 |
[email protected] |
 |
3275638434 |
 |
 |
| Paper Publishing WeChat |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Bruna C. Agustinho1, Hsin-Tai Hong1,2, Kathryne Blair1,3, Chia-Yu Tsai1,4, Hao-Che Hung1, Anne H. Laarman1,5 and Pedram Rezamand1
Full-Text PDF
XML 1303 Views
DOI:10.17265/2161-6256/2022.02.002
1. Department of Animal, Veterinary and Food Sciences, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844, USA
2. Department of Animal Science, National Chiayi University, Chiayi City 600, Taiwan
3. College of Veterinary Medicine, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164, USA
4. BioResource International, Durham, NC 27703, USA
5. Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2P5, Canada
The objectives of this study were to evaluate the effect of using multiple dietary inclusion rates of alkaline aqueous lignin by-product (AALB), in replacing a commercial binder, on the preference and feeding behavior of dairy heifers, and in vitro digestibility. In the experiment I, five pelleted diets including negative control (no-binder), commercial lignosulfonate binder, and 1.6%, 3.2%, and 4.8% of AALB were tested. In the experiment II, five pelleted diets including negative control, positive control (2% molasses), and 1%, 2.4%, and 3.8% of AALB (all combined with 2% of molasses) were tested. Feeding behavior and preference were determined for 60 min per animal per evaluation. In vitro digestibility was determined for each pelleted diet for 48 h over five incubation runs. Results from Experiment I showed animals receiving 1.6% of AALB diet showed the greatest preference (dry matter (DM), intake) and a greater number of approaches with eating than other diets. The preference was lower when animals received control or 4.8% AALB diets relative to other diets. Results from Experiment II revealed animals receiving 3.8% AALB combined with molasses showed the greatest DM intake preference over 60 min, and DM intake per approach. Diets that included 2.4% and 3.8% of AALB combined with molasses presented the greatest in vitro DM digestibility. Overall, heifers showed a greater intake when receiving pelleted diets with 1.6% AALB. Furthermore, preference, intake over 60 min, and in vitro DM digestibility, were greater in the pelleted diets that contained higher rates of AALB when combined with molasses.
Dairy heifer, feeding behavior, feed binder, lignin, pellet.
Agustinho, B. C., Hong, H. T., Blair, K., Tsai, C. Y., Hung, C. H., Laarman, A. H., and Rezamand, R. 2022. "Preference, Feeding Behavior, and in Vitro Fermentation Characteristics of Pelleted Feeds Containing Alkaline Aqueous Lignin By-Product from Paper Processing in Holstein Heifers" Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology A 12 (2022): 54-64.
[1] Arscott, G. H., Hulit, V. L., and Pautz, R. K. 1957. “The Use of Barley in High-Efficiency Broiler Rations.” Poult. Sci. 36 (1): 1388-9.
[2] Vondell, R. M., and Ringrose, R. C. 1957. “Debeaking at One Day of Age and the Feeding of Pellets to Broiler Chickens.” Poult. Sci. 36 (3): 1310-2.
[3] Larsen, L. M., and Oldfield, J. E. 1960. “Improvement of Barley Rations for Swine. II. Effects of Pelleting and Supplementation with Barley Malt.” J. Anim. Sci. 19 (2): 601-6.
[4] Svihus, B., and Zimonja, O. 2011. “Chemical Alterations with Nutritional Consequences due to Pelleting Animal Feeds: A Review.” Anim. Prod. Sci. 51 (7): 590-6.
[5] Abdollahi, M. R., Ravindran, V., and Svihus, B. 2013. “Pelleting of Broiler Diets: An Overview with Emphasis on Pellet Quality and Nutritional Value.” Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 79 (1-4): 1-23.
[6] NASEM. 2021. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle. Washington: The National Academies Press.
[7] DeVries, T. J., and Von Keyserlingk, M. A. G. 2009. “Short Communication: Feeding Method Affects the Feeding Behavior of Growing Dairy Heifers.” J. Dairy Sci. 92 (3): 1161-8.
[8] Zhong, R. Z., Fang, Y., Zhou, D. W., Sun, X. Z., Zhou, C. S., and He, Y. Q. 2018. “Pelleted Total Mixed Ration Improves Growth Performance of Fattening Lambs.” Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 242: 127-34.
[9] Bertipaglia, L. M. A., Fondevila, M., van Laar, H., and Castrillo, C. 2010. “Effect of Pelleting and Pellet Size of a Concentrate for Intensively Reared Beef Cattle on in Vitro Fermentation by Two Different Approaches.” Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 159 (3-4): 88-95.
[10] Thomas, M., Van Vliet, T., and Van Der Poel, A. F. B. 1998. “Physical Quality of Pelleted Animal Feed 3. Contribution of Feedstuff Components.” Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 70 (1-2): 59-78.
[11] Tabil, L. G., Sokhansanj, S., and Tyler, R. T. 1997. “Performance of Different Binders during Alfalfa Pelleting.” Can. Agric. Eng. 39 (1): 17-23.
[12] Wamsley, K. G. S., and Moritz, J. S. 2013. “Resolving Poor Pellet Quality and Maintaining Amino Acid Digestibility in Commercial Turkey Diet Feed Manufacture.” J. Appl. Poult. Res. 22 (3): 439-46.
[13] Acar, N., Moran, E. T., Revington, W. H., and Bilgili, S. F. 1991. “Effect of Improved Pellet Quality from Using a Calcium Lignosulfonate Binder on Performance and Carcass Yield of Broilers Reared under Different Marketing Schemes.” Poult. Sci. 70 (6): 1339-44.
[14] Mohammadi Ghasem Abadi, M. H., Moravej, H., Shivazad, M., Karimi Torshizi, M. A., and Kim, W. K. 2019. “Effect of Different Types and Levels of Fat Addition and Pellet Binders on Physical Pellet Quality of Broiler Feeds.” Poult. Sci. 98 (10): 4745-54. doi: 10.3382/ps/pez190.
[15] Wainman, F. W., and Blaxter, K. L. 1972. “The Effect of Grinding and Pelleting on the Nutritive Value of Poor Quality Roughages for Sheep.” J. Agric. Sci. 79 (3): 435-45.
[16] NRC. 2001. “Nutrient Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle.” In National Research Council. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
[17] Goering, H. K., and Van Soest, P. J. 1970. “Forage Fiber Analysis (Apparatus, Reagents, Procedures, and Some Applications).” In Agriculture Handbook No. 379. Washington, D.C.: Service, U.A.R..
[18] AOAC. 1990. Official Methods of Analysis (15th ed.). Arlington: Association of Official Analytical Chemists.
[19] Baumont, R. 1996. “Palatability and Feeding Behaviour in Ruminants. A Review.” Anim. Res. 45: 385-400.
[20] Ran, T., Fang, Y., Wang, Y. T., Yang, W. Z., Niu, Y. D., Sun, X. Z., and Zhong, R. Z. 2021. “Effects of Grain Type and Conditioning Temperature during Pelleting on Growth Performance, Ruminal Fermentation, Meat Quality and Blood Metabolites of Fattening Lambs.” Animal 15 (3): 100146.
[21] Dos Santos, W. B. R., Santos, G. T. D., da Silva-Kazama, D. C., Cecato, U., de Marchi, F. E., Visentainer, J. V., and Petit, H. V. 2011. “Production Performance and Milk Composition of Grazing Dairy Cows Fed Pelleted or Non-pelleted Concentrates Treated with or without Lignosulfonate and Containing Ground Sunflower Seeds.” Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 169 (3-4): 167-75.
[22] Wood, K. M., Damiran, D., Smillie, J., Lardner, H. A., Larson, K., and Penner, G. B. 2019. “Effects of Pellet Size and Inclusion of Binding Agents on Ruminal Fermentation and Total-Tract Digestibility of Beef Heifers, and Cow Performance under Winter Grazing Conditions.” Appl. Anim. Sci. 35 (2): 227-37.
[23] Havekes, C. D., Duffield, T. F., Carpenter, A. J., and DeVries, T. J. 2020. “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.” J. Dairy Sci. 103 (6): 5070-89.
[24] DeVries, T. J., and Gill, R. M. 2012. “Adding Liquid Feed to a Total Mixed Ration Reduces Feed Sorting Behavior and Improves Productivity of Lactating Dairy Cows.” J. Dairy Sci. 95 (5): 2648-55.
[25] Anderson, S. J., Merrill, J. K., Mcdonneu, L., Klopfenstein, T. J., and Al, A. E. T. 1988. “Digestibility and Utilization of Mechanically Processed Soybean Hulls by Lambs and Steers.” J. Anim. Sci. 66 (11): 2965-76.
[26] Thomas, M., and Van Der Poel, A. F. B. 1996. “Physical Quality of Pelleted Animal Feed 1. Criteria for Pellet Quality.” Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 61 (1-4): 89-112.
[27] Gordon, L. J., and DeVries, T. J. 2016. “Technical Note: Impact of a Molasses-Based Liquid Feed Supplement on the Feed Sorting Behavior and Growth of Grain-Fed Veal Calves.” J. Anim. Sci. 94 (8): 3519-26.
[28] Horvath, K. C., Brocious, A. N., and Miller-Cushon, E. K. 2021. “Effects of Forage Presentation and Addition of Molasses-Based Liquid Feed on Dairy Calf Dietary Selection and Feed Sorting of Mixed Diets.” J. Dairy Sci. 104 (8): 9052-62.
[29] Palmonari, A., Cavallini, D., Sniffen, C. J., Fernandes, L., Holder, P., Fagioli, L., Fusaro, I., Biagi, G., Formigoni, A., and Mammi, L. 2020. “Short Communication: Characterization of Molasses Chemical Composition.” J. Dairy Sci. 103 (7): 6244-9.