| Title | Eating rate and preference of different concentrate components for cattle. | | Author(s) | Spörndly E, Asberg T | | Institution | Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Department of Animal Nutrition and Management, Kungsängen Research Center, SE-753 23 Uppsala, Sweden. Eva.Sporndly@huv.slu.se | | Source | J Dairy Sci 2006 Jun; 89(6):2188-99. | | MeSH | Animal Feed
Animals
Brassica rapa
Cattle
Cereals
Dietary Carbohydrates
Dietary Fats
Eating
Fatty Acids
Fatty Acids, Nonesterified
Female
Food Handling
Food Preferences
Hordeum
Particle Size
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Soybeans
Time Factors
| | Abstract | Different feeds or combination of feeds were studied in 11 short-term experiments with the objective to identify concentrates that were especially desirable for cattle. Eating rate of different feeds was studied in 6 experiments using 10 heifers in a Latin square design with 2 blocks of 5 animals, 5 treatments (feeds), and 5 periods (days). Preference as shown by feed choice was studied in 5 experiments with 12 heifers. Paired comparisons of 4 different feeds (1 through 4) in the 6 possible combinations of 1 and 2, 1 and 3, 1 and 4, 2 and 3, 2 and 4, and 3 and 4 were performed. A control feed of ground barley was included in all experiments. In the eating rate and preference experiments, a total of 25 and 16 feeds, respectively, were studied. The categories of feeds studied were basic feeds, such as cereals, soybean meal, and rapeseed products, and feed mixtures based on ground barley with sweet additives or additives based on fat products. Pelleted concentrate mixtures were also evaluated. From the results obtained, the following feeds were identified as being among the most preferred feeds: pelleted feeds, heat-treated rapeseed meal, barley with 10% rapeseed fatty acid, barley with 10% palm oil, and barley with 10% glycerol, whereas ground palm kernel expeller was undesirable. A clear preference for pellets over ground barley was demonstrated, but no difference in preference was observed for the 3 different pellets that were compared. | | Language | eng | | Pub Type(s) | Journal Article
| | PubMed ID | 16702285 |
|
