Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T11:49:55.290Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of forage particle length on rumen fermentation, sorting and chewing activity of late-lactation and non-lactating dairy cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 August 2012

F. X. Suarez-Mena ,
G. I. Zanton  and
A. J. Heinrichs
F. X. Suarez-Mena
Affiliation:
Department of Dairy and Animal Science, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA
G. I. Zanton
Affiliation:
Department of Dairy and Animal Science, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA
A. J. Heinrichs*
Affiliation:
Department of Dairy and Animal Science, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The objective of this study was to determine the effects of varying forage particle length on chewing activity, sorting behavior, rumen pH and rumen fill in late lactation and dry dairy cattle, fed rations with similar physically effective NDF but different mean particle length. Treatments consisted of three diets differing only in geometric mean length of forage: hay (5.40, 8.96 and 77.90 mm, for short (S), medium (M) and long (L) diets, respectively) for Experiment 1 (E1), and straw (10.16, 24.68 and 80.37 mm) for S, M and L diets, respectively, for Experiment 2 (E2). Hay or straw comprised the sole source of forage (50% and 75% of ration dry matter (DM) for E1 and E2, respectively). Both experiments used three rumen cannulated Holstein dairy cows, in late lactation for E1 and dry in E2, with 3 × 3 Latin square designs with 14 day periods. In E1, DM intake (DMI; 18.3 ± 2.1 kg/day; mean ± s.e.), pH (6.4 ± 0.1), time spent eating (280 ± 22.5 min/day), time spent ruminating (487 ± 17 min/day), and total time spent chewing (767 ± 34 min/day) were not different, whereas eating minutes per kilogram of DMI and NDF intake (NDFI) tended to increase linearly as forage length increased. Rumen digesta volume (l; 113.3 S, 117.8 M and 114.4 L ± 17.1) had a quadratic response, and rumen digesta weight tended to respond quadratically; however, differences were numerically small. In E2, DMI (8.3 ± 1.3 kg/day), pH (6.7 ± 0.1), time spent eating (236 ± 23.5 min/day), time spent ruminating (468 ± 45.2 min/day), total time spent chewing (704 ± 67.7 min/day) and minutes per kilogram NDFI were not different, whereas minutes per kilogram of DMI had a trend for a quadratic effect. Rumen digesta volume (111 ± 18.8 l) and weight (103 ± 17.4 kg) were not different. In both experiments, cows sorted against longer particles as determined by a particle length selection index; this behavior increased linearly as particle length increased. Greater forage particle length increased sorting behavior, but had no effect on rumen fermentation or chewing behavior.

Keywords

particle lengthchewingrumen pHsorting
Type
Nutrition
Information
animal , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , February 2013 , pp. 272 - 278
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2012

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

Allen, MS 1996. Physical constraints on voluntary intake of forages by ruminants. Journal of Animal Science 74, 3063–3075.Google Scholar
Allen, MS 1997. Relationship between fermentation acid production in the rumen and the requirement for physically effective fiber. Journal of Dairy Science 80, 1447–1462.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE) 2007. Method of determining and expressing particle size of chopped forage materials by screening. ANSI/ASAE.S424 1, 663–665.Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) 2000. Official methods of analysis, 17th edition. AOAC, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.Google Scholar
Beauchemin, KA 1991. Ingestion and mastication of feed by dairy cattle. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice 7, 439–463.Google Scholar
Beauchemin, KA, Yang, WZ, Rode, LM 2003. Effects of particle size of alfalfa-based dairy cow diets on chewing activity, ruminal fermentation, and milk production. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 630–643.Google Scholar
Beauchemin, KA, Eriksen, L, Nørgaard, P, Rode, LM 2008. Short communication: salivary secretion during meals in lactating dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 2077–2081.Google Scholar
De Boever, JL, Andries, JI, De Brabander, DL, Cottyn, BG, Buysse, FX 1990. Chewing activity of ruminants as a measure of physical structure: a review of factors affecting it. Animal Feed Science and Technology 27, 281–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeVries, TJ, Dohme, F, Beauchemin, KA 2008. Repeated ruminal acidosis challenges in lactating dairy cows at high and low risk for developing acidosis: feed sorting. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 3958–3967.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goering, HK, Van Soest, PJ 1970. Forage fiber analyses. USDA Agricultural Research Service. Handbook no. 379. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Superintendent of Documents, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Kononoff, PJ, Heinrichs, AJ 2003. The effect of reducing alfalfa haylage particle size on cows in early lactation. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 1445–1457.Google Scholar
Krause, KM, Oetzel, GR 2006. Understanding and preventing subacute ruminal acidosis in dairy herds: a review. Animal Feed Science and Technology 126, 215–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krause, KM, Combs, DK, Beauchemin, KA 2002. Effects of forage particle size and grain fermentability in midlactation cows. II. Ruminal pH and chewing activity. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 1947–1957.Google Scholar
Krishnamoorthy, U, Muscato, TV, Sniffen, CJ, Van Soest, PJ 1982. Nitrogen fractions in selected feedstuffs. Journal of Dairy Science 65, 217–225.Google Scholar
Leonardi, C, 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.Google Scholar
Maekawa, M, Beauchemin, KA, Christensen, DA 2002. Effect of concentrate level and feeding management on chewing activities, saliva production, and ruminal pH of lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 1165–1175.Google Scholar
Maulfair, DD, Zanton, GI, Fustini, M, Heinrichs, AJ 2010. Effect of feed sorting on chewing behavior, production, and rumen fermentation in lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 4791–4803.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mertens, DR 1997. Creating a system for meeting the fiber requirements of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 80, 1463–1481.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nasrollahi, SM, Khorvash, M, Ghorbani, GR, Teimouri-Yansari, A, Zali, A, Zebeli, Q 2012. Grain source and marginal changes in forage particle size modulate digestive processes and nutrient intake of dairy cows. Animal 6, 1237–1245.Google Scholar
National Research Council (NRC) 2001. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle, 7th revised edition. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Nørgaard, P, Nadeau, E, Randby, Å 2011. A new Nordic structure evaluation system for diets fed to dairy cows: a meta analysis. In Modelling nutrient digestion and utilisation in farm animals (ed. D Sauvant, J Milgen, P Faverdin and N Friggens), pp. 112–120. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robson, DS 1959. A simple method for constructing orthogonal polynomials when the independent variable is unequally spaced. Biometrics 15, 187–191.Google Scholar
Shipley, RA, Clark, RE 1972. Tracer methods for in vivo kinetics. Academic Press, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Tafaj, M, Maulbetsch, A, Zebeli, Q, Steingass, H, Drochner, W 2005. Effects of physically effective fibre concentration of diets consisting of hay and slowly degradable concentrate on chewing activity in mid lactation dairy cows under constant intake level. Archives of Animal Nutrition 59, 313–324.Google Scholar
Teimouri Yansari, A, Valizadeh, R, Naserian, A, Christensen, DA, Yu, P, Shahroodi, FE 2004. Effects of alfalfa particle size and specific gravity on chewing activity, digestibility, and performance of Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 3912–3924.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
Welch, JG, Smith, AM 1970. Forage quality and rumination time in cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 53, 797–800.Google Scholar
Yang, WZ, 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zebeli, Q, Tafaj, M, Steingass, H, Metzler, B, Drochner, W 2006. Effects of physically effective fiber on digestive processes and milk fat content in early lactating dairy cows fed total mixed rations. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 651–668.Google Scholar
Zebeli, Q, Aschenbach, JR, Tafaj, M, Boguhn, J, Ametaj, BN, 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.Google Scholar