Is spontaneousrumen acidosisrelatedto feedingbehaviourin goats? Sylvie Giger-Reverdin & Christine Duvaux-Ponter UMR INRA-AgroParisTech MoSAR Modélisation SystémiqueAppliquée aux Ruminants (Systemic modelling appliedto ruminants)
Researcheson spontaneousrumen acidosis Cannulated dairy goats in dairygoatsatmosar Alpine or Saanen
Is spontaneousrumen acidosisrelatedto feedingbehaviourin goats? Introduction Within-day studies Between-day studies Conclusion and Perspectives
Introduction High yielding ruminants need diets of high nutritive value Thesedietsmightbeacidogenic,but the occurrence of acidosis depends on the animal Is thereanylinkbetweenspontaneousrumen acidosis and feeding behaviour?
Spontaneousrumen acidosis acute acidosis(ph <5): fairly scarce sub-clinical acidosis(5.5 <ph <6.2): not scarce in HYR Observed with acidogenic diets Unpredictable apparition (time and animals) Difficult to study
Determinantsof ruminal ph INTAKE FIBRE? RUMINATION Fermented Substrate Saliva VFA BUFFERS ph (D. Sauvant)
Feedingbehaviour Chewing durations Kinetics of dry matter intake Rate of intakeindex Sorting behaviour
Is spontaneousrumen acidosisrelatedto feedingbehaviourin goats? Introduction Within-day studies chewing duration kinetics of intake modelling Between-day studies Conclusion and Perspectives
Continuous measurements Chewing (2 min)
Within-day, betweenanimal variations 12 fistulated mid-lactating goats 1 TMR diet: 50 % Concentrate 35% Meadow hay 15 % Pressedsugarbeetpulpsilage 11 weeks (Desnoyers et al., 2011)
Data available for intake and rumination durations 333 post-prandialkinetics(15 h 20 min) on 12 goats pools for 20 min intervals intake duration rumination duration 92 variates (Desnoyers et al., 2011)
20:00 Mean value on 333 observations 18:00 per 20 min interval Duration 16:00 14:00 12:00 10:00 08:00 06:00 Resting Ruminating Eating 04:00 02:00 00:00 00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 Time after the afternoon feeding (hours) (Desnoyers et al., 2011)
Scoringplots of variateson the plan 1-2 PC C2 (4.7 %) 0.5 0.0 4 5 3 6 7 2 13 42 19 4139 40 36 25 29 35 9 14 28 2218 3720 3433 31 43 27 45 12 30 17 38 32 11 10 16 23 21 26 116 17 44 1524 20 15 46 18 44 46 30 4521 19 26 23 24 8 1 38 43 32 28 27 29 33 34 31 37 25 22 35 9 36 41 42 39 10 2 8 6 3 7 4 14 5 13 11 12 Eating Ruminating -0.5 40-0.5 0.0 PC1 (6.6 %) 0.5 (Desnoyers et al., 2011)
PCA on the time spent eating and the time spent ruminating during each of the 46 intervals of 20 min following the afternoon feeding 8 PC2 (4.7 %) 0-8 -6-4 -2 0 2 4 6 One symbol corresponds to one goat PC1 (6.6 %) (Desnoyers et al., 2011)
10% extremes, Axis 1a 20:00 Duration per 20 min interval 18:00 16:00 14:00 12:00 10:00 08:00 06:00 04:00 Resting Ruminating Eating 02:00 00:00 00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 Time after the afternoon feeding (hours) (Desnoyers et al., 2011)
10% extremes, Axis 1b 20:00 18:00 Duration per 20 min interval 16:00 14:00 12:00 10:00 08:00 06:00 04:00 Resting Ruminating Eating 02:00 00:00 00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 Time after the afternoon feeding (hours) (Desnoyers et al., 2011)
Continuous measurements Chewing behaviour 7.5 7 6.5 6 5.5 5 4.5 4 07/03 16h 08/03 00h 08/03 08h 08/03 16h 09/03 00h 09/03 08h 09/03 16h 10/03 00h 10/03 08h 10/03 16h ph (1 min)
Feeding behaviour and rumen ph Chewing pattern and rumen ph Fast Eater Slow Eater (Desnoyers et al., 2011)
Goat contribution to the «extremes» Axe1a Axe 2a 4 (40.3%) 5 (15.2%) 3 (19.7%) 3 ( 7.3%) 6 ( 7.2%) 7 ( 1.9%) 2 ( 6.2%) 5 (15.1%) 10 ( 6.9%) 7 ( 1.9%) 10 ( 4.6%) 11 ( 9.0%) 8 (36.1%) 6 (28.5%) Axe 2b 3 ( 5.1%) 7 ( 2.0%) 8 ( 3.1%) Axe 1b 7 ( 4.5%) 6 ( 5.7%) 9 ( 8.8%) 2 (19.6%) 4 ( 8.8%) 2 ( 3.7%) 9 ( 7.7%) 1 (11.1%) 1 ( 4.2%) 10 ( 2.4%) 10 (35.9%) 11 (14.1%) 12 (28.4%) 12 (34.9%) (Desnoyers et al., 2011)
Is spontaneousrumen acidosisrelatedto feedingbehaviourin goats? Introduction Within-day studies chewing duration kinetics of intake modelling Between-day studies Conclusion and Perspectives
Weighing scales at Grignon
Kinetic of feed intake (measured every 2 min)
Developmentof a methodto studycumulative dry matter intake Usual model (Baumont, 1988) DMI = a (1 exp b * t ) 30 DMI g/ /kg BW 20 10 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Time after feed allowance (min)
But, itdoesnot alwaysfit the curves 20 1 15 2 DM MI (g/kg BW) 10 3 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Time after feed allowance (min) (Giger-Reverdin et al., 2012)
Segmentation-classification method (Giger-Reverdin et al., 2012)
Adapted to all types of kinetics (Giger-Reverdin et al., 2012)
Intake evolution during an acidosis bout (Giger-Reverdin et al., 2012)
Feeding behaviour and bouts of acidosis (Giger-Reverdin et al., 2012)
Is spontaneousrumen acidosisrelatedto feedingbehaviourin goats? Introduction Within-day studies chewing duration kinetics of intake modelling Between-day studies Conclusion and Perspectives
Within-day modelling (Giger-Reverdin et al., 2010) v
«Digestion» submodel SALIVA LIQRUM Fliqout LIQOUT FndDMI nddmrum FndDMout DMDiet FdDMI FdDMout DMINTEST ddmrum Fdeg FVFAabs metvfa RUMVFA FVFAint intvfa (Giger-Reverdin et al., 2010)
«Regulation» sub-model RESTING FEatRest FRestEat FRumRest FRestRum EATING FEatRum FRumEat RUMINATING (Giger-Reverdin et al., 2010)
Data set: 86 kinetics dry matter intake intake duration rumination duration ph PCA: 2 «extremes» groups «Fasteaters» or group F «Slow eaters» or group S (Giger-Reverdin et al., 2010)
Chewing duration evolution 20.00 EATINGDUR RUMINATINGDUR 20.00 EATINGDUR RUMINATINGRUM 15.00 15.00 min 10.00 min 10.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 120.00 240.00 360.00 480.00 600.00 720.00 Time after feeding (min) 0.00 0.00 120.00 240.00 360.00 480.00 600.00 720.00 Time after feeding (min) Group F Group S (Giger-Reverdin et al., 2010)
Dry matter intake (g DMI/kg BW) Fast eaters Slow eaters Minutes (Giger-Reverdin et al., 2010)
Evolution of ph in the rumen ph 6,5 Slow eaters 6,0 Fast eaters 5,5 Time (minutes) 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 (Giger-Reverdin et al., 2010)
Is spontaneousrumen acidosisrelatedto feedingbehaviourin goats? Introduction Within-day studies Between-day studies witha givendiet after dietary change Conclusion and Perspectives
(Giger-Reverdin, unpub)
Definition of spontaneous acidosis bouts Dropsin Rumen ph dry matter intake milk yield Definition of an acidosis bout if: At least 2 parameters during 2 consecutive days (Desnoyers et al, 2009)
(Giger-Reverdin, unpub)
(Giger-Reverdin, unpub)
Definition of fractional intake rate: P90 Proportion of dry matter eaten 90 min after the afternoon feed allowance which corresponded to two thirds of the daily feed allowance (P90). ( Giger-Reverdin et al, 2009)
Dry matter intake evolution (pm Feed allowance ) 35 30 Goat A Goat B DM MI (g/kg BW) 25 20 15 10 P90 = 0.90 P90 = 0.38 5 0 0 60 120 180 240 360 480 600 Time after feeding (min) 720 840 960 ( Giger-Reverdin et al, 2009)
(Giger-Reverdin, unpub)
Detectionof spontaneousacidosisbouts Detection of bouts Drops in ph, dry matter intake or milk yield Definitionof an acidosisbout if: At least 2 parameters during 2 consecutive days Calage: ph drop at D0 5 days before and 20 days after Identification of 25 bouts Various durations and intensities Individualvariability: 0 to 4 boots in 11 weeks For 8 bouts, simultaneous ph kinetics (Desnoyers et al, 2009)
Model diagrammfor acidosis bouts Controls of delays of disturbance DELDMI Finph Fphdmi Fdmirmy Frmyout INIT DistPH DistDMI DistRMY OutRMY Pulse ph DMILW EBLW RMYLW Initial disturbance Responses (Desnoyers et al., 2009)
Kinetics of rumen ph during a spontaneous acidosis bout in 8 dairy goats Day 20 Day 1: ph drop (11 h) Day 2: ph recovery Hours and days (Desnoyers et al., 2009)
Kinetics of DMI and Milk yield during a spontaneous acidosis bout in 8 dairy goats g/kg LW Day 20 Day3: minimum of DMI (56 h) Day4: minimum of Milk yield (109 h) Hours (Desnoyers et al., 2009)
Chewi ing index min/kg DMI Across time relationship between DMI and chewing index during SARA bout 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Day 3 Y = 152-10.5 X n = 161, nepisode =17, rmse = 55.4 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 DMI (g/kg BW) (Desnoyers et al., 2009)
(Giger-Reverdin, unpub)
(Giger-Reverdin, unpub)
Fractions of the Total Mixed Ration retained on the siever
Individual sorting behaviour 60.0 50.0 40.0 4012 16-300306 7-100406 21-24/0406 12-150506 % 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 4 2 1 0.5 0 tamis (Giger-Reverdin, unpub)
Is spontaneousrumen acidosisrelatedto feedingbehaviourin goats? Introduction Within-day studies Between-day studies witha givendiet after dietary change Conclusion and Perspectives
What happens after a dietary change? Control diet(52.5 % concentrate) (12 goats) Transition: 5 days Low concentrate diet(35 %) (6 goats) TMR ad libitum(2 feed allowances per day) High concentrate diet(70 %) (6 goats) (Giger-Reverdin et al, 2013)
0.9 Evolution of P90 with the change in concentrate percentage (example for one goat receiving the L experimental diet) 7 12 Diet Control Transition Experimental P90 0.6 Control (7 days) Transition (5 days) Experimental diet (15 days) 0.3 Day of the experiment (Giger-Reverdin et al, 2013)
Evolution of P90 with the change in concentrate percentage 0.9 0.6 0.3 7 12 7 12 B1 L1 B2 L2 B3 L3 B4 L4 B5 L5 B6 L6 H1 H2 Goat L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 0.9 P90 0.6 0.3 H3 H4 H5 H6 0.9 0.6 Control Transition L diet 0.3 Experimental diet 7 12 Day of the experiment 7 12 (Giger-Reverdin et al, 2013)
Evolution of P90 with the change in concentrate percentage 0.9 7 12 B1 7 12 L1 B2 L2 B3 L3 B4 L4 L diet 0.6 P90 0.3 0.9 0.6 B5 L5 B6 L6 H1 H1 H2 H2 H3 H3 H4 H4 H5 H5 H6 H6 0.9 0.6 0.3 Goat L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 0.3 7 12 Day of the experiment 7 12 H diet (Giger-Reverdin et al, 2013)
(Giger-Reverdin et al., 2013)
Is spontaneousrumen acidosisrelatedto feedingbehaviourin goats? Introduction Within-day studies Between-day studies Conclusion and Perspectives
Takehome messages Very big individual variations Very big variations in feeding strategies Feeding behaviour is linked to rumen subacidosis Spontaneous acidosis is difficult to predict within a dairy herd
Perspectives Improving our knowledges with less invasive tools osmallerph probes or boli o accelerometers Including new kinds of data from the microbiote Improving rumen models dealing with acidosis Finding simple and easy to measure proxies for predicting acidosis
Publications Desnoyers, M., Giger-Reverdin, S., Duvaux-Ponter, C., Sauvant, D., 2009. Modeling of off-feed periods caused by subacuteacidosis in intensive lactating ruminants: Application to goats. J. Dairy Sci. 92, 3894-3906. Giger-Reverdin, S., Duvaux-Ponter, C., Sauvant, D., 2009. Relationships between feed intake variability and rumen ph in mid-lactating goats fed an acidogenic diets. In Proceedings of the XIth International Symposium on Ruminant Physiology. Clermont-Ferrand, France. 2009/07/6-9. Wageningen AcademicPublishers(Eds). 792-793 Giger-Reverdin, S., Desnoyers, M., Duvaux-Ponter, C., Sauvant, D., 2010. Modellingwithin-day variability in feeding behaviour in relation to rumen ph: application to dairy goats receiving an acidogenicdiet. pp. 121-129. In: Sauvant, D., Van Milgen, J., Faverdin, P.Friggens, N. (Eds.) 7th International Workshop on ModellingNutrient Digestion and Utilisationin Farm Animals, Paris, France, 10-12 September, 2009., WageningenAcademic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Desnoyers, M., Giger-Reverdin, S., Sauvant, D., Duvaux-Ponter, C., 2011. The use of a multivariate analysis to study between-goat variability in feeding behavior and associated rumen ph patterns. J. Dairy Sci. 94, 842-852. Giger-Reverdin, S., Lebarbier, E., Duvaux-Ponter, C., Desnoyers, M., 2012. A new segmentationclustering method to analysefeeding behaviour of ruminants from within day cumulative intake patterns. Comput. Electron. Agric. 83, 109-116. Giger-Reverdin, S., Serment, A., Duvaux-Ponter, C., Sauvant, D., 2013. Intakerate evolution after a change in concentrate percentage in mid-lactation goats. In 64. Annual Meeting of the European Federation of Animal Science (EAAP), Nantes. 2013/08/26-30, Wageningen AcademicPublisher (Eds). 402.
The «acidosis» team atmosar Christine Duvaux-Ponter Sylvie Giger-Reverdin Daniel Sauvant Marion Desnoyers Amélie Serment Ophélie Dhumez Joseph Tessier Alexandra Eymard
Thank you for your attention