DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Ingestive Behavior of Heifers Supplemented with Glycerin in Substitution of Corn on Brachiaria brizantha Pasture

  • Facuri, L.M.A.M. (Universidade Estadual do Sudoeste da Bahia) ;
  • Silva, Roberio Rodrigues (Universidade Estadual do Sudoeste da Bahia) ;
  • da Silva, F.F. (Universidade Estadual do Sudoeste da Bahia) ;
  • de Carvalho, G.G.P. (Universidade Estadual do Sudoeste da Bahia) ;
  • Sampaio, C.B. (Universidade Estadual do Sudoeste da Bahia) ;
  • Mendes, F.B.L. (Universidade Estadual do Sudoeste da Bahia) ;
  • Lisboa, M.M. (Universidade Estadual do Sudoeste da Bahia) ;
  • Barroso, D.S. (Universidade Estadual do Sudoeste da Bahia) ;
  • Carvalho, V.M. (Universidade Estadual do Sudoeste da Bahia) ;
  • Pereira, M.M.S. (Universidade Estadual do Sudoeste da Bahia)
  • Received : 2014.03.31
  • Accepted : 2014.06.28
  • Published : 2014.11.01

Abstract

The objective was to evaluate the ingestive behavior of crossbred heifers finished on a Brachiaria brizantha cv. Marandu pasture receiving four levels of glycerin in their supplementation. Thirty-six crossbred heifers with average initial weight of $264.83{\pm}3.83kg$ and 20 months of age were distributed into a completely randomized design with four treatments and nine replications: control (0%), 4.82%, 10.12%, and 15.56% glycerin in the dry matter. The grazing time reduced linearly (p<0.05), whereas the time spent on activities like rumination, idleness, trough and total chewing time were quadratically affected (p<0.05). Bite rate and number of bites/day were quadratically influenced (p<0.05). The number of bites/swallowed cud and the number of bites/minute, however, increased linearly (p<0.05). Although the time spent on each cud and number of chews per cud were not affected (p>0.05).The number of rumination periods reduced linearly (p<0.05), whereas the number of grazing, idle and trough periods, and the times per grazing, idle, rumination and trough periods were quadratically affected (p<0.05). The feed and rumination efficiencies of the dry matter, non-fibrous carbohydrates, pasture dry matter and concentrate were quadratically affected (p>0.05) whereas the feed efficiency of neutral detergent fiber reduced linearly (p<0.05). Addition of glycerin in substitution of corn in supplements for animals managed on pastures does not influenced feed intake, but reduces the grazing time and increases the idle time. The supplementation also improves feed and rumination efficiencies.

References

  1. Campbell, A. G. 1996. Grazed pastures parameters: I. Pasture dry matter production and availability in a stocking rate and grazing management experiment with dairy cows. J. Agric. Sci. 67:211-216.
  2. Baggio, C., P. C. De F. Carvalho, J. L. S. Da Silva, I. Anghinoni, M. L. T. Lopes, and J. M. Thurow. 2009. Displacement patterns and herbage capture by steers in Italian ryegrass and black oat pastures managed under different heights in integrated crop-livestock system. R. Bras. Zoot. 38:215-222. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982009000200001
  3. Barbosa, N. G. S., R. P. Lana, G. N. Jhan, A. C. Borges, A. B. Mancio, J. C. Pereira, and J. S. Silveira. 2001. Feed intake and ruminal fermentation of proteins as a function of energetic and proteic food supplementation of steers. Rev. Bras. Zootec. 30:1558-1565. (Supp). https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982001000600025
  4. Bremm, C., M. G. Rocha, J. Restle, A. Pilau, D. B. Montagner, F. K. Freitas, S. Macari, D. A. G. Elejalde, D. Roso, J. Roman, E. P. Guterres, V. G. Costa, and F. P. Neves. 2005. Ingestive behavior of beef heifers grazing oat (Avena strigosa Schreb) and ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum Lam) pasture under supplementation levels. Rev. Bras. Zootec. 34:387-397. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982005000200005
  5. Bremm, C., M. G. Rocha, F. K. Freitas, S. Macari, S.; D. A. G. Elejalde, and D. Roso. 2008. Ingestive behavior of beef heifers submitted to strategies of supplementation on oats and ryegrass pastures. Rev. Bras. Zootec. 37:1161-1167, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982008000700004
  6. Burger, P. J., J. C. Pereira, A. C. Queiroz, J. F. Coelho, P. S. Agostini, S. C. Valadares Filho, P. R. Cecon, A. D. P. Casali. 2000. Ingestive behavior in holstein calves fed diets with different concentrate levels. Rev. Bras. Zootec. 29:236-242. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982000000100031
  7. Chung, Y. H., D. E. Rico, C. M. Martinez, T. W. Cassidy, V. Noirot, A. Ames, and G. A. Varga. 2007. Effects of feeding dry glycerin to early postpartum Holstein dairy cows on lactational performance and metabolic profiles. J. Dairy Sci. 90:5682-5691. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2007-0426
  8. Elam, N. A., K. S. Eng, B. Betchel, J. M. Harris, and R. Crocker. 2008. Glycerol from biodiesel production: Considerations for feedlot diets. Proceedings of the Southwest Nutrition Conference. Las Cruces, New Mexico State University. 1:1-13.
  9. Gary, L. A., G. W. Sherritt, and E. B. Hale. 1970. Behavior of Charolais cattle on pasture. J. Anim. Sci. 30:203-206.
  10. Farias, M. S., R. R. Silva, F. Zawadzki, C. E. Eiras, B. S. Lima, and I. N. Prado. 2012. Glycerin levels for crossbred heifers supplemented in pasture: Intake behavior. Acta Sci. Anim. Sci. 34:63-69.
  11. Forbes, J. M. 1988. Metabolic aspects of the regulation of voluntary food intake and appetite. Nutr. Res. Rev. 1:145-168. https://doi.org/10.1079/NRR19880012
  12. Gardner, A. L. 1986. Research techniques in pasture and applicability of results in the production system. IICA/EMBRAPA/CNPGL, 1 Brasil. 197 p.
  13. Hodgson, J. 1982. Ingestive behaviour. In: Herbage Intake Handbook (Ed. J. D. Leaver). Hurley: British Grassland Society. 113 p.
  14. Hodgson, J. and W. S. Jamieson. 1981. Variations in herbage mass and digestibility, and the grazing behaviour and herbage intake of adult cattle and weaned calves. Grass Forage Sci. 36:39-48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2494.1981.tb01537.x
  15. Jamieson, W. S. and J. Hodgson. 1979. The effects of variation in sward characteristics upon the ingestive behaviour and herbage intake of calves and lambs under a continuous stocking management. Grass Forage Sci. 34:273-282. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2494.1979.tb01479.x
  16. Kearl, L. C. 1982. Nutrient Requirements of Ruminants in Developing Countries. 1st. Utah, UT, USA: International Feedstuffs Institute, Utah Agricultural Experiment Station, Utah State University. 382.
  17. Krehbiel, C. R. 2008. Ruminal and physiological metabolism of glycerin. J. Anim. Sci. E86 (Supplement):392 (Abstr.).
  18. Marques, J. A., D. Maggioni, J. J. S. Abrahao, E. Guilherme, G. A. Bezerra, and S. M. S. Lugao. 2005. Behavior of young bulls in confinement housed separately or in group. Archivos Latinoamericanos de Produccion Animal 13:97-102.
  19. Parsons, G. L., M. K. Shelor, and J. S. Drouillard. 2009. Performance and carcass traits of finishing heifers fed crude glycerin. J. Anim. Sci. 87:653-657.
  20. Mertens, D. R. 1994. Regulation of forage intake. In: Forage Quality, Evaluation, and Utilization (Eds. R. Fahey Jr., G. C., M. Collins, and D. R. Mertens et al.). American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science of America, Soil Science of America, Madison, WI, USA. pp. 450-493.
  21. NRC. 2000. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle. 7th ed. Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, DC, USA. 276.
  22. Ooi, T. L., K. C. Yong, A. H. Hazimah, K. Dzulkefly, W. M. Z. Wan Yunus. 2004. Glycerol residue - A rich source of glycerol and medium chain fatty acids. J. Oleo Sci. 53:29-33. https://doi.org/10.5650/jos.53.29
  23. Ribeiro, J. R. 2001. Analises Estatisticas no SAEG 2001 (System Analysis and Statistical Genetics). Vicosa, MG: UFV, 301 p.
  24. Santana Junior, H. A., M. P. Figueiredo, E. O. Cardoso, F. B. L. Mendes, G. Abreu Filho, A. A. Pinheiro, M. M. Lisboa, Y. S. Luz, P. T. Viana, A. H. C. Ferreira, and C. L. S. Rech. 2013. Crude glycerin in diets for lactating cows grazing on tropical pasture: Ingestive behavior. Semina: Ciencias Agrarias, londrina. 34:1339-1352 .
  25. Silva, D. J. and A. C. Queiroz. 2002. Food analysis: Chemical methods and biological. 3. Vicosa, Minas Gerais, Brasil: Universidade Federal de Vicosa. 253 p.
  26. Silva, R. R., F. F. Silva, G. G. P. Carvalho, I. L. Franco, C. M. Veloso, M. A. Chaves, P. Bonomo, I. N. Prado, and V. S. Almeida. 2005. Ingestive behavior of crossbred Holstein${\times}$Zebu heifers confined. Arch. Zootec. 54:75-85.
  27. Sniffen, C. J., J. D. O'Connor, P. J. Van Soest, D. G. Fox, and J. B. Russel. 1992. A net carbohydrate and protein system for evaluating cattle diets: II. Carbohydrate and protein availability. J. Anim. Sci. 70:3562-3577.
  28. Wilm, H. G., D. F. Costello, and G. E. Klippe. 1944. Estimating forage yield by the double-sampling method. Agron. J. 36:194-203. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1944.00021962003600030003x
  29. Stricklin, W. R. and C. C. Kautz-Scanavy. 1984. The role of behavior in cattle production: A review of research. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 11:359-390. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3762(84)90043-9
  30. Trabue, S., K. Scoggin, S. Tjandrakusuma, M. A. Rasmussen, and P. J. Reilly. 2007. Ruminal fermentation of propylene glycol and glycerol. J. Agric. Food Chem. 55:7043-7051. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf071076i
  31. Weiss, W. P. 1999. Energy prediction equations for ruminant feeds. In: Proceedings of Cornell nutrition conference for feed manufacturers, 61. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA. pp. 176-185.

Cited by

  1. Comportamento ingestivo de bovinos em capim-piatã sob lotação intermitente em resposta a distintas alturas de entrada vol.17, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1590/S1519-99402016000300006
  2. Intake and ingestive behavior of lambs fed diets containing ammoniated buffel grass hay vol.49, pp.4, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-017-1247-2