11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Invited review: Current perspectives on eating and rumination activity in dairy cows

      Journal of Dairy Science
      American Dairy Science Association

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references108

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Relationship between fermentation acid production in the rumen and the requirement for physically effective fiber.

          The content of ruminally fermented OM in the diet affects the fiber requirement of dairy cattle. Physically effective fiber is the fraction of feed that stimulates chewing activity. Chewing, in turn, stimulates saliva secretion. Bicarbonate and phosphate buffers in saliva neutralize acids produced by fermentation of OM in the rumen. The balance between the production of fermentation acid and buffer secretion is a major determinant of ruminal pH. Low ruminal pH may decrease DMI, fiber digestibility, and microbial yield and thus decrease milk production and increase feed costs. Diets should be formulated to maintain adequate mean ruminal pH, and variation in ruminal pH should be minimized by feeding management. The fraction of OM that is fermented in the rumen varies greatly among diets. This variation affects the amount of fermentation acids produced and directly affects the amount of physically effective fiber that is required to maintain adequate ruminal pH. Acid production in the rumen is due primarily to fermentation of carbohydrates, which represent over 65% of the DM in diets of dairy cows and have the most variable ruminal degradation across diets. The non-fiber carbohydrate content of the diet is often used as a proxy for ruminal fermentability, but this measure is inadequate. Ruminal fermentation of both nonfiber carbohydrate and fiber is extremely variable, and this variability is not related to the nonfiber carbohydrate content of the diet. The interaction of ruminally fermented carbohydrate and physically effective fiber must be considered when diets for dairy cattle are evaluated and formulated.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Ruminant Nutrition Symposium: Role of fermentation acid absorption in the regulation of ruminal pH.

            Highly fermentable diets are rapidly converted to organic acids [i.e., short-chain fatty acids (SCFA) and lactic acid] within the rumen. The resulting release of protons can constitute a challenge to the ruminal ecosystem and animal health. Health disturbances, resulting from acidogenic diets, are classified as subacute and acute acidosis based on the degree of ruminal pH depression. Although increased acid production is a nutritionally desired effect of increased concentrate feeding, the accumulation of protons in the rumen is not. Consequently, mechanisms of proton removal and their quantitative importance are of major interest. Saliva buffers (i.e., bicarbonate, phosphate) have long been identified as important mechanisms for ruminal proton removal. An even larger proportion of protons appears to be removed from the rumen by SCFA absorption across the ruminal epithelium, making efficiency of SCFA absorption a key determinant for the individual susceptibility to subacute ruminal acidosis. Proceeding initially from a model of exclusively diffusional absorption of fermentation acids, several protein-dependent mechanisms have been discovered over the last 2 decades. Although the molecular identity of these proteins is mostly uncertain, apical acetate absorption is mediated, to a major degree, via acetate-bicarbonate exchange in addition to another nitrate-sensitive, bicarbonate-independent transport mechanism and lipophilic diffusion. Propionate and butyrate also show partially bicarbonate-dependent transport modes. Basolateral efflux of SCFA and their metabolites has to be mediated primarily by proteins and probably involves the monocarboxylate transporter (MCT1) and anion channels. Although the ruminal epithelium removes a large fraction of protons from the rumen, it also recycles protons to the rumen via apical sodium-proton exchanger, NHE. The latter is stimulated by ruminal SCFA absorption and salivary Na(+) secretion and protects epithelial integrity. Finally, SCFA absorption also accelerates urea transport into the rumen, which via ammonium recycling, may remove protons from rumen to the blood. Ammonium absorption into the blood is also stimulated by luminal SCFA. It is suggested that the interacting transport processes for SCFA, urea, and ammonia represent evolutionary adaptations of ruminants to actively coordinate energy fermentation, protein assimilation, and pH regulation in the rumen.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Invited review: sensors to support health management on dairy farms.

              Since the 1980s, efforts have been made to develop sensors that measure a parameter from an individual cow. The development started with individual cow recognition and was followed by sensors that measure the electrical conductivity of milk and pedometers that measure activity. The aim of this review is to provide a structured overview of the published sensor systems for dairy health management. The development of sensor systems can be described by the following 4 levels: (I) techniques that measure something about the cow (e.g., activity); (II) interpretations that summarize changes in the sensor data (e.g., increase in activity) to produce information about the cow's status (e.g., estrus); (III) integration of information where sensor information is supplemented with other information (e.g., economic information) to produce advice (e.g., whether to inseminate a cow or not); and (IV) the farmer makes a decision or the sensor system makes the decision autonomously (e.g., the inseminator is called). This review has structured a total of 126 publications describing 139 sensor systems and compared them based on the 4 levels. The publications were published in the Thomson Reuters (formerly ISI) Web of Science database from January 2002 until June 2012 or in the proceedings of 3 conferences on precision (dairy) farming in 2009, 2010, and 2011. Most studies concerned the detection of mastitis (25%), fertility (33%), and locomotion problems (30%), with fewer studies (16%) related to the detection of metabolic problems. Many studies presented sensor systems at levels I and II, but none did so at levels III and IV. Most of the work for mastitis (92%) and fertility (75%) is done at level II. For locomotion (53%) and metabolism (69%), more than half of the work is done at level I. The performance of sensor systems varies based on the choice of gold standards, algorithms, and test sizes (number of farms and cows). Studies on sensor systems for mastitis and estrus have shown that sensor systems are brought to a higher level; however, the need to improve detection performance still exists. Studies on sensor systems for locomotion problems have shown that the search continues for the most appropriate indicators, sensor techniques, and gold standards. Studies on metabolic problems show that it is still unclear which indicator reflects best the metabolic problems that should be detected. No systems with integrated decision support models have been found.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal of Dairy Science
                Journal of Dairy Science
                American Dairy Science Association
                00220302
                June 2018
                June 2018
                : 101
                : 6
                : 4762-4784
                Article
                10.3168/jds.2017-13706
                29627250
                d1340da1-e6f1-4b48-9c64-d5ed8bd696b5
                © 2018

                https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article