Interaction effects of dietary energy density and feed bunk space on performance and nutrient digestibility in Holstein heifers

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agricultural Science and Engineering, College of Agricultural and Natural Resources, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran

2 Associate Professor, Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agricultural Science and Engineering, College of Agricultural and Natural Resources, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran

3 PhD in Animal Nutrition, Department of Animal Science, Faculty of agriculture, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran

Abstract

Introduction: Replacement heifers represent the future potential of the dairy industry; as such, the feeding strategy for dairy heifers is to rear these animals at a minimum economic and environmental cost without reducing their future lactation performance (Hoffman et al., 2007). The main concern for heifer rearing industry is typically the energy densities of the diet exceeding the requirements of heifers, and subsequently, increase weight gains and lead to over-conditioning (Hoffman et al., 2008). The limited space is another concern for farmers in which feed bunks are limited and animals have to compete to meet their nutrient requirements. We hypothesized that feeding a ration diluted by wheat bran and rice hull in different feed bunk spaces would allow dairy heifers to compete and control their ad libitum intakes, and to meet their nutrient requirements for maintenance and target growth rates. Thus, the objective of this study was to investigation of interaction effects of dietary energy density and feed bunk space on performance and nutrient digestibility in Holstein heifers.
Material and Methods: Four primiparous and 4 multiparous mid lactation dairy cows were stratified by pre-experimental milk yield (23.5 ± 2.3 kg/d), protein yield (0.75 ± 0.066 kg/d), parity, and days in lactation (121 ± 10 d) into 4 groups of 2 in a 2 × 2 factorial, Latin square design (n = 8) to assess the effect of forage source and a supplementary methionine hydroxy analog on nitrogen (N) balance where low crude protein (CP) diets (13.3%) are offered. Fourteen dairy heifers with an average age of 12-16 months and an average weight of 363 ± 32.8 kg were stratified into 4 groups of 10 in a 2 × 2 factorial, completely randomized design with four treatments and four stall. The experiment period was 100 days. Two levels of energy were adjusted in formulating diets. A diet was formulated according to NRC (2001) requirements as high energy diet (1.32 Mcal/kg DM). For low energy diet, it was diluted by rice hull and wheat bran to meet 90% of NRC (2001) requirements for energy (1.20 Mcal/kg DM). The diets were isoenergetic and isonitrogenous. Treatments included: 1- Small space with low level of energy, 24 cm feed bunk space with diet including 1.20 MCal/kg energy; 2- Small space with high level of energy, 24 cm feed bunk space with diet including 1.32 MCal/kg energy; 3- Large space with low level of energy, 48 cm feed bunk space with diet including 1.20 MCal/kg energy; and 4- Large space with high level of energy, 48 cm feed bunk space with diet including 1.32 MCal/kg energy. Sampling from feed and orts was carried out at 30, 45, 60 and 70 days. The dry matter intake was daily recorded. Feces samples were taken on days 30, 60 and 90 and dried at 70 ° C for 72 h. Total tract digestibility coefficients were calculated based on the relative concentrations of nutrients and AIA as an internal marker in the feed and feces. Chemical analysis of sample was done according to AOAC (1990). Data were analyzed as a complete factorial design with 2 levels of feed bunk space and 2 levels of dietary energy levels design using the GLM procedures of SAS (version 9.4, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC).
Results and discussion: Dry matter intake was higher for heifers fed diet with low energy (P

Keywords

References

AOAC, 1990. Official methods of analysis of the AOAC, 15th ed. Association of official analytical chemists. Arlington, VA, USA.
Coblentz WK, Akins MS, Esser NM, Ogden RK and Gelsinger SL, 2018. Effects of straw processing and pen overstocking on the growth performance and sorting characteristics of diets offered to replacement Holstein dairy heifers. Journal of Dairy Science 101: 1074-1087.
Coblentz WK, Esser NM, Hoffman PC and Akins MS, 2015. Growth performance and sorting characteristics of corn silage-alfalfa haylage diets with or without forage dilution offered to replacement Holstein dairy heifers. Journal of Dairy Science 98: 8018-8034.
DeVries TJ and von Keyserlingk MAG, 2009a. Competition for feed affects the feeding behavior of growing dairy heifers. Journal of dairy science, 92: 3922-3929.
DeVries TJ, Beauchemin KA, Dohme F and SchwartzkopfGenswein KS, 2009b. Repeated ruminal acidosis challenges in lactating dairy cows at high and low risk for developing acidosis: Feeding, ruminating, and lying behavior. Journal of Dairy Science  92:5067–5078.
DeVries TJ, 2019. Feeding Behavior, Feed Space, and Bunk Design and Management for Adult Dairy Cattle. Veterinary Clinics of North America - Food Animal Practice 35: 61–76.
Greter AM, DeVries TJ and Von Keyserlingk MAG, 2008. Nutrient intake and feeding behavior of growing dairy heifers: Effects of dietary dilution. Journal of Dairy Science 91: 2786-2795.
Greter AM, Kitts BL and DeVries TJ, 2011. Limit feeding dairy heifers: Effect of feed bunk space and provision of a low-nutritive feedstuff. Journal of Dairy Science 94: 3124-3129.
Greter AM, Leslie KE, Mason GJ, McBride BW and DeVries TJ, 2010. Feed delivery method affects the learning of feeding and competitive behavior in dairy heifers. Journal of Dairy Science 93: 3730-3737.
Greter AM, Westerveld RS, Duffield TF, McBride BW, Widowski TM and DeVries TJ, 2013. Effects of frequency of feed delivery and bunk space on the feeding behavior of limit-fed dairy heifers. Journal of Dairy Science 96: 1803-1810.
Heinrichs AJ, Zanton GI, Lascano GJ and Jones CM, 2017. A 100-Year Review: A century of dairy heifer research. Journal of Dairy Science 100: 10173–10188.
Hoffman PC, Brehm NM, Price SG and Prill-Adams A, 1996. Effect of accelerated postpubertal growth and early calving on lactation performance of primiparous Holstein heifers. Journal of Dairy Science 79: 2024-2031.
Hoffman PC, Weigel KA and Wernberg RM, 2008. Evaluation of equations to predict dry matter intake of dairy heifers. Journal of Dairy Science 91: 3699–3709.
Hoffman PC, Simson CR and Wattiaux M, 2007. Limit feeding of gravid Holstein heifers: Effect on growth, manure nutrient excretion, and subsequent early lactation performance. Journal of Dairy Science 90: 946–954.
Hutjens MF, 2004. Accelerated replacement heifer feeding programs. Advanced Dairy Science and Technology 16:145–152.
Keane MP, McGee M, O’Riordan EG, Kelly AK and Earley B, 2017. Effect of space allowance and floor type on performance, welfare and physiological measurements of finishing beef heifers. Animal 11: 2285–2294.
Kitts BL, Duncan IJH, McBride BW and DeVries TJ, 2011. Effect of the provision of a low-nutritive feedstuff on the behavior of dairy heifers limit fed a high-concentrate ration. Journal of Dairy Science 94: 940-950.
Lascano GJ, Koch LE and Heinrichs AJ, 2016. Precision-feeding dairy heifers a high rumen-degradable protein diet with different proportions of dietary fiber and forage-to-concentrate ratios. Journal of Dairy Science 99: 7175–7190.
Lascano GJ, Zanton GI, Suarez-Mena FX and Heinrichs AJ, 2009. Effect of limit feeding high- and low-concentrate diets with Saccharomyces cerevisiae on digestibility and on dairy heifer growth and first-lactation performance. Journal of Dairy Science 92: 5100–5110.
Longenbach JI, Heinrichs AJ and Graves RE, 1999. Feed bunk length requirements for Holstein dairy heifers. Journal of Dairy Science 82: 99-109.
Moody ML, Zanton GI, Daubert JM and Heinrichs AJ, 2007. Nutrient utilization of differing forage-to-concentrate ratios by growing Holstein Heifers. Journal of Dairy Science 90: 5580–5586.
National Research Council, 2001. NRC. Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle. Washington, DC. National Academy of Sciences, USA.
Radcliff RP, Vandehaar MJ, Chapin LT, Pilbeam TE, Beede DK, Stanisiewski EP and Tucker HA, 2000. Effects of diet and injection of bovine somatotropin on prepubertal growth and first-lactation milk yields of Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science 83: 23–29.
SAS Institute, 2011. SAS/IML 9.3 user's guide. Sas Institute.
Tamminga S, 1992. Nutrition management of dairy-cows as a contribution to pollution control. Journal of Dairy Science 75: 345–357.
Van Keulen J and Young BA, 1977. Evaluation of acid-insoluble ash as a natural marker in ruminant digestibility studies. Journal of Animal Science, 44: 282–287.
Van Soest PV, Robertson JB and 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.
Wang HR, Chen Q, Chen LM, Ge RF, Wang MZ, Yu LH and Zhang J, 2017. Effects of dietary physically effective neutral detergent fiber content on the feeding behavior, digestibility, and growth of 8- to 10-month-old Holstein replacement heifers. Journal of Dairy Science 100: 1161–1169.
Wertz AE, Berger LL, Faulkner DB and Nash TG, 2001. Intake restriction strategies and sources of energy and protein during the growing period affect nutrient disappearance, feedlot performance, and carcass characteristics of crossbred heifers. Journal of Animal Science, 79: 1598–1610.
Zanton GI and Heinrichs AJ, 2009. Limit-Feeding with Altered Forage-to-Concentrate Levels in Dairy Heifer Diets (review). The Professional Animal Scientist 25: 393–403.
Zhang J, Shi H, Wang Y, Li S, Cao Z, Ji S, He Y and Zhang H, 2017. Effect of dietary forage to concentrate ratios on dynamic profile changes and interactions of ruminal microbiota and metabolites in holstein heifers. Frontiers in Microbiology 8: 1–18.
Animal Science Research
Volume 32, Issue 2
October 2022
Pages 17-29

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 05 July 2020
  • Revise Date: 09 January 2021
  • Accept Date: 25 September 2021

Share

How to cite

Statistics