Schwartzkopf-Genswein K S, Beauchemin K A, McAllister T A, Gibb D J, Streeter M, Kennedy A D
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge Research Centre, Lethbridge, Alberta T1J 4B1, Canada.
J Anim Sci. 2004 Nov;82(11):3357-65. doi: 10.2527/2004.82113357x.
Research was conducted to determine whether fluctuations in the amount of feed delivered and timing of feeding affect ruminal pH and growth of feedlot cattle. In Exp. 1, the effects of constant (C) vs. fluctuating (F) daily feed delivery on ruminal pH were assessed in a crossover experiment (two 28-d periods) involving six mature, ruminally cannulated steers. The diet consisted of 86.8% barley grain, 4.9% supplement, and 8.3% barley silage (DM basis) and was offered ad libitum for 2 wk to estimate DMI by individual steers. Steers in group C were offered a constant amount of feed daily equal to their predetermined DMI, whereas steers in group F were offered 10% more or less than their predetermined DMI on a rotating 3-d schedule. Ruminal pH of each steer was measured continuously via an indwelling electrode placed in the rumen during the last 6 d of each period. Mean pH tended to be lower (0.10 units) for F than C (5.63 vs. 5.73; P = 0.15), and ruminal pH of steers in group F tended to remain below 5.8 (P = 0.03) or 5.5 (P = 0.14) for greater proportions of the day than steers in group C. Inconsistent delivery of feed lowered ruminal pH, suggesting increased risk of subclinical acidosis. In Exp. 2, a 2 x 2 factorial was used to study the effects of pattern (C vs. F) and feeding time (morning [0900] vs. evening [2100]) on the feeding behavior and performance of 234 (310 +/- 23 kg) Charolais x Hereford beef steers during backgrounding and finishing phases over 209 d. One pen per treatment was equipped with a radio frequency identification (GrowSafe Systems Ltd., Airdrie, Canada) system that monitored bunk attendance by each steer throughout the trial. Pattern of feed delivery did not affect (P = 0.16) DMI (7.36 kg/d), ADG (1.23 kg/d), G:F (0.17), or time spent at the bunk (141 min/d), nor were pattern of feed delivery x time of feeding interactions observed (P = 0.18). Late feeding increased (P < 0.05) daily DMI (7.48 vs. 7.26 kg), ADG (1.28 vs. 1.00 kg/d), and G:F (0.21 vs. 0.15). These studies indicate that the risk of subclinical acidosis was increased with fluctuating delivery of feed, but the greater risk of acidosis did not impair growth performance by feedlot cattle. Consequently, daily intake fluctuations of 10% DMI or less that do not alter overall intake by feedlot cattle are unlikely to have any negative consequences on growth performance.
开展了一项研究,以确定所提供饲料量的波动和饲喂时间是否会影响瘤胃酸度及育肥牛的生长。在试验1中,在一项交叉试验(两个28天周期)中,对6头装有瘤胃瘘管的成年阉牛,评估了每日恒定(C)与波动(F)供料对瘤胃酸度的影响。日粮由86.8%的大麦粒、4.9%的补充料和8.3%的大麦青贮料(干物质基础)组成,自由采食2周以估计每头阉牛的干物质采食量(DMI)。C组的阉牛每天饲喂恒定数量的饲料,等于其预先确定的DMI,而F组的阉牛则按照3天的轮换计划,饲喂比其预先确定的DMI多10%或少10%的饲料。在每个周期的最后6天,通过置于瘤胃内的留置电极连续测量每头阉牛的瘤胃酸度。F组的平均酸度往往比C组低(0.10个单位)(分别为5.63和5.73;P = 0.15),并且F组阉牛的瘤胃酸度在一天中低于5.8(P = 0.03)或5.5(P = 0.14)的时间比例往往比C组阉牛更高。饲料供应不一致会降低瘤胃酸度,表明亚临床酸中毒风险增加。在试验2中,采用2×2析因设计,研究模式(C与F)和饲喂时间(上午[09:00]与晚上[21:00])对234头(310±23千克)夏洛莱×赫里福德肉牛在209天的育肥前期和育肥期的采食行为和生产性能的影响。每个处理设置一个围栏,配备一套射频识别系统(加拿大艾尔德里的GrowSafe Systems Ltd.公司),在整个试验期间监测每头肉牛在饲槽的采食情况。供料模式对DMI(7.36千克/天)、平均日增重(ADG,1.23千克/天)、料重比(G:F,0.17)或在饲槽停留时间(141分钟/天)均无影响(P = 0.16),也未观察到供料模式×饲喂时间的交互作用(P = 0.18)。晚上饲喂会增加每日DMI(分别为7.48和7.26千克,P < 0.05)、ADG(分别为1.28和1.00千克/天)和G:F(分别为0.21和0.15)。这些研究表明,饲料供应波动会增加亚临床酸中毒风险,但更大的酸中毒风险并未损害育肥牛的生长性能。因此,育肥牛每日采食量波动在10% DMI或更低且不改变总体采食量的情况下,不太可能对生长性能产生任何负面影响。