Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T05:13:50.808Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Use of prolonged-release bovine somatotropin for milk production in British Friesian dairy cows. 1. Effect on intake, milk production and feed efficiency in two consecutive lactations of treatment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

R. H. Phipps
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute for Grassland and Animal Production, Church Lane, Shinfield, Reading, RG2 9AQ, UK
R. F. Weller
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute for Grassland and Animal Production, Church Lane, Shinfield, Reading, RG2 9AQ, UK
N. Craven
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute for Grassland and Animal Production, Church Lane, Shinfield, Reading, RG2 9AQ, UK
C. J. Peel
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute for Grassland and Animal Production, Church Lane, Shinfield, Reading, RG2 9AQ, UK

Summary

In two consecutive lactations in 1985/86 and 1986/87, 60 cows were injected with 500 mg of Sometribove, methionyl bovine somatotropin (BST), or a placebo at day 60±3 post partum; injections were repeated fortnightly for the remainder of each lactation. All cows received the same complete diet (metabolizable energy (ME) 11·5 MJ/kg dry matter; crude protein 169 g/kg dry matter) ad libitum for the first 20 weeks of lactation, after which, energy concentration of the diet was reduced as yield declined.

The administration of BST significantly increased milk yield by 4·3 (P < 0·001) and 3·1 kg/day (P < 0·05) in the first and second lactations, respectively. The mean dry matter (DM) intake of 16·3 kg/day in lactation 1 for the treated group was significantly (P < 0·01) higher than the 14·7 kg/day recorded for the control group. The response in intake was not significant until 6 weeks after treatment started. However, in the pretreatment period of the subseque1t lactation, the DM intake of the cows in the treated group was already significantly (P < 0·01) higher (+ 1·2 kg/day) than that of the control group. Although the DM intake in the treatment period of lactation 2 was also higher for the treated group, the difference from the control group was not significant.

With the exception of a significant (P < 0·01) increase in milk protein (control 35·3 g/kg v. treated 36·3 g/kg) in lactation 1, overall milk composition was unaffected by BST treatment. The administration of BST increased apparent feed efficiency (kg 4% fat-corrected milk (FCM)/kg DM intake) by 6 and 10% and gross feed efficiency (kg FCM/MJ ME) by 8 and 6% in lactations 1 and 2, respectively.

Animals treated with BST had significantly (P < 0·05) lower scores for body condition during the treatment period in lactation 1. This was, however, recouped during the dry period so that both groups had similar body conditions before the start of the next treatment period.

BST administered every 14 days in a prolonged-release formulation increased the yields of milk and milk constituents and apparent and gross feed efficiency during two consecutive lactations of treatment.

Type
Animals
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

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

Annexstad, R. J., Otterby, D. E., Linn, J. G., Hansen, W. P., Soderholm, C. G. & Eggert, R. G. (1987). Response of cows to daily injections of recombinant bovine somatotropin during a second consecutive lactation. Journal of Dairy Science 70, Suppl. 1, 176, abstract 217.Google Scholar
Baird, L. S., Hemken, W., Harmon, R. J. & Eggert, R. G. (1986). Response of lactating dairy cows to recombinant bovine growth hormone. Journal of Dairy Science 69, Suppl. 1, 118, abstract.Google Scholar
Bauman, D. E. (1987). Bovine somatotropin. The Cornell experience. In National Invitational Workshop on Bovine Somatotropin (Ed. Smith, R. D.), pp. 4656. Washington DC: USDA Extension Service.Google Scholar
Bauman, D. E., Eppard, P. J., DeGeeter, M. J. & Lanza, G. M. (1985). Responses of high producing dairy cows to long-term treatment with pituitary somatotropin and recombinant somatotropin. Journal of Dairy Science 68, 13521362.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bauman, D. E.Hard, D. L., Crooker, B. A., Erb, H. N. & Sandles, L. D. (1988). Lactational performance of dairy cows treated with a prolonged release formulation of methionyl bovine somatotropin (sometribove). Journal of Dairy Science 71, Suppl. 1, 205, abstract 260.Google Scholar
Chalupa, W., Baird, L., Soderholm, C., Palmquist, D. L., Hemken, R., Otterby, D., Annexstad, R., Vecchiarelli, B., Harmon, R., Shina, A., Linn, J., Hansen, W., Ehle, F., Schneider, P. & Eggert, R. G. (1987). Response of dairy cows to somatotropin. Journal of Dairy Science 70, Suppl. 1, 176, abstract 274.Google Scholar
Chalupa, W., Vecchiarelli, B., Schneider, P. & Eggert, R. G. (1986). Long term responses of lactating cows to daily injections of recombinant somatrotropin. Journal of Dairy Science 69, Suppl. 1, 151, abstract 182.Google Scholar
Furniss, S. J., Stroud, A. J., Brown, A. C. G. & Smith, C. (1988). Milk production, feed intakes and weight change of autumn calving, flat rate fed dairy cows given twowcckly injections of recombinantly derived bovine somatotropin (BST). Animal Production 46, 483, abstract.Google Scholar
Gluckman, P. D., Breier, B. H. & Davis, S. R. (1987). Physiology of the somatotropic axis with particular reference to the ruminant. Journal of Dairy Science 70, 442466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hard, D. L., Cole, W. J., Franson, S. E., Samuels, W. A., Bauman, D. E., Erb, H. N., Huber, J. T. & Lamb, R. C. (1988). Effect of long term sometribove treatment in a prolonged release system on milk yield, animal health and reproductive performance pooled across four sites. Journal of Dairy Science 71, Suppl. 1, 210, abstract 273.Google Scholar
Huber, J. T., Willman, S., Marcus, K., Theurer, C. B., Hard, D. L. & Kung, L. (1988). Effect of sometribove, USAN (recombinant methionyl bovine somatotropin) injected in lactating cows at 14-day intervals on milk yield, milk composition and health. Journal of Dairy Science 71, Suppl. 1, 207, abstract 264.Google Scholar
Johnson, I. D. & Hart, I. C. (1985). Manipulation of milk yield with growth hormone. In Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition – 1986 (Eds Haresign, W. & Cole, D. J. A.), pp. 105123, London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
McGuffey, R. K., Green, H. B. & Ferguson, T. H. (1987 a). Lactation performance of dairy cows receiving recombinant bovine somatotropin by daily injection or in a sustained release vehicle. Journal of Dairy Science 70, Suppl. I, 176, abstract 219.Google Scholar
McGuffey, R. K., Green, H. B. & Basson, R. P. (1987 b). Performance of Holsteins given bovine somatotropin in a sustaine delivery vehicle. Effect of dose and frequency of administration. Journal of Dairy Science 70, Suppl. 1, 177, abstract 220.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1975). Energy allowances and feeding systems for ruminants. In Technical Bulletin, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food No. 33. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Mulvany, P. (1977). A body condition scoring technique for use with British Friesian cows. Animal Production 24, 157158.Google Scholar
Oldenbroek, J. K., Garssen, G. J., Jonker, L. J. & Wilkinson, J. I. D. (1989). The effect of treatment of dairy cows of different breeds in a second lactation with recombinantly derived bovine somatotropin in a sustained vehicle. In Use of Somatotropins in Livestock Production (Eds Sejrsen, K., Vestergaard, M. & Neiman-Sorensen, A.), pp. 262267, Brussels: Elsevier Applied Science.Google Scholar
Peel, C. J. & Bauman, D. E. (1987). Somatotropins and lactation. Journal of Dairy Science, 70, 474486.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peel, C. J., Sandles, L. D., Quelch, K. T. & Herington, A. C. (1985). The effects of long term administration of bovine growth hormone on the lactational performance of identical twin dairy cows. Animal Production 41, 135142.Google Scholar
Pell, A. N., Tsang, D. S., Huyler, M. T., Howlett, B. A., Kunkel, J. & Samuels, W. A. (1988). Response of Jersey cows to treatment with sometribove, USAN (recombinant methionyl somatotropin) in a prolonged release system. Journal of Dairy Science 71, Suppl. 1, 206, abstract 262.Google Scholar
Phipps, R. H. (1988). The use of prolonged release bovine somatotropin in milk production. Bulletin of the International Dairy Federation, no. 228, Brussels: International Dairy Federation.Google Scholar
Rijpkema, Y. S., Reeuwijk, L. van, Peel, C. J. & Mol, E. P. (1987). Responses of dairy cows to long-term treatment with somatotropin in a prolonged release formulation. In 38th Annual Meeting of the European Association of Animal Production, Lisbon, Portugal, p. 428 (abstract).Google Scholar
Rowe-Bechtel, C. L.Muller, L. D., Deaver, D. R. & Griel, L. C. (1988). Administration of recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbst) to lactating dairy cows beginning at 35 and 70 days postpartum. I. Production response. Journal of Dairy Science, 71, Suppl. 1, 166, abstract 142.Google Scholar
Soderholm, C. C., Otterby, D. E., Ehle, F. R., Linn, J. G., Hansen, W. P. & Annexstad, R. J. (1986). Effects of different doses of recombinant bovine somatotropin on milk production, body composition and condition score in lactating cows. Journal of Dairy Science 69, Suppl. 1,) 152, abstract 184G.Google Scholar
Tessman, N. J., Kleimans, J., Dhiman, T. R., Radloff, H. D. & Satter, L. D. (1988). Effect of dietary forage:grain ratio on response of lactating dairy cows to recombinant bovine somatotropin. Journal of Dairy Science, 71, Suppl. 1, 121, abstract 7.Google Scholar
Thomas, C., Johnsson, I. D., Fisher, W. J., Bloomfield, G. A. & Morant, S. V. (1987). The effect of recombinant bovin somatotropin on milk production, reproduction and health of dairy cows. Animal Production 44, 460461(abstract).Google Scholar
Weller, R. F., Phipps, R. H., Craven, N. & Peel, C. J. (1990). Use of prolonged-release bovine somatotropin formilk production in British Friesian dairy cows. 2. Effect on health and reproduction in two consecutive lactations of treatment. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 115, 105112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar