Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T12:14:16.024Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of concentrate percentage on ruminal pH and time-budget in dairy goats

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2008

M. Desnoyers ,
C. Duvaux-Ponter ,
K. Rigalma ,
S. Roussel ,
O. Martin  and
S. Giger-Reverdin
M. Desnoyers*
Affiliation:
UMR INRA-AgroParisTech Physiologie de la Nutrition et Alimentation, 16 rue Claude Bernard, 75005 Paris, France
C. Duvaux-Ponter
Affiliation:
UMR INRA-AgroParisTech Physiologie de la Nutrition et Alimentation, 16 rue Claude Bernard, 75005 Paris, France
K. Rigalma
Affiliation:
UMR INRA-AgroParisTech Physiologie de la Nutrition et Alimentation, 16 rue Claude Bernard, 75005 Paris, France
S. Roussel
Affiliation:
UMR INRA-AgroParisTech Physiologie de la Nutrition et Alimentation, 16 rue Claude Bernard, 75005 Paris, France
O. Martin
Affiliation:
UMR INRA-AgroParisTech Physiologie de la Nutrition et Alimentation, 16 rue Claude Bernard, 75005 Paris, France
S. Giger-Reverdin
Affiliation:
UMR INRA-AgroParisTech Physiologie de la Nutrition et Alimentation, 16 rue Claude Bernard, 75005 Paris, France
*
E-mail: marion.desnoyers@agroparistech.fr
Get access

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare rumen pH and time-budget in eight mid-lactation goats receiving two diets in a cross-over design (low-concentrate diet (L): 30% and high-concentrate diet (H): 60% concentrate). Feeding H increased daily intake (4.3 ± 0.08% v. 4.7 ± 0.08% of body weight for L and H, respectively) and daily milk production (3.01 ± 0.130 v. 3.50 ± 0.130 kg/day of 3.5% fat-corrected milk for L and H, respectively). It decreased milk fat and inverted the fat-to-protein ratio (1.07 ± 0.054 v. 0.94 ± 0.054 for L and H, respectively). As suggested by the percentage of time spent with rumen pH below 6.0 (23.4 ± 6.60% v. 39.9 ± 5.88% for L and H, respectively), H was more acidogenic than L. When offered H instead of L, goats spent less time eating (298 ± 17.5 v. 265 ± 17.5 min for L and H, respectively) and ruminating (521 ± 21.0 v. 421 ± 21.0 min for L and H, respectively) but more time resting (352 ± 27.1 v. 459 ± 21.1 min for L and H, respectively) over a 24-h period. They also tended to spend more time drinking (20 ± 2.9 v. 25 ± 2.9 min for L and H, respectively; P = 0.08) when offered H rather than L. These differences in activities were mainly observed during the first hours following feeding. When offered H, goats adapted their feeding behaviour around the feedings, which allowed them to limit the physiological disturbances potentially inducible by H and to increase milk production, without experiencing too much acidosis.

Keywords

acidosisanimal behaviourdairy goatrumen pH
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 2 , Issue 12 , December 2008 , pp. 1802 - 1808
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

Abijaoudé, JA, Morand-Fehr, P, Tessier, J, Schmidely, P, Sauvant, D 2000a. Diet effect on the daily feeding behaviour, frequency and characteristics of meals in dairy goats. Livestock Production Science 64, 29–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abijaoudé, JA, Morand-Fehr, P, Tessier, J, Schmidely, P, Sauvant, D 2000b. Influence of forage: concentrate ratio and type of starch in the diet on feeding behaviour, dietary preferences, digestion, metabolism and performance of dairy goats in mid lactation. Animal Science 71, 359–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, Dulphy, JP, Sauvant, D, Tran, G, Meschy, F, Aufrère, J, Peyraud, JL, Champciaux, P 2007. Les tables de la valeur des aliments. Alimentation des bovins, ovins et caprins. Besoin des animaux-Valeurs des aliments. Tables INRA 2007. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), Paris, France, pp. 181–286.Google Scholar
Beauchemin, KA, Kachanosky, RG, Schaalje, GB, Buchanan-Smith, JG 1990. Characterizing rumination patterns of dairy cows using spectral analysis. Journal of Animal Science 68, 3163–3170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Braun, U, Rihs, T, Schefer, U 1992. Ruminal lactic acidosis in sheep and goats. The Veterinary Record 130, 343–349.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brossard L, Fabre M, Martin C and Michalet-Doreau B 2003. Validation of continuous ruminal pH measurements by indwelling probes (poster). Conference of Gastrointestinal Function, Chicago, p. 25.Google Scholar
Buéno, L 1975. Rôle de l’acide DL-lactique dans le contrôle de l’ingestion alimentaire chez le mouton. Annales de Recherches Vétérinaires 6, 325–335.Google Scholar
Deswysen, AG, Dutilleul, P, Godfrin, JP, Ellis, WC 1993. Nycterohemeral eating and ruminating patterns in heifers fed grass or corn-silage – analysis by finite Fourier-transform. Journal of Animal Science 71, 2739–2747.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeVries, TJ, von Keyserlingk, MAG, Beauchemin, KA 2003. Short communication: diurnal feeding pattern of lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 4079–4082.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dulphy, JP, Faverdin, P 1987. L’ingestion alimentaire chez les ruminants: modalités et phénomènes associés. Reproduction, Nutrition, Development 27, 129–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forbes, JM 2007. A personal view of how ruminant animals control their intake and choice of food: minimal total discomfort. Nutrition Research Reviews 20, 132–146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jarrige, R, Dulphy, JP, Faverdin, P, Baumont, R, Demarquilly, C 1995. Activités d’ingestion et de rumination. In Nutrition des ruminants domestiques. Ingestion et digestion (ed. M Journet), pp. 123–181. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), Paris, France.Google Scholar
Kawas, JR, Lopes, J, Danelon, DL, Lu, CD 1991. Influence of forage-to-concentrate ratio on intake, digestibility, chewing and milk production of dairy goats. Small Ruminant Research 4, 11–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keunen, JE, Plaizier, JC, Kyriazakis, L, Duffield, TF, Widowski, TM, Lindinger, MI, McBride, BW 2002. Effects of a subacute ruminal acidosis model on the diet selection of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 3304–3313.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krause, KM, Oetzel, GR 2005. Inducing subacute ruminal acidosis in lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 3633–3639.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
Manson, FJ, Leaver, JD 1988. The influence of concentrate amount on locomotion and clinical lameness in dairy cattle. Animal Production 47, 185–190.Google Scholar
Martin, C, Brossard, L, Doreau, M 2006. Mécanismes d’apparition de l’acidose ruminale latente et conséquences physiopathologiques et zootechniques. Productions Animales 19, 93–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitlöhner, FM, Morrow-Tesch, JL, Wilson, SC, Dailey, JW, McGlone, JJ 2001. Behavioral sampling techniques for feedlot cattle. Journal of Animal Science 79, 1189–1193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nocek, JE 1997. Bovine acidosis: implications on laminitis. Journal of Dairy Science 80, 1005–1028.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oetzel GR 2000. Clinical aspects of ruminal acidosis in dairy cattle. In the 33rd Annual Conference, American Association of Bovine Practitioners, Rapid City, South Dakota, USA, 14pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owens, FN, Secrist, DS, Hill, WJ, Gill, DR 1998. Acidosis in cattle: a review. Journal of Animal Science 76, 275–286.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peyraud, JL, Apper-Bossard, E 2006. L’acidose latente chez la vache laitière. Productions Animales 19, 79–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rapetti, L, Bava, L, Tamburini, A, Crovetto, GM 2005. Feeding behaviour, digestibility, energy balance and productive performance of lactating goats fed forage-based and forage-free diets. Italian Journal of Animal Science 4, 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rémond, B, Brugère, H, Poncet, C, Baumont, R 1995. Le contenu du réticulo-rumen. In Nutrition des ruminants domestiques, ingestion et digestion (ed. YRR Jarrige, C Demarquilly, MH Farce and M Journet), pp. 253–298. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), Paris, France.Google Scholar
Sauvant, D 1992. Systemic modeling in nutrition. Reproduction, Nutrition, Development 32, 217–230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sauvant, D, Meschy, F, Mertens, D 1999. Les composantes de l’acidose ruminale et les effets acidogènes des rations. Productions Animales 12, 49–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauvant, D, Giger-Reverdin, S, Meschy, F 2006. Le contrôle de l’acidose ruminale latente. Productions Animales 19, 69–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauvant, D, Giger-Reverdin, S, Meschy, F 2007. Alimentation des caprins. Alimentation des bovins, ovins et caprins. Besoin des animaux-Valeurs des aliments. Tables INRA 2007. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), Paris, France, pp. 137–148.Google Scholar
Sawyer, DC 1998. Pain control in small-animal patients. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 59, 135–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Susin, I, Loerch, SC, McClure, KE 1995. Effects of feeding a high-grain diet at a restricted intake on lactation performance and rebreeding of ewes. Journal of Animal Science 73, 3199–3205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar