Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-hw7sx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T03:15:23.389Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Intake, rumen volume, retention time and digestibility of diets based on poultry litter and wheat straw in beef cows before and after calving

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

A. Brosh ,
Z. Holzer ,
Y. Aharoni  and
D. Levy
A. Brosh
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Organization, Newe Ya'ar Experiment Station, Haifa Post 31999, Israel
Z. Holzer
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Organization, Newe Ya'ar Experiment Station, Haifa Post 31999, Israel
Y. Aharoni
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Organization, Newe Ya'ar Experiment Station, Haifa Post 31999, Israel
D. Levy
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Organization, Newe Ya'ar Experiment Station, Haifa Post 31999, Israel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Beef cows in the 14 weeks before calving and during the first 12 weeks after calving were fed one of three diets based on 15, 30 and 45 % broilers poultry litter (PL), 20 % maize grain (MG) and 65, 50 and 35% wheat straw (WS) on a DM basis, respectively. They were housed from June to November in individual open pens. Four weeks before and 9 weeks after calving, in vivo digestibility, fibre and fluid mean retention time (MRT) were measured. The intake of all diets before calving was low. Nine weeks after calving the intake of DM increased 2·1 times on the 15% PL diet, and 1·6 times on the two other diets. The in vivo digestibility of the 15% PL diets was lower than that of the two other diets before calving, and increased after calving, in spite of the doubling of its intake, while that of the 45% PL diet decreased. The mean retention time of fibre in the digestive tract was not affected by the increase in DM intake after calving on the 15 % PL diet and was shortened on the two other diets. It seems that the combination of the volume taken up by the gravid uterus and the bulkiness of the 15% PL diets (65% WS) reduced the intake and impaired the digestibility of that diet before calving. After calving, the fibre pool increased considerably and consequently both intake and digestibility were increased.

Information

Type
Animals
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 121 , Issue 1 , August 1993 , pp. 103 - 109
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Agricultural Research Council (1980). The Nutrient Requirements of Ruminant Livestock. Farnham Royal, Slough UK: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
Alvarez, P. J., Guada, J. A. & Zorita, E. (1984). Effect of feeding level and forage/concentrate ratio of the diet on its digestibility by sheep. Anales del Instituto de Investigaciones Agrarias, Ganadera 21, 35–45 (abstract).Google Scholar
Anrique, R. G., Thonney, M. L. & Ayala, H. J. (1990). Dietary energy losses of cattle influenced by body type, size, sex and intake. Journal of Animal Production 50, 467–474.Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists (1980). Official Methods of Analysis. Washington, DC: AOAC.Google Scholar
Brosh, A., Holzer, Z., Levy, D. & Aharoni, Y. (1993). The effect of maize grain supplementation of diets based on wheat straw and poultry litter on their utilization by beef cattle. Animal Feed Science and Technology 40, 165–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faichney, G. J. (1975). The use of markers to partition digestion within the gastro-intestinal tract of ruminants. In Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant (Eds McDonald, I. W. & Warner, A. C. I.), pp. 277–291. Armidale, Australia: University of New England Publishing Unit.Google Scholar
Forbes, J. M. (1984). The effects of sex hormones, pregnancy, and lactation on digestion, metabolism, and voluntary food intake. In Control of Digestion and Metabolism in Ruminants (Eds Milligan, L. P., Grovum, W. L. & Dobson, A.), pp. 420–435. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Grovum, W. L. & Williams, V. J. (1973). Rate of passage of digesta in sheep. 4. Passage of marker through the alimentary tract and the biological relevance of rateconstants derived from the changes in concentration of marker in faeces. British Journal of Nutrition 30, 313–329.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holzer, Z. & Levy, D. (1976). Poultry litter as a protein supplement for beef cattle fed fibrous diets. World Review of Animal Production 12 (1), 91–95.Google Scholar
Holzer, Z., Morris, J. G., Gutman, M., Benjamin, R., Seligman, N. G. & Bogin, E. (1986). Physiological Criteria for Improvement of Production Efficiency in Beef Cows Subjected to Nutritional and Environmental ‘Stress’ Due to Fluctuating Seasonal Grazing Conditions. Final BARD report. Bet Dagan Israel: ARO.Google Scholar
Llano, C. A. & Depeters, E. J. (1985). Apparent digestibilities of diets varying in ratios of forage to concentrate and quality of forage at two intakes by dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 68, 1189–1197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Research Council (1984). Nutrient Requirements of Domestic Animals. No. 4. Beef Cattle, 6th edn.Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Ogawa, M. T., Masabuchi, T., Watanabe, K. & Oshibe, A. (1986). Effects of several factors on digestibility in the ruminant. 3. Influence of level of intake on digestibility in dairy cows. Bulletin of the National Grassland Research Institute, Japan 35, 82–90.Google Scholar
Reid, J. T., White, O. D., Anrique, R. & Fortin, A. (1980). Nutritional energetics of livestock: some present boundaries of knowledge and future research needs. Journal of Animal Science 51, 1393–1415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thielmans, M. F., Francois, E., Bodart, C. & Thewis, A. (1978). Measure du transit gastrointestinal chez le pore a I'aide des radiolanthide. Comparison avec la mouton. Annales de Biologie Animale Biochimie Biophysique 18, 237–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyrrell, H. F. & Moe, P. W. (1974). Net energy value of a corn and barley ration for lactation. Journal of Dairy Science 57, 451–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Udén, P., Colucci, P. E. & Van Soest, P. J. (1980). Investigation of chromium, cerium and cobalt as markers in digesta. Rate of passage studies. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 31, 625–632.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Warner, A. C. I. (1981). Rate of passage of digesta through the gut of mammals and birds. Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews, Series B 51, 789–820.Google Scholar
Webster, A. J. F. (1979). Energy metabolism and requirements. In Digestive Physiology and Nutrition of Ruminants (Ed. Church, D. C.) 2nd edn, vol. 2, pp. 210–229. Corvallis Oregon: O and B Books.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, J. M. (1988). The feed value of by-products and wastes. In Feed Science: World Animal Science, B4 (Ed. Ørskov, E. R.), pp. 313–327. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.Google Scholar