Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T18:33:16.027Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factors affecting the yield and quality of milk. II. Variations in successive lactations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. Glen  and
Andrew C. M'Candlish
J. Glen
Affiliation:
(The West of Scotland Agricultural College, Glasgow.)
Andrew C. M'Candlish
Affiliation:
(The West of Scotland Agricultural College, Glasgow.)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Milk and butterfat production rise to about the sixth lactation, but beyond the fifth lactation the increase may be neglected.

2. The lactation of maximum production may be taken as the fifth which corresponds to 7 years of age.

3. Beyond the fifth lactation the milk and butterfat yields vary irregularly but show a downward tendency.

4. The fat yield shows either a fall or only a very small increase in the second lactation.

5. The fat percentage is highest in the first lactation, drops markedly in the second, remains fairly steady for a few lactations, though with a slight downward tendency, and then falls off in the higher lactations.

6. Results obtained by applying correction factors for either age or lactation are quite comparable and choice in the method to be used will depend largely on the original data available.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , January 1930 , pp. 45 - 52
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1930

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

VI. REFERENCES

(1)Bartlett, . Abstract of papers, Agric. Ed. Assoc. (1921).Google Scholar
(2)Beam, . Pa. Sta. Report (1916), 353–91.Google Scholar
(3)Carlyle, and Woll, . Wis. Sta. Bul. (1903), 102.Google Scholar
(4)Davydov, and Fedotova, . Iaroslavsk. Zootekh. Opytn. Sta. Raboty (1926), 27–51.Google Scholar
(5)Eckles, and Palmer, . J. Agric. Res. (1917), 12, 645–58.Google Scholar
(6)Gavin, . J. Roy. Agric. Soc. England (1912), 73, 153–74.Google Scholar
(7)Gavin, J. Agric. Sci. (1913), 5, 370–90.Google Scholar
(8)Hammond, and Sanders, . J. Agric. Sci. (1923), 13, 74–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(9)Kay, and M’Candlish, . J. Agric. Sci. (1929), 19, 342–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(10)Kent, . American Naturalist (1917), 50, 676–87.Google Scholar
(11)Langmack, . 107de Ber. f. Forsøgalab. Vet. og Landbohøjskoles, Copenhagen (1921).Google Scholar
(12)Mackintosh, . Trans. High. and Agric. Soc. Scotland (1925), 37, 126–45.Google Scholar
(13)Maynard, and Myers, . N.Y. (Cornell) Sta. Bul. (1918), 397.Google Scholar
(14)Monroe, . Oh. Sta. Bimo. Bul. (1927), 12, 34–8.Google Scholar
(15)Sanders, . J. Agric. Sci. (1927), 17, 339–79.Google Scholar
(16)Sanders, . J. Agric. Sci. (1928), 18, 46–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(17)Spann, . Deut. Landw. Tierzucht (1912), 16, 16–18.Google Scholar
(18)Wilson, . Sci. Proc. Roy. Dubl. Soc. (1912), 13, 89–113.Google Scholar