Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T11:07:36.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of particle size and moisture levels in mixed rations on the feeding behavior of dairy heifers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2014

M. A. Khan ,
A. Bach ,
Ll. Castells ,
D. M. Weary  and
M. A. G. von Keyserlingk
M. A. Khan
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Program, University of British Columbia, 2357 Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z4
A. Bach
Affiliation:
ICREA, Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats, 23 08010 Barcelona, Spain Department of Ruminant Production, IRTA, Barcelona, Spain
Ll. Castells
Affiliation:
Department of Ruminant Production, IRTA, Barcelona, Spain
D. M. Weary
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Program, University of British Columbia, 2357 Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z4
M. A. G. von Keyserlingk*
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Program, University of British Columbia, 2357 Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z4
*
† E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Two experiments on replacement heifers (175±12 days of age) assessed the effects of forage particle length and moisture on feeding behavior. Both experiments used a replicated 3×3 Latin square design, with nine heifers per replication and three periods of 9 days each. Each group of nine heifers was housed in one pen with access to three electronic feed bins. In Experiment 1, hay chopped at different lengths was incorporated into three total mixed rations (TMR) all having the same ingredient and nutrient composition but differing in the percentage of long particles (>19 mm): 60% (Short), 64% (Medium) and 72% (Long). In Experiment 2, heifers were fed a TMR with the same ingredient and nutrient composition but differing in moisture content: 65% DM (Dry), 50% DM (Moderate), and 35% DM (Wet). In both experiments, feeding behavior during the last 5 days of each period was analyzed using a mixed model accounting for the fixed effects of treatment and period, and the random effects of replication and animal. In Experiment 1, dry matter intake (DMI) and eating rate (DMI/min) tended to increase, whereas daily eating time decreased as the feed particle size decreased. Heifers fed the Long diet selected in favor of long particles (>19 mm) and against Short (1.18 to 8 mm) and fine (<1.18 mm) particles; heifers fed the Short diet selected against long particles and in favor of short and fine particles. Heifers fed the Medium diet showed a preference for medium particles with no preference for the other particle sizes. In Experiment 2, heifers fed the Dry diet tended to consume more feed than those fed the Moderate and Wet diets, with no differences in feeding behavior or sorting activity. In conclusion the Medium diet minimized sorting without reducing eating rates and intake, and adding water to TMR to achieve a dry matter less than 65% tended to decrease DMI without reducing sorting.

Keywords

feeding managementdietary preferenceTMRforageHolstein
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Issue 10 , October 2014 , pp. 1722 - 1727
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

Alamouti, AA, Alikhani, M, Ghorbani, GR and Zebeli, Q 2009. Effects of inclusion of neutral detergent soluble fibre sources in diets varying in forage particle size on feed intake, digestive processes, and performance of mid-lactation Holstein cows. Animal Feed Science Technology 154, 9–23.Google Scholar
Allen, MS 1997. Relationships between fermentation acid production in the rumen and the requirement for physically effective fiber. Journal of Dairy Science 83, 1447–1462.Google Scholar
Allen, MS 2000. Effects of diet on short-term regulation of feed intake by lactating dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 83, 1598–1624.Google Scholar
Arzola-Álvarez, C, Bocanegra-Viezca, JA, Murphy, MR, Salinas-Chavira, J, Corral-Luna, A, Romanos, A, Ruíz-Barrera, O and Rodríguez-Muela, C 2010. Particle size distribution and chemical composition of total mixed rations for dairy cattle: water addition and feed sampling effects. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 4180–4188.Google Scholar
Bach, A and Ahedo, J 2008. Record keeping and economics of dairy heifers. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice 24, 117–138.Google Scholar
DeVries, TJ and von Keyserlingk, MAG 2009a. Short communication: feeding method affects the feeding behavior of growing dairy heifers. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 1161–1168.Google Scholar
DeVries, TJ and von Keyserlingk, MAG 2009b. Competition for feed affects the feeding behavior of growing dairy heifers. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 3922–3929.Google Scholar
DeVries, TJ, von Keyserlingk, MAG and Beauchemin, KA 2005. Frequency of feed delivery affects the behavior of lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 3553–3562.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeVries, TJ, Beauchemin, KA and von Keyserlingk, MAG 2007. Dietary forage concentration affects the feed sorting behavior of lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 5572–5579.Google Scholar
Felton, CA and DeVries, TJ 2010. Effect of water addition to a total mixed ration on feed temperature, feed intake, sorting behavior, and milk production of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 2651–2660.Google Scholar
Fish, JA and DeVries, TJ 2012. Varying dietary dry matter concentration through water addition: effect on nutrient intake and sorting of dairy cows in late lactation. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 850–855.Google Scholar
Greter, AM, DeVries, TJ and von Keyserlingk, MAG 2008. Nutrient intake and feeding behavior of growing dairy heifers: effects of dietary dilution. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 2786–2795.Google Scholar
Greter, AM, Leslie, KE, Mason, GJ, Mcbride, BW and DeVries, TJ 2010. Effect of feed delivery method on the behavior and growth of dairy heifers. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 1668–1676.Google Scholar
Kellems, RO, Jones, R, Andrus, D and Wallentine, MV 1991. Effect of moisture in total mixed rations on feed consumption and milk production and composition in Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 929–932.Google Scholar
Kononoff, PJ, Heinrichs, AJ and Lehman, HA 2003a. The effect of corn silage particle size on eating behavior, chewing activities, and rumen fermentation in lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 3343–3353.Google Scholar
Kononoff, PJ, Heinrichs, AJ and Buckmaster, DR 2003b. Modification of the Penn State forage and total mixed ration particle separator and the effects of moisture content on its measurements. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 1858–1863.Google Scholar
Lahr, DA, Otterby, DE, Johnson, DG, Linn, JG and Lundquist, RG 1983. Effects of moisture content of complete diets on feed intake and milk production by cows. Journal of Dairy Science 66, 1891–1900.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Leonardi, C, Giannico, F and Armentano, LE 2005. Effect of water addition on selective consumption (sorting) of dry diets by dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 1043–1049.Google Scholar
Maulfair, DD, Fustini, M and Heinrichs, AJ 2010. Effect of varying total mixed ration particle size on rumen digesta and fecal particle size and digestibility in lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 3527–3536.Google Scholar
Miller-Cushon, EK and DeVries, TJ 2009. Effect of dietary dry matter concentration on the sorting behavior of lactating dairy cows fed a total mixed ration. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 3292–3298.Google Scholar
Montgomery, MJ and Baumgardt, BR 1965. Regulation of food intake in ruminants. 1. Pelleted rations varying in energy concentration. Journal of Dairy Science 48, 569–574.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
NRC 2001. Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle, 7th revised edition. National Academy of Science, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
SAS 2009. SAS user’s guide: statistics. Version 9.2. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Shaver, RD 2002. Rumen acidosis in dairy cattle: bunk management considerations. Advances in Dairy Technology 14, 241–249.Google Scholar
Storm, AC and Kristensen, NB 2010. Effects of particle size and dry matter content of a total mixed ration on intraruminal equilibration and net portal flux of volatile fatty acids in lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 4223–4238.Google Scholar
Tafaj, M, Zebeli, V, Baes, Ch, Steingass, H and Drochner, W 2007. A meta-analysis examining effects of particle size of total mixed rations on intake, rumen digestion and milk production in high-yielding dairy cows in early lactation. Animal Feed Science Technology 138, 137–161.Google Scholar
Teimouri Yansari, A, Valizadeh, R, Naserian, A, Christensen, DA, Yu, P and 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.Google Scholar
Tolkamp, BJ, Allcroft, DJ, Austin, EJ, Nielsen, BL and Kyriazakis, I 1998. Satiety splits feeding behavior into bouts. Journal of Theoretical Biology 194, 235–250.Google Scholar
Yang, WZ and Beauchemin, KA 2006. Physically effective fiber: method of determination and effects on chewing, ruminal acidosis, and digestion by dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 2618–2633.Google Scholar
Yang, WZ and Beauchemin, KA 2007. Altering physically effective fiber intake through forage proportion and particle length: chewing and ruminal pH. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 2826–2838.Google Scholar
Zanton, GI and Heinrichs, AJ 2009. Limit-feeding with altered forage-to-concentrate levels in dairy heifer diets. The Professional Animal Scientist 25, 393–403.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.Google Scholar