Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T19:39:09.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of feeding method on intake and behaviour of individually reared beef heifers fed a concentrate diet from 115 to 185 kg of body weight

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 February 2012

S. P. Iraira ,
J. L. Ruíz de la Torre ,
M. Rodríguez-Prado ,
X. Manteca ,
S. Calsamiglia  and
A. Ferret
S. P. Iraira
Affiliation:
Animal Nutrition, Management, and Welfare Research Group, Departament de Ciència Animal i dels Aliments, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193-Bellaterra, Spain
J. L. Ruíz de la Torre
Affiliation:
Animal Nutrition, Management, and Welfare Research Group, Departament de Ciència Animal i dels Aliments, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193-Bellaterra, Spain
M. Rodríguez-Prado
Affiliation:
Animal Nutrition, Management, and Welfare Research Group, Departament de Ciència Animal i dels Aliments, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193-Bellaterra, Spain
X. Manteca
Affiliation:
Animal Nutrition, Management, and Welfare Research Group, Departament de Ciència Animal i dels Aliments, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193-Bellaterra, Spain
S. Calsamiglia
Affiliation:
Animal Nutrition, Management, and Welfare Research Group, Departament de Ciència Animal i dels Aliments, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193-Bellaterra, Spain
A. Ferret*
Affiliation:
Animal Nutrition, Management, and Welfare Research Group, Departament de Ciència Animal i dels Aliments, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193-Bellaterra, Spain
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

A total of eight Simmental heifers (114 ± 3.2 days old and weighing 118 ± 3.8 kg BW) were used to study the effects of feeding method on intake and animal behaviour in a crossover design experiment. Treatments consisted of feeding concentrate and chopped barley straw as (1) choice (CH; concentrate and straw in separate feedbunks) or (2) total mixed ration (TMR; concentrate and straw in one feedbunk). Feeds were offered on an ad libitum basis, but always maintaining a concentrate to straw ratio of 90 to 10. The experiment was performed in two 21-day periods, and sampling was carried out in the last week of each period. At the end of each period, treatment was changed for heifers; hence, the final number of animals per treatment was eight. Intake was recorded over 7 consecutive days. BW was recorded at the beginning and the end of the experiment and on day 21 of each experimental period. Barley straw was coarsely chopped with a chopping machine. Once chopped, all the straw was handled for particle size separation using the 2-screen Penn State Particle Separator and only material of more than 8 mm was used to feed the heifers. Animal behaviour was video-recorded for 24 h on day 2 and day 6 of each experimental period. Concentrate intake and total dry matter intake of heifers fed with the CH feeding method were higher (P < 0.01 and P < 0.05) than when fed with TMR (5.1 and 5.3 v. 4.7 and 5.0 kg dry matter (DM)/day, respectively). Conversely, barley straw was consumed in higher amounts in heifers fed with the TMR feeding method (0.3 v. 0.2 kg DM/day, respectively; P = 0.001). The total NDF intake was similar in both treatments. In contrast, NDF intake from barley straw and physically effective NDF intake were higher in heifers fed with the TMR feeding method than when fed with CH. Feeding method used to feed heifers did not affect the consumption of the different kinds of barley straw particles and eating and drinking behaviours but affected ruminating behaviour. Heifers fed TMR spent more time ruminating than heifers fed concentrate and barley straw separately (376 v. 287 min/day, respectively; P < 0.01). TMR as the feeding method in intensive beef production systems could be a good approach to promote roughage intake.

Keywords

behaviourfeeding methodgrowing heifershigh-concentrate diet
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 6 , Issue 9 , September 2012 , pp. 1483 - 1490
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2012

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

Allen, MS 1997. Relationship between fermentation acid production in the rumen and the requirement for physically fiber. Journal of Dairy Science 80, 1447–1462.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Association of Official Analytical Chemist (AOAC) 1990. Official methods of analysis, XXth edition. AOAC, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Atwood, SB, Provenza, FD, Wiedmeier, RD, Banner, RE 2001. Influence of free-choice v. mixed-ration diets on food intake and performance of fattening calves. Journal of Animal Science 79, 3034–3040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colebrander, VF, Noller, CH, Grant, RJ 1991. Effect of fiber content and particle size of alfalfa silage on performance and chewing behaviour. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 2681–2690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dado, RG, Allen, MS 1994. Variation in and relationships among feeding, chewing, and drinking variables for lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 77, 132–144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeBoever, JL, Andries, JI, DeBrabander, DL, Cottyn, BG, Buysse, FX 1990. Chewing activity of ruminants as a measure of physical structure – a review of factors affecting it. Animal Feed Science and Technology 28, 281–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deswysen, AG, Ellis, WC, Pond, KR 1987. Interrelationships among voluntary intake, eating and ruminating behavior and ruminal motility of heifers fed corn silage. Journal of Animal Science 64, 835–841.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Devant, M, Ferret, A, Gasa, J, Calsamiglia, S, Casals, R 2000. Effects of protein concentration and degradability on performance, ruminal fermentation, and nitrogen metabolism in rapidly growing heifers fed high-concentrate diets from 100 to 230 kg body weight. Journal of Animal Science 78, 1667–1676.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeVries, TJ, von Keyserlingk, MAG 2009. Short communication: feeding method affects the feeding behaviour of growing heifers. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 1161–1168.Google Scholar
Forbes, JM, Provenza, FD 2000. Integration of learning and metabolic signals into a theory of dietary choice and food intake. In Ruminant physiology: digestion, metabolism, growth and reproduction (ed. PB Cronjé), pp. 3–19. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
González, LA, Ferret, A, Manteca, X, Ruíz 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Lammers, BP, Buckmaster, DR, Heinrichs, AJ 1996. A simple method for the analysis of particle sizes of forage and total mixed rations. Journal of Dairy Science 79, 922–928.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leonardi, C, 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maekawa, M, Beauchemin, KA, Christensen, DA 2002. Effect of concentrate level and feeding management on chewing activities, saliva production, and ruminal pH of lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 1165–1175.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moya, D, Mazzenga, A, Holtshausen, L, Cozzi, G, González, LA, Calsamiglia, S, Gibb, DG, McAllister, TA, Beauchemin, KA, Schwartzkopf-Genswein, K 2011. Feeding behavior and ruminal acidosis in beef cattle offered a total mixed ration or dietary components separately. Journal of Animal Science 89, 520–530.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Research Council 1996. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle, 7th edition. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Provenza, FD 1996. Acquired aversions as the basis for varied diets of ruminants foraging on rangelands. Journal of Animal Science 74, 2010–2020.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
IIIQuigley, JD, Steen, TM, Boehms, SI 1992. Postpandrial changes of selected blood and ruminal metabolites in ruminating claves fed diets with or without hay. Journal of Dairy Science 75, 228–235.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Soest, PJ, Robertson, JB, 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Welch, JG, Smith, AM 1969. Influence of forage quality on rumination time in sheep. Journal of Animal Science 28, 813–818.Google ScholarPubMed