Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T03:41:50.082Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of feeding reconstituted and dried milk upon the growth and carcass composition of calves

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

W. J. Pryor  and
J. H. Ternouth
W. J. Pryor
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Husbandry, Veterinary School, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, 4067, Australia
J. H. Ternouth
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Husbandry, Veterinary School, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, 4067, Australia
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. The live-weight gain, carcass weight, edible carcass composition, efficiency of food conversion, and roughage intake were measured in three groups of calves fed for 87 d. After a 3-week feeding period on a common regimen, one group of calves was weaned on to a diet of dry whole-milk powder and chopped lucerne, the second group received a similar diet except that the whole-milk powder was reconstituted to a liquid milk, containing 12–15% dry matter. The third group was given the diet in the same manner as the second group except that the chopped lucerne was available ad lib.

2. The mean live-weight gains for the three groups were 37.7, 47.6 and 52.7 kg respectively, the differences between the dry-fed and the liquid-fed groups being highly significant.

3. Energy and nitrogen accretion in the edible carcass and efficiency of food conversion were superior in the second and third groups.

4. The third group ate larger quantities of roughage, though the difference did not reach significance.

5. The reasons for the superiority of the liquid milk diet are discussed in relation to the avoidance of ruminal fermentation of the milk.

Type
General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 27 , Issue 3 , May 1972 , pp. 517 - 525
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1972

References

Aschaffenburg, R. & Drewry, J. (1959). Int. Dairy Congr. xv. London 3, 1631.Google Scholar
Black, J. L. (1971). Br. J. Nutr. 25, 31.Google Scholar
Ferguson, K. A., Hemsley, J. A. & Reis, P. J. (1967). Aust. J. Sci. 30, 215.Google Scholar
Hegland, R. B., Lambert, M. R., Jacobson, N. L. & Payne, L. C. (1957). J. Dair. Sci. 40, 1107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørslrov, E. R. & Benzie, D. (1969). Br. J. Nutr. 23, 415.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Fraser, C. & Corse, E. L. (1970). Br. J. iVutr. 24, 803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pryor, W. J. & Johnson, E. R. (1971). J. agric. Sci., Cumb. 76, 459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reis, P. J. & Tunks, D. A. (1969). Aust. J. agric. Res. 20, 775.Google Scholar
Roy, J. H. B. (1970 a). J. Sci. F. Agric. 21, 346.Google Scholar
Roy, J. H. B. (1970 b). The Calf 3rd ed. London: Iliffe.Google Scholar
Scott, T. W., Cook, L. J., Ferguson, K. A., McDonald, I. W., Buchanan, R. A. & Hills, G. L. (1970). Int. Dairy Congr. XVIII. Sydney 5, 509.Google Scholar