2014Journal of Animal ScienceRequires access

Recording rumination time by a rumination monitoring system in Jersey heifers fed grass/clover silage and hay at three feeding levels12

M.V. Byskov, A. K. S. Schulze, Martin Riis Weisbjerg, Bo Markussen, P. Nørgaard

Open publisher page 10 citations

Abstract

This study was conducted with the objective to validate a rumination monitoring system (RMS). The RMS was developed by SCR Engineers Ltd. (Netanya, Israel) to record individual rumination times in commercial dairy herds. Four heifers were fed 4 forage types at 3 feeding levels in 4 periods in a Latin square design. The forage types were spring growth of grass/clover harvested early (May 9) and late (May 25) conserved as silage and hay, creating 4 forage types: early harvest silage (ES), early harvest hay (EH), late harvest silage (LS), and late harvest hay (LH). Feeding levels were ad libitum, 90% of ad libitum, and 60% of ad libitum. Data were collected for 24 h at ad libitum feeding level, for 96 h at 90% of ad libitum, and for 24 h at 60% of ad libitum. Rumination time was recorded by the RMS in minutes per 2-h interval (RT(RMS2_i)) and per 24-h interval (RT(RMS24)). As a reference method, rumination time was recorded by chewing halters identifying rumination time by jaw movements (JM) and was accumulated into minutes per 2-h interval (RT(JM2_i)) and per 24-h interval (RT(JM24)) over the same time intervals as RT(RMS2_i) and RT(RMS24). Differences between RT(RMS2_i) and RT(JM2_i) were observed for EH, LS, and LH, with differences of 3.4 (P < 0.001), 1.1 (P = 0.03), and 3.3 (P < 0.001) min per 2-h interval. In addition, feeding restrictively at 90% and 60% of ad libitum resulted in greater rumination time recorded by the RMS compared to JM, with differences of 2.6 min per 2-h interval (P < 0.001) for 90% of ad libitum and 1.6 min per 2-h interval (P = 0.01) for 60% of ad libitum. Further, the differences between rumination times recorded by the RMS compared to JM were different among the 4 heifers. Despite these effects, rumination time recorded by the RMS correlated well with rumination time recorded by JM with correlation between RT(RMS2_i) and RT(JM2_i) of r = 0.91 (P < 0.001) and between RT(RMS24) and RT(JM24) of r = 0.79 (P < 0.001).

About this research paper

What this paper is about

This study was conducted with the objective to validate a rumination monitoring system (RMS). The RMS was developed by SCR Engineers Ltd. (Netanya, Israel) to record individual rumination times in commercial dairy herds. Four heifers were fed 4 forage types at 3 feeding levels in 4 periods in a Latin square design. The forage types were spring growth of grass/clover harvested early (May 9) and late (May 25) conserved as silage and hay, creating 4 forage types: early harvest silage (ES), early harvest hay (EH), late harvest silage (LS), and late harvest hay (LH). Feeding levels were ad libitum, 90% of ad libitum, and 60% of ad libitum. Data were collected for 24 h at ad libitum feeding level, for 96 h at 90% of ad libitum, and for 24 h at 60% of ad libitum. Rumination time was recorded by the RMS in minutes per 2-h interval (RT(RMS2_i)) and per 24-h interval (RT(RMS24)). As a reference method, rumination time was recorded by chewing halters identifying rumination time by jaw movements (JM) and was accumulated into minutes per 2-h interval (RT(JM2_i)) and per 24-h interval (RT(JM24)) over the same time intervals as RT(RMS2_i) and RT(RMS24). Differences between RT(RMS2_i) and RT(JM2_i) were observed for EH, LS, and LH, with differences of 3.4 (P < 0.001), 1.1 (P = 0.03), and 3.3 (P < 0.001) min per 2-h interval. In addition, feeding restrictively at 90% and 60% of ad libitum resulted in greater rumination time recorded by the RMS compared to JM, with differences of 2.6 min per 2-h interval (P < 0.001) for 90% of ad libitum and 1.6 min per 2-h interval (P = 0.01) for 60% of ad libitum. Further, the differences between rumination times recorded by the RMS compared to JM were different among the 4 heifers. Despite these effects, rumination time recorded by the RMS correlated well with rumination time recorded by JM with correlation between RT(RMS2_i) and RT(JM2_i) of r = 0.91 (P < 0.001) and between RT(RMS24) and RT(JM24) of r = 0.79 (P < 0.001).

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 10 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

This study was conducted with the objective to validate a rumination monitoring system (RMS). The RMS was developed by SCR Engineers Ltd. (Netanya, Israel) to record individual rumination times in commercial dairy herds. Four heifers were fed 4 forage types at 3 feeding levels in 4 periods in a Latin square design. The forage types were spring growth of grass/clover harvested early (May 9) and late (May 25) conserved as silage and hay, creating 4 forage types: early harvest silage (ES), early harvest hay (EH), late harvest silage (LS), and late harvest hay (LH). Feeding levels were ad libitum, 90% of ad libitum, and 60% of ad libitum. Data were collected for 24 h at ad libitum feeding level, for 96 h at 90% of ad libitum, and for 24 h at 60% of ad libitum. Rumination time was recorded by the RMS in minutes per 2-h interval (RT(RMS2_i)) and per 24-h interval (RT(RMS24)). As a reference method, rumination time was recorded by chewing halters identifying rumination time by jaw movements (JM) and was accumulated into minutes per 2-h interval (RT(JM2_i)) and per 24-h interval (RT(JM24)) over the same time intervals as RT(RMS2_i) and RT(RMS24). Differences between RT(RMS2_i) and RT(JM2_i) were observed for EH, LS, and LH, with differences of 3.4 (P < 0.001), 1.1 (P = 0.03), and 3.3 (P < 0.001) min per 2-h interval. In addition, feeding restrictively at 90% and 60% of ad libitum resulted in greater rumination time recorded by the RMS compared to JM, with differences of 2.6 min per 2-h interval (P < 0.001) for 90% of ad libitum and 1.6 min per 2-h interval (P = 0.01) for 60% of ad libitum. Further, the differences between rumination times recorded by the RMS compared to JM were different among the 4 heifers. Despite these effects, rumination time recorded by the RMS correlated well with rumination time recorded by JM with correlation between RT(RMS2_i) and RT(JM2_i) of r = 0.91 (P < 0.001) and between RT(RMS24) and RT(JM24) of r = 0.79 (P < 0.001).

Key concepts: Rumination, Silage, Forage, Hay, Latin square, Animal science, Biology, Alfalfa hay

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Recording rumination time by a rumination monitoring system in Jersey heifers fed grass/clover silage and hay at three feeding levels12 — Research Paper | ScholarLens