Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T02:01:09.604Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of the forage-to-concentrate ratio of the diet on feeding behaviour in young Blond d’Aquitaine bulls

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2008

M. M. Mialon ,
C. Martin ,
F. Garcia ,
J. B. Menassol ,
H. Dubroeucq ,
I. Veissier  and
D. Micol
M. M. Mialon*
Affiliation:
INRA, UR1213 Herbivores, Site de Theix, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
C. Martin
Affiliation:
INRA, UR1213 Herbivores, Site de Theix, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
F. Garcia
Affiliation:
INRA, UR1213 Herbivores, Site de Theix, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
J. B. Menassol
Affiliation:
INRA, UR1213 Herbivores, Site de Theix, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
H. Dubroeucq
Affiliation:
INRA, UR1213 Herbivores, Site de Theix, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
I. Veissier
Affiliation:
INRA, UR1213 Herbivores, Site de Theix, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
D. Micol
Affiliation:
INRA, UR1213 Herbivores, Site de Theix, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
*
E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The activities of bulls, their feeding behaviour and their ruminal pH were examined at several stages during the finishing period, according to the forage-to-concentrate ratio of their diet. Twenty-four bulls of the Blond d’Aquitaine breed (initial body weight = 326 ± 21 kg) were assigned to six balanced pens with a space allowance of 9.4 m2 per bull during the finishing period. They were fed three different diets with achieved forage-to-concentrate ratios of (i) 8% straw and 92% concentrate, (ii) 44% hay and 56% concentrate and (iii) 57% maize silage and 43% concentrate. Bulls had ad libitum access to feed dispensed once daily. Offered and refusals were weighed on 5 consecutive days per week. The bulls were slaughtered at the common final live weight of 650 kg and the finishing period lasted 138, 181 and 155 days for straw–concentrate, hay–concentrate and maize silage–concentrate diets, respectively. The time budget was estimated four times by scan sampling with a 10-min interval. Feeding behaviour was appraised using data from electronic feeding gates. Ruminal pH was measured from a ruminal fluid sample collected by rumenocentesis. On average, the bulls spent 78% of the time lying or standing still, and 11% of the time eating. The forage-to-concentrate ratio of the diet influenced only those activities directly linked to feeding, i.e. eating and drinking. Bulls fed a high-concentrate diet spent less time eating than the other bulls (47 min v. >2 h) and took shorter meals (7 min v. 17 min). The bulls fed the straw–concentrate diet spread their meals over the entire day, whereas the others maintained two major peaks of eating activity, the main one in the morning after feed dispensing, the other one at the end of the diurnal period. Intake rate ranged widely between diets, from 58 g/min on average for the diets based on hay or maize silage up to 173 g/min for the high-concentrate diet. The concentrate-diet bulls also had a lower ruminal pH during the first 2 months of the finishing period. The dispersion of meals based on a high-acidosis-risk diet may be a way to limit the decrease in ruminal pH.

Keywords

beef cattlefeeding behaviourruminal pHwelfare
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 2 , Issue 11 , November 2008 , pp. 1682 - 1691
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2008

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

Abijaoude, JA, Morand-Fehr, P, Tessier, J, Schmidely, P, Sauvant, D 2000. Diet effect on the daily feeding behaviour, frequency and characteristics of meals in dairy goats. Livestock Production Science 64, 29–37.Google Scholar
AFNOR 1985. Aliments des animaux. Méthodes d’analyses françaises et communautaires. Dosage de l’amidon. Méthode polarimétrique, 2ème édition. Association Française de Normalisation, Paris, France, pp. 123–125.Google Scholar
Akaike, H 1974. A new look at statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 19, 716–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albright, JL 1993. Feeding behavior of dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 76, 485–498.Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists 1990. Official methods of analysis, 14th edition. AOAC, Arlington, VA.Google Scholar
Baumont, R, Doreau, M, Ingrand, S, Veissier, I 2006. Feeding and mastication behaviour in ruminants. In Feeding in domestic vertebrates (ed. V Bels), pp. 241–262. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Bevans, DW, Beauchemin, KA, Schwartzkopf-Genswein, KS, McKinnon, JJ, McAllister, TA 2005. Effect of rapid or gradual grain adaptation on subacute acidosis and feed intake by feedlot cattle. Journal of Animal Science 83, 1116–1132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bozkurt, Y, Ozkaya, S, Ap Dewi, I 2006. Association between aggressive behaviour and high-energy feeding level in beef cattle. Czech Journal of Animal Science 51, 151–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cottee, G, Kyriazakis, I, Widowski, TM, Lindinger, MI, Cant, JP, Duffield, TF, Osborne, VR, McBride, BW 2004. The effects of subacute ruminal acidosis on sodium bicarbonate-supplemented water intake for lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 2248–2253.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cozzi, G, Gottardo, F 2005. Feeding behaviour and diet selection of finishing Limousin bulls under intensive rearing system. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 91, 181–192.Google Scholar
Dado, RG, Allen, MS 1993. Continuous computer acquisition of feed and water intakes, chewing, reticular motility, and ruminal pH of cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 76, 1589–1600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devries, TJ, Von Keyserlingk, MAG, Beauchemin, KA 2005. Frequency of feed delivery affects the behavior of lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 3553–3562.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
EU-SCAHAW 2001. The welfare of cattle kept for beef production. Retrieved April 25, 2001, from http://ec.europa.eu.int/food/fs/scah/out54_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
Garcia, F, Agabriel, J, Micol, D 2007. Alimentation des bovins en croissance et l’engrais. In Alimentation des bovins, ovins et caprins. Tables INRA 2007 (ed. INRA), pp. 89–120. Editions Quae, Versailles, France.Google Scholar
Gonzalez, LA, Ferret, A, Manteca, X, Ruiz-de-la-Torre, JL, Calsamiglia, S, Devant, M, Bach, A 2008. Performance, behavior, and welfare of Friesian heifers housed in pens with two, four, and eight individuals per concentrate feeding place. Journal of Animal Science 86, 1446–1458.Google Scholar
Gottardo, F, Ricci, R, Preciso, S, Ravarotto, L, Cozzi, G 2004. Effect of the manger space on welfare and meat quality of beef cattle. Livestock Production Science 89, 277–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper GC and Henson SJ 2001. Consumer concerns about animal welfare and the impact on food choice – The final report. The University of Reading. United Kingdom. EU FAIR CT98-3678.Google Scholar
Jarrige, R, Dulphy, JP, Faverdin, P, Baumont, R, Demarquilly, C 1995. Activités d’ingestion et de rumination. In Nutrition des ruminants domestiques (ed. R Jarrige, Y Ruckebusch, C Demarquilly, MH Farce and M Journet), pp. 123–181. INRA, Editions, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Kohn, RA, Dunlap, TF 1998. Calculation of the buffering capacity of bicarbonate in the rumen and in vitro. Journal of Animal Science 76, 1702–1709.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Littell, RC, Henry, PR, Ammerman, CB 1998. Statistical analysis of repeated measures data using SAS procedures. Journal of Animal Science 76, 1216–1231.Google Scholar
Mackie, RI, Gilchrist, FMC, Roberts, AM, Hannah, PE, Schwartz, HM 1978. Microbiological and chemical changes in the rumen during the stepwise adaptation of sheep to high concentrate diets. Journal of Agricultural Science 90, 241–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, C, Brossard, L, Doreau, M 2006. Mechanisms of appearance of ruminal acidosis and consequences on physiopathology and performances. Productions Animales 19, 93–107.Google Scholar
Metz, JHM 1975. Time patterns of feeding and rumination in domestic cattle. Medelingen Landbouwhogeschool Wageningen Nederland 75, 1–66.Google Scholar
Micol D, Dubroeucq H, Martin C, Garcia F, Mialon MM and Agabriel J 2007. Utilisation de rations de valeur contrastée pour la finition de jeunes bovins de race Blond d’Aquitaine. In Proceedings of the Rencontres Recherches Ruminants, vol. 14, pp. 233–236.Google Scholar
Mitlohner, FM, Morrow-Tesch, JL, Wilson, SC, Dailey, JW, McGlone, JJ 2001. Behavioral sampling techniques for feedlot cattle. Journal of Animal Science 79, 1189–1193.Google Scholar
Nielsen, BL, Veerkamp, RF, Lawrence, AB 2000. Effects of genotype, feed type and lactational stage on the time budget of dairy cows. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A 50, 272–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ouedraogo, AP 1998. Ethical consumers? Social representations of stock farming in France. In Proceedings of the 32nd Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology (ed. I Veissier and A Boissy), p. 204. Clermont-Ferrand, France.Google Scholar
Redbo, I, Nordblad, A 1997. Stereotypies in heifers are affected by feeding regime. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 53, 193–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rotger, A, Ferret, A, Manteca, X, De La Torre, JLR, Calsamiglia, S 2006. Effects of dietary nonstructural carbohydrates and protein sources on feeding behavior of tethered heifers fed high-concentrate diets. Journal of Animal Science 84, 1197–1204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Soest, PJ, Robertson, JB, Lewis, BA 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and non starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3538–3597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed