Abstract
Key words
Abbreviation key:
FSG (functional specific gravity), GM (geometric mean), pef (physically effective factor), peNDF (physically effective NDF), pef>1.18 (pef determined as percentage of DM remaining on a 1.18-mm screen using a dry sieving technique), pefPSPSoriginal and pefPSPSnew (pef calculated as sum of DM on 2 and 3 sieves in original and new versions of PSPS, respectively), PSPS (Penn State Particle Separator), RMRT (ruminal mean retention time), TMRT (total mean retention time), WHC (water holding capacity)Introduction
Materials and Methods
Kinetics of Hydration Measurement
Sample preparation
Alfalfa in the treatments | Corn silage | TMR containing alfalfa | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Long | Medium | Fine | Long | Medium | Fine | ||
Chemical composition (% of DM) | |||||||
CP | 16.48 | 16.49 | 16.50 | 9.00 | 17.11 | 17.13 | 17.16 |
NDF | 45.16 | 45.18 | 45.16 | 46.32 | 32.86 | 32.90 | 33.00 |
ADF | 31.53 | 31.50 | 31.51 | 29.34 | 22.51 | 22.50 | 22.50 |
NFC | 32.98 | 32.98 | 32.99 | 34.41 | 42.93 | 42.84 | 42.73 |
Ether extract | 1.49 | 1.50 | 1.51 | 3.23 | 1.89 | 1.91 | 1.88 |
Ash | 3.89 | 3.73 | 3.84 | 7.11 | 5.21 | 5.22 | 5.23 |
Physical characteristics 1 FSG = Functional specific gravity; IDM = insoluble dry matter; WHC = water-holding capacity measured using filtration methods (Giger-Reverdin, 2000); pef>1.18 = physically effective factor based on DM retained on 1.18-mm sieve (Mertens, 1997); pefPSPSoriginal = physically effective factor determined as the proportion of DM retained on sieves of the original version of PSPS (Lammers et al., 1996); pefPSPSnew = physically effective factor determined as the proportion of DM retained on sieves of the new version of PSPS (Kononoff, 2002). | |||||||
Bulk density (g/cm3) | 0.34 | 0.39 | 0.53 | 0.32 | 0.65 | 0.74 | 0.84 |
FSG | 1.18d | 1.26 | 1.34 | 1.31 | 1.39 | 1.47 | 1.56 |
IDM (% of DM) | 73.14 | 71.87 | 67.68 | 67.68 | … | … | … |
WHC (g/g IDM) | 2.92 | 2.81 | 2.74 | 3.85 | 2.12 | 2.05 | 1.98 |
Pef>1.18 | 0.95 | 0.82 | 0.44 | 0.83 | 0.71 | 0.62 | 0.46 |
pefPSPSoriginal | 0.64 | 0.47 | 0.00 | 0.40 | 0.34 | 0.17 | 0.06 |
pefPSPSnew | 0.94 | 0.78 | 0.42 | 0.92 | 0.76 | 0.69 | 0.52 |
Particle size distribution (% of DM) | |||||||
19 mm | 34.55 | 18.52 | 0.00 | 6.03 | 11.19 | 4.56 | 1.56 |
12.7 mm | 9.25 | 7.70 | 0.00 | 8.28 | 9.26 | 5.68 | 3.76 |
6.3 mm | 8.45 | 10.93 | 0.00 | 18.32 | 6.68 | 10.25 | 4.21 |
3.96 mm | 23.04 | 10.97 | 1.85 | 34.51 | 21.02 | 18.71 | 14.12 |
1.18 mm | 20.27 | 33.87 | 41.17 | 16.35 | 22.93 | 22.56 | 22.28 |
Pan | 5.44 | 18.01 | 55.98 | 16.51 | 28.92 | 38.25 | 54.07 |
GM | 7.83 | 4.04 | 1.14 | 4.41 | 3.34 | 2.47 | 1.66 |
Standard deviation of GM | 0.58 | 0.59 | 0.17 | 0.58 | 0.60 | 0.54 | 0.43 |
The kinetics of hydration and FSG
where Yt = water uptake over time (g/g of insoluble DM), A and B represent pool sizes of hydration, and ka and kb represent respective fractional rates of hydration (per min). Total WHC (g/g of insoluble DM) was calculated as the sum of total solution uptake (sum of A + B) and initial moisture content of samples. A mean for hydration rate that was weighted for pool sizes from biexponential models was calculated: [(A × ka) + (B × kb)]/(A + B). As mentioned before, in this study, WHC was measured using the filtration method (

The Effect of Alfalfa Particle Size on Animal Performance
Animals and diets
Particle length and effectiveness fiber
Total mixed ration containing alfalfa | SEM | P | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Long | Medium | Fine | |||
BW (kg) | 616.5 | 620.2 | 622.5 | 9.12 | NS |
BW changes (kg) | +20.5 | +25.1 | +28.0 | 1.57 | |
Intake (kg/d) | |||||
DM | 21.26 | 22.64 | 24.81 | 0.37 | |
OM | 19.29 | 20.55 | 22.81 | 0.34 | |
NDF | 7.02 | 7.47 | 8.19 | 0.12 | |
PeNDF >1.18 | 4.98 | 4.63 | 3.77 | 0.07 | |
peNDFPSPSoriginal | 2.38 | 1.27 | 0.50 | 0.02 | |
peNDFPSPSnew | 5.33 | 5.12 | 4.26 | 0.07 | |
ADF | 4.79 | 5.10 | 5.58 | 0.08 | |
CP | 3.61 | 3.85 | 4.22 | 0.01 | |
NFC | 9.11 | 9.61 | 10.65 | 0.02 | |
Ether extract | 0.90 | 0.96 | 1.05 | 0.02 | |
Ash | 1.97 | 2.09 | 2.29 | 0.03 | |
peNDF intake (% of DMI) | |||||
PeNDF>1.18 | 23.43 | 20.45 | 15.18 | 0.003 | |
peNDFPSPSoriginal | 11.22 | 5.61 | 1.99 | 0.005 | |
peNDFPSPSnew | 25.08 | 22.60 | 17.17 | 0.003 | |
Digestibility (%) | |||||
DM | 69.99 | 71.12 | 71.30 | 0.24 | NS |
OM | 72.10 | 72.21 | 71.32 | 0.38 | NS |
NDF | 61.31 | 61.09 | 56.60 | 1.08 | |
ADF | 56.56 | 54.27 | 55.30 | 0.63 | NS |
CP | 77.33 | 77.42 | 76.89 | 0.57 | NS |
NFC | 83.80 | 85.33 | 85.93 | 2.24 | NS |
Ether extract | 66.94 | 68.21 | 68.40 | 0.27 | NS |
Ash | 63.45 | 60.47 | 57.02 | 1.14 |
Body weight, intake, and digestibility
Ruminal characteristics
Total mixed ration containing alfalfa | SEM | P | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Long | Medium | Fine | |||
PH | 6.58 | 6.59 | 6.12 | 0.05 | |
N-NH3 (mg/dL) | 17.01 | 16.45 | 15.08 | 0.56 | NS |
VFA concentration | |||||
Total (mM) | 118.62 | 121.32 | 125.4 | 2.06 | |
Acetate (mol/100 mol) | 73.55 | 71.53 | 70.68 | 0.89 | |
Propionate (mol/100 mol) | 14.56 | 16.22 | 16.94 | 0.69 | |
Butyrate (mol/100 mol) | 9.04 | 8.94 | 8.96 | 0.67 | NS |
Isobutytate (mol/100 mol) | 0.89 | 0.91 | 0.94 | 0.25 | NS |
Valerate (mol/100 mol) | 1.06 | 1.18 | 1.19 | 0.12 | NS |
Isovalerate (mol/100 mol) | 1.10 | 1.22 | 1.29 | 0.21 | NS |
Acetate: propionate ratio | 5.05 | 4.41 | 4.17 | 0.12 | |
Rumen passage rate (%/h) | 2.93 | 3.00 | 3.28 | 0.52 | |
Rumen mean retention time (h) | 34.14 | 33.37 | 30.67 | 0.53 | |
Total mean retention time (h) | 62.28 | 55.60 | 52.12 | 0.56 | |
Time delay (h) | 12.95 | 7.31 | 6.36 | 0.09 |
Chewing behavior
Activity | Total mixed ration containing alfalfa | SEM | P | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Long | Medium | Fine | |||
Eating (min/d) | 257.8 | 232.8 | 209.4 | 10.27 | |
Rumination (min/d) | 338.9 | 286.1 | 236.1 | 7.80 | |
Total chewing activity (min/d) | 596.7 | 518.9 | 445.5 | 10.48 | |
Chewing behavior per different nutrients (min/kg) | |||||
Eating | |||||
DMI | 12.2 | 10.3 | 8.5 | 0.55 | |
NDF | 36.8 | 31.2 | 25.6 | 1.66 | |
PeNDF >1.18 | 51.9 | 50.3 | 55.5 | 2.43 | NS |
peNDFPSPSoriginal | 108.3 | 183.3 | 418.9 | 14.25 | |
peNDFPSPSnew | 48.4 | 45.5 | 49.2 | 3.21 | NS |
ADF | 54.1 | 45.7 | 37.6 | 1.27 | |
NFC | 28.4 | 23.9 | 19.7 | 1.15 | |
BW | 0.42 | 0.39 | 0.34 | 0.02 | |
Rumination | |||||
DMI | 15.9 | 12.6 | 9.5 | 0.35 | |
NDF | 48.3 | 38.3 | 28.9 | 1.06 | |
PeNDF>1.18 | 68.0 | 61.8 | 62.6 | 1.90 | |
peNDFPSPSoriginal | 142.3 | 225.3 | 480.9 | 32.13 | |
peNDFPSPSnew | 63.6 | 55.9 | 55.5 | 1.61 | |
ADF | 105.7 | 104.8 | 92.0 | 1.57 | |
NFC | 37.2 | 29.5 | 22.2 | 0.81 | |
BW | 0.55 | 0.46 | 0.38 | 0.02 | |
Total chewing activity | |||||
DMI | 28.1 | 22.9 | 17.9 | 0.67 | |
NDF | 85.2 | 69.9 | 54.5 | 2.03 | |
PeNDF>1.18 | 119.8 | 112.1 | 118.2 | 3.29 | |
peNDFPSPSoriginal | 249.9 | 408.6 | 925.9 | 24.24 | |
peNDFPSPSnew | 112.1 | 104.8 | 101.5 | 3.46 | |
ADF | 125.0 | 101.9 | 74.9 | 2.96 | |
NFC | 65.6 | 53.6 | 41.9 | 1.55 | |
BW | 0.97 | 0.84 | 0.72 | 0.02 |
Milk sample and analysis
Total mixed ration containing alfalfa | SEM | P | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Long | Medium | Fine | |||
Milk and its composition production (kg/d) | |||||
Milk | 30.25 | 30.94 | 31.36 | 0.38 | NS |
4% FCM | 26.71 | 26.11 | 26.12 | 0.34 | NS |
Fat | 0.97 | 0.96 | 0.90 | 0.01 | |
Protein | 1.08 | 1.10 | 1.18 | 0.02 | |
Lactose | 1.41 | 1.42 | 1.47 | 0.02 | NS |
Casein | 0.70 | 0.71 | 0.77 | 0.01 | |
Noncasein protein | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.002 | |
True protein | 0.79 | 0.79 | 0.87 | 0.01 | |
NPN | 0.34 | 0.34 | 0.37 | 0.01 | |
Total solid | 3.47 | 3.42 | 3.57 | 0.06 | NS |
Composition (%) | |||||
Fat | 3.21 | 3.15 | 2.88 | 0.03 | |
Protein | 3.57 | 3.61 | 3.76 | 0.03 | |
Lactose | 4.69 | 4.67 | 4.69 | 0.05 | NS |
Casein | 2.47 | 2.49 | 2.59 | 0.02 | |
Noncasein protein | 0.12 | 0.15 | 0.16 | 0.001 | |
True protein | 2.61 | 2.64 | 2.75 | 0.02 | |
NPN | 0.96 | 0.97 | 1.01 | 0.01 | |
Total solid | 11.48 | 11.43 | 11.33 | 0.08 | NS |
Statistical analyses
where Yijkln was the dependent variable, μ is the overall mean, Ti is the random effect of the long, medium, and fine alfalfa treatments (i = 1, 2, and 3); Sj is the random effect of jth square (j = 1, 2, and 3), cowk (j) is the cow effect inside of each square, periodj (l) is the effect of each period inside each square, and eijkln is experimental error.
where Y = marker concentration (ppm), A = scale parameter, k1 = ruminal rate of passage (%/h), k2 = lower digestive tract rate of passage (%/h), t = sampling time post dosing (h), and TT = transit time or time delay of marker. The TMRT was calculated as the sum of RMRT (1/k1) and, in the lower digestive tract, mean retention time (1/k2) plus the transit time (TT). Data were estimated by NLIN regression using the PROC NLIN (iterative Marquardt method) procedure of
Variable | NDF intake | Milk fat | Rumen Ph | Total chewing activity | PeNDF>1.18 intake | FSG of TMR | FSG of forage | RMRT |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NDF intake | −0.69 | −0.70 | −0.76 | −0.68 | 0.62 | 0.99 | −0.49 | |
Milk fat | 0.60 | 0.78 | 0.86 | −0.63 | −0.69 | 0.59 | ||
Rumen pH | 0.66 | 0.71 | −0.63 | −0.70 | 0.53 | |||
Total chewing activity | 0.77 | −0.68 | −0.76 | 0.43 | ||||
PeNDF>;1.18 intake | −0.85 | −0.68 | 0.68 | |||||
FSG of TMR | 0.62 | −0.73 | ||||||
FSG of forage | −0.64 | |||||||
RMRT |
Results and Discussion
Kinetics of Hydration Measurement
The Effect of Alfalfa Particle Size on Animal Performance
Particle length and effectiveness fiber
Body weight, intake, and digestibility
Ruminal characteristics
Chewing behavior
Production and composition of milk
Functional Specific Gravity and PEF
Conclusions
Acknowledgments
References
- Effects of diet on short-term regulation of feed intake by lactating dairy cattle.J. Dairy Sci. 2000; 83: 1598-1624
- Evaluation constraints on fiber digestion by rumen microbes.J. Nutr. 1988; 118: 261-270
- Method of determining and expressing particle size of chopped forage (S424.1).70th ed. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng., St. Joseph, MI2002
- Measuring the effectiveness of fiber by animal response trials.J. Dairy Sci. 1997; 80: 1416-1425
- Official Methods of Analysis. 1. AOAC, Arlington, VA2002 17th ed.
- Proposal to use time spent chewing as an index of the extent to which diets for ruminants possess the physical property of fibrousness characteristic of roughages.Br. J. Nutr. 1971; 26: 383-394
- Effects of dietary neutral detergent fiber concentration and alfalfa hay quality on chewing, rumen function, and milk production of dairy cows.J. Dairy Sci. 1991; 74: 3140-3151
- Chewing activities and milk production of dairy cows fed alfalfa as hay, silage, or dried cubes of hay or silage.J. Dairy Sci. 1997; 80: 324-333
- Characterization of feedstuffs for ruminants using some physical parameters.Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2000; 86: 53-69
- Milk fat depression in dairy cows: Role of particle size of alfalfa hay.J. Dairy Sci. 1990; 73: 1823-1833
- Rate of passage of digesta in sheep. 4. Passage of markers through the alimentary tract and the biological relevance of rate-constants derived from changes in concentration of markers in feces.Br. J. Nutr. 1973; 30: 231-242
- Effects of particle size and forage composition on functional specific gravity.J. Dairy Sci. 1985; 68: 1181-1188
- The effect of size and density on mean retention time of particles in the gastrointestinal tract of sheep.Br. J. Nutr. 1990; 63: 457-465
Kononoff, P. J. 2002. The effect of ration particle size on dairy cows in early lactation. Ph.D. Thesis. The Pennsylvania State Univ.
- A simple method for the analysis of particle sizes of forages and total mixed rations.J. Dairy Sci. 1996; 79: 922-928
- Effect of forage particle size and feeding frequency on fermentation patterns and sites and extent of digestion in dairy cows fed mixed diets.Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 1999; 76: 297-319
- Effect of intake and forage level on ruminal turnover rates, bacterial protein synthesis and duodenal amino acid flows in sheep.J. Anim. Sci. 1986; 62: 216-224
- Creating a system for meeting the fiber requirements of dairy cows.J. Dairy Sci. 1997; 80: 1463-1481
- Physically effective NDF and its use in dairy rations explored.Feedstuffs. 2000; 72: 11-14
- Passage and rumination of inert particles varying in size and specific gravity as determined from analysis of fecal appearance using multicompartment models.Br. J. Nutr. 1989; 62: 481-492
- Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle.7th rev. ed. Natl. Acad. Sci., Washington, DC2001
- The validity of the critical size theory for particles leaving the rumen.Agric. Sci. (Camb.). 1980; 94: 275-280
- Proposed use of adjusted intake based on forage particle length for calculation of roughage indexes.J. Dairy Sci. 1983; 66: 811-820
- User's Guide: Statistics. Version 8.2.SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC1998
- Influence of feed intake, forage physical form, and forage fiber content on particle size of masticated forage, ruminal digesta, and feces of dairy cows.J. Dairy Sci. 1988; 71: 1566-1567
- Specific gravity of various feedstuffs as affected by particle size and in vitro fermentation.J. Dairy Sci. 1991; 74: 896-898
- Investigation of chromium, cerium, and cobalt as markers in digesta rate of passage studies.J. Sci. Food Agric. 1980; 31: 625-632
- Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and non-starch polysaccharide in relation to animal nutrition.J. Dairy Sci. 1991; 74: 3583-3597
Wattiaux, M. A. 1990. A mechanism influencing passage of forage particles through the reticulo-rumen: change in specific gravity during hydration and digestion. Ph.D. Thesis. Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison.
Article info
Publication history
Identification
Copyright
User license
Elsevier user license |
Permitted
For non-commercial purposes:
- Read, print & download
- Text & data mine
- Translate the article
Not Permitted
- Reuse portions or extracts from the article in other works
- Redistribute or republish the final article
- Sell or re-use for commercial purposes
Elsevier's open access license policy