Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T05:43:42.589Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effect of NDF concentration and physical form of fescue hay on rumen degradability, intake and rumen turn-over of cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

P. Susmel
Affiliation:
Istituto di Produzione Animate, Universitá degli Studi di Udine, Via S. Mauro 2, 33010 Pagnacco, Udine, Italy
M. Spanghero
Affiliation:
Istituto di Produzione Animate, Universitá degli Studi di Udine, Via S. Mauro 2, 33010 Pagnacco, Udine, Italy
B. Stefanon
Affiliation:
Istituto di Produzione Animate, Universitá degli Studi di Udine, Via S. Mauro 2, 33010 Pagnacco, Udine, Italy
C. R. Mills
Affiliation:
Istituto di Produzione Animate, Universitá degli Studi di Udine, Via S. Mauro 2, 33010 Pagnacco, Udine, Italy
C. Cargnelutti
Affiliation:
Istituto di Produzione Animate, Universitá degli Studi di Udine, Via S. Mauro 2, 33010 Pagnacco, Udine, Italy
Get access

Abstract

During two experimental periods, eight non-lactating, rumen fistulated Simmental cows were given 2 kg/day of a cereal based concentrate and fescue hay ad libitum. The hay differed in neutral-detergent fibre concentration (LNDF: low; HNDF: high) and physical form (L: long; C: coarsely chopped). The rumen degradability of the dietary ingredients and of an extracted soya-bean meal was studied using the polyester-bag method.

The estimated effective rumen degradability <DG) of dry matter (DM) was significantly higher for LNDF than for HNDF hay (0·490 v. 0·401; P < 0·01). The DM DG of the extracted soya-bean meal and the dietary concentrate were higher when incubated with LNDF than with HNDF diets (0·630 v. 0·581, P < 0·05, and 0·541 v. 0·514, respectively).

Chopping the hay significantly increased the daily DM intake for HNDF diets (from 9·9 to 11·6 kg; P < 0·05), while no statistical differences were found between the other diets (10·2 and 9·6 kg, respectively for L-LNDF and C-LNDF diets). Cows given HNDF hay drank less water (42·4 v. 51·7 I/day) and total water consumption, expressed per unit of DM intake, was lower for the HNDF diets (4·1 v. 5·3 I/kg DM; P < 0·01).

Dietary treatments did not affect the estimated rumen turn-over rate of hay (0·027 per h on average, k1), hay post-rumen turn-over rate (0·069 per h on average, k2) or the estimated rumen liquid turn-over rate (0·100 per h on average, kj. The calculated outflow from the rumen was lower for the HNDF diets (159·4 v. 198·7 I/day). The daily amount of estimated saliva secreted did not differ between treatments, although saliva expressed per kg DM intake was significantly lower for the HNDF diets (10·8 v. 14·8 I/kg DM; P < 0·05).

The HNDF diets gave a lower post-feeding rumen pH (6·29 v. 6·58; P < 0·01), a higher concentration of n-butyrate (9·58 v. 8·32 mmol/l; P < 0·05) and a lower concentration of ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N) (80·5 v. 128·5 mg/l; P < 0·05). Of the C4 and C5 iso-acids, the rumen liquid from cows given HNDF diets had significantly lower concentrations of isobutyrate, isovalerate and n-valerate (P < 0·01). Hay physical form did not affect rumen pH, NH3-N and volatile fatty acid concentrations.

Type
Papers
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1991

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

Arieli, A., Bruckental, I. and Smoler, E. 1989. Prediction of duodenal nitrogen supply from degradation of organic and nitrogenous matter in situ. Journal of Dairy Science 72: 25322539.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1984. Official methods of analysis. 14th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Barber, W. P., Adamson, A. H. and Altaian, J. F. B. 1984. New methods of forage evaluation. In Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition — 1984 (ed. Haresign, W. and Cole, D. J. A.), pp. 161176. Butterworths, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumont, R., Seguier, N. and Dulphy, J. P. 1990. Rumen fill, forage palatability and alimentary behaviour in sheep. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 115:277284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beaucheim, K. A. and Buchanan-Smith, J. G. 1989. Effects of dietary neutral detergent fiber concentration and supplementary long hay on chewing activities and milk production of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 72: 22882300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beaucheim, K. A. and Buchanan-Smith, J. G. 1990. Effects of fiber source and method of feeding on chewing activities, digestive function and productivity of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 73: 749762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cottyn, B. G. 1987. Isoacids in ruminant nutrition: their role in ruminal and intermediary metabolism and possible influences on performances — a review. Animal Feed Science and Technology 18:169180.Google Scholar
Dhanoa, M. S., Siddons, R. C, France J. and Gale D. L. 1985. A multicompartmental model to describe marker excretion patterns in ruminant faeces. British Journal of Nutrition 53: 663671.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dowman, M. G. and Collins, F. C. 1982. The use of enzymes to predict the digestibility of animal feeds. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 33: 689696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, J. L. 1978. Design and analysis of experiments in the animal and medical sciences. Vol. 2, pp. 1820. Iowa State University Press, Ames, la.Google Scholar
Goering, H. K. and Van Soest, P. J. 1970. Forage fiber analysis, (apparatus, reagents, procedures and some applications). Agriculture handbook, US Department of Agriculture, no. 379.Google Scholar
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique. 1988. Alimentation des bovins, ovins et caprins. INRA, Paris.Google Scholar
Jacques, K., Harmon, L., Croom, W. J. and Hagler, W. M. 1989. Estimating salivary flow and ruminal water balance of intake diet, feeding pattern and slaframine. Journal of Dairy Science 73: 443452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martz, F. A. and Belyea, R. L. 1986. Role of particle size and forage quality in digestion and passage by cattle and sheep. Journal of Dairy Science 69:19962008.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mertens, D. R. 1987. Predicting intake and digestibility using mathematical models of ruminal function. Journal of Animal Science 64:15481558.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland and Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland. 1984. Energy allowances and feeding systems for ruminants. Reference book no. 433. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
National Research Council. 1987. Predicting feed intake of food producing animals. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Norgaard, P. 1989. The influence of the physical form of the diet on fluid dynamics and mineral content of rumen fluid in lactating cows fed 12 times daily. Ada Agriculturae Scandinavica 39: 431440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Hughes-Jones, M. and McDonald, I. 1980. Degradability of protein supplements and utilization of undegraded protein by high-producing dairy cows. In Recent advances in animal nutrition — 1980 (ed. Haresign, W.), pp. 8598. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. and McDonald, I. 1979. The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 92: 499503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rode, L. M. and Satter, L. D. 1988. Effect of amount and length of alfalfa hay in diets containing barley or corn on site of digestion and rumen microbial synthesis in dairy cows. Canadian journal of Animal Science 68: 445454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rode, L. M., Weakley, D. C. and Satter, L. D. 1985. Effect of forage amount and particle size in diets of lactating dairy cows on site of digestion and microbial protein synthesis. Canadian journal of Animal Science 65:101111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaver, R. D., Nytes, A. J., Satter, L. D. and Jorgensen, N. A. 1986. Influence of amount of feed intake and forage physical form on digestion and passage of prebloom alfalfa hay in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 69:15451559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supelco. 1975. GC Separation of VFA C2-C5. Bull. 749d. Supelco Inc., Bellafonte, PA 16823, USA.Google Scholar
Susmel, P., Stefanon, B., Mills, C. R. and Colitti, M. 1990. The evaluation of PDI concentrations in some ruminant feedstuffs: a comparison of in situ and in vitro protein degradability. Annales de Zootechnie 38: 269283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Susmel, P., Stefanon, B. and Piasentier, E. 1989. Effect of forage and concentrate intake level on rumen degradability of protein sources having different in vitro rates of solubilisation. Animal Feed Science and Technology 26: 231249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Udén, P., Colucci, P. E. and Van Soest, P. J. 1980. Investigation of chromium, cerium and cobalt as markers in digesta. Rate of passage studies, journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 31: 625632.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Soest, P. J. 1982. Nutritional ecology of the ruminant. O and B Books, Corvallis, Oregon.Google Scholar
Wainman, F. W., Dewey, P. J. S. and Boyne, A. W. 1981. Feedingstuffs Evaluation Unit- third report: compound feedingstuffs for ruminants. Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen.Google Scholar
Waldo, D. R. 1986. Effect of forage quality on intake and forage-concentrate interactions, journal of Dairy Science 69: 617631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldo, D. R., Smith, L. W. and Cox, E. L. 1972. Model of cellulose disappearance from the rumen. Journal of Dairy Science 55: 125129.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weakley, D. C., Stern, M. D. and Satter, L. D. 1983. Factors affecting disappearance of feedstuffs from bags suspended in the rumen, journal of Animal Science 53: 493507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, C. H., David, D. J. and Iismaa, O. 1962. The determination of chromic oxide in faeces samples by atomic absorption spectrophotometry. journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 59: 381385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar