Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-jb2ch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-02-27T18:58:13.615Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Factors affecting the voluntary intake of food by cows

8.* Experiments with ground, pelleted roughages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

R. C. Campling
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading
M. Freer
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. Two experiments were conducted to examine the effect of grinding and pelleting roughages on the voluntary intake of food, digestibility, time of retention of food in the digestive tract, amounts of digesta in the recitulo-rumen and eating and ruminating behaviour of adult, non-lactating, non-pregnant cows. The first experiment was with artificially dried grass and the second with oat straw; also, with a diet of ground, pelleted oat straw the effect was studied of giving a daily intraruminal infusion of 150 g urea. The size of the particles of the ground roughages are given. 2. The mean voluntary intakes of long and ground dried grass were similar, the voluntary intake of ground, pelleted oat straw was 26% greater than that of long straw and the daily infusion of urea increased the voluntary intake of ground, pelleted oat straw by 53%. 3. The digestibility of the ground roughages was lower than that of the long roughages, the lower digestibility of the ground roughages was due mainly to the poor digestibility of crude fibre in the reticulo-rumen. The rate of disappearance of cotton thread placed in the ventral sac of the rumen was slower with ground than with long roughages. 4. The mean times of retention of ground roughages were shorter than those of long roughages when equal and restricted amounts of each food were given; with food offered ad lib. there was little difference between the mean times of retention of long and ground roughages in the alimentary tract. 5. On average, the mean amounts of digesta dry matter in the reticulo-rumen immediately after a meal were about the same with long and ground dried grass, with long and ground oat straw the amounts of dry matter were similar, but when the intraruminal infusion of urea was given the amount of dry matter increased by 49%. 6. The rate of eating (min/kg food) ground, pelleted roughages was much faster than that with long roughages; when the cows received ground roughage rumination did not occur but during short periods triple reticular contractions were seen. 7. The relationship between the voluntary intake of food, the amount of digesta in the reticulo-rumen and the rate of disappearance of digesta from the alimentary tract is discussed.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1966

References

REFERENCES

Balch, C. C. (1950). Br. J. Nutr. 4, 361.Google Scholar
Balch, C. C. (1957). Br. J. Nutr. 11, 213.Google Scholar
Balch, C. C., Bartlet, S. & Johnson, V. W. (1951). J. agric. Sci., Camb., 41, 98.Google Scholar
Balch, C. C., Kelly, A. & Heim, G. (1951). Br. J. Nutr. 5, 207.Google Scholar
Balch, C. C. & Campling, R. C. (1962). Nutr. Abstr. Rev. 32, 669.Google Scholar
Beardsley, D. W. (1964). J. Anim. Sci. 23, 239.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. & Graham, N. McC. (1956). J. agric. Sci., Camb., 47, 207.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L., Graham, N. McC. & Wainman, F. W. (1956). Br. J. Nutr. 10, 69.Google Scholar
Campling, R. C., Freer, M. & Balch, C. C. (1961). Br. J. Nutr. 15, 531.Google Scholar
Campling, R. C., Freer, M. & Balch, C. C. (1962). Br. J. Nutr. 16, 115.Google Scholar
Campling, R. C., Freer, M. & Balch, C. C. (1963). Br. J. Nutr. 17, 263.Google Scholar
Castle, E. J. (1956). Br. J. Nutr. 10, 15.Google Scholar
Egan, A. R. (1965). Aust. J. agric. Res. 16, 451.Google Scholar
Freer, M. & Campling, R. C. (1963). Br. J. Nutr. 17, 79.Google Scholar
Freer, M. & Campling, R. C. (1965). Br. J. Nutr. 19, 195.Google Scholar
Freer, M., Campling, R. C. & Balch, C. C. (1962). Br. J. Nutr. 16, 279.Google Scholar
Greeff, W. L., van der Merwe, F. J. & Swart, J. C. (1963). Proc. S. Afr. Soc. Anim. Prod. 2, 47Google Scholar
Meyer, J. H., Gaskill, R. L., Stoewsand, G. S. & Weir, W. C. (1959). J. Anim. Sci. 18, 336.Google Scholar
Minson, D. J. (1962). Contribution no. 84, Animal Research Institute, Research Branch, Canada Department of Agriculture, Ottawa. (Mimeo.)Google Scholar
Moore, L. A. (1964). J. Anim. Sci. 23, 230.Google Scholar
O'Dell, G. D., King, W. A., Cook, W. C. & Moore, S. L. (1963). J. Dairy Sci. 46, 38.Google Scholar
Phillipson, A. T. & Ash, R. W. (1965). In Physiology of Digestion in the Ruminant, p. 97. [Dougherty, R. W., Allen, R. S., Burroughs, N. L., Jacobson, N. L. and McGilliard, A. D., editors.] Washington DC: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Rodrigue, C. B. & Allen, N. N. (1960). Can. J. Anim. Sci. 40, 23.Google Scholar
Ruckebusch, Y. & Marquet, J. P. (1963). Revue Méd. vét. 114, 833.Google Scholar