Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T21:21:40.077Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of harvest time of red and white clover silage on chewing activity and particle size distribution in boli, rumen content and faeces in cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2013

L. F. Kornfelt ,
P. Nørgaard  and
M. R. Weisbjerg
L. F. Kornfelt*
Affiliation:
Department of Basic Animal and Veterinary Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Copenhagen, 1870 Frederiksberg C, Denmark Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Science and Technology, Aarhus University, 8830 Tjele, Denmark
P. Nørgaard
Affiliation:
Department of Basic Animal and Veterinary Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Copenhagen, 1870 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
M. R. Weisbjerg
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Science and Technology, Aarhus University, 8830 Tjele, Denmark
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The study examined the effects of harvest time of red and white clover silage on eating and ruminating activity and particle size distribution in feed boli, rumen content and faeces in cows. The clover crops were harvested at two stages of growth and ensiled in bales. Red clover crops had 36% and 45% NDF in dry matter (DM) at early (ER) and late (LR) harvest, respectively, and the white clover crops had 19% and 29% NDF in DM at the early (EW) and late (LW) harvest, respectively. The silages were fed restrictively (80% of ad libitum intake) twice daily to four rumen cannulated non-lactating Jersey cows (588 ± 52 kg) in a 4 × 4 Latin square design. Jaw movements (JM) were recorded for 96 h continuously. Swallowed boli, rumen mat, rumen fluid and faeces samples were collected, washed in nylon bags (0.01 mm pore size) and freeze-dried before dry sieving through 4.750, 2.360, 1.000, 0.500, 0.212 and 0.106 mm into seven fractions. The length (PL) and width (PW) values of rumen and faeces particles within each fraction were measured by use of image analysis. The eating activity (min/kg DM intake; P < 0.05) was higher in LR compared with the other treatments. The eating activity (min/kg NDF intake; P < 0.05) was affected by clover type with highest values for white clover silage. The mean ruminating time (min/kg DM), daily ruminating cycles (P < 0.001) and JM during ruminating (P < 0.05) were affected by treatment with increasing values at later harvest time. The proportion of washed particle DM of total DM in boli (P < 0.001), rumen mat (P < 0.001), rumen fluid (P < 0.01) and faeces was (P < 0.001) highest by feeding LR. There were identified two peaks (modes 1 and 2) on the probability density distribution (PDF) of PW values of rumen mat and faeces, but only one peak (mode 1) for PL values. There was no difference in the mean and mode 1 PW and PL value in rumen mat between the four treatments. The mean PL, mode PL, mode 2 PW and mean PW in faeces were highest for LR (P < 0.05). The mean particle size in boli measured by sieving was higher at white clover compared with red clover treatments (P < 0.001) and the highest value in faeces was found in LR (P < 0.01). The two peaks on PDF for width values of rumen mat and faeces particles are most likely related to the leaves and the stems/petioles. In conclusion, the mean total chewing activity per kg DM was lowest for the white clover silage and increased for both silages due to later harvest time. The mean particle size in boli was smallest for LR, whereas the mean PL and PW in faeces were highest for the LR.

Keywords

legumescowparticle sizematuritymastication
Type
Nutrition
Information
animal , Volume 7 , Issue 6 , June 2013 , pp. 909 - 919
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

Åkerlind, M, Weisbjerg, MR, Eriksson, T, Thøgersen, R, Udén, P, Ólafsson, BL, Harstad, OM, Volden, H 2011. Feed analyses and digestion methods. In NorFor – the Nordic feed evaluation system (ed. H Volden), pp. 41–55. EAAP publication no. 130.Google Scholar
Allen, M, Robertson, J, van Soest, P 1984. A comparison of particle size methodologies and statistical treatments. In Techniques in particle size analysis of feed and digesta in ruminants (ed. PM Kennedy), pp. 39–56. Proceedings of a workshop held in Banff, Alberta, Canada. Canadian Society of Animal Science, Occasional publication no. 1.Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) 2002. Official methods of analysis, vol. 1, 17th edition. AOAC, Arlington, VA, USA.Google Scholar
Baumont, R, Malbert, CH, Ruckebusch, Y 1990. Mechanical stimulation of rumen fill and alimentary behaviour in sheep. Animal Production 50, 123.Google Scholar
Beauchemin, KA, Buchanan-Smith, JG 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, 2288–2300.Google Scholar
Beauchemin, KA, Iwaasa, AD 1993. Eating and ruminating activities of cattle fed alfalfa or orchard grass harvested at two stages of maturity. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 73, 79–88.Google Scholar
Beauchemin, KA, Yang, WZ 2005. Effects of physically effective fibre on intake, chewing activity, and ruminal acidosis for dairy cows fed diets based on corn silage. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 2117–2129.Google Scholar
Beauchemin, KA, Zelin, S, Genner, D, Buchanan-Smith, JG 1989. An automatic system for quantification of eating and ruminating activities of dairy cattle housed in stalls. Journal of Dairy Science 72, 2746–2759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Boever, JL, De Smet, A, De Brander, DL, Boucque, CV 1993. Evaluation of physical structure. 1. Grass silage. Journal of Dairy Science 76, 140–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewhurst, RJ, Fisher, WJ, Tweed, JK, Wilkins, RJ 2003. Comparison of grass and legume silages for milk production. 1. Production responses with different levels of concentrate. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 2598–2611.Google Scholar
Hoffman, PC, Sievert, SJ, Shaver, RD, Welch, DA, Combs, DK 1993. In situ dry matter, protein, and fibre degradation of perennial forages. Journal of Dairy Science 76, 2632–2643.Google Scholar
Jalali, AR, Nørgaard, P, Weisbjerg, MR, Nielsen, MO 2012. Effect of forage quality on intake, chewing activity, faecal particle size distribution, and digestibility of neutral detergent fibre in sheep, goats, and llamas. Journal of Small Ruminant Research 103, 143–151.Google Scholar
Knudsen, KEB 1997. Carbohydrate and lignin contents of plant materials used in animal nutrition. Animal Feed Science and Technology 67, 319–338.Google Scholar
Kononoff, PJ, Heinrichs, AJ, Buckmaster, DR 2003. Modification of the Penn State forage and total mixed particle separator and the effects of moisture contents on its measurements. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 1858–1863.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kristensen, NB, Storm, A, Raun, BML, Rojen, BA, Harmon, DL 2007. Metabolism of silage alcohols in lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 1364–1377.Google Scholar
Kuoppala, K, Ahvenjärvi, S, Rinne, M, Vanhatalo, A 2009. Effects of feeding grass or red clover silage cut at two maturity stages in dairy cows. 2. Dry matter intake and cell wall digestion kinetics. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 5634–5644.Google Scholar
Luginbuhl, JM, Fisher, DS, Pond, KR, Burns, JC 1991. Image analysis and nonlinear modelling to determine dimensions of wet-sieved, masticated forage particles. Journal of Animal Science 69, 3807–3816.Google Scholar
Mertens, DR 1997. Creating a system for meeting the fibre requirements of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 80, 1463–1481.Google Scholar
Nørgaard, P 2006. Use of image analysis for measuring particle size in feed, digesta and faeces. In Ruminant physiology – digestion, metabolism and impact of nutrition on gene expression, immunology and stress (ed. K Sejrsen, T Hvelplund and MO Nielsen), pp. 579–585. Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Nørgaard, P, Sehic, A 2003. Particle size distribution in silage, boluses, rumen content and faeces from cows fed silage with different theoretical chopping length. The Sixth International Symposium on the Nutrition of Herbivores 19 to 24 October, 2003, Mérida, Yucatán, México. Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems 3, 457–460.Google Scholar
Nørgaard, P, Hilden, K 2004. A new method for recording mastication during eating and ruminating in sheep. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences 13, 171–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nørgaard, P, Kornfelt, LF 2006. Particle size distribution in rumen contents and faeces from cows fed grass silages in different physical form or barley straw supplemented with grass pellets. Journal of Animal Science 84, 262.Google Scholar
Nørgaard, P, Nadeau, E, Randby, Å, Volden, H 2011. Chewing index system for predicting physical structure of the diet. In NorFor – the Nordic feed evaluation system (ed. H Volden), pp. 127–132. EAAP publication No. 130. Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Nørgaard, P, Nadeau, E, Volden, H, Randby, A, Aaes, O, Mehlqvist, M 2010. A new Nordic structure evaluation system for diets feed to dairy cows – a meta analysis. In Modelling nutrient digestion and utilisation in farm animals. Grassland Science in Europe 13 (ed. D Sauvant, J Van Milgen, P Faverdin and N Friggens), pp. 112–120. Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Owens, FN, Secrist, DS, Hill, WJ, Gill, DR 1998. Acidosis in cattle: a review. Journal of Animal Science 76, 275–286.Google Scholar
Rinne, M, Nykänen, A 2000. Timing of primary growth harvest affects the yield and nutritive value of timothy-red clover mixtures. Agricultural Food Science 9, 121–134.Google Scholar
Rinne, M, Huhtanen, P, Jaakkola, S 2002. Digestive processes of dairy cows fed silages harvested at four stages of grass maturity. Journal of Animal Science 80, 1986–1998.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rustas, BO, Nørgaard, P, Jalali, AR, Nadeau, E 2010. Effects of physical form and stage of maturity at harvest of whole-crop barley silage on intake, chewing activity, diet selection and faecal particle size of dairy steers. Animal 4, 67–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schleisner, C, Nørgaard, P, Hansen, HH 1999. Discriminant analysis of patterns of jaw movement during rumination and eating in a cow. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica A 49, 251–259.Google Scholar
Søegaard, K, Weisbjerg, ME 2007. Herbage quality and competitiveness of grassland legumes in mixed swards. Grassland Science in Europe 12, 166–169.Google Scholar
Ulyatt, MJ, Thomson, DJ, Beever, DE, Evans, RT, Haines, MJ 1988. The digestion of perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne cv. Melle) and white clover (Trifolium repens cv. Blanca) by grazing cattle. British Journal of Nutrition 60, 137–149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vanhatalo, A, Pursiainen, P, Kuoppala, K, Rinne, M, Tuori, M 2008. Effects of harvest time of red clover silage on milk production and composition. In Biodiversity and animal feed: future challenges for grassland production (ed. A Hopkins, T Gustafsson, J Bertilsson, G Dalin, N Nilsdotter-Linde and E Spörndly), pp. 391–393. Proceedings of the 22nd General Meeting European Grassland Federation, Uppsala, Sweden. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Uppsala.Google Scholar
Van Soest, PJ, Robertson, JB, Lewis, BA 1991. Methods for dietary fibre, neutral detergent fibre and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3583–3597.Google Scholar
Volden, H 2011. Norfor – the Nordic feed evaluation system. EAAP publication No. 130.Google Scholar
Waldo, DR, Smith, LW, Cox, EL, Weinland, BT, Lucas, HL 1971. Logarithmic normal distribution for description of sieved forage materials. Journal of Dairy Science 54, 1465–1469.Google Scholar
Wilman, D, Altimimi, MAK 1984. The in-vitro digestibility and chemical composition of plant parts in white clover, red clover and lucerne during primary growth. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 35, 133–138.Google Scholar