Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:49:31.716Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of liquid feeding of concentrate from a pail on growth and on the digestibility of the diet in young calves

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 April 2012

M. Abe ,
H. Shibui ,
T. Iriki ,
K. Kondoh  and
T. Kawai
M. Abe
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Nippon Formula Feed Manufacturing Co., 4-1-1 Higashiterao, Tsurumi-ku, Yokohama 230, Japan
H. Shibui
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Nippon Formula Feed Manufacturing Co., 4-1-1 Higashiterao, Tsurumi-ku, Yokohama 230, Japan
T. Iriki
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Nippon Formula Feed Manufacturing Co., 4-1-1 Higashiterao, Tsurumi-ku, Yokohama 230, Japan
K. Kondoh
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Nippon Formula Feed Manufacturing Co., 4-1-1 Higashiterao, Tsurumi-ku, Yokohama 230, Japan
T. Kawai
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Nippon Formula Feed Manufacturing Co., 4-1-1 Higashiterao, Tsurumi-ku, Yokohama 230, Japan
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. Studies were done on the effects of giving calves two types of concentrate diet, both in a liquid form from an open pail or in a dry pelleted form, on the closure of oesophageal groove, body-weight gains and the digestibility of rations.

2. Twenty-four Holstein calves were used in an experiment by dividing into two groups of twelve calves each. The ‘dry-fed’ group (DFG) was given a pelleted concentrate, F1, from 25 to 42 d of age, and then given another type of pelleted concentrate, F2, from 43 to 87 d of age, and again given F1 from 88 to 112 d of age. The ‘liquid-fed’ group (LFG) was given from a pail a liquid suspension of the equivalent amount of the same concentrates as those fed to DFG calves, for the same periods. F1 contained skim milk and glucose with lower levels of maize and soya-bean meal than F2 which did not contain skim milk or glucose; F1 and F2 were both supplemented with 10 g methionine/kg and also supplemented with lysine at 5 and 10 g/kg respectively. All calves were allowed free access to roughage, and digestibilities were measured at 12 and 16 weeks of age.

3. Wet weights of reticulo-rumen and abomasal tissues (% whole stomach weight) were respectively 69.8 and 17.6 in DFG, and 59.0 and 26.4 in LFG at 42 d of age; at 87 d of age, the corresponding values were 68.0 and 16.3 in DFG, and 52.8 and 36.6 in LFG, and further, LFG had significantly more developed caecums and large intestines as well as significantly less developed reticulo-rumens and omasums than DFG.

4. Free amino acid patterns in plasma did not vary in DFG, but varied in LFG in response to the change in diet from F1 to F2 and to the difference between diets in lysine supplementation.

5. Feeding F1 in a liquid form and F2 in a dry form significantly improved calf gains. The intake of roughage in DFG exceeded that in LFG especially when F2 was fed.

6. The digestibility of diethyl ether extracts did not vary with feeding procedures, but that of crude protein (nitrogen × 6.25) was significantly higher in DFG independent of the type of diet. Digestibilities of dry matter and N-free extracts were significantly higher in LFG for F1, while higher in DFG for F2. The digestibility of acid-detergent fibre did not differ significantly between groups at 12 weeks of age, but was significantly higher in LFG at 16 weeks of age, suggesting a possible compensatory contribution of the large intestine to the digestion of fibre in LFG.

7. The efficiency of liquid feeding of a concentrate diet to ruminants compared with that of dry feeding is discussed.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 39 , Issue 3 , May 1978 , pp. 469 - 482
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1978

References

REFERENCES

Abe, M., Iriki, T., Kondoh, K. & Kawai, T. (1976). Jap. J. zootech. Sci. 47, 254.Google Scholar
Bergen, W. G., Henneman, H. A. & Magee, W. T. (1973). J. Nutr. 103, 575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, J. L. (1971). Br. J. Nutr. 25, 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, J. L. & Tribe, D. E. (1973). Aust. J. agric. Res. 24, 763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. & Martin, A. K. (1962). Br. J. Nutr. 16, 397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalupa, W. (1975). J. Dairy Sci. 58, 1198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coombe, N. B. & Smith, R. H. (1974). Br. J. Nutr. 31, 227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamada, T. (1973). J. Dairy Sci. 56, 473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hecker, J. F. (1971). Br. J. Nutr. 25, 85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedde, R. D. & Ward, G. M. (1973). J. Dairy Sci. 56, 1567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, J. T. (1969). J. Dairy Sci. 52, 1303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, J. T., Jacobson, N. L., McGilliard, A. D. & Allen, R. S. (1961). J. Dairy Sci. 44, 321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, J. T., Natrajan, S. & Polan, C. E. (1967). J. Dairy Sci. 50, 1161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, J. T., Natrajan, S. & Polan, C. E. (1968). J. Dairy Sci. 51, 1081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karr, M. R., Little, C. O. & Mitchell, G. E. Jr (1966). J. Anim. Sci. 25, 652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kowalczyk, J., Ørskov, E. R., Robinson, J. J. & Stewart, C. S. (1977). Br. J. Nutr. 37, 251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen, H. J., Stoddard, G. E., Jacobson, N. L. & Allen, R. S. (1956). J. Anim. Sci. 15, 473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawlor, M. J. & Hopkins, S. P. (1971). Br. J. Nutr. 26, 439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liang, Y. T., Morrill, J. L. & Noordsy, J. L. (1967). J. Dairy Sci. 50, 1153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Natrajan, S., Polan, C. E., Chandler, P. T., Jahn, E. & Huber, J. T. (1972). J. Dairy Sci. 55, 238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noller, C. H., Ward, G. M., McGilliard, A. D., Huffman, G. F. & Duncan, C. W. (1956). J. Dairy Sci. 39, 1288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. & Benzie, D. (1969). Br. J. Nutr. 23, 415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Benzie, D. & Kay, R. N. B. (1970). Br. J. Nutr. 24, 785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Fraser, C. & Corse, E. L. (1970). Br. J. Nutr. 24, 803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Fraser, C. & Kay, R. N. B. (1969). Br. J. Nutr. 23, 217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Fraser, C. & McDonald, I. (1971). Br. J. Nutr. 25, 243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Fraser, C., Mason, V. C. & Mann, S. O. (1970). Br. J. Nutr. 24, 671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Fraser, C. & Pirie, P. (1973). Br. J. Nutr. 30, 361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Mayes, R. W. & Mann, S. O. (1972). Br. J. Nutr. 28, 425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owens, F. N. & Isaacson, H. R. (1977). Fedn Proc. Fedn Socs exp. Biol. 36, 198.Google Scholar
Pryor, W. J. & Ternouth, J. H. (1972). Br. J. Nutr. 27, 517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raven, A. M. & Robinson, K. L. (1961). Nature, Lond. 192, 1256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. H., Mowat, D. N., Chapman, H. W. & Parkins, J. J. (1977). Can. J. Anim. Sci. 57, 181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sander, E. G., Warner, R. G., Harrison, H. N. & Loosli, J. K. (1959). J. Dairy Sci. 42, 1600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. H. (1975). In Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant, p. 399 [McDonald, I. W. and Warner, A. C. I., editors]. Armidale, Australia: University of New England Press.Google Scholar
Stein, W. H. & Moore, S. (1954). J. biol. Chem. 211, 915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanson, E. W., Thigpen, J. E., Huskey, J. & Hazlewood, B. P. (1969). J. Dairy Sci. 52, 228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tamate, H., McGilliard, A. D., Jacobson, N. L. & Getty, R. (1962). J. Dairy Sci. 45, 408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, P. C. (1973). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 32, 85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. (1963). J. Ass. off agric. Chem. 46, 829.Google Scholar
Walker, D. M. & Kirk, R. D. (1975). Aust. J. agric. Res. 26, 1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, P. L., Grainger, R. B. & Marco, G. J. (1966). J. Nutr. 89, 241.Google Scholar