Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T14:46:06.135Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Experiments on the nutrition of the dairy heifer IV. Protein requirements of 2-year-old heifers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

W. H. Broster ,
Valerie J. Tuck  and
C. C. Balch
W. H. Broster
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading, England
Valerie J. Tuck
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading, England
C. C. Balch
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading, England
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. In the winters of 1959–61 three randomized block experiments were carried out to study protein requirements of heifers of 800–1000 lb. live weight. 24 animals were used in each experiment. Half the animals were kept indoors; the remainder stayed out of doors except for 1 hr. per day when they came into covered yards to receive their concenrates ration.

2. Rations were based on straw, cereals and roots. The intake of crude protein was varied by replacing cereals by decorticated ground nut meal. The estimated level of energy intake varied from 7·2–8·2 lb. starch equivalent/day between experiments, but the level was constant for all treatments within an experiment.

3. At the end of each feeding trial the nitrogen balance was measured for 2 animals from each treatment. The results confirmed the estimated levels of digestible crude protein intakes upon which the experiments were based.

4. An increase in intake of digestible crude protein (as determined in the metabolism trials) from 0·35 lb./day to 0·72 lb./day gave a marked response of 0·45 lb./day in the rate of live-weight gain. Further increases in protein intake gave little response in live-weight gain. It was concluded that for heifers of 800–900 lb. live weight the protein requirement for maintenance and a live-weight gain of 1·2 lb./day was 0·70 lb. digestible crude protein/day.

5. Comparison of the estimated starch equivalent intakes in the three experiments showed that in heifers receiving 0·52 lb. digestible crude protein per day the rate of gain increased from 0·25 to 0·90 lb./day as the level of energy intake increased from 0·78 lb. starch equivalent/100 lb. live weight per day to 1·01 lb./100 lb. live weight.

6. Biological value of the dietary nitrogen decreased as level of protein intake increased. The values for individual animals ranged from 61·3 to 82·4. The mean value was 69·5.

7. The weather during these experiments was typical of winters in south-east England with mean minimum ground temperatures about 30° F. and mean maximum and minimum air temperatures of about 50° F. and 35° F., respectively. Snow fell occasionally only; 3½–5½ in. of rain fell in the period 1 January to 31 March. In 2 years out of 3 the outdoor group grew slightly faster than the indoor groups. In the third year this trend was reversed.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 60 , Issue 3 , May 1963 , pp. 393 - 398
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1963

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

REFERENCES

Allison, J. B. (1955). Physiol. Rev. 35, 664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, G. L. & Broster, W. H. (1957). J. agric. Sci. 49, 435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balch, C. C., Bartlett, S. & Johnson, V. W. (1951). J. agric. Sci. 41, 98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. & Mitchell, H. H. (1948). J. Anim. Sci. 7, 351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crichton, J. A., Aitken, J. N. & Boyne, A. W. (1960). Anim. Prod. 2, 159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, A. (1956). Brit. Soc. Anim. Prod. p. 51.Google Scholar
Lofgreen, G., Loosli, J. K. & Maynard, L. A. (1951). J. Anim. Sci. 10, 171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanson, E. W. & Herman, H. A. (1943). Res. Bull. Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 372.Google Scholar
Wilson, P. N. & Osbourn, D. F. (1960). Biol. Rev. 35, 324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodman, H. E. (1960). Bull. Minist. Agric., Lond., no. 48, revised edition.Google Scholar