Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T16:01:45.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of feeding level and NDF content of grass-clover silages on chewing activity, fecal particle size and NDF digestibility in dairy heifers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 September 2014

A. K. S. Schulze ,
M. R. Weisbjerg  and
P. Nørgaard
A. K. S. Schulze
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Clinical and Animal Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, 1870 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
M. R. Weisbjerg
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, AU-Foulum, Faculty of Science and Technology, Aarhus University, 8830 Tjele, Denmark
P. Nørgaard*
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Clinical and Animal Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, 1870 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
*
† E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The objective of this study was to assess effects of feed intake and NDF content of highly digestible grass-clover silage on chewing behavior, fecal particle size distribution and apparent digestibility in restrictively fed heifers. Four grass-clover silages (Lolium perenne, Trifolium pratense and Trifolium repens) were harvested in 2009 at different regrowth stages, resulting in silages with NDF contents of 312, 360, 371 and 446 g/kg dry matter (DM), respectively. Four rumen-fistulated Jersey heifers (343±32 kg BW) were fed silage at 90% of ad libitum levels in a 4×4 Latin square design, replicated with further restricted feeding levels (50%, 60%, 70% or 80% of ad libitum) in a balanced 4×4×4 Greco-Latin square design. Eating activity was estimated from test meal observations, while rumination activity was estimated from jaw movements logged by a jaw recorder system. Total tract digestibility was estimated from chromic oxide marker and fecal spot sampling, and fecal particle size distribution in washed and freeze-dried particulate DM was determined by dry sieving (2.36, 1.0, 0.5, 0.212 and 0.106 mm, and bottom bowl). Higher NDF content of silage stimulated longer eating time per kg DM intake (P<0.001), while reduced feeding level caused a reduction in eating time per kg DM intake (P<0.001) and NDF (P<0.001). Rumination time per kg DM intake (P<0.01) increased with reduced feeding level, with less effect of feeding level at lower NDF contents (P<0.01) and more rumination with greater NDF content (P<0.01). Relative to NDF intake, rumination time increased with greater NDF content (P<0.01), at a higher rate with reduced feeding level (P<0.05). Digestibility of potentially digestible NDF (DNDF) decreased with greater NDF content (P<0.001) and increased with reduced feeding level (P<0.05). Increasing NDF content resulted in more particulate DM in feces (g/kg DM; P<0.05) and larger mean particle size (P<0.001). In conclusion, feeding heifers with grass-clover silages of decreasing NDF content increased chewing time relative to NDF intake, reduced mean fecal particle size, and increased DNDF digestibility. Restricting feeding level made heifers eat for a shorter time period while rumination and total chewing was increased, causing the ratio between eating and rumination time to decrease with lower intake of forage fiber. Particle size reduction and digestibility depended mostly on changes in NDF content, especially the indigestible NDF content.

Keywords

particle size distributiongrass-clover silagecowNDFchewing activity
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Issue 12 , December 2014 , pp. 1945 - 1954
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2014 

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

Åkerlind, M, Weisbjerg, MR, Eriksson, T, Tøgersen, R, Udén, P, Ólafsson, BL, Harstad, OM and Volden, H 2011. Feed analyses and digestion methods. In NorFor – The Nordic feed evaluation system. EAAP Publication No. 130 (ed. H Volden), pp. 41–54. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Allen, MS 1996. Physical constraints on voluntary intake of forages by ruminants. Journal of Animal Science 74, 3063–3075.Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists 2012. Official Methods of Analysis, 19th edition. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.Google Scholar
Bae, DM, Welch, JG and Smith, AM 1981. Efficiency of mastication in relation to hay intake by cattle. Journal of Animal Science 52, 1371–1375.Google Scholar
Bosch, MW, Tamminga, S, Post, G, Leffering, CP and Muylaert, JM 1992. Influence of stage of maturity of grass silages on digestion processes in dairy cows. 1. Composition, nylon bag degradation rates, fermentation characteristics, digestibility and intake. Livestock Production Science 32, 245–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colucci, PE, Chase, LE and Van Soest, PJ 1981. Feed intake, apparent diet digestibility, and rate of particulate passage in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 65, 1445–1456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Boever, JL, De Smet, A, De Brabander, DL and Boucque, CV 1993. Evaluation of physical structure. 1. Grass silage. Journal of Dairy Science 76, 140–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dias, RS, Patino, HO, López, S, Prates, E, Swanson, KC and France, J 2011. Relationships between chewing behavior, digestibility, and digesta passage kinetics in steers fed oat hay at restricted and ad libitum intakes. Journal of Animal Science 89, 1873–1880.Google Scholar
European Community 1971. Methods of analysis of the components of feeding-stuffs. Official Journal of the European Communities First commission directive of 15 June 1971 establishing Community methods of analysis for the official control of feeding-stuffs (71/250/EEC), pp. 480–505.Google Scholar
Hoffman, PC, Weigel, KA and Wernberg, RM 2008. Evaluation of equations to predict dry matter intake of dairy heifers. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 3699–3709.Google Scholar
Kammes, KL and Allen, MS 2012. Nutrient demand interacts with grass maturity to affect milk fat concentration and digestion responses in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 5133–5148.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kornfelt, LF, Nørgaard, P and Weisbjerg, MR 2013. Effect of harvest time of red and white clover silage on chewing activity and particle size distribution in boli, rumen content and faeces in cows. Animal 7, 909–919.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lund, P, Weisbjerg, MR, Hvelplund, T and Knudsen, KEB 2007. Determination of digestibility of different forages in dairy cows using indigestible NDF as marker. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A – Animal Science 57, 16–29.Google Scholar
Mertens, DR 1997. Creating a system for meeting the fiber requirements of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 80, 1463–1481.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mertens, DR 2002. Gravimetric determination of amylase-treated neutral detergent fiber in feeds with refluxing in beakers or crucibles: collaborative study. Journal of AOAC International 85, 1217–1240.Google Scholar
Nielsen, TS, Kristensen, NB and Weisbjerg, MR 2007. Effect of harvest time on fermentation profiles of maize ensiled in laboratory silos and determination of drying losses at 60 degrees C. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 57, 30–37.Google Scholar
Nørgaard, P and Hilden, K 2004. A new method for recording mastication during eating and ruminating in sheep. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences 13, 171–174.Google Scholar
Nørgaard, P, Nadeau, E and Randby, ÅT 2010. A new Nordic evaluation system for diets fed to dairy cows: a meta analysis. In Modelling nutrient digestion and utilisation in farm animals (ed. D Sauvant, J Van Miligen, P Faverdin and N Friggens), pp. 112–120. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Nørgaard, P, Nadeau, E, Randby, ÅT and Volden, H 2011. Chewing index system for predicting physical structure of the diet. In NorFor – The Nordic feed evaluation system. EAAP publication No. 130 (ed. H Volden), pp. 127–132. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Okine, EK and Mathison, GW 1991. Effects of feed intake on particle distribution, passage of digesta, and extent of digestion in the gastrointestinal tract of cattle. Journal of Animal Science 69, 3435–3545.Google Scholar
Redbo, I and Nordblad, A 1997. Stereotypies in heifers are affected by feeding regime. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 53, 193–202.Google Scholar
Rinne, M, Huhtanen, P and Jaakkola, S 2002. Digestive processes of dairy cows fed silages harvested at four stages of grass maturity. Journal of Animal Science 80, 1986–1998.Google Scholar
Schleisner, C, Nørgaard, P and Hansen, HH 1999. Discriminant analysis of pattern of jaw movement during rumination and eating in a cow. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavia 49, 251–259.Google Scholar
Schulze, AKS, Nørgaard, P, Byskov, MV and Weisbjerg, MR 2014a. Evaluation of physical structure value in spring-harvested grass/clover silage and hay fed to heifers. Animal, doi:10.1017/S1751731114002286.Google ScholarPubMed
Schulze, AKS, Weisbjerg, MR, Storm, AC and Nørgaard, P 2014b. Forage fiber effects on particle size reduction, ruminal stratification and selective retention in heifers fed highly digestible grass/clover silages. Journal of Animal Science 92, 2511–2521.Google Scholar
Schürch, AF, Lloyd, LE and Crampton, EW 1950. The use of chromic oxide as an index for determining the digestibility of a diet. Journal of Nutrition 50, 629–636.Google Scholar
Shaver, RD, Nytes, AJ, Satter, LD and Jorgensen, NA 1988. Influence of feed intake, forage physical form, and forage fiber content on particle size of masticated forage, ruminal digesta, and feces of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 71, 1566–1572.Google Scholar
Tilley, JMA and Terry, RA 1963. A two-stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Journal of the British Grassland Society 18, 104–111.Google Scholar
Van Soest, PJ 1973. Collaborative study of acid detergent fibre and lignin. Association of Official Analytical Chemists 56, 781–784.Google Scholar
Van Soest, PJ, Robertson, JB and 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
Waldo, DR, Smith, LW, Cox, EL, Weinland, BT and Lucas, HL Jr. 1971. Logarithmic normal distribution for description of sieved forage materials. Journal of Dairy Science 54, 1465–1469.Google Scholar
Welch, JG 1982. Rumination, particle size and passage from the rumen. Journal of Animal Science 54, 885–894.Google Scholar
Wilson, JR 1994. Cell wall characteristics in relation to forage digestion by ruminants. Journal of Agricultural Science 122, 173–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar