Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T18:13:04.076Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Performance, ruminal changes, behaviour and welfare of growing heifers fed a concentrate diet with or without barley straw

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 September 2010

A. G. Faleiro ,
L. A. González ,
M. Blanch ,
S. Cavini ,
L. Castells ,
J. L. Ruíz de la Torre ,
X. Manteca ,
S. Calsamiglia  and
A. Ferret
A. G. Faleiro
Affiliation:
Animal Nutrition, Management, and Welfare Research Group, Departament de Ciència Animal i dels Aliments, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193-Bellaterra, Spain
L. A. González
Affiliation:
Animal Nutrition, Management, and Welfare Research Group, Departament de Ciència Animal i dels Aliments, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193-Bellaterra, Spain
M. Blanch
Affiliation:
Animal Nutrition, Management, and Welfare Research Group, Departament de Ciència Animal i dels Aliments, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193-Bellaterra, Spain
S. Cavini
Affiliation:
Animal Nutrition, Management, and Welfare Research Group, Departament de Ciència Animal i dels Aliments, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193-Bellaterra, Spain
L. Castells
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
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

Two experiments were conducted to ascertain the effects of feeding an all-concentrate diet to growing heifers on performance, ruminal fermentation, behaviour and welfare. In experiment 1, eight tethered rumen fistulated Holstein heifers (143 ± 8.7 kg, initial BW) were used to study the effects of treatment on intake, ruminal changes and behaviour. In experiment 2, 48 Friesian female calves (initial BW = 84.5 ± 1.37 kg) were used to study the effects of treatment on performance, behaviour and welfare in feedlot conditions. In both experiments, treatments consisted of concentrate with barley straw (BS) or without barley straw (NBS) and feed was offered at 0830 h on an ad libitum basis. Experiment 1 was performed in four 42-day periods, and sampling was carried out in the last week of each period. Ruminal samples were collected over 3 days at 0, 4, 8 and 12 h post-feeding to measure pH, and volatile fatty acids (VFA) and NH3-N concentrations. Maintenance behaviour was video-recorded for 24 h over three consecutive days of each experimental period and feed intake pattern was studied by means of feed bunks mounted on digital platform scales. There were no statistical differences in average daily gain (ADG), concentrate dry matter (DM) intake or CP intake. In contrast, NDF intake and ADF intake were greater in heifers fed BS than NBS. Average ruminal pH was lower, whereas total VFA was greater, in heifers fed NBS diet. There were no differences in NH3-N, and in d- and l-lactate concentrations. Time spent in ruminating was shorter, and stereotypies were more frequent in heifers fed diet NBS compared with those fed BS. In experiment 2, nine 28-day periods were established, in which DM intake and ADG were measured, blood and faecal samples were taken for haptoglobin and glucocorticoid metabolites determination, respectively, as welfare indicators, and behaviour was monitored by video recording. Concentrate intake was similar in both treatments, but total feed intake was greater in heifers fed BS diet. As there were no differences in ADG between treatments, gain efficiency was lower in those fed BS than those fed NBS. Blood haptoglobin and faecal glucocorticoids metabolites were not different between treatments. In these competitive conditions, rumination was also reduced and stereotypic behaviour increased by straw exclusion. In conclusion, performance was either not affected or improved by straw exclusion, but animal behaviour was affected, suggesting a negative effect on animal welfare.

Keywords

behaviourheifersintensive productionwelfare
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , February 2011 , pp. 294 - 303
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2010

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

Albright, JL, Arawe, CW 1997. Maintenance behaviours. In The behaviour of cattle, pp. 19–44. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemist 1990. Official methods of analysis, XXth edition. AOAC, Washington DC, USA.Google Scholar
Balch, CC 1958. Observations on the act of eating in cattle. British Journal of Nutrition 12, 330–345.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Balch, CC, Cowie, AT 1962. Permanent rumen fistulae in cattle. Cornell Veterinarian 52, 206–214.Google ScholarPubMed
Bartle, SJ, Preston, RL 1991. Dietary roughage regimen for feedlot steers: reduced roughage level (2%) during the mid-finishing period. Journal of Animal Science 69, 3461–3466.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bierman, S, Erickson, GE, Klopfenstein, TJ, Stock, RA, Shain, DH 1999. Evaluation of nitrogen and organic matter balance in the feedlot as affected by level and source of dietary fiber. Journal of Animal Science 77, 1645–1653.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blanch, M 2009. Ruminal acidosis and new prevention strategies (Estudio de la acidosis ruminal y nuevas estrategias de prevención). PhD, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Retrieved March 10, 2010, from http://www.tesisenxarxa.net/TDX-0925109-112717/.Google Scholar
Broom, DM, Fraser, AF 2007. Abnormal behaviour 1: stereotypies. In Domestic animal behaviour and welfare, 4th edition, pp. 226–238. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, MS, Ponce, CH, Pulikanti, R 2006. Adaptation of beef cattle to high-concentrate diets: performance and ruminal metabolism. Journal of Animal Science 84 (E. suppl.), E25–E33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chaney, AL, Marbach, EP 1962. Modified reagents for determination of urea and ammonia. Clinical Chemistry 8, 130–132.Google ScholarPubMed
Counotte, GHM, Prins, RA, Janssen, RHAM, DeBie, MJA 1981. Role of Megasphaera elsdenii in the fermentation of DL-[2-13C]lactate in the rumen of dairy cattle. Applied Environmental Microbiology 42, 649–655.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dawson, KA, Allison, MJ 1988. Digestive disorders and nutritional toxicity. In The Rumen Microbial Ecosystem (ed. PN Hobson), pp. 445–459. Elsevier Science Publishers, London, UK.Google Scholar
González, LA, Ferret, A, Manteca, X, Calsamiglia, S 2008a. Increasing sodium bicarbonate level in high-concentrate diets for heifers. II. Effects on chewing and feeding behaviors. Animal 2, 713–722.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
González, LA, Ferret, A, Manteca, X, Ruíz de la Torre, JL, Calsamiglia, S, Devant, M, Bach, A 2008b. Effect of the number of concentrate feeding places per pen on performance, behavior, and welfare indicators of Friesian calves during the first month after arrival at the feedlot. Journal of Animal Science 86, 419–431.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
González, LA, Correa, LB, Ferret, A, Manteca, X, Ruíz de la Torre, JL, Calsamiglia, S 2009. Intake, water consumption, ruminal fermentation, and stress response of beef heifers fed after different lengths of delays in the daily feed delivery time. Journal of Animal Science 87, 2709–2718.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horadagoda, NU, Knox, KMG, Gibbs, HA, Reid, SWJ, Horadagoda, A, Edwards, SER, Eckersall, PD 1999. Acute phase proteins in cattle: discrimination between acute and chronic inflammation. Veterinary Records 144, 437–441.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hungate, RE 1966. The rumen and its microbes. Academic Press, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Jouany, JP 1982. Volatile fatty acid and alcohol determination in digestive contents, silage juices, bacterial cultures and anaerobic fermentor contents. Sciences des Aliments 2, 131–144.Google Scholar
Klieve, AV, Hennessy, D, Ouwerkerk, D, Forster, RJ, Mackie, RI, Attwood, GT 2003. Establishing populations of Megasphaera elsdenii YE 34 and Butyrivibrio fibrisolvens YE 44 in the rumen of cattle fed high grain diets. Applied Microbiology 95, 621–630.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krause, DO, Smith, WJM, Conlan, LL, Gough, JM, Williamson, MA, McSweeney, CS 2003. Diet influences the ecology of lactic acid bacteria and Escherichia coli along the digestive tract of cattle: neural networks and 16S rDNA. Microbiology 149, 57–65.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loerch, SC, Fluharty, FL 1998. Effects of corn processing, dietary roughage level, and timing of roughage inclusion on performance of feedlot steers. Journal of Animal Science 76, 681–685.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marounek, M, Fliegrova, K, Bartos, S 1989. Metabolism and some characteristics of ruminal strains of Megasphaera elsdenii. Applied Environmental Microbiology 55, 1570–1573.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morrow, CJ, Kolver, ES, Verkerk, GA, Matthews, LR 2002. Fecal glucocorticoid metabolites as a measure of adrenal activity in dairy cattle. General and Comparative Endocrinology 126, 229–241.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nagaraja, TG, Titgemeyer, EC 2007. Ruminal acidosis in beef cattle: the current microbiological and nutritional outlook. Journal of Dairy Science 90 (E. suppl.), E17–E38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Research Council 1996. Nutrients requirements of beef cattle, 7th edition. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Oltjen, RR, Davis, RE, Hiner, RL 1965. Factors affecting performance and carcass characteristics of cattle fed all-concentrate ration. Journal of Animal Science 24, 192–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olumeyan, DB, Nagaraja, TG, Miller, GW, Frey, RA, Boyer, JE 1986. Rumen microbial changes in cattle fed diets with or without salinomycin. Applied Environmental Microbiology 51, 340–345.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ouwerkerk, D, Klieve, AV, Forster, RJ 2002. Enumeration of Megasphaera elsdenii in rumen contents by real-time Taq nuclease assay. Applied Microbiology 92, 753–758.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Owens, FN, Secrist, DS, Hill, WJ, Gill, DR 1998. Acidosis in cattle: a review. Journal of Animal Science 76, 275–286.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pitt, RE, Pell, AN 1997. Modelling ruminal pH fluctuations: interactions between meal frequency and digestion rate. Journal of Dairy Science 80, 2429–2441.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Redbo, I 1990. Changes in duration and frequency of stereotypies and their adjoining behaviours in heifers, before, during and after the grazing period. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 26, 57–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redbo, I, Nordblad, A 1997. Stereotypies in heifers are affected by feeding regime. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 53, 193–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redbo, I, Emanuelson, M, Lundberg, K, Oredsen, N 1996. Feeding level and oral stereotypies in dairy cows. Animal Science 62, 199–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robles, V, González, LA, Ferret, A, Manteca, X, Calsamiglia, S 2007. Effects of feeding frequency on intake, ruminal fermentation, and feeding behavior in heifers fed high-concentrate diets. Journal of Animal Science 85, 2538–2547.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rotger, A, Ferret, A, Manteca, X, Ruíz de la Torre, JL, Calsamiglia, S 2006. Effects of dietary non-structural carbohydrates and protein sources on feeding behavior of tethered heifers fed high-concentrate diets. Journal of Animal Science 84, 1197–1204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sato, S, Tarumizu, K, Hatae, K 1993. The influence of social factors on allogrooming in cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 38, 235–244.CrossRefGoogle 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, 1082–1092.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Uvnäs-Moberg, K 1999. Oxytocin may mediate the benefits of positive social interaction and emotions. Psychoneuroendocrinology 23, 819–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Wang, Z, Goonewardene, LA 2004. The use of mixed models in the analysis of animal experiments with repeated measures data. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 84, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitford, MF, Forster, RJ, Beard, CE, Gong, JH, Teather, RM 1998. Phylogenetic analysis of rumen bacteria by comparative sequence analysis of cloned 16S rRNA genes. Anaerobe 4, 153–163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wise, MB, Harvey, RW, Haskins, BR, Barrick, ER 1968. Finishing beef cattle on all-concentrate rations. Journal of Animal Science 27, 1449–1461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wise, MB, Blumer, TN, Matrone, G, Craig, HB, Barrick, ER 1965. Influence of rumen buffering agents and hay on performance and carcass characteristics of steers fed all-concentrate rations. Journal of Animal Science 24, 83–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar