HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Interpretive Summary Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Voelker Linton, J. A. Articles by Allen, M. S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Voelker Linton, J. A. Articles by Allen, M. S.

Nutrient Demand Affects Ruminal Digestion Responses to a Change in Dietary Forage Concentration¹

Department of Animal Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing 48824

² Corresponding author: allenm{at}msu.edu

Previous research in our laboratory has indicated that the physical filling effects of high-forage diets become increasingly dominant in determining feed intake and milk production as nutrient demand increases. This effect was tested further by using 14 ruminally and duodenally cannulated Holstein cows in a crossover design experiment with a 14-d preliminary period and two 15-d experimental periods. During the preliminary period, 3.5% fat-corrected milk yield was 15 to 60 kg/d (mean = 40 kg/d), and preliminary voluntary dry matter intake (pVDMI) was 20.6 to 30.5 kg/d (mean = 25.0 kg/ d). Treatments were a low-forage diet (LF), containing 20% (dry matter basis) forage neutral detergent fiber (NDF), and a high-forage diet (HF), containing 27% forage NDF. The ability of linear and quadratic factors of pVDMI to predict the difference in responses of individual cows to treatments (Y_LF – Y_HF) was tested by ANOVA, with treatment sequence as a covariate. In contrast to results of previous research, differences in dry matter intake and fat-corrected milk yield responses to LF and HF did not depend on pVDMI. This might be because of the combined physical fill and metabolic satiety effects of LF, especially in cows with the greatest pVDMI. Digestion or passage of NDF might have been inhibited on LF among high-pVDMI cows. As pVDMI increased, NDF turnover time increased more on LF than on HF. Among high-pVDMI cows, the NDF turnover time was unexpectedly greater on LF than on HF. With increasing pVDMI, the digestion rate of potentially digestible NDF decreased at a similar rate on both diets. Passage rates of potentially digestible NDF and indigestible NDF were not related to pVDMI, regardless of treatment. Greater starch fermentation (resulting from greater starch intake) for LF as pVDMI increased likely inhibited NDF digestion through pH-dependent and pH-independent effects. Inhibition of NDF digestion might cause LF and HF to have similar effects on dry matter intake, depending on the nutrient demand of individual cows.

Key Words: nutrient demand • dietary forage fiber concentration • digestion kinetics