Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T15:19:49.813Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of an artificial hay aroma and compound feed formulation on feed intake pattern, rumen function and milk production in lactating dairy cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2019

S. Abd Rahim Open the ORCID record for S. Abd Rahim [Opens in a new window] ,
H. van Laar ,
J. Dijkstra ,
A. Navarro-Villa ,
R. Fowers ,
W. H. Hendriks ,
W. F. Pellikaan ,
F. Leen  and
J. Martín-Tereso
S. Abd Rahim
Affiliation:
Animal Nutrition Group, Wageningen University and Research, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, the Netherlands
H. van Laar*
Affiliation:
Trouw Nutrition R&D, PO Box 299, 3800 AG Amersfoort, the Netherlands
J. Dijkstra
Affiliation:
Animal Nutrition Group, Wageningen University and Research, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, the Netherlands
A. Navarro-Villa
Affiliation:
Trouw Nutrition R&D, PO Box 299, 3800 AG Amersfoort, the Netherlands
R. Fowers
Affiliation:
Trouw Nutrition R&D, PO Box 299, 3800 AG Amersfoort, the Netherlands
W. H. Hendriks
Affiliation:
Animal Nutrition Group, Wageningen University and Research, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, the Netherlands
W. F. Pellikaan
Affiliation:
Animal Nutrition Group, Wageningen University and Research, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, the Netherlands
F. Leen
Affiliation:
ILVO (Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food), Scheldeweg 68, 9090 Melle, Belgium
J. Martín-Tereso
Affiliation:
Trouw Nutrition R&D, PO Box 299, 3800 AG Amersfoort, the Netherlands
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The Kempen system is a dairy feeding system in which diet is provided in the form of a compound feed (CF) and hay offered ad libitum. Ad libitum access to CF and hay allows cows in this system to achieve a high DM intake (DMI). Out of physiological concerns, the voluntary hay intake could be increased and the consumption pattern of CF could be manipulated to maintain proper rumen functioning and health. This study investigated the effects of an artificial hay aroma and CF formulation on feed intake pattern, rumen function and milk production in mid- to late-lactating dairy cows. Twenty Holstein–Friesian cows were assigned to four treatments in a 4 × 4 Latin square design. Diet consisted of CF and grass hay (GH), fed separately, and both offered ad libitum, although CF supply was restricted in maximum meal size and speed of supply by an electronic system. Treatments were the combination of two CF formulations – high in starch (CHS) and fibre (CHF); and two GH – untreated (UGH) and the same hay treated with an artificial aroma (TGH). Meal criteria were determined using three-population Gaussian–Gaussian–Weibull density functions. No GH × CF interaction effects on feed intake pattern characteristics were found. Total DMI and CF intake, but not GH intake, were greater (P < 0.01) in TGH treatment, and feed intake was not affected by type of CF. Total visits to feeders per day, visits to the GH feeder, visits to the CF feeder and CF eating time (all P < 0.01) were significantly greater in cows fed with TGH. Meal frequency, meal size and meal duration were unaffected by treatments. Cows fed CHF had a greater milk fat (P = 0.02), milk urea content (P < 0.01) and a greater milk fat yield (P < 0.01). Cows fed TGH had a greater milk lactose content and lactose yield (P < 0.05), and milk urea content (P < 0.01). Cows fed TGH had smaller molar proportions of acetic acid and greater molar proportions of propionic acid compared with UGH. In conclusion, treatment of GH with an artificial aroma increased CF intake and total DMI, but did not affect hay intake. Additionally, GH treatment increased the frequency of visits to both feeders, and affected rumen volatile fatty acid profile. Type of CF did not affect meal patterns, ruminal pH, nor fermentation profiles.

Keywords

feeding behaviourvolatile compoundssensorial perceptionssatiety signalfermentation profiles
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , March 2020 , pp. 529 - 537
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2019 

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

Abrahamse, PA, Vlaeminck, B, Tamminga, S and Dijkstra, J 2008. The effect of silage and concentrate type on intake behavior, rumen function, and milk production in dairy cows in early and late lactation. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 4778–4792.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Allen, MS 2000. Effects of diet on short-term regulation of feed intake by lactating dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 83, 1598–1624.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baumont, R 1996. Palatability and feeding behaviour in ruminants. A review. Annales de Zootechnie 45, 385–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, KL, Wainman, FW and Wilson, RS 1961. The regulation of food intake by sheep. Animal Science 3, 51–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cannas, A, Mereu, A, Decandia, M and Molle, G 2009. Role of sensorial perceptions in feed selection and intake by domestic herbivores. Italian Journal of Animal Science 8, 243–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Centraal Veevoederbureau (CVB) 2008. CVB table ruminants 2008, series nr. 43. CVB, The Hague, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Centraal Veevoederbureau (CVB) 2012. CVB table livestock feeding 2012, series nr. 50. CVB, The Hague, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Colman, E, Tas, BM, Waegeman, W, De Baets, B and Fievez, V 2012. The logistic curve as a tool to describe the daily ruminal pH pattern and its link with milk fatty acids. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 5845–5865.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Rosa, G, Moio, L, Napolitano, F, Grasso, F, Gubitosi, L and Bordi, A 2002. Influence of flavor on goat feeding preferences. Journal of Chemical Ecology 28, 269–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Distel, RA, Iglesias, RMR, Arroquy, J and Merino, J 2007. A note on increased intake in lambs through diversity in food flavor. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 105, 232–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dohi, H, Yamada, A and Fukukawa, T 1996. Effects of organic solvent extracts from herbage on feeding behavior in goats. Journal of Chemical Ecology 22, 425–430.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dohi, H, Yamada, A and Fukukawa, T 1997. Intake stimulants in Perennial Ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) fed to sheep. Journal of Dairy Science 80, 2083–2086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doorenbos, J, Martín-Tereso, J, Dijkstra, J and van Laar, H 2017. Effect of different levels of rapidly degradable carbohydrates calculated by a simple rumen model on performance of lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 100, 5422–5433.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
EC 2009. No 152/2009. Commission regulation laying down the methods of sampling and analysis for the official control of feed. Official Journal of the European Union L 54, 1–130.Google Scholar
Gherardi, SG, Black, JL and Colebrook, WF 1991. Effect of palatability on voluntary feed intake by sheep. II. The effect of altering the palatability of a wheaten hay on long-term intake and preference. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 42, 585–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginane, C, Baumont, R and Favreau-Peigné, A 2011. Perception and hedonic value of basic tastes in domestic ruminants. Physiology and Behavior 104, 666–674.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
González, LA, Manteca, X, Calsamiglia, S, Schwartzkopf-Genswein, KS and Ferret, A 2012. Ruminal acidosis in feedlot cattle: Interplay between feed ingredients, rumen function and feeding behavior (a review). Animal Feed Science and Technology 172, 66–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greter, AM, von Keyserlingk, MAG and DeVries, TJ 2012. Ration composition affects short-term diurnal feeding patterns of dairy heifers. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 140, 16–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrera-Saldana, RE, Huber, JT and Poore, MH 1990. Dry matter, crude protein, and starch degradability of five cereal grains. Journal of Dairy Science 73, 2386–2393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ipharraguerre, IR, Ipharraguerre, RR and Clark, JH 2002. Performance of lactating dairy cows fed varying amounts of soyhulls as a replacement for corn grain. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 2905–2912.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ISO 2004. Animal feeding stuffs – Enzymatic determination of total starch content. ISO 15914:2004. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
ISO 2008. Food products- Determination of the total nitrogen content by combustion according to the Dumas principle and calculation of the crude protein content- Part 1: oilseeds and animal feeding stuffs. ISO 16634-1:2008. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Leen, F, Navarro-Villa, A, Fowers, R, Martín-Tereso, J and Pellikaan, WF 2014. Meal pattern analysis for effects of compound feed formulation in mid to late lactating dairy cows fed hay and compound feed both ad libitum. Animal Production Science 54, 1752–1756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miron, J, Yosef, E, Nikbachat, M, Zenou, A, Maltz, E, Halachmi, I and Ben-Ghedalia, D 2004. Feeding behavior and performance of dairy cows fed pelleted nonroughage fiber byproducts. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 1372–1379.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Provenza, FD 1995. Postingestive feedback as an elementary determinant of food preference and intake in ruminants. Journal of Range Management 48, 2–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spek, JW, Dijkstra, J, van Duinkerken, G and Bannink, A 2013. A review of factors influencing milk urea concentration and its relationship with urinary urea excretion in lactating dairy cattle. Journal of Agricultural Science 151, 407–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ter Wijlen, H, van Laar, H and Martín-Tereso, J 2009. Ad libitum concentrate for dairy cows: Performance and calculated energy balance in the ‘Kempen System’ vs. a conventional Dutch feeding strategy. In Proceedings of the XIth International Symposium on Ruminant Physiology, 6–9th September 2009, Clermont-Ferrand, France, pp. 678–679.Google Scholar
Tolkamp, BJ, Schweitzer, DPN and Kyriazakis, I 2000. The biologically relevant unit for the analysis of short-term feeding behavior of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 83, 2057–2068.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Soest, PJ, Robertson, JB and 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
Yeates, MP, Tolkamp, BJ, Allcroft, DJ and Kyriazakis, I 2001. The use of mixed distribution models to determine bout criteria for analysis of animal behaviour. Journal of Theoretical Biology 213, 413–425.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zebeli, Q, Dijkstra, J, Tafaj, M, Steingass, H, Ametaj, B and Drochner, W 2008. Modeling the adequacy of dietary fiber in dairy cows based on the responses of ruminal pH and milk fat production to composition of the diet. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 2046–2066.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed