Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T07:15:12.916Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Increasing sodium bicarbonate level in high-concentrate diets for heifers. II. Effects on chewing and feeding behaviors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2008

L. A. González
Affiliation:
Departament de Ciència Animal i dels Aliments, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193-Bellaterra, Spain Animal Nutrition, Management, and Welfare Research Group, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193-Bellaterra, Spain
A. Ferret*
Affiliation:
Departament de Ciència Animal i dels Aliments, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193-Bellaterra, Spain Animal Nutrition, Management, and Welfare Research Group, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193-Bellaterra, Spain
X. Manteca
Affiliation:
Departament de Ciència Animal i dels Aliments, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193-Bellaterra, Spain Animal Nutrition, Management, and Welfare Research Group, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193-Bellaterra, Spain
S. Calsamiglia
Affiliation:
Departament de Ciència Animal i dels Aliments, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193-Bellaterra, Spain Animal Nutrition, Management, and Welfare Research Group, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193-Bellaterra, Spain
Get access

Abstract

Four Holstein heifers (264 ± 12 kg initial BW) were used in a 4 × 4 Latin square design with 21-day experimental periods to determine the effect of increasing levels of sodium bicarbonate (BICARB) (0%, 1.25%, 2.5% and 5%, of concentrate dry matter (DM) basis) on chewing and feed intake behavior when fed high-concentrate diets. Concentrate (13.41% CP, 13.35% NDF) and barley straw were fed once a day at 0830 h ad libitum. Feed bunks placed on scales and video recording were used to measure 24-h feed intake and chewing behavior, respectively. The patterns of feeding behavior (feed intake, meal size and length) and chewing behavior (eating, ruminating and total chewing) were studied by dividing the day into 12 intervals of 2-h each, beginning at feeding (interval 1 through 12). Number of meals per day and eating rate decreased linearly with increasing buffer level, but meal length increased linearly. No treatment effects were observed in sum of daily meal lengths or average meal size. The treatment × interval interaction was significant on meal size, length and feed intake. The size and length of those meals occurring during the 4 h post-feeding increased linearly. However, meal size tended to decrease in the evening between 8 and 12 h, whereas feed intake decreased linearly from 6 to 10 h and from 12 to 14 h post-feeding. Buffer concentration did not affect the percentage of time spent ruminating, eating or drinking per day but the buffer level × interval interaction was significant. Time spent eating expressed as min per kg of DM or organic matter (OM) intake increased linearly with buffer levels. Proportion of time spent eating increased linearly during the intervals between 0 and 4 h post-feeding. Time spent ruminating decreased linearly during the 2 h post-feeding, and also in the evening from 12 to 14 h, and at night from 18 to 22 h post-feeding, but the effect was quadratic between 8 and 10 h when intermediate buffer levels showed the greatest ruminating time. Time spent drinking decreased linearly from 6 to 8 h but increased during the 2 h following feeding and from 10 to 12 h post-feeding. Daily eating rate and meal frequency decreased linearly as the buffer level increased, but average meal size and daily chewing times were not affected. However, significant time of the day × buffer level interactions were observed for feed intake, meal size and length and chewing behavior.

Type
Full Paper
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

Allen, MS 1997. Relationship between fermentation acid production in the rumen and the requirement for physically effective fiber. Journal of Dairy Science 80, 14471462.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Allen, MS, Bradford, BJ, Harvatine, KJ 2005. The cow as a model to study food intake regulation. Annual Review of Nutrition 25, 523547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, CB, Balch, CC 1961. Saliva secretion and its relation to feeding in cattle. 1. The composition and rate of secretion of parotid saliva in a small steer. British Journal of Nutrition 15, 371382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennink, MR, Tyler, TR, Ward, GM, Johnson, DE 1978. Ionic milieu of bovine and ovine rumen as affected by diet. Journal of Dairy Science 61, 315323.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, CP, Marshall, SA, Mandell, IB, Wilton, JW 1992. Effects of source of dietary neutral detergent fiber on chewing behaviour in beef cattle fed pelleted concentrates with or without supplemental roughage. Journal of Animal Science 70, 894903.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carter, RR, Grovum, WL 1990. A review of the physiological significance of hypertonic body fluids on feed intake and ruminal function: salivation, motility and microbes. Journal of Animal Science 68, 28112832.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chase, LE, Rakes, AH, Linnerud, AC, Pettyjohn, JD 1971. Diurnal variations in blood and rumen metabolites and feeding activity of dairy steers under controlled lighting. Journal of Dairy Science 54, 18351839.Google Scholar
Chase, LE, Wangsness, PJ, Baumgardt, BR 1976. Feeding behavior of steers fed a complete mixed ration. Journal of Dairy Science 59, 19231928.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooper, RJ, Klopfenstein, TJ, Stock, RA, Milton, CT, Herold, DW, Parrott, JC 1999. Effects of imposed feed intake variation on acidosis and performance of finishing steers. Journal of Animal Science 77, 10931099.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deswysen, AG, Ellis, WC, Pond, KR, Jenkins, WL, Connelly, J 1987. Interrelationships among voluntary intake, eating and ruminating behavior and ruminal motility of heifers fed corn silage. Journal of Animal Science 64, 835841.Google Scholar
Erdman, RA 1988. Dietary buffering requirements of the lactating dairy cow: a Review. Journal of Dairy Science 71, 32463266.Google Scholar
Erickson, GE, Milton, CT, Fanning, KC, Cooper, RJ, Swingle, RS, Parrott, JC, Vogel, G, Klopfenstein, TJ 2003. Interaction between bunk management and monensin concentration on finishing performance, feeding behavior, and ruminal metabolism during an acidosis challenge with feedlot cattle. Journal of Animal Science 81, 28692879.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forbes, JM 1980. A model of the short-term control of feeding in the ruminant: effect of changing animal or feed characteristics. Appetite 1, 2141.Google Scholar
Fulton, WR, Klopfenstein, TJ, Britton, RA 1979. Adaptation to high concentrate diets by beef cattle. I. Adaptation to corn and wheat diets. Journal of Animal Science 49, 775784.Google Scholar
González LA, Ferret A, Manteca X and Calsamiglia S 2008. Increasing the sodium bicarbonate level in high-concentrate diets for heifers. I. Effects on intake, water consumption and ruminal fermentation. Animal 2, 705–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keunen, JE, Plaizier, JC, Kyriazakis, I, Duffield, TF, Widowski, TM, Lindinger, MI, McBride, BW 2003. Short communication: Effects of subacute ruminal acidosis on free-choice intake of sodium bicarbonate in lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 954957.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kohn, RA, Dunlap, TF 1998. Calculation of the buffering capacity of bicarbonate in the rumen and in vitro. Journal of Animal Science 76, 17021709.Google Scholar
Krause, M, Beauchemin, KA, Rode, LM, Farr, BI, Nørgaard, P 1998. Fibrolytic enzyme treatment of barley grain and source of forage in high-grain diets fed to growing cattle. Journal of Animal Science 76, 29122920.Google Scholar
Langhans W, Rossi R and Scharrer E 1995. Relationships between feed and water intake in ruminants. In Ruminant physiology, digestion, metabolism, growth and reproduction. Proceedings of the eighth International Symposium on Ruminant Physiology (ed. WV Englehardt, S Leonhard-Marek, G Breves and D Giesecke), pp. 199–216. Stuttgart, Germany.Google Scholar
Marshall, SA, Campbell, CP, Mandell, IB, Wilton, JW 1992. Effects of source and level of dietary neutral detergent fiber on feed intake, ruminal fermentation, ruminal digestion in situ, and total tract digestion in beef cattle fed pelleted concentrates with or without supplemental roughage. Journal of Animal Science 70, 884893.Google Scholar
Mitlöhner, FM, Morrow-Tesch, JL, Wilson, WC, Dailey, JW, McGlone, JJ 2001. Behavioral sampling techniques for feedlot cattle. Journal of Animal Science 79, 11891193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nielsen, BL 1999. On the interpretation of feeding behaviour measures and the use of feeding rate as an indicator of social constraint. Applied Animal Behavior Science 63, 7991.Google Scholar
Owens, FN, Secrist, DS, Hill, WJ, Gill, DR 1998. Acidosis in Cattle: a Review. Journal of Animal Science 76, 275286.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Putnam, PA, Davis, RE 1963. Ration effects on drylot steer feeding patterns. Journal of Animal Science 22, 437443.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team 2004. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available at: http://www.R-project.org.Google Scholar
Rogers, JA, Davis, CL 1982. Rumen volatile fatty acid production and nutrient utilization in steers fed a diet supplemented with sodium bicarbonate and monensin. Journal of Dairy Science 65, 944952.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rossi, R, Del Prete, E, Rokitzky, J, Scharrer, E 1998. Effects of a high NaCl diet on eating and drinking patterns in pygmy goats. Physiology and Behavior 63, 601604.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rotger, A, Ferret, A, Manteca, X, Ruiz-de-la-Torre, JL, 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, 11971204.Google Scholar
Schwartzkopf-Genswein, KS, Beauchemin, KA, Gibb, DJ, Crews, DH Jr, Kickman, DD, Streeter, M, McAllister, TA 2003. Effect of bunk management on feeding behavior, ruminal acidosis and performance of feedlot cattle: a review. Journal of Animal Science 81 (suppl. E), E149E158. Available at: http: //jas.fass.org/cgi/content/full/81/14_suppl_2/. Accessed Aug. 10, 2005.Google Scholar
Shain, DH, Stock, RA, Klopfenstein, TJ, Herold, DW 1999. The effect of forage source and particle size on finishing yearling steer performance and ruminal metabolism. Journal of Animal Science 77, 10821092.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sudweeks, EM, McCollough, ME, Sisk, LR, Law, SE 1975. Effects of concentrate type and level and forage type on chewing time of steers. Journal of Animal Science 41, 219224.Google Scholar
Sudweeks, EM, Ely, LO, Sisk, LR 1980. Technical note: effect of intake on chewing activity of steers. Journal of Dairy Science 63, 152154.Google Scholar
Tanida, H, Swanson, LV, Hohenboken, WD 1984. Effect of artificial photoperiod on eating behavior and other behavioral observations of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 67, 585591.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tolkamp, BJ, Kyriazakis, I 1999. A comparison of five methods that estimate meal criteria for cattle. Animal Science 69, 501514.Google Scholar
Welch, JG 1982. Rumination, particle size and passage from the rumen. Journal of Animal Science 54, 885894.Google Scholar
Yeates, MP, Tolkamp, BJ, Allcroft, DJ, Kyriazakis, I 2001. The use of mixed distribution models to determine bout criteria for analysis of animal behaviour. Journal of Theoretical Biology 213, 413425.Google Scholar