Feed restriction and supplementing with propylene glycol, monensin sodium and rumen-protected choline chloride in periparturient Ghezel ewes: Implications on production and performance of ewes and their offspring

2021 ◽  
pp. 104784
Author(s):  
Leila Ahmadzadeh-Gavahan ◽  
Ali Hosseinkhani
2020 ◽  
Vol 98 (Supplement_4) ◽  
pp. 2-3
Author(s):  
Sonia Marti ◽  
Elena Garcia ◽  
Christine Gerard ◽  
Joan Grau ◽  
Nicolas Cirier ◽  
...  

Abstract One hundred and eight Holstein calves (225 ± 1.1 kg and 187 ± 5.2 d) were used to evaluate the physiological and performance recovery after 14 h transportation or feed restriction. Calves were distributed into 6 pens (2 pens/treatment) according to control (CTR, n = 36) calves with ad libitum access to concentrate, straw and water; restricted (RES, n = 36) calves with concentrate restriction but with access to water and straw for 14 h; and transported (TRA, n = 36) calves that were loaded into a trailer and transported without feed or water for 14 h. On days 0, 7, 21, and 35 BW was recorded. Concentrate intake were recorded daily. Blood samples for non-esterified fatty acids (NEFA), beta-hydroxybutyrate (BHBA), and serum amyloid-A (SAA) were collected at -24, -14, 0 h, and 6, 24, and 168 h post-treatment. Data were analyzed using mixed models with repeated measures. At 24 h, RES and TRA had greater (P < 0.05) concentrate intake compared with CTR. However, from d 7 to 35 after treatments, only TRA had similar concentrate intake than CTR, while RES had lesser (P < 0.05) concentrate intake than CTR and TRA. RES at 6 h had greater (P < 0.05) NEFA concentrations than TRA, and NEFA concentrations were still higher for the RES and TRA groups than those for the CTR after 24 h. After 24 h concentrations of serum BHBA for TRA and RES were significantly greater (P < 0.05) when compared with those for the CTR. Serum concentration of SAA for TRA and RES was greater (P < 0.05) than CTR until 168 h. Results showed similar effects of 14 h of feed restriction and transportation of calves on serum anorexia and inflammation parameters; however, feed intake was recovered after d 35 in transported calves but not in feed restricted calves without transportation.


2021 ◽  
pp. 117537
Author(s):  
Taher Sayad ◽  
Kader Poturcu ◽  
Milad Moradi ◽  
Elaheh Rahimpour ◽  
Hongkun Zhao ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pedro Felipe Santana ◽  
Vicente Ribeiro Rocha Júnior ◽  
José Reinaldo Mendes Ruas ◽  
Flávio Pinto Monção ◽  
Luana Alcântara Borges ◽  
...  

1994 ◽  
Vol 77 (12) ◽  
pp. 3618-3623 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ric R. Grummer ◽  
Jon C. Winkler ◽  
Sandy J. Bertics ◽  
Vaughn A. Studer

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anouschka Middelkoop ◽  
Natasja Costermans ◽  
Bas Kemp ◽  
J. Elizabeth Bolhuis

Abstract Creep feed intake is variable and may be partly homeostatically and exploratory driven. We studied effects of maternal feed restriction and a ‘play-feeder’ on piglet behaviour and performance. 37 Litters received creep feed in a conventional (CON) or play-feeder (PL) and their sows were full-fed (FF) or restrictedly-fed (RES). Eaters were determined via rectal swabs. At weaning (d24) four piglets from the same treatment were grouped (n = 36 pens). RES hindered piglet growth by 41 g/d and enhanced time eating, creep feed intake and percentage of eaters at weaning versus FF. RES-PL had the largest proportion of moderate and good eaters. PL stimulated feeder exploration and attracted more piglets to the feeder than CON. Post-weaning, RES increased exploratory behaviours, feed intake between d0–5, and growth between d0–2, and reduced body lesions between d0–2 (within CON), drinking and ear biting. PL increased ingestive behaviours, feed intake and growth between d0–15, and BW at d15 post-weaning by 5%. PL also lowered the prevalence of watery diarrhoea, number of body lesions and piglets with ear (within FF) and tail (within RES) damage at d15 post-weaning. Treatments did not affect FCR. To conclude, RES and particularly PL (broader and for longer) result in less weaning-associated-problems.


2020 ◽  
Vol 231 ◽  
pp. 105030 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leila Ahmadzadeh ◽  
Ali Hosseinkhani ◽  
Akbar Taghizadeh ◽  
Babak Ghasemi-Panahi ◽  
Gholamreza Hamidian

2014 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 117-123 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. de Souza Rodrigues ◽  
M. Chizzotti ◽  
S. Rodrigues Martins ◽  
M. Ávila Queiroz ◽  
K. Costa Busato

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document