Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T19:34:23.422Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of milking and restricted suckling regimes on milk production and calf growth in temperate and tropical environments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

C.A. Sandoval-Castro ,
S. Anderson  and
J.D. Leaver
C.A. Sandoval-Castro
Affiliation:
University of Yucatan, Apartado 4-116 Itzimna, Menda, Yucatan, 97100, Mexico
S. Anderson
Affiliation:
Wye College, University of London, Nr Ashford, Kent TN25 5AH
J.D. Leaver
Affiliation:
Wye College, University of London, Nr Ashford, Kent TN25 5AH
Get access

Abstract

Two experiments were carried out to investigate the effect of restricted suckling and milking regimes on milk yield, milk composition and calf growth. Experiment 1 was carried out in temperate conditions in the United Kingdom and experiment 2 under tropical conditions in Mexico. In experiment 1 a Latin rectangle (change-over) design with 3-week periods was used with eight Holstein Friesian cows suckling their Simmental-sired calves. Saleable milk yield (SMY), sucked milk (CSM), milk composition and calf performance were studied. The treatments were: once a day milking (a.m.) with suckling immediately after (1χAM); once a day milking (a.m.) with suckling p.m. (1χPM); twice daily milking with suckling after a.m. milking (2χAM); twice daily milking with suckling after each milking (2χ2χ). The cows were offered maize silage ad libitum and 4·3 kg dry matter (DM) per day of rapeseed meal plus minerals and vitamins. The calves had ad libitum access to concentrates (165 g crude protein (CP) per kg DM) and wheat straw. In experiment 2, 11 B. indicus χ B. taurus cows, suckling their Brahman-sired calves were used in an experiment with the same treatments and experimental design. Cows were offered star grass (Cynodon nlemfuensis) hay ad libitum and 4.0 kg DM per day of concentrate (117 g CP per kg DM). The calves had ad libitum access to concentrate (151 g CP/kg DM), star grass hay and Ramon leaves. For 1χAM, 1χPM, 2χAM and 2χ2χ respectively in experiment 1, the total milk yields (TMY = SMY + CSM) were 17.9, 18.0, 16.7 and 19.5 kg/day (s.e.d. 1.11) and SMY represented 0.70, 0.45, 0.77 and 0.53 of TMY. Corresponding results for experiment 2 were 6.0, 6.2, 7.0 and 7.1 kg/day (s.e.d. 0.32) and 0.69, 0.45, 0.78 and 0.61. Effects of treatment on milk yield and composition were consistent with the feedback inhibitor of lactation theory. It was concluded that different milking and restricted suckling patterns can be used to manipulate saleable milk production and calf growth. Holstein Friesian dairy cattle in a restricted suckling system without the calf presence at milking, behaved similarly to zebu-crossbred cows by reducing milk let down at milking.

Keywords

calvesdual-purpose cattlemilk compositionmilk productionsuckling
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 69 , Issue 2 , October 1999 , pp. 287 - 296
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, H.P. and Allen, N.N. 1952. The value of oxytocin for reducing fluctuations in milk and fat yield. Journal of Dairy Science 35: 1117–1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agricultural and Food Research Council. 1993. Energy and protein requirements of ruminants. An advisory manual prepared by the AFRC Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients. CAB International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
Alvarez, F.J., Saucedo, G., Arriaga, A. and Preston, T.R. 1980. Effect on milk production and calf performance of milking crossbred European /Zebu cattle in the absence or presence of the calf and of rearing their calves artificially. Tropical Animal Production 5: 25–37.Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1980. Official methods of analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 13th edition (ed. Horowitz, W.). AOAC, Washington, USA.Google Scholar
Bar-Peled, U., Maltz, E., Bruckental, I., Folman, Y., Kali, Y., Gacitua, H., Hehrer, A.R., Knight, C.H., Robinzon, B., Voet, H. and Tagari, H. 1995. Relationship between frequent milking or suckling and milk production of high producing dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 78: 2726–2736.Google Scholar
Boden, R.F. and Leaver, J.D. 1994. A dual purpose cattle system combining milk and beef production. Animal Production 58: 463–464 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Day, M.L., Imikawa, K., Clutter, A.C., Wolfe, P.L., Zalesky, D.D., Nielsen, M.K. and Kinder, J.E. 1987. Suckling behaviour of calves with dams varying in milk production. Journal of Animal Science 65: 1207–1212.Google Scholar
Dewhurst, R.J. and Knight, C.H. 1994. Relationship between milk storage characteristics and the short-term response of dairy cows to thrice-daily milking. Animal Production 58: 181–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, N.E. 1994. Estimation of parameters relating crude fiber in feeds to acid detergent fiber. Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists International 77: 1684–1685.Google Scholar
Khan, M.F. and Preston, T.R. 1992. Effect of restricted suckling on performance of Shorthorn and Sahiwal cows and calves in Pakistan. Livestock Research for Rural Development 4: 33–39.Google Scholar
Khazaal, K., Dentinho, M.T., Ribeiro, J.M. and Ørskov, E.R. 1995. Prediction of apparent digestibility and voluntary intake of hays fed to sheep: comparison between using fibre components, in vitro digestibility or characteristics of gas production or nylon bag degradation. Animal Science 61: 527–538.Google Scholar
Knight, C.H., Hurst, D. and Dewhurst, R.J. 1994. Milk accumulation and distribution in the bovine udder during the interval between milkings. Journal of Dairy Research 61: 167–177.Google Scholar
Knowles, R.T. and Edwards, M.D. 1983. A comparison of the effects of restricted suckling and artificial calf rearing systems on dam and calf performance. Malaysian Agricultural Journal 54: 1–9.Google Scholar
Leon, I. and Vaccaro, L. 1984. Efecto del amamantamiento sobre el crecimiento del becerro, las produccion lechera y la fertilidad de las madres. Informe anual ‘83, Instituto de Produccion Animal, Universidad Central de Venezuela, Maracay, Venezuela, pp. 70–71.Google Scholar
Mead, R., Curnow, R.N. and Hasted, A.M. 1993. Statistical methods in agriculture and experimental biology. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 1976. Energy allowances and feeding systems for ruminants. MAFF technical bulletin no. 33. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Minitab. 1991. Minitab reference manual, release 8. Minitab, Inc., USA.Google Scholar
Minson, D.J. 1981. Nutritional differences between tropical and temperate pastures. In Grazing animals, world animal science, BI series (ed. Morley, F.H.W.), pp. 143–157. Elsevier Scientific Publisher Company, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Morgan, J.H.L. 1991. Estimates of the yield and composition of milk from two-year-old Hereford and Friesian cows and inter-relationships with liveweight gains of cows and calves. World Review of Animal Production 26: 59–64.Google Scholar
Muinga, R.W., Topps, J.H., Rooke, J.A. and Thorpe, W. 1995. The effect of supplementation with Leucaena leucocephala and maize bran on voluntary food intake, digestibility, live weight and milk yield of Bos indicus χ Bos taurus dairy cows and rumen fermentation in steers offered Pennisetum purpureum ad libitum in the semi-humid tropics. Animal Science 60: 13–23.Google Scholar
Nicol, A.M. and Sharafeldin, M.A. 1975. Observation on the behaviour of single suckled calves from birth to 120 days. Proceedings of the 35th annual conference of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production, University of Waikato, Hamilton, pp. 221–230.Google Scholar
Phillips, C.J.C. 1993. Cattle behaviour. Farming Press Books, Ipswich, UK.Google Scholar
Preston, T.R. and Vaccaro, L. 1989. Dual cattle production systems. In New techniques in cattle production (ed. Phillips, C.J.C.). Proceedings of the second international symposium on new techniques, University of Wales, Bangor, 1988, pp. 20–32. Butterworths, UK.Google Scholar
Reinhardt, V. and Reinhardt, A. 1981. Natural sucking performance and age of weaning in zebu cattle (Bos indicus). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 96: 309–312.Google Scholar
Sandoval-Castro, C.A. 1996. The effect of restricted suckling, milking and nutritional management on milk production and calf performance in dual purpose cattle. Ph.D. thesis, University of London. Google Scholar
Tegegne, A., Osuji, P.O., Lahlou-Kassi, A. and Mukasa-Mugerwa, E. 1994. Effect of dam nutrition and suckling on lactation in Borana cows and growth in their Borana χ Friesian crossbred calves in an early weaning system in Ethiopia. Animal Production 58: 19–24.Google Scholar
Wadsworth, J. 1995. Dual purpose cattle: a systems overview. Proceedings of an International Workshop, IFS/ FMVZ-UADY, Menda, Mexico (ed. Anderson, S. and Wadsworth, J.), pp. 2–27.Google Scholar
Wilde, C.J. and Peaker, M. 1990. Autocrine control in milk secretion. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 114: 235–238.Google Scholar