Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T06:08:00.042Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of barley grain particle size and treatment with citric acid on digestibility, ruminal fermentation and microbial protein synthesis in Holstein calves

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 January 2017

M. Kazemi-Bonchenari ,
A. Z. M. Salem  and
S. López
M. Kazemi-Bonchenari
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Arak University, 38 156-8-8349, Arak, Iran
A. Z. M. Salem*
Affiliation:
Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México, México
S. López
Affiliation:
Instituto de Ganadería de Montaña (IGM), Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC)-Universidad de León, Departamento de Producción Animal, Universidad de León, E-24 071 León, Spain
*
†E-mail: asalem70@yahoo.com
Get access

Abstract

Chemical and physical treatments of barley grain increase ruminally resistant starch and can improve the rumen fermentation pattern. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the effects of chemical (addition of citric acid, CA) and physical (grinding to two different particle sizes, PS) treatment of barley grain on performance, rumen fermentation, microbial protein yield in the rumen and selected blood metabolites in growing calves. In all, 28 male Holstein calves (172±5.1 kg initial BW) were used in a complete randomised design with a factorial arrangement of 2 barley grain particle sizes×2 levels of citric acid. The diets were as follows: (i) small PS (average 1200 µm) barley grain soaked in water (no CA addition); (ii) small PS barley grain soaked in a CA solution (adding 20 g CA/kg barley); (iii) large PS (average 2400 µm) barley grain soaked in water (no citric acid addition) and (iv) large PS barley grain soaked in a citric acid solution (adding 20 g CA/kg barley). Barley grain was then incorporated at 35% in a total mixed ration and fed to the calves for 11 weeks. Feeding small PS barley decreased feed intake (P=0.02) and average daily weight gain (P=0.01). The addition of CA to barley grain did not affect intake but increased weight gain (P<0.01) and improved feed to gain ratio (P=0.03). Digestibility of organic matter and NDF tended (P<0.10) to increase, whereas faecal scoring was improved (P=0.03) and the presence of undigested grain particles in faeces was reduced (P<0.01) with CA-treated barley grain. Glucose and urea concentrations were increased (P<0.01) in the blood of calves fed the CA-treated barley grain. Ruminal pH tended (P=0.08) to be decreased with more finely ground barley and was increased when barley grain was treated with CA. Total volatile fatty acid concentrations in the rumen did not differ among treatments (P>0.05). However, the molar proportion of propionate was increased (P=0.03) when barley was more finely ground, and that of acetate was increased (P=0.04) when CA was added to barley grain. The ruminal concentration of ammonia nitrogen was increased (P<0.01) and microbial nitrogen synthesis in the rumen tended to decrease by adding CA to barley. Treating barley grain with citric acid increased fibre digestibility of total mixed rations, attenuated the decrease in ruminal pH, and improved weight gain and feed efficiency in male Holstein growing calves fed a high-cereal diet (550 g cereal grain/kg diet).

Keywords

cattlecitric acidgrain processingparticle sizerumen fermentation
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 11 , Issue 8 , August 2017 , pp. 1295 - 1302
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2017 

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

Allen, MS, Bradford, BJ and Oba, M 2009. The hepatic oxidation theory of the control of feed intake and its application to ruminants. Journal of Animal Science 87, 3317–3334.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) International 1995. Official methods of analysis of AOAC International, 16th edition. AOAC, Arlington, VA, USA.Google Scholar
Brassard, ME, Chouinard, PY, Berthiaume, R, Tremblay, GF, Gervais, R, Martineau, R and Cinq-Mars, D 2015. Effects of grain source, grain processing, and protein degradability on rumen kinetics and microbial protein synthesis in Boer kids. Journal of Animal Science 93, 5355–5366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Broderick, GA and Clayton, MK 1997. A statistical evaluation of animal and nutritional factors influencing concentrations of milk urea nitrogen. Journal of Dairy Science 80, 2964–2971.Google Scholar
Chen, XB and Gomes, MJ 1992. Estimation of microbial protein supply to sheep and cattle based on urinary excretion of purine derivatives: an overview of technical details. International Feed Research Unit, Occasional Publication, Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen, UK.Google Scholar
Crooke, WM and Simpson, WE 1971. Determination of ammonium in Kjeldahl digests of crops by an automated procedure. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 22, 9–10.Google Scholar
Deckardt, K, Metzler-Zebeli, BU and Zebeli, Q 2016. Processing barley grain with lactic acid and tannic acid ameliorates rumen microbial fermentation and degradation of dietary fibre in vitro. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 96, 223–231.Google Scholar
Dehghan-Banadaky, M, Corbett, R and Oba, M 2007. Effects of barley grain processing on productivity of cattle. Animal Feed Science and Technology 137, 1–24.Google Scholar
Emmanuel, DGV, Dunn, SM and Ametaj, BN 2008. Feeding high proportions of barley grain stimulates an inflammatory response in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 606–614.Google Scholar
Fatehi, F, Dehghan-Banadaky, M, Rezayazdi, K, Moradi-Shahrbabak, M and Anele, UY 2013. Performance, carcass quality and blood metabolites of Holstein bulls on feedlot feeding of different proportions of barley grain to maize grain. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences 22, 35–43.Google Scholar
Gimeno, A, Al Alami, A, Abecia, L, de Vega, A, Fondevila, M and Castrillo, C 2015. Effect of type (barley vs. maize) and processing (grinding vs. dry rolling) of cereal on ruminal fermentation and microbiota of beef calves during the early fattening period. Animal Feed Science and Technology 199, 113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harder, H, Khol-Parisini, A, Metzler-Zebeli, BU, Klevenhusen, F and Zebeli, Q 2015c. Treatment of grain with organic acids at 2 different dietary phosphorus levels modulates ruminal microbial community structure and fermentation patterns in vitro. Journal of Dairy Science 98, 8107–8120.Google Scholar
Harder, H, Khol-Parisini, A and Zebeli, Q 2015a. Treatments with organic acids and pullulanase differently affect resistant starch and fiber composition in flour of various barley genotypes (Hordeum vulgare L.). Starch 67, 512–520.Google Scholar
Harder, H, Khol-Parisini, A and Zebeli, Q 2015b. Modulation of resistant starch and nutrient composition of barley grain using organic acids and thermal cycling treatments. Starch 67, 654–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinrichs, AJ, Jones, CM, Van Roekel, LR and Fowler, MA 2003. Calf Track: a system of dairy calf workforce management, training, and evaluation and health evaluation. Journal of Dairy Science 86 (suppl. 1), 115–123.Google Scholar
Humer, E, Khol-Parisini, A, Gruber, L, Gasteiner, J, Abdel-Raheem, ShM and Zebeli, Q 2015. Long-term reticuloruminal pH dynamics and markers of liver health in early-lactating cows of various parities fed diets differing in grain processing. Journal of Dairy Science 98, 6433–6448.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huntington, GB, Harmon, DL and Richards, CJ 2006. Sites, rates, and limits of starch digestion and glucose metabolism in growing cattle. Journal of Animal Science 84, E14–E24.Google Scholar
Iqbal, S, Zebeli, Q, Mazzolari, A, Bertoni, G., Dunn, SM, Yang, WZ and Ametaj, BN 2009. Feeding barley grain steeped in lactic acid modulates rumen fermentation patterns and increases milk fat content in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 6023–6032.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Iranian Council of Animal Care 1995. Guide to the care and use of experimental animals volume 1, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran.Google Scholar
Kohn, RA, Dinneen, MM and Russek-Cohen, E 2005. Using blood urea nitrogen to predict nitrogen excretion and efficiency of nitrogen utilization in cattle, sheep, goats, horses, pigs, and rats. Journal of Animal Science 83, 879–889.Google Scholar
Krause, KM, Combs, DK and Beauchemin, KA 2002. Effects of forage particle size and grain fermentability in mid-lactation cows. II. Ruminal pH and chewing activity. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 1947–1957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAllister, TA, Rode, LM, Major, DJ, Cheng, KJ and Buchanan-Smith, JG 1990. Effect of ruminal microbial colonization on cereal grain digestion. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 70, 571–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moharrery, A, Larsen, M and Weisbjerg, MR 2014. Starch digestion in the rumen, small intestine, and hindgut of dairy cows – a meta-analysis. Animal Feed Science and Technology 192, 1–14.Google Scholar
Nagaraja, TG and Titgemeyer, EC 2007. Ruminal acidosis in beef cattle: the current microbiological and nutritional outlook. Journal of Dairy Science 90 (E suppl.), E17–E38.Google Scholar
National Research Council 2000. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle, 7th revised edition. National Academy of Science Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Newbold, CJ, Lopez, S, Nelson, N, Ouda, JO, Wallace, RJ and Moss, AR 2005. Propionate precursors and other metabolic intermediates as possible alternative electron acceptors to methanogenesis in ruminal fermentation in vitro. British Journal of Nutrition 94, 27–35.Google Scholar
Owens, FN, Secrist, DS, Hill, WJ and Gill, DR 1998. Acidosis in cattle: a review. Journal of Animal Science 76, 275–286.Google Scholar
Reynolds, CK 2006. Production and metabolic effects of site of starch digestion in dairy cattle. Animal Feed Science and Technology 130, 78–94.Google Scholar
Tajima, K, Aminov, RI, Nagamine, T, Matsui, H, Nakamura, M and Benno, Y 2001. Diet-dependent shifts in the bacterial population of the rumen revealed with real-time PCR. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 67, 2766–2774.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Valadares, RFD, Broderick, GA, Valadares filho, SC and Clayton, MK 1999. Effect of replacing alfalfa silage with high moisture corn on ruminal protein synthesis estimated from excretion of total purine derivatives. Journal of Dairy Science 82, 2686–2696.Google Scholar
Van Keulen, J and Young, BA 1977. Acid insoluble ash as a natural marker for digestibility studies. Journal of Animal Science 44, 282–287.Google Scholar
Van Soest, PJ, Roberts, JB and Lewis, BA 1991. Methods of dietary fibre, neutral detergent fibre and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3583–3597.Google Scholar
Vasconcelos, JT and Galyean, ML 2008. ASAS Centennial Paper: contributions in the Journal of Animal Science to understanding cattle metabolic and digestive disorders. Journal of Animal Science 86, 1711–1721.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yang, WZ, Beauchemin, KA and Rode, LM 2001. Barley processing, forage:concentrate, and forage length effects on chewing and digesta passage in lactating cows. Journal of Dairy Science 84, 2709–2720.Google Scholar
Zhao, YL, Yan, SM, He, ZX, Anele, UY, Swift, ML, McAllister, TA and Yang, WZ 2015. Effects of volume weight, processing method and processing index of barley grain on in situ digestibility of dry matter and starch in beef heifers. Animal Feed Science and Technology 199, 93–103.Google Scholar