Devries Measuring the Feeding Behavior of Lactating

Effect of feeding amount on the feeding and sorting behaviour of lactating dairy cattle

Publication: Canadian Journal of Animal Science

1 January 2011

Abstract

Greter, A. M. and DeVries, T. J. 2011. Effect of feeding amount on the feeding and sorting behaviour of lactating dairy cattle. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 91: 47–54. The objectives of this study were: (1) to determine how feeding amount affects feeding and sorting behaviour of dairy cows, and (2) to examine the relationship between these behaviours. Six lactating dairy cows were assigned to one of two treatments in a crossover design with 7-d periods: (1) lower feeding amount (target 5% orts), and (2) higher feeding level (target 15% orts). Cows were fed twice daily at 1000 and 1530. Treatments were imposed during the 18-h period between the afternoon feeding and the subsequent morning feeding. Treatment periods consisted of a 3-d adaptation period and a 4-d recording period, wherein feeding (using time-lapse video) and sorting behaviour were measured. Feed samples taken for particle size separation were separated into four fractions: long, medium, short, and fine particles. The targeted level of orts was not achieved, but treatments tended to be different (16.1 vs. 11.6%). Cows maintained similar feeding rates (0.1 kg min⁻¹), feeding times (209.0 min period⁻¹), and dry matter intake (DMI) (21.6 kg period⁻¹) between treatments. Cows sorted against long particles (67.3%) and tended to sort for short particles (104.4%) on both treatments. Across treatments, feeding rate was positively correlated with sorting of long particles (r=0.76). Feeding time was negatively correlated with sorting of short (r=−0.65) and fine (r=−0.68) particles. DMI tended to be positively correlated with sorting of long particles (r=0.48) and tended to be negatively correlated with sorting of short particles (r=−0.51). Meal duration tended to be negatively correlated with sorting of fine particles (r=−0.52). The results from this experiment provide new insight into how sorting behaviour may affect the time course of feeding, meal patterning, and nutrient intake of dairy cows.

Résumé

Greter, A. M. et DeVries, T. J. 2011. Incidence de la quantité d'aliments sur la prise alimentaire et le tri des aliments par les vaches laitières en lactation. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 91: 47–54. L'étude devait (1) établir comment la quantité d'aliments influe sur la prise alimentaire et le tri des aliments par les vaches laitières et (2) préciser les liens entre de tels comportements. Six vaches laitières en lactation ont été réparties entre deux traitements dans le cadre d'une expérience en carré latin avec permutation par période de sept jours: (1) petite quantité d'aliments (objectif 5 % de refus) et (2) grande quantité d'aliments (objectif 15 % de refus). Les animaux ont été nourris deux fois par jours, à 10 h et à 15 h 30. Les traitements ont été appliqués durant les 18 heures séparant la période d'alimentation de l'après-midi et celle du matin suivant. Le traitement consistait en trois jours d'adaptation et quatre jours d'enregistrement des données durant lesquels on a mesuré la prise alimentaire (à l'aide d'un caméscope à temps échelonné) et le tri des aliments. Des échantillons d'aliment ont été prélevés en vue d'une séparation granulométrique en quatre fractions: grandes, moyennes, petites et fines particules. Le pourcentage de refus visé n'a pas été atteint, mais les traitements ont tendance à illustrer des variations (16,1 c. 11,6 %). Les vaches maintiennent une prise alimentaire (0,1 kg min⁻¹), une durée du repas (209,0 min/période) et une ingestion de matière sèche (21,6 kg période⁻¹) similaires quel que soit le traitement. Elles ont tendance à écarter les grandes particules (67,3 %) pour les petites (104,4 %) dans les deux cas. La prise alimentaire est positivement corrélé au tri des grandes particules (r=0,76) dans les deux traitements. Il existe une corrélation négative entre la durée du repas et le tri des petites (r= − 0,65) et des fines (r= − 0,68) particules. L'ingestion de matière sèche a tendance à présenter une corrélation positive avec le tri des grandes particules (r=0,48) et une corrélation négative avec celui des petites (r= − 0,51). La durée du repas a tendance à être négativement corrélée avec le tri des particules fines (r= − 0,52). Les résultats de l'expérience nous éclairent sur la façon dont le tri des particules peut affecter la durée du repas, les habitudes alimentaires et l'ingestion des éléments nutritifs chez la vache laitière.

In many countries, the feeding of a total mixed ration (TMR) to dairy cattle has now become standard practice on most commercial dairy farms. Total mixed rations provide a better balance of nutrients in comparison with traditional, pasture-based feeding systems by preventing individual preferences for dietary components and helping to reduce competition at the feed bunk, and result in fewer digestive problems in early lactation (Coppock 1977; Borland and Kesler 1979). This feeding practice, however, is not without its problems. Dairy cattle, both young and mature, have been shown to selectively consume (sort for) the shorter, concentrate particles in their TMR, while selectively refusing (sort against) the longer, forage particles (Leonardi and Armentano 2003; DeVries et al. 2005; Greter et al. 2008). Sorting, therefore, allows the animals to ingest higher amounts of concentrate than intended, resulting in metabolic problems such as sub-acute ruminal acidosis (SARA; DeVries et al. 2008).

Several studies have been conducted in an attempt to identify feeding strategies to minimize or eliminate feed sorting behaviour. Much research has been focussed on altering feed particle size and dietary components in the TMR (Leonardi and Armentano 2003; DeVries et al. 2007). The effects of various feeding management strategies on feed sorting behaviour have also been examined. Leonardi and Armentano (2007) found that increasing the amount of feed given to lactating dairy cows resulted in an increase in sorting against the longest ration particles. A previous study by Methu et al. (2001) showed similar results when cattle were fed increased amounts of maize stover. Miller-Cushon and DeVries (2010) found that feeding amount was positively correlated with sorting of medium length particles and negatively correlated with sorting of short particles. These results demonstrate that lactating dairy cattle increased their sorting for medium particles and against short particles as feeding amount increased. It can be hypothesized that cattle are better able to manipulate their ration when offered a larger amount of feed, likely due to having a greater amount of time to access that specific feed and, as a result, they spend longer periods of time consuming their feed. Unfortunately, no information on the time course of feeding was collected in the study by Miller-Cushon and DeVries (2010).

The objectives of this study were, therefore: (1) to determine how feeding amount affects feeding behaviour and feed sorting of lactating dairy cows, and (2) to examine the relationship between sorting and feeding behaviour. The hypothesis was that increasing feeding amount would increase the degree of feed sorting and this sorting, in turn, would result in cows spending more time feeding. This hypothesis was tested in an experiment with cows exposed to two different feeding amounts (target 5 and 15% orts). The extent of sorting and feeding behaviour of the cows on each feeding amount were measured.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Six lactating dairy cows, Two primiparous and four multiparous (parity=3.0±1.2; mean±SD), were used in this study. The animals were 79.2±9.0 days in milk (DIM) at the beginning of the data collection period and had an average milk yield of 41.6±8.6 kg d⁻¹ over the course of the experiment. The cows were housed in a tie-stall dairy barn at the University of Guelph, Kemptville Campus Dairy Education and Research Centre (Kemptville, ON) and were managed according to the guidelines set by the Canadian Council on Animal Care (1993). Use of animals was approved by the University of Guelph's animal care committee (AUP#08R017). Each cow was individually housed in a tie stall where she had ad libitum access to water (via her own water bowl) and feed (via a feed bunk containing dividers separating her feed from adjacent cows' feed). Cows were milked in their stalls twice daily at 0500 and 1600. Milk yields were recorded at each milking. Cows were fed twice daily at 1000 and 1530 a TMR (Table 1) formulated for high-producing lactating dairy cows (National Research Council 2001). Orts were cleaned out of feed bunks and disposed of at 0800 and 1520 each day according to standard operating procedures on-farm. Cows were given a 2-h exercise period (0800 to 1000) each day in an outdoor dry lot pen.

Table 1 Ingredient, chemical composition, and particle size distribution of the treatment diet

The number of animals required per treatment was determined through power analysis (Morris 1999) for the primary response variables, including dry matter intake (DMI), feed sorting, and feeding behaviour using variability estimates from Miller-Cushon and DeVries (2010) and DeVries et al. (2007). The cows were divided into two groups of three, which were balanced according to DIM, milk production, and average parity (2.3±1.4). These groups were created by blocking cows into groups of two cows (similar in parity, DIM, and milk production), and then randomly assigning the cows in these blocks to one of the two experimental groups. Cows were exposed to each of two treatments in a crossover design with 7-d periods. The treatments were: (1) lower feeding amount (LFA; target 5% orts), and (2) higher feeding amount (HFA; target 15% orts). The amount of feed offered to each cow was adjusted daily in an attempt to achieve the required amount of orts among animals and between treatments. The daily amount was then divided by 4 with 1/4 of feed delivered at 1000 and the remaining 3/4 fed at 1530. Due to high variability in daily intake during the 6-h time period from 1000 to 1530, it was not possible to impose the treatment levels during that time period of the day. As such, treatment levels were only successfully imposed during the 18-h time period from 1530 to 1000. Cows were kept on their respective treatments for 7 d, after which they were switched to the alternate treatment for 7 additional days. Within each treatment period, cows were given a 3-d period to allow for behavioural adaptation (DeVries et al. 2007), followed by 4 d of data collection.

Feeding behaviour was monitored using time-lapse video equipment. Feeding time was recorded on days 4–7 of each treatment period via three video cameras (Panasonic WV-BP330; Osaka, Japan), a time-lapse videocassette recorder (Panasonic AG-6740), and a video multiplexer (Panasonic WJ-FS 616). Each camera was positioned in front of the tie stalls (2.08 m off the floor and 0.53 m from the tie rail) such that two cows could be recorded by each camera. The feeding behaviour of each cow was continuously scored from the video recordings. For every minute of each day, each cow was recorded as feeding if feeding activity occurred anytime within that minute.

Individual feeding bouts were separated into meals using an individual meal criterion (the minimum length of time following a feeding bout for the next feeding bout to be considered a new meal). Given the short duration of the treatment periods, there were not enough bout interval data to accurately calculate meal criteria separately for each cow on each treatment, thus a single meal criterion was calculated for each cow. Each meal criterion was calculated using a mixed distribution model (Tolkamp et al. 1998; Yeates et al. 2001; DeVries et al. 2003). For each cow, the time intervals (in min) between feeding bouts across the study were computed, log₁₀ transformed, and plotted in a frequency distribution. The frequency distributions were bimodal, with a first peak corresponding to intervals within meals and the second peak representing the intervals between meals. The highest frequency within-meal interval (left-hand distribution) was 1 min because feeding behaviour was summarized on a per minute basis. The extremely high frequency of these intervals distorted the frequency distribution in such a way that it could not be modelled. Therefore, these intervals were removed prior to analysis. After removal of these intervals, the within-meal interval population was still skewed, and therefore was left truncated when the distribution was fitted (DeVries et al. 2003). A mixture of two normal distributions was fitted to each distribution by the method of exact maximum likelihood using the software package MIX 3.1.3 (Macdonald and Green 1988). The meal criterion was determined as the point at which the distribution curve of inter-meal intervals intersected the distribution curve of the intra-meal intervals. The calculated meal criteria averaged 19.5±7.9 (mean±SD) min. Using the criteria determined for each cow, meal frequency, duration, and size were calculated.

Individual DMI was measured on a daily basis based on the amount of feed offered and the amount of feed refused by each animal. Dry matter intake was assessed from fresh feed and orts samples. As treatment levels were only successfully imposed during the 18 h time period from 1530 to 1000, only DMI during this period was analyzed.

Representative samples of the TMR were taken daily at the time of feed delivery (offered feed) and from the orts. These samples were used to determine DMI and underwent chemical analysis to determine nutrient intake. Duplicate samples of offered and refused TMR were taken on days 4–7 to allow for an additional sample for particle size separation. Orts in the feed bunk were weighed and removed prior to new feed delivery. On day 5 of each treatment period, duplicate samples of the dietary components were taken for particle size and chemical analysis. All samples for chemical analysis were frozen at −20°C until they were further analyzed. Samples taken for particle size separation were immediately separated using the three-screen (19, 8, 1.18 mm) Penn State Particle Separator (PSPS; Kononoff et al. 2003). This device separated the samples into four fractions: long (>19 mm), medium (<19, >8 mm), short (<8, >1.18 mm), and fine (<1.18 mm) particles. After separation, the DM of each separated fraction was determined by oven drying at 55?C for 48 h.

The DM content of samples taken for chemical analysis was determined using the above-described method. The samples were then ground to pass through a 1-mm screen (Wiley Mill, Arthur H. Thomas Co., Philadelphia, PA). Feed samples were composited by period and treatment before being sent to Cumberland Valley Analytical Services Inc. (Maugansville, MD) for analysis of DM [135°C; Association of Official Analytical Chemists International (AOAC) 2000: method 930.15], ash (535°C; AOAC 2000: method 942.05), acid detergent fibre (AOAC 2000: method 973.18), neutral detergent fibre (NDF) with heat-stable α-amylase and sodium sulfite (Van Soest et al. 1991), CP (N×6.25) (AOAC 2000: method 990.03; Leco FP-528 Nitrogen Analyzer, Leco, St. Joseph, MI, USA), and starch (Holm et al. 1986).

Sorting activity was determined for the 18-h period for each fraction of the PSPS and was calculated as the actual intake of each fraction expressed as a percentage of the predicted intake of that fraction (Leonardi and Armentano 2003). The actual intake of each fraction was calculated as the difference between the DM amount of each fraction in the offered TMR and that in the refused feed. The predicted intake of an individual fraction was calculated as the product of the DMI of the total diet multiplied by the DM percentage of that fraction in the fed TMR. Values equal to 100% indicate no sorting,<100% indicate selective refusals (sorting against), and>100% indicate preferential consumption (sorting for).

Prior to statistical analysis, a preliminary screening of the data was performed to ensure all dependent variables were normally distributed. To test whether sorting occurred, sorting for each fraction of the PSPS was tested for a difference from 100 using t-tests within the MIXED procedure of SAS software (SAS Institute, Inc. 2003). A preliminary analysis of the effect of day within treatment period revealed no day effect and, therefore, the data were averaged across 18 h for each treatment period for each cow. To test if feeding amount influenced feeding and sorting behaviour, the data were analyzed using the MIXED procedure of SAS software (SAS Institute, Inc. 2003). The model included the fixed effects of period, order of treatment exposure, treatment, and the random effect of cow within order. Effects of period and order, as well as their interactions with treatment, were not significant, therefore, these are not further reported. All values reported are least square means.

The regression procedure of SAS software (SAS Instiute, Inc. 2003) was used to examine the relationship between feed sorting and feeding behaviour, using data collected during the 18-h feeding period. Based on the initial analysis of the feed sorting data, only those measures of feed sorting that were significantly different from 100% were used in this analysis. Only those statistically significant models were reported. For all analyses, significance was declared at P≤0.05, and a trend was reported if 0.05<P≤0.10.

RESULTS

The nutrient composition and particle size distribution of the TMR are reported in Table 1. Although we were not able to achieve the target level of orts (HFA: 15%, LFA: 5%), there was a tendency for a higher level of orts on the HFA compared with the LFA during the 18-h feeding period (16.1 vs. 11.6%, SE=1.6, P=0.08).

Across treatments, during the 18-h feeding period, cows sorted against long particles (67.3%; SE=10.1; P=0.02) and tended to sort for short particles (104.4%; SE=1.9; P=0.07). Cows on the LFA treatment sorted for fine particles (109.8%; SE=3.5; P=0.04) while cows on the HFA treatment tended to sort for fine particles (107.0%; SE=3.5, P=0.10). Animals did not sort medium particles (97.8%; SE=1.4, P=0.2) on either treatment. There was no difference in the extent of sorting between treatments during this time period.

During the 6-h feeding period, DMI (7.1 kg; SE=1.5), feeding time (28.3 min; SE=3.2), and feeding rate (0.25 kg min⁻¹; SE=0.04) were similar between treatments. During the 18-h feeding period, DMI also did not differ between treatments. Feeding rate and feeding time were also similar between treatments (Table 2). There was no difference in meal time or meal duration; however, there was a tendency for cows to consume a greater number of meals during the 18-h period when on the LFA treatment (Table 2).

Table 2 Intake and feeding behaviour measures^z from the 18 h feeding period for lactating dairy cows fed a high or low feeding amount

Across treatments, during the 18-h feeding period, feeding rate was positively correlated with sorting of long particles (P=0.005; Fig. 1). Feeding time was negatively correlated with sorting of short (P=0.02; Fig. 2a) and fine (P=0.02; Fig. 2b) particles. Dry matter intake tended to be positively correlated with sorting of long particles (P=0.10; Fig. 3a) and tended to be negatively correlated with sorting of short particles (P=0.09; Fig. 3b). Finally, meal duration tended to be negatively correlated with sorting of fine particles (P=0.08; Fig. 4).

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

DISCUSSION

In the present study, we sought to determine how feeding amount would affect feeding behaviour and feed sorting of lactating dairy cows and to examine the relationship between sorting and feeding behaviour.

The results of this study clearly show that cattle were sorting their ration, regardless of feeding amount. Similar to previous results, cows sorted against the longest ration particles and tended to sort for the short particles (Leonardi and Armentano 2003; DeVries et al. 2007). The refusal of some of the longest ration particles and tendency to select for the short ration particles is likely due to the cows attempting to consume the highly-palatable concentrate components, found mainly in the short particle fraction (DeVries et al. 2007; Miller-Cushon and DeVries 2009). Not only does such sorting result in cows consuming a ration that is different than that originally intended for them, the refusal of the longer, higher effective fiber particles may also increase the risk of SARA (DeVries et al. 2008).

There was a tendency for a difference in orts levels between treatments but we were unable to achieve the targeted 10% difference. Cattle in this study were given a 3-d adaptation period on each treatment before recording of feeding behaviour began. It is possible that this was not a sufficient length of time to allow the animals to adjust their feeding behaviour accordingly. We suggest that future studies provide a longer adaptation period in an effort to allow the cattle to adjust to different feeding regimes.

As there was only a tendency for a difference in orts levels between treatments (4.5%), it may not be surprising that there was no difference in the extent of sorting between treatments. In a similar study, Miller-Cushon and DeVries (2010) maintained a difference in feeding amount of 6.5% between treatments. These researchers found a difference in the extent of sorting between treatments, with cows fed at a HFA sorting to a greater extent. It is possible that, had a more exaggerated difference in feeding amount been maintained in the present study, a difference between treatments in the extent of sorting may have been detected.

Researchers have also shown that feeding cattle a larger amount may increase DMI (Methu et al. 2001; Miller-Cushon and DeVries 2010). Contrary to these findings, cows in this study maintained similar DMI on the study treatments. Additionally, the amount of time spent feeding and the rate at which feed was consumed were also similar between treatments. As with sorting behaviour, it may be expected that these variables would be similar between treatments since there was only a tendency for a difference between feeding amount. Furthermore, it is important to note that results in this study reflect the 18-h feeding period only, and that results may have differed over the full 24-h period. Further research targeting a larger difference in orts would greatly aid in establishing possible differences in feeding behaviour due to feeding amount.

Despite not being able to replicate previous results on the effect of feeding amount on feed sorting, we were able to detect various relationships between measures of feed sorting and feeding behaviour. An increase in sorting for fine particles was associated with shorter meals, while an increase in sorting for short and fine particles was associated with less time spent feeding. These relationships could be explained by the speed of consumption of such particles. Dairy cattle have been shown to more quickly consume a ration containing a greater proportion of smaller particles (DeVries et al. 2007). In a review by Campling and Morgan (1981), it was suggested that cattle are, by nature, adept at gathering feed using their lips, teeth, and tongue and are quite able to select those feedstuffs that may be rapidly consumed. Of particular note, smaller particles (such as concentrate or pellets) can be consumed at a higher intake rate than longer particles (such as long, fibrous forages; Campling and Morgan 1981). Therefore, the cows in our experiment were likely able to consume the short and fine fractions of the ration (since these fractions were primarily composed of the concentrate and protein pellets) at a higher rate of intake and, thus, in less time. Additionally, we found that increased sorting against long particles was associated with a lower feeding rate. As such, it seems that cows were consuming their feed more slowly when there was increased manipulation of feed occurring at the feed bunk. It is apparent from these data that there was great between-cow variability in feeding rates and associated feed sorting patterns. Further research is encouraged to investigate the cause of this variability; for example, to examine if these feeding behaviour patterns developed over time and if they were influenced by past experiences.

It was not possible to measure any indicators of rumen health in the present study and, therefore, we can only speculate on what may be occurring in the rumen due to the sorting and feeding behaviours observed. Previous research has shown that forage characteristics, such as physically effective fibre (which is a combination of NDF content and particle size) can affect salivary secretion during feeding through alteration of feeding rate, thereby affecting the time a cow spends feeding (Beauchemin et al. 2008). Thus, slower feeding rates occurring when cattle are fed long forages are likely to increase salivation in comparison to the amount of saliva produced when a cow consumes short particles at an increased rate of intake. Furthermore, as cattle increase the size of their meals, rumen pH tends to decrease at a faster rate (Allen 1997). As such, larger meals, particularly if containing a high proportion of shorter particles high in rapidly fermentable carbohydrates, will result in lower ruminal pH. If the amount of physically effective fibre in the diet is inadequate, this lower ruminal pH will not recover quickly and the cow may experience long periods of time when the rumen is not sufficiently buffered, possibly resulting in SARA. As much of these combined effects are speculative, further research on the effect of sorting and feeding behaviours and their combined effect on rumen pH is needed.

There was no difference in DMI between treatments; however, we did determine that less sorting against long particles and less sorting for short particles was associated with increased DMI. Manipulation of the ration takes time and it follows, then, that the less time and effort a cow spends sorting her ration, the greater the amount of feed that she may be able to consume in a given timeframe. As milk yield and DMI have been shown to be positively related (Martin and Sauvant 2002), it is possible that decreased sorting may encourage greater DMI and, thus, greater milk yield. Alternatively, sorting for short particles and against long particles may limit the DMI and production. Furthermore, an increase in DMI accompanied by a decrease in sorting behaviour may aid in the maintenance of rumen health, since cattle are consuming a ration that more closely resembles the formulated, balanced ration that was offered to the animals (DeVries et al. 2007, 2008). This study was designed to test predictions concerning feeding behaviour and DMI, and did not allow for a test of milk yield differences, given the treatment period length, or for tests of rumen health. Further research on establishing the long-term effects of sorting and feeding behaviour on milk production is encouraged.

The results from this experiment provide new insight into how feed sorting behaviour may affect the time course of feeding, meal patterning, and nutrient intake of lactating dairy cows. Further research is needed to better understand how relationships between these variables may affect rumen health and production. Additionally, measurements successfully recorded over a 24-h feeding period would be helpful in further understanding the time course of feeding behaviour throughout the day.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank the staff at The University of Guelph, Kemptville Campus Dairy Education and Research Centre. In particular we thank Heather Migdal for her technical assistance in data collection and video analysis.

References

Allen M. S.1997Relationship between fermentation acid production in the rumen and the requirement for physically effective fiberJ. Dairy Sci.8014471462

Association of Official Analytical Chemists International2000Official methods of analysisVol. I.17th ed.AOAC InternationalArlington, VA

Beauchemin K. A., Eriksen L., Norgaard P., and Rode L. M.2008Salivary secretion during meals in lactating dairy cattleJ. Dairy Sci.9120772081

Borland K. and Kesler E. M.1979Complete rations for Holstein calves 8 to 18 weeks of ageJ. Dairy Sci.62304309

Campling R. C. and Morgan C. A.1981Eating behavior of housed dairy cow – a reviewDairy Sci. Abstr.435763

Canadian Council on Animal CareOlfert E. D., Cross B. M., and McWilliam A. A.1993Guide to the care and use of experimental animals. Vol. 1CCACOttawa, ON

Coppock C. E.1977Feeding methods and grouping systemsJ. Dairy Sci.6013271336

DeVries T. J., von Keyserlingk M. A. G., Weary D. M., and Beauchemin K. A.2003Measuring the feeding behavior of lactating dairy cows in early to peak lactationJ. Dairy Sci.8633543361

DeVries T. J., von Keyserlingk M. A. G., and Beauchemin K. A.2005Frequency of feed delivery affects the behavior of lactating dairy cowsJ. Dairy Sci.8835533562

DeVries T. J., Beauchemin K. A., and von Keyserlingk M. A. G.2007Dietary forage concentration affects the feed sorting behavior of lactating dairy cowsJ. Dairy Sci.9055725579

DeVries T. J., Dohme F., and Beauchemin K. A.2008Repeated ruminal acidosis challenges in lactating dairy cows at high and low risk for developing acidosis: Feed sortingJ. Dairy Sci.9139583967

Greter A. M., DeVries T. J., and von Keyserlingk M. A. G.2008Nutrient intake and feeding behavior of growing dairy heifers: Effects of dietary dilutionJ. Dairy Sci.9127862795

Holm J., Bjorck I., Drews A., and Asp N. G.1986A rapid method for the analysis of starchStarch – Starke38224226

Kononoff P. J., Heinrichs A. J., and Buckmaster D. R.2003Modification of Penn State forage and total mixed ration particle separator and the effects of moisture content on its measurementsJ. Dairy Sci.8618581863

Lammers B. P., Buckmaster D. R., and Heinrichs A. J.1996A simple method for the analysis of particle sizes of forage and total mixed rationsJ. Dairy Sc.79922928

Leonardi C. and Armentano L. E.2003Effect of quantity, quality, and length of alfalfa hay on selective consumption by dairy cowsJ. Dairy Sci.86557564

Leonardi C. and Armentano L. E.2007Feed selection by dairy cows fed individually in a tie-stall or as a group in a free-stall barnJ. Dairy Sci.9023862389

Macdonald P. D. M. and Green P. E. J.User's guide to Program MIX: An interactive program for fitting mixtures of distributions1988Release 2.3, January 1988Ichthus Data SystemsHamilton, ON

Martin O. and Sauvant D.2002Metaanalysis of input/output kinetics in lactating dairy cowsJ. Dairy Sci.8533633381

Methu J. N., Owen E., Abate A. L., and Tanner J. C.2001Botanical and nutritional composition of maize stover, intakes and feed selection by dairy cattleLivest. Prod. Sci.718796

Miller-Cushon E. K. and DeVries T. J.2009Effect of dietary dry matter concentration on the sorting behavior of lactating dairy cows fed a total mixed rationJ. Dairy Sci.9232923298

Miller-Cushon E. K. and DeVries T. J.2010Feeding amount affects the sorting behavior of lactating dairy cowsCan. J. Anim. Sci.9017

Morris T. R.1999Experimental Design and Analysis in Animal SciencesCABI PublishingNew York, NY

National Research Council2001Nutrient requirements of dairy cattleNational Academy of ScienceWashington, DC

SAS Institute, Inc2003User's guide: StatisticsVersion 9.1.3 edCary, NCSAS Institute Inc.

Tolkamp B. J., Allcroft D. J., Austin E. J., Nielsen B. L., and Kyriazakis I.1998Satiety splits feeding behaviour into boutsJ. Theor. Biol.194235250

Van Soest P. J., Robertson J. B., and Lewis B. A.1991Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber and nonstarch polysaccharide in relation to animal nutritionJ. Dairy Sci.7435833597

Yeates M. P., Tolkamp B. J., Allcroft D. J., and Kyriazakis I.2001The use of mixed distribution models to determine bout criteria for analysis of animal behaviourJ. Theor. Biol.213413425

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

cover image Canadian Journal of Animal Science

Canadian Journal of Animal Science

Volume 91 • Number 1 • March 2011

History

Received: 27 July 2010

Accepted: 2 November 2010

Published online: 1 January 2011

Key Words

Feeding amount
sorting
feeding behaviour
dairy cow

Mots clés

Prise alimentaire
tri des aliments
habitudes alimentaires
vache laitiére

Authors

Affiliations

Angela Greter

Department of Animal and Poultry Science, University of Guelph, Kemptville Campus, Kemptville, Ontario, Canada, K0G 1J0

Notes

Abbreviations: CP, crude protein; DIM, days in milk; DMI, dry matter intake; HFA, higher feeding amount; LFA, lower feeding amount; NDF, neutral detergent fibre; PSPS, Penn State Particle Separator; SARA, sub-acute ruminal acidosis; TMR, total mixed ration

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Other Metrics

Citations

Cite As

GreterAngela and DevriesTrevor. Effect of feeding amount on the feeding and sorting behaviour of lactating dairy cattle. Canadian Journal of Animal Science. 91(1): 47-54. https://doi.org/10.4141/CJAS10067

Export Citations

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

Cited by

1. Feeding behavior parameters and temporal patterns in mid-lactation Holstein cows across a range of residual feed intake values

2. Effect of Duration of High-Grain Feeding on Chewing, Feeding Behavior, and Salivary Composition in Cows with or without a Phytogenic Feed Supplement

3. Effects of changes in diet energy density and milking frequency and a single injection of cabergoline at dry-off on feeding behavior and rumination time in dairy cows

4. Effects of the straw inclusion in the diet of dairy calves on growth performance, rumen fermentation, and blood metabolites during pre‐ and post‐weaning periods

5. Quality of Chopped Maize Can Be Improved by Processing

6. Influence of the addition of water to total mixed rations on the feeding behaviour, feed intake and milk performance of high-yielding dairy cows

7. Processing index of barley grain and dietary undigested neutral detergent fiber concentration affected chewing behavior, ruminal pH, and total tract nutrient digestibility of heifers fed a high-grain diet

8. Effects of molasses-based liquid feed supplementation to a high-straw dry cow diet on feed intake, health, and performance of dairy cows across the transition period

9. Moisture content of high-straw dry cow diets affects intake, health, and performance of transition dairy cows

10. Effects of wheat straw chop length in high-straw dry cow diets on intake, health, and performance of dairy cows across the transition period

11. Effects of finishing diet sorting and digestibility on performance and feed efficiency in beef steers

12. Substituting corn silage with reconstituted forage or nonforage fiber sources in the starter feed diets of Holstein calves: Effects on intake, meal pattern, sorting, and health

13. Reciprocal combinations of alfalfa hay and corn silage in the starter diets of Holstein dairy calves: Effects on feed sorting, meal pattern, and ingestive behavior

14. Effect of dietary transition at dry off on the behavior and physiology of dairy cows

16. Chicken or the Egg: The Reciprocal Association Between Feeding Behavior and Animal Welfare and Their Impact on Productivity in Dairy Cows

17. Physically adjusted neutral detergent fiber system for lactating dairy cow rations. II: Development of feeding recommendations

18. Feed sorting in dairy cattle: Causes, consequences, and management

19. Feeding preferences and voluntary feed intake of dairy cows: Effect of conservation and harvest time of birdsfoot trefoil and chicory

20. Effect of parity and stage of lactation on feed sorting behavior of lactating dairy cows