Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T22:24:08.984Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of abrupt changes in the concentration and frequency of feeding milk-substitute diets on the voluntary food intake of calves

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

J. H. Ternouth ,
P. Ganderton  and
A. W. Beattie
J. H. Ternouth
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying†, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT
P. Ganderton
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying†, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT
A. W. Beattie
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Production, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland 4067, Australia
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. To examine the relations between short- and long-term regulation of food intake in calves given milk-substitute diets, abrupt changes were made in the dry matter (DM) concentration of the diet (Expt 1) and in the frequency of feeding (Expts 2 and 3).

2. When calves, fed once daily, had the DM concentration of their diet changed, they drank the same volume of milk on the 1st day they received the new diet as they had on the previous days; so the DM intakes changed in proportion to the change in milk DM concentration. Over the subsequent 6 d, milk intake progressively increased when milk DM concentration was reduced. When the DM concentration of milk was increased the volume of milk drunk was reduced to a minimum value 2–3 d after the change in diet and increased thereafter. The size of the changes was dependent on the initial and changed DM concentrations of the milk.

3. In calves receiving milk-substitute diets containing 80–260 g DM/kg, milk intakes were reduced by up to 30% on the 1st day that calves were fed once daily instead of twice daily. Over the subsequent 13 d of once-daily feeding, milk intakes increased, particularly for calves given diets of low DM concentration.

4. Feeding the calves once daily reduced the digestibility of DM in Expt 2 but not the digestibility of crude protein (nitrogen × 6.25) and fat; diets containing lower concentrations of DM were particularly affected.

5. It is concluded that the intake of milk-fed calves at a single meal is regulated by an abomasal stretch mechanism. After an abrupt change in milk DM concentration or in the frequency of feeding, the amount of milk drunk at subsequent meals is modified by some long-term control mechanisms.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 55 , Issue 3 , May 1986 , pp. 529 - 536
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1986

References

REFERENCES

Andersson, B. (1972). In Enteroceptors, pp. 197–216 [Neil, E., editor]. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, F. R. (1980). In Digestive Physiology and Metabolism in Ruminants, pp. 81–100 [Ruckebusch, Y. and Thrivend, P., editors]. Lancaster: MTP Press Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, F. R. & Holbrooke, S. E. (1979). Research in Veterinary Science 27, 1–4.Google Scholar
Dalton, R. G. (1967). British Veterinary Journal 123, 237–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton, R. G. (1968 a). British Veterinary Journal 124, 371–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton, R. G. (1968 b). British Veterinary Journal 124, 451–458.Google Scholar
Forbes, J. M. (1980). In Digestive Physiology and Metabolism in Ruminants, pp. 145–160 [Ruckebusch, Y. and Thrivend, P., editors]. Lancaster: MTP Press Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegland, R. B., Lambert, M. R., Jacobson, N. L. & Payne, L. C. (1957). Journal of Dairy Science 40, 1107–1113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, K. J., Noakes, D. E. & Lowe, R. A. (1970). In Physiology of Digestion and Metabolism in the Ruminant, pp. 166–179 [Phillipson, A. T., editor]. Newcastle upon Tyne: Oriel Press.Google Scholar
Hopkins, A. (1966). Journal of Physiology 182, 144–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leek, B. F. (1972). In Enteroceptors, pp. 113–160 [Neil, E., editor]. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. & Benzie, D. (1969). British Journal of Nutrition 23, 415–420.Google Scholar
Stobo, I. J. F., Roy, J. H. B. & Ganderton, P. (1979). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 93, 95–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ternouth, J. H., Roy, J. H. B., Thomson, S. Y., Toothill, J., Gillies, C. M. & Edwards-Webb, J. D. (1975). British Journal of Nutrition 33, 181–196.Google Scholar
Ternouth, J. H., Stobo, I. J. F., Roy, J. H. B. & Beattie, A. W. (1985 a). Animal Production 41, 151–159.Google Scholar
Ternouth, J. H., Stobo, I. J. F., Roy, J. H. B. & Beattie, A. W. (1985 b). Animal Production 41, 161–166.Google Scholar
Warner, R. G. & Flatt, W. P. (1965). In Physiology of Digestion in the Ruminant, pp. 24–38 [Dougherty, R. W., editor]. Sevenoaks: Butterworths.Google Scholar