Influence of feed intake fluctuation and frequency of feeding on nutrient digestion, digesta kinetics, and ruminal fermentation profiles in limit-fed steers
Nine crossbred beef steers (344 +/- 26 kg) fitted with ruminal cannulas were used in a randomized complete block design to evaluate the effects of feeding frequency and feed intake fluctuation on total tract digestion, digesta kinetics, and ruminal fermentation profiles in limit-fed steers. In Perio...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of animal science 2000-08, Vol.78 (8), p.2215-2222 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 2222 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 8 |
| container_start_page | 2215 |
| container_title | Journal of animal science |
| container_volume | 78 |
| creator | Soto-Navarro, S. A Krehbiel, C. R Duff, G. C Galyean, M. L Brown, M. S Steiner, R. L |
| description | Nine crossbred beef steers (344 +/- 26 kg) fitted with ruminal cannulas were used in a randomized complete block design to evaluate the effects of feeding frequency and feed intake fluctuation on total tract digestion, digesta kinetics, and ruminal fermentation profiles in limit-fed steers. In Period 1, steers were allotted randomly to one of four dietary treatments: 1) feed offered once daily at 0800; 2) feed offered once daily at 0800 with a 10% fluctuation in day-to-day feed intake; 3) feed offered twice daily at 0800 and 1700; and 4) feed offered twice daily at 0800 and 1700 with a 10% fluctuation in a day-to-day feed intake. In Period 2, steers were reallocated across treatments. The 90% concentrate diet was fed at 90% of the ad-libitum consumption by each steer. Chromium-EDTA and Yb-labeled steam-flaked corn were intraruminally infused at 0800 on d 1 and 3 and Co-EDTA and Er-labeled steam-flaked corn were infused on d 2 and 4 of the 4-d collection period. Ruminal samples were collected at 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, and 24 h after the 0800 feeding, and total feces were collected for 4 d. Total tract digestibilities of OM, N, and starch were lowest (fluctuation x frequency, P < .05) when feed was offered twice daily with a 10% fluctuation in intake. Ruminal fluid volume and passage rate were not affected (P > .10) by feeding frequency or intake fluctuation. A frequency x fluctuation x sampling time interaction occurred (P < .01) for ruminal pH. Steers fed a constant amount of feed once daily had higher (P < .05) ruminal pH at 0, 3, 18, and 24 h than steers fed once daily with a 10% fluctuation in feed intake. Total VFA concentration was greater (P < .01) at 9 h after the 0800 feeding when feed was offered once vs twice daily. Feeding twice daily increased (P < .05) the molar proportion of acetate and decreased (P < .05) the molar proportion of propionate. Increasing feeding frequency resulted in a more stable ruminal environment; however, the increased acetate:propionate ratio with twice-daily feeding might result in lower efficiency of energy utilization by limit-fed steers. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.2527/2000.7882215x |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_71754359</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>59082435</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c407t-d44622c14e702212524bbb0dd53f3fd2591d471da43e0da97f5133392982ab5d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkU1v1DAQhi0EokvhyBVFCHFqiscf6-SIKj4qVeICZ8uJx1tvHafYjqD_hR-Lw25VxIWTLfuZd-adl5CXQM-ZZOodo5Seq65jDOTPR2QDksmWw5Y_JhtKGbRdB-yEPMt5Tykw2cun5ARoLxQAbMivy-jCgnHEZnaNQ7SNj8XcYFOfx7KY4ufYmGgbl_D7Ct7dgz7umvoXl5I8xtJYv8O84mfHq2lufMTix3z2RyEtk48m1OI01YKD9G2anQ-Ya9sm-MmX1tUZckFM-Tl54kzI-OJ4npJvHz98vfjcXn35dHnx_qodBVWltUJsGRtBoKJ1DXUtYhgGaq3kjjtbPYOtdq0RHKk1vXISOOc96ztmBmn5KXl70K3DVI-56MnnEUMwEeclawVKCi77_4LQ8a3qKVTw9T_gfl5SNZ81gw5AcC4q1B6gMc05J3T6NvnJpDsNVK_h6jVcfR9u5V8dRZdhQvsXfUizAm-OgMmjCS6ZOPr8wImtYFw-uLj2u-sfPqHOkwmhqoLem6w63em1I_8N1TG6WQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>218114334</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Influence of feed intake fluctuation and frequency of feeding on nutrient digestion, digesta kinetics, and ruminal fermentation profiles in limit-fed steers</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><creator>Soto-Navarro, S. A ; Krehbiel, C. R ; Duff, G. C ; Galyean, M. L ; Brown, M. S ; Steiner, R. L</creator><creatorcontrib>Soto-Navarro, S. A ; Krehbiel, C. R ; Duff, G. C ; Galyean, M. L ; Brown, M. S ; Steiner, R. L</creatorcontrib><description><![CDATA[Nine crossbred beef steers (344 +/- 26 kg) fitted with ruminal cannulas were used in a randomized complete block design to evaluate the effects of feeding frequency and feed intake fluctuation on total tract digestion, digesta kinetics, and ruminal fermentation profiles in limit-fed steers. In Period 1, steers were allotted randomly to one of four dietary treatments: 1) feed offered once daily at 0800; 2) feed offered once daily at 0800 with a 10% fluctuation in day-to-day feed intake; 3) feed offered twice daily at 0800 and 1700; and 4) feed offered twice daily at 0800 and 1700 with a 10% fluctuation in a day-to-day feed intake. In Period 2, steers were reallocated across treatments. The 90% concentrate diet was fed at 90% of the ad-libitum consumption by each steer. Chromium-EDTA and Yb-labeled steam-flaked corn were intraruminally infused at 0800 on d 1 and 3 and Co-EDTA and Er-labeled steam-flaked corn were infused on d 2 and 4 of the 4-d collection period. Ruminal samples were collected at 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, and 24 h after the 0800 feeding, and total feces were collected for 4 d. Total tract digestibilities of OM, N, and starch were lowest (fluctuation x frequency, P < .05) when feed was offered twice daily with a 10% fluctuation in intake. Ruminal fluid volume and passage rate were not affected (P > .10) by feeding frequency or intake fluctuation. A frequency x fluctuation x sampling time interaction occurred (P < .01) for ruminal pH. Steers fed a constant amount of feed once daily had higher (P < .05) ruminal pH at 0, 3, 18, and 24 h than steers fed once daily with a 10% fluctuation in feed intake. Total VFA concentration was greater (P < .01) at 9 h after the 0800 feeding when feed was offered once vs twice daily. Feeding twice daily increased (P < .05) the molar proportion of acetate and decreased (P < .05) the molar proportion of propionate. Increasing feeding frequency resulted in a more stable ruminal environment; however, the increased acetate:propionate ratio with twice-daily feeding might result in lower efficiency of energy utilization by limit-fed steers.]]></description><identifier>ISSN: 0021-8812</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1525-3163</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 0021-8812</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2527/2000.7882215x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 10947111</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Savoy, IL: Am Soc Animal Sci</publisher><subject>Animal Feed ; Animal Husbandry - methods ; Animal productions ; Animals ; Biological and medical sciences ; Cattle ; Cattle - growth & development ; Cattle - metabolism ; Diet ; Dietary Carbohydrates ; Digestion ; Digestive system ; Energy Intake ; Feeds ; Fermentation ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Hydrogen-Ion Concentration ; Kinetics ; Nitrogen ; Random Allocation ; Rumen - metabolism ; Terrestrial animal productions ; Vertebrates</subject><ispartof>Journal of animal science, 2000-08, Vol.78 (8), p.2215-2222</ispartof><rights>2000 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright American Society of Animal Science Aug 2000</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c407t-d44622c14e702212524bbb0dd53f3fd2591d471da43e0da97f5133392982ab5d3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,27905,27906</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=1464235$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10947111$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Soto-Navarro, S. A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Krehbiel, C. R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Duff, G. C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Galyean, M. L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brown, M. S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Steiner, R. L</creatorcontrib><title>Influence of feed intake fluctuation and frequency of feeding on nutrient digestion, digesta kinetics, and ruminal fermentation profiles in limit-fed steers</title><title>Journal of animal science</title><addtitle>J Anim Sci</addtitle><description><![CDATA[Nine crossbred beef steers (344 +/- 26 kg) fitted with ruminal cannulas were used in a randomized complete block design to evaluate the effects of feeding frequency and feed intake fluctuation on total tract digestion, digesta kinetics, and ruminal fermentation profiles in limit-fed steers. In Period 1, steers were allotted randomly to one of four dietary treatments: 1) feed offered once daily at 0800; 2) feed offered once daily at 0800 with a 10% fluctuation in day-to-day feed intake; 3) feed offered twice daily at 0800 and 1700; and 4) feed offered twice daily at 0800 and 1700 with a 10% fluctuation in a day-to-day feed intake. In Period 2, steers were reallocated across treatments. The 90% concentrate diet was fed at 90% of the ad-libitum consumption by each steer. Chromium-EDTA and Yb-labeled steam-flaked corn were intraruminally infused at 0800 on d 1 and 3 and Co-EDTA and Er-labeled steam-flaked corn were infused on d 2 and 4 of the 4-d collection period. Ruminal samples were collected at 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, and 24 h after the 0800 feeding, and total feces were collected for 4 d. Total tract digestibilities of OM, N, and starch were lowest (fluctuation x frequency, P < .05) when feed was offered twice daily with a 10% fluctuation in intake. Ruminal fluid volume and passage rate were not affected (P > .10) by feeding frequency or intake fluctuation. A frequency x fluctuation x sampling time interaction occurred (P < .01) for ruminal pH. Steers fed a constant amount of feed once daily had higher (P < .05) ruminal pH at 0, 3, 18, and 24 h than steers fed once daily with a 10% fluctuation in feed intake. Total VFA concentration was greater (P < .01) at 9 h after the 0800 feeding when feed was offered once vs twice daily. Feeding twice daily increased (P < .05) the molar proportion of acetate and decreased (P < .05) the molar proportion of propionate. Increasing feeding frequency resulted in a more stable ruminal environment; however, the increased acetate:propionate ratio with twice-daily feeding might result in lower efficiency of energy utilization by limit-fed steers.]]></description><subject>Animal Feed</subject><subject>Animal Husbandry - methods</subject><subject>Animal productions</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Cattle</subject><subject>Cattle - growth & development</subject><subject>Cattle - metabolism</subject><subject>Diet</subject><subject>Dietary Carbohydrates</subject><subject>Digestion</subject><subject>Digestive system</subject><subject>Energy Intake</subject><subject>Feeds</subject><subject>Fermentation</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Hydrogen-Ion Concentration</subject><subject>Kinetics</subject><subject>Nitrogen</subject><subject>Random Allocation</subject><subject>Rumen - metabolism</subject><subject>Terrestrial animal productions</subject><subject>Vertebrates</subject><issn>0021-8812</issn><issn>1525-3163</issn><issn>0021-8812</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2000</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkU1v1DAQhi0EokvhyBVFCHFqiscf6-SIKj4qVeICZ8uJx1tvHafYjqD_hR-Lw25VxIWTLfuZd-adl5CXQM-ZZOodo5Seq65jDOTPR2QDksmWw5Y_JhtKGbRdB-yEPMt5Tykw2cun5ARoLxQAbMivy-jCgnHEZnaNQ7SNj8XcYFOfx7KY4ufYmGgbl_D7Ct7dgz7umvoXl5I8xtJYv8O84mfHq2lufMTix3z2RyEtk48m1OI01YKD9G2anQ-Ya9sm-MmX1tUZckFM-Tl54kzI-OJ4npJvHz98vfjcXn35dHnx_qodBVWltUJsGRtBoKJ1DXUtYhgGaq3kjjtbPYOtdq0RHKk1vXISOOc96ztmBmn5KXl70K3DVI-56MnnEUMwEeclawVKCi77_4LQ8a3qKVTw9T_gfl5SNZ81gw5AcC4q1B6gMc05J3T6NvnJpDsNVK_h6jVcfR9u5V8dRZdhQvsXfUizAm-OgMmjCS6ZOPr8wImtYFw-uLj2u-sfPqHOkwmhqoLem6w63em1I_8N1TG6WQ</recordid><startdate>20000801</startdate><enddate>20000801</enddate><creator>Soto-Navarro, S. A</creator><creator>Krehbiel, C. R</creator><creator>Duff, G. C</creator><creator>Galyean, M. L</creator><creator>Brown, M. S</creator><creator>Steiner, R. L</creator><general>Am Soc Animal Sci</general><general>American Society of Animal Science</general><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RQ</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>U9A</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20000801</creationdate><title>Influence of feed intake fluctuation and frequency of feeding on nutrient digestion, digesta kinetics, and ruminal fermentation profiles in limit-fed steers</title><author>Soto-Navarro, S. A ; Krehbiel, C. R ; Duff, G. C ; Galyean, M. L ; Brown, M. S ; Steiner, R. L</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c407t-d44622c14e702212524bbb0dd53f3fd2591d471da43e0da97f5133392982ab5d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2000</creationdate><topic>Animal Feed</topic><topic>Animal Husbandry - methods</topic><topic>Animal productions</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Cattle</topic><topic>Cattle - growth & development</topic><topic>Cattle - metabolism</topic><topic>Diet</topic><topic>Dietary Carbohydrates</topic><topic>Digestion</topic><topic>Digestive system</topic><topic>Energy Intake</topic><topic>Feeds</topic><topic>Fermentation</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Hydrogen-Ion Concentration</topic><topic>Kinetics</topic><topic>Nitrogen</topic><topic>Random Allocation</topic><topic>Rumen - metabolism</topic><topic>Terrestrial animal productions</topic><topic>Vertebrates</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Soto-Navarro, S. A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Krehbiel, C. R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Duff, G. C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Galyean, M. L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brown, M. S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Steiner, R. L</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Career & Technical Education Database</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of animal science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Soto-Navarro, S. A</au><au>Krehbiel, C. R</au><au>Duff, G. C</au><au>Galyean, M. L</au><au>Brown, M. S</au><au>Steiner, R. L</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Influence of feed intake fluctuation and frequency of feeding on nutrient digestion, digesta kinetics, and ruminal fermentation profiles in limit-fed steers</atitle><jtitle>Journal of animal science</jtitle><addtitle>J Anim Sci</addtitle><date>2000-08-01</date><risdate>2000</risdate><volume>78</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>2215</spage><epage>2222</epage><pages>2215-2222</pages><issn>0021-8812</issn><eissn>1525-3163</eissn><eissn>0021-8812</eissn><abstract><![CDATA[Nine crossbred beef steers (344 +/- 26 kg) fitted with ruminal cannulas were used in a randomized complete block design to evaluate the effects of feeding frequency and feed intake fluctuation on total tract digestion, digesta kinetics, and ruminal fermentation profiles in limit-fed steers. In Period 1, steers were allotted randomly to one of four dietary treatments: 1) feed offered once daily at 0800; 2) feed offered once daily at 0800 with a 10% fluctuation in day-to-day feed intake; 3) feed offered twice daily at 0800 and 1700; and 4) feed offered twice daily at 0800 and 1700 with a 10% fluctuation in a day-to-day feed intake. In Period 2, steers were reallocated across treatments. The 90% concentrate diet was fed at 90% of the ad-libitum consumption by each steer. Chromium-EDTA and Yb-labeled steam-flaked corn were intraruminally infused at 0800 on d 1 and 3 and Co-EDTA and Er-labeled steam-flaked corn were infused on d 2 and 4 of the 4-d collection period. Ruminal samples were collected at 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, and 24 h after the 0800 feeding, and total feces were collected for 4 d. Total tract digestibilities of OM, N, and starch were lowest (fluctuation x frequency, P < .05) when feed was offered twice daily with a 10% fluctuation in intake. Ruminal fluid volume and passage rate were not affected (P > .10) by feeding frequency or intake fluctuation. A frequency x fluctuation x sampling time interaction occurred (P < .01) for ruminal pH. Steers fed a constant amount of feed once daily had higher (P < .05) ruminal pH at 0, 3, 18, and 24 h than steers fed once daily with a 10% fluctuation in feed intake. Total VFA concentration was greater (P < .01) at 9 h after the 0800 feeding when feed was offered once vs twice daily. Feeding twice daily increased (P < .05) the molar proportion of acetate and decreased (P < .05) the molar proportion of propionate. Increasing feeding frequency resulted in a more stable ruminal environment; however, the increased acetate:propionate ratio with twice-daily feeding might result in lower efficiency of energy utilization by limit-fed steers.]]></abstract><cop>Savoy, IL</cop><pub>Am Soc Animal Sci</pub><pmid>10947111</pmid><doi>10.2527/2000.7882215x</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0021-8812 |
| ispartof | Journal of animal science, 2000-08, Vol.78 (8), p.2215-2222 |
| issn | 0021-8812 1525-3163 0021-8812 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_71754359 |
| source | MEDLINE; Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current) |
| subjects | Animal Feed Animal Husbandry - methods Animal productions Animals Biological and medical sciences Cattle Cattle - growth & development Cattle - metabolism Diet Dietary Carbohydrates Digestion Digestive system Energy Intake Feeds Fermentation Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology Hydrogen-Ion Concentration Kinetics Nitrogen Random Allocation Rumen - metabolism Terrestrial animal productions Vertebrates |
| title | Influence of feed intake fluctuation and frequency of feeding on nutrient digestion, digesta kinetics, and ruminal fermentation profiles in limit-fed steers |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-18T14%3A16%3A28IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Influence%20of%20feed%20intake%20fluctuation%20and%20frequency%20of%20feeding%20on%20nutrient%20digestion,%20digesta%20kinetics,%20and%20ruminal%20fermentation%20profiles%20in%20limit-fed%20steers&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20animal%20science&rft.au=Soto-Navarro,%20S.%20A&rft.date=2000-08-01&rft.volume=78&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=2215&rft.epage=2222&rft.pages=2215-2222&rft.issn=0021-8812&rft.eissn=1525-3163&rft_id=info:doi/10.2527/2000.7882215x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E59082435%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=218114334&rft_id=info:pmid/10947111&rfr_iscdi=true |