Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nmvwc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-07T11:30:45.716Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of forage: concentrate ratio and type of starch in the diet on feeding behaviour, dietary preferences, digestion, metabolism and performance of dairy goats in mid lactation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

J. A. Abijaoudé ,
P. Morand-Fehr ,
J. Tessier ,
P. Schmidely  and
D. Sauvant
J. A. Abijaoudé
Affiliation:
Laboratoire de Nutrition et Alimentation (INRA) de l’INA PG 16, rue Claude Bernard, 75231 Paris Cedex 05, France
P. Morand-Fehr
Affiliation:
Laboratoire de Nutrition et Alimentation (INRA) de l’INA PG 16, rue Claude Bernard, 75231 Paris Cedex 05, France
J. Tessier
Affiliation:
Laboratoire de Nutrition et Alimentation (INRA) de l’INA PG 16, rue Claude Bernard, 75231 Paris Cedex 05, France
P. Schmidely
Affiliation:
Laboratoire de Nutrition et Alimentation (INRA) de l’INA PG 16, rue Claude Bernard, 75231 Paris Cedex 05, France
D. Sauvant
Affiliation:
Laboratoire de Nutrition et Alimentation (INRA) de l’INA PG 16, rue Claude Bernard, 75231 Paris Cedex 05, France
Get access

Abstract

In a 12-week trial, 12 Alpine and 12 Saanen dairy goats in mid lactation were housed in individual stalls for behavioural, digestive and metabolic studies. Eight of them were fitted with ruminal cannulae. They were offered ad libitum four complete diets CR, CS, FR and FS (450 g dry matter (DM) per kg) in a 4 ✕ 4 Latin-square design. Forage: concentrate ratio was either low (C = 30: 70) or high (F = 55: 45) and starch source either rapidly (R, barley) or slowly (S, maize) degraded in the rumen.

Diet preferences were tested. DM intake, chewing activities and performance were determined. Ruminal pH and ammonia-nitrogen (NH3-N) concentrations were measured. Goats were also challenged intravenously with glucose (0·2 g/kg live weight) to assess glucose homeostasis.

CR was the most preferred diet. The level of intake differed according to the type of starch (2·2 kg DM per day of CR and FR and 2·0 kg DM per day of CS and FS). FS lowered ruminal pH significantly less than the other diets after the meal. Ruminal NH3-N concentrations were lower in goats given CR and CS than FR and FS. Goats’ resistance to a glucose challenge was not different among diets. Milk yield was 2·00, 1·85, 2·01, 1·85 kg/day on CR, CS, FR and FS respectively. Milk fat content decreased significantly with diets rich in concentrate (24 v. 26 g/kg milk) but milk protein content varied only a little.

In conclusion it appears that (1) higher forage: concentrate ratios were less preferred and decreased ruminal acidity but increased daily chewing, ruminal NH3-N and milk fat content; and (2) rapidly degraded starch increased intake, ruminal acidity and milk yield.

Keywords

dairy goatsfeeding behaviourmilk productionrumen digestionstarch
Type
Ruminant nutrition, behaviour and production
Information
Animal Science , Volume 71 , Issue 2 , October 2000 , pp. 359 - 368
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2000

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, J. A., Béchet, G., Brun, J.-P., Tessier, J. and Morand-Fehr, P. 1999. A method to record the feeding behaviour of goats. Small Ruminant Research 33: 213–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abijaoudé, J. A., Morand-Fehr, P. and Hervieu, J. 1996a. Quantitative appreciation of alimentary preferences of dairy goats when offered complete diets. Proceedings of the VIth international conference on goats, 6-11 May 1996, vol. 2, p. 553 (abstr.). International Academic Publishers, Beijing.Google Scholar
Abijaoudé, J. A., Morand-Fehr, P., Hervieu, J., Giger-Reverdin, S., Schmidely, Ph. and Sauvant, D. 1996b. Effect of nature of starch on ruminal characteristics, blood parameters, glucose and insulin kinetics and milk performances of dairy goats. Proceedings of the VIth international conference on goats, 6-11 May, vol. 2, pp. 639–642. International Academic Publishers, Beijing.Google Scholar
Abijaoudé, J. A., Morand-Fehr, P., Tessier, J., Schmidely, P. and Sauvant, D. 1997. Relation between intake, ingestion rate and alimentary preferences in goats receiving diets with different forage/concentrate ratios and starch sources. Proceedings of the 48th annual meeting of the European Association for Animal Production, Vienna, p. 311 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Abijaoudé, J. A., Morand-Fehr, P., Tessier, J., Schmidely, P. and Sauvant, D. 2000. Daily diet effect on the feeding behaviour frequency and characteristics of meals in dairy goats. Livestock Production Science 64: 90–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldrich, J. M., Muller, L. D., Varga, G. A. and Griel, L. C. 1993. Nonstructural carbohydrate and protein effects on rumen fermentation, nutrient flow and performances of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 76: 1091–1105.Google Scholar
Boever, J. L.de, Andries, J. I., Brabander, D. L. de, Cottyn, B. G. and Buysse, F. X. 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
Brockman, R. P. 1986. Pancreatic and adrenal hormonal regulation of metabolism. In Control of digestion and metabolism in ruminants (ed. L. P., Milligan, W. L., Grovum and A., Dobson), pp. 405–419. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliff, NJ.Google Scholar
Dulphy, J.-P. and Carle, B. 1986. Activités alimentaires et mériciques comparées des bovins, des caprins et des ovins. Reproduction, Nutrition, Developpement 26: 279–280.Google Scholar
Dulphy, J. P. and Michalet-Doreau, B. 1983. Comportement alimentaire et méricique d’ovins et de bovins recevant des fourrages verts. Annales de Zootechnie 32: 465–474.Google Scholar
Erdman, R. 1988. Forage pH effects on intake in early lactation dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 71: 1198–1203.Google Scholar
Geay, Y. and Grizard, J. 1986. Variations du métabolisme de l’insuline chez le taurillon selon la nature du régime et l’état d’engraissement. Reproduction, Nutrition, Developpement 26: 385–386.Google Scholar
Giger-Reverdin, S. and Sauvant, D. 1991. Evaluation and utilization of concentrates in goats. In Goat nutrition (ed. Morand-Fehr, P.), pp. 172–183. EAAP Publications, Wageningen.Google Scholar
Kawas, J. R., Lopes, J., Danelon, D. L. and Lu, C. D. 1991. Influence of forage-to-concentrate ratios on intake, digestibility, chewing and milk production of dairy goats. Small Ruminant Research 4: 11–18.Google Scholar
Kenney, P. A. and Black, J. L. 1984. Factors affecting diet selection by sheep. I. Potential intake rate and acceptability of feed. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 35: 551–563.Google Scholar
Metcalf, J. A. and Weekes, T. E. C. 1990. Effect of plane of nutrition on insulin sensitivity during lactation in the ewe. Journal of Dairy Research 57: 465–478.Google Scholar
Morand-Fehr, P., Hervieu, J. and Sauvant, D. 1980. Contribution à la description de la prise alimentaire de la chèvre. Reproduction, Nutrition, Developpement 20: 1641–1644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morand-Fehr, P. and Sauvant, D. 1980. Nutrition and optimum performance of dairy goats. Livestock Production Science 5: 203–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morand-Fehr, P. and Sauvant, D. 1987. Feeding strategies in goats. Proceedings of the fourth international conference on goats, 8-13 March, Brasilia, pp. 1275–1303.Google Scholar
Morand-Fehr, P., Tessier, J., Meschy, F. and Sauvant, D. 2000. Effect of roughage level and source in diets on the risk of reversing of fat and protein percentages in goat milk. Proceedings of the meeting on sheep and goat nutrition, 3-5 September, INAPG — Grignon. Options Méditerranéennes 32: 45–57.Google Scholar
Morgan, D. J., Ryan, H. and Upton, P. K. 1989. Ceral digestion in the ruminant. 1. Nutrient passage from the rumen and glucose kinetics in sheep fed unground barley or unground maize diets. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 28: 35–42.Google Scholar
Mould, F. L. and Ørskov, E. R. 1983. Manipulation of rumen fluid pH and its influence on cellulolysis in sacco, dry matter degradation and the rumen microflora of sheep offered either hay or concentrate. Animal Feed Science and Technology 10: 1–14.Google Scholar
Nocek, J. E. and Tamminga, S. 1991. Site of digestion of starch in the gastrointestinal tract of dairy cows and its effect on milk yield and composition. Journal of Dairy Science 74: 3598–3629.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. 1986. Starch digestion and utilization in ruminants. Journal of Animal Science 63: 1624–1633.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parsons, A. J., Newman, J. A., Penning, P. D., Harvey, A. and Orr, R. J. 1994. Diet preference of sheep: effects of recent diet, physiological state and species abundance. Journal of Animal Ecology 63: 465–478.Google Scholar
Sauvant, D. 1997. Conséquences digestives et zootechniques des variations de la vitesse de digestion de l’amidon chez le ruminant. INRA Productions Animales 10: 287–300.Google Scholar
Sauvant, D., Chapoutot, P. and Archimède, H. 1994. La digestion des amidons par les ruminants et ses conséquences. INRA Productions Animales 7: 115–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidely, P., Archimède, H., Bas, P., Rouzeau, A., Munoz, S. and Sauvant, D. 1996. Effects of the synchronization of the rate of carbohydrates and nitrogen release of the concentrate on rumen fermentation, plasma metabolites and insulin, in the dry pregnant goat. Animal Feed Science and Technology 63: 163–178.Google Scholar
Schmidely, P., Lloret-Pujol, M., Bas, P., Rouzeau, A. and Sauvant, D. 1999. Influence of feed intake and source of dietary carbohydrate on the metabolic response to propionate and glucose challenges in lactating goats. Journal of Dairy Science 82: 738–746.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1996. SAS/STAT guide for personal computers, version 6. Satistical Analysis Systems Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Sutton, J. D. 1989. Altering milk composition by feeding. Journal of Dairy Science 72: 2801–2814.Google Scholar
Wang, J. and Provenza, F. D. 1996. Food preference and acceptance of novel foods by lambs depend on the composition of the basal diet. Journal of Animal Science 74: 2349–2354.Google Scholar