% DM) compared with the goats in the L group. During the 24-h trial period, hay was more constantly selected (on average never reaching <20% of the total hourly basis feeding time, apart from the first hour after feed administration) compared with concentrate feeds. This feeding behaviour has probably exercised a ‘curative’ effect that enabled the goats to continue to take in very high levels of starch and protein, without manifesting any symptom of metabolic disease. Shifting goats from the pre-experimental diet, based on a mixture of the same feeds used during the experimental period, to the free-choice feeding caused more than 20% increase in milk production in both groups. From the results of the intake, we are unable to conclude that the goats can select their diet to meet their requirements, as goats consumed much more than needed. However, when free to choose their diet, the animals improved milk performance, despite the late-lactation stage.

Keywords

goatsmilk production levelfree-choice feedingselective behaviourlate lactation
Type
Nutrition
Information
animal , Volume 7 , Issue 7 , July 2013 , pp. 1113 - 1118
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2013 

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

Abijaoudé, JA, Morand-Fehr, P, Tessier, J, Schmidely, P, Sauvant, D 2000. Diet effect on daily feeding behaviour, frequency and characteristics of meals in dairy goats. Livestock Production Science 64, 29–37.Google Scholar
Abijaoudé, JA, Morand-Fehr, P, Béchet, G, Brun, JP, Tessier, J, Sauvant, D 1999. A method to record the feeding behaviour of goats. Small Ruminant Research 33, 213–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists 1990. Official Methods of Analysis, 15th edition. AOAC, Arlington, VA, USA.Google Scholar
Avondo, M, Pagano, RI, Guastella, AM, Criscione, A, Di Gloria, M, Bernardo, V, Piccione, G, Pennisi, P 2009. Diet selection and milk production and composition in Girgentana goats with different αs1-casein genotype. Journal of Dairy Research 76, 202–209.Google Scholar
Bava, L, Rapetti, L, Crovetto, GM, Tamburini, A, Sandrucci, A, Galassi, G, Succi, G 2001. Effects of nonforage diet on milk production energy and nitrogen metabolism in dairy goats throughout lactation. Journal of Dairy Science 84, 2450–2459.Google Scholar
Bocquier, F, Caja, G 1993. Recent advances on nutrition and feeding of dairy sheep. Hungarian Journal of Animal Production 1, 580–607.Google Scholar
Bonanno, A, Todaro, M, Di Grigoli, A, Scatassa, ML, Tornambè, G, Alicata, ML 2008. Relationships between dietary factors and milk urea nitrogen level in goats grazing herbaceous pasture. Italian Journal of Animal Science 7, 219–235.Google Scholar
Cannas, A, Atzori, AS, Boe, F, Teixeira, IAMA 2008. Energy and protein requirements of goats. In Dairy goats feeding and nutrition (ed. A Cannas and AG Pulina), pp. 118–146. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conrad, HR, Weiss, WP, Odwongo, WO, Shockey, WL 1984. Estimating net energy lactation from components of cells solubles and cell walls. Journal of Dairy Science 67, 427–436.Google Scholar
Deriaz, RE 1961. Routine analysis of carbohydrates and lignin in herbage. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 12, 152–160.Google Scholar
Di Grigoli, A, Todaro, M, Di Miceli, G, Alicata, ML, Cascone, G, Bonanno, A 2009. Milk production and physiological traits of ewes and goats housed indoor or grazing at different daily timing in summer. Italian Journal of Animal Science 8 (suppl. 2), 616–618.Google Scholar
Fedele, V, Claps, S, Calandrelli, M, Pilla, AM 2002. Effect of free-choice and traditional feeding systems on goat feeding behaviour and intake. Livestock Production Science 74, 19–21.Google Scholar
Görgülü, M, Kutlu, HR, Demir, O, Torun, O, Ozuyamik, O, Kutulu, HR 2003. An alternative feeding system for dairy goats: effect of free-choice feeding on milk yield and milk composition in early lactation of Damascus goats. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences 12, 33–44.Google Scholar
Görgülü, M, Boga, M, Sahin, A, Serbester, U, Kutlu, HR, Sahinler, S 2008. Diet selection and eating behaviour of lactating goats subjected to time restricted feeding in choice and single feeding system. Small Ruminant Research 78, 41–47.Google Scholar
Huntington, GB 1997. Starch utilization by ruminants: from basics to the bunk. Journal of Animal Science 75, 852–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Dairy Federation 1964. Determination of the casein content of milk. FIL-IDF Standard no. 29. Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
Licitra, G, Hernandez, TM, Van Soest, PJ 1996. Standardization of procedures for nitrogen fractionation of ruminant feeds. Animal Feed Science and Technology 57, 347–358.Google Scholar
Lindberg, JE 1988. Influence of cutting time and N fertilization on the nutritive value of timothy. 2. Estimates of rumen degradability of nitrogenous compounds. Swedish Journal of Agricultural Research 18, 85–89.Google Scholar
Lindberg, JE, Gonda, HL 1997. Fibre and protein digestion in goats. In Recent advances in goat research (ed. P Morand-Fehr), pp. 47–58. CIHEAM-IAMZ, Zaragoza, Spain.Google Scholar
Mellado, M, Rodriguez, A, Villareal, JA, Olvera, A 2005. The effect of pregnancy and lactation on diet composition and dietary preference of goats in a desert rangeland. Small Ruminant Research 58, 79–85.Google Scholar
Morand-Fehr, P, Tessier, J, Meschy, F, Sauvant, D 2000. Effect of roughage level and source in diets on the risk of reversing fat and protein percentages in goat milk. Cahier Options Mediterraneennes 52, 115–118.Google Scholar
Morand-Fehr, P, Bas, P, Blanchart, G, Daccord, R, Giger-Reverdis, S, Gihad, EA, Hadjpanayiotou, M, Mwlem, A, Remeuf, F, Sauvant, D 1991. Influence of feeding on milk composition and technological characteristics. In Goat nutrition vol. 46 (ed. P Morand-Fehr), pp. 209–224. EAAP, Wageningen, The, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Provenza, FD 1995. Post-ingestive feedback as an elementary determinant of food preference and intake in ruminants. Journal of Range Management 48, 2–7.Google Scholar
Rapetti, L, Bava, L, Tamburini, A, Crovetto, GM 2005. Feeding behaviour, digestibility, energy balance and productive performance of lactating goats fed forage-based and forage-free diets. Italian Journal of Animal Science 4, 71–83.Google Scholar
Rapetti, L, Bruni, G, Zanatta, G, Colombini, S 2009. The milk urea content in dairy goat farms of Lombardy. Italian Journal of Animal Science 8 (suppl. 2), 356.Google Scholar
Serment, A, Schmidely, P, Giger-Reverdin, S, Chapoutot, P, Sauvant, D 2011. Effects of the percentage of concentrate on rumen fermentation, nutrient digestibility, plasma metabolites, and milk composition in mid-lactation goats. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 3960–3972.Google Scholar
Tovar-Luna, I, Puchala, R, Sahlu, T, Freetly, HC, Goetsch, AL 2010. Effects of stage of lactation and level of feed intake on energy utilization by Alpine dairy goats. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 4829–4837.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Soest, PJ, Robertson, JB, Lewis, BA 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3583–3597.Google Scholar
Yurtseven, S, Görgülü, M 2004. Effects of grain sources and feeding methods, free-choice v. total mixed ration, on milk yield and composition of German Fawn × Hair crossbred goats in mid lactation. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences 13, 417–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar