Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T15:28:43.011Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies in grazing management. VII. The influence of strip grazing versus controlled free grazing on milk yield, milk composition, and pasture utilization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

G. W. Arnold  and
W. Holmes
G. W. Arnold
Affiliation:
Wye College, University of London
W. Holmes
Affiliation:
Wye College, University of London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Experiments were carried out in 1956 and 1957 in which milking cows were grazed at the same stocking rate, either on strip grazing or on free grazing. The cows followed balanced Latin Square designs.

2. The pastures were liberally fertilized, either with NPK fertilizer (202 lb. N, 202 lb. P2O5, 252 lb. K2O per acre in 1956 and 80% of these quantities in 1957), or with PK fertilizers (269 lb. P2O5 and 269 lb. K2O in 1956 and 80% of these quantities in 1957), and a subsidiary comparison of the effect of nitrogenous fertilizers was made in 1956.

3. At the end of the main experiment in 1956 a study of the effect of straw offered to the grazing cows was made. No supplement other than straw was offered.

4. The results in both years showed no difference in milk yield per cow due to treatments, nor in 1956 was milk yield or milk composition affected by grazing treatment, fertilizer treatment or the provision of straw.

5. In both years the live-weight gain per cow was less with free grazing. In 1956 the provision of straw increased the rate of live-weight gain. It is suggested that these differences are mainly due to gut fill.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 51 , Issue 2 , October 1958 , pp. 248 - 256
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1958

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

Balch, C. C. & Line, C. (1957). J. Dairy Res. 24, 11–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brundage, A. L. & Petersen, W. E. (1952). J. Dairy Sci. 35, 623–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brundage, A. L., Sweetman, W. J. & Bula, R. J. (1956). J. Dairy Sci. 39, 287–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campling, R. C., MacLusky, D. S. & Holmes, W. (1958). J. Agric. Sci. 51, 62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, J. L. (1958). Proc. Brit. Soc. Anim. Prod. p. 3–12.Google Scholar
Cox, C. P., Foot, A. S., Hosking, Z. D., Line, C. & Rowland, S. J. (1956). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 11, 107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geus, J. De (1947). Maandbl. Voorl. Dienst. 4, 286.Google Scholar
Hodgson, R. E., Grunder, M. S., Nott, J. C. & Ellington, E. V. (1934). Bull. Wash. St. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 294.Google Scholar
Holmes, W., Waite, R., Fergusson, D. L. & Maclusky, D. S. (1952). J. Agric. Sci. 42, 304–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, W. (1954). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 9, 17–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivins, J. D. (1954). Agriculture, 59, 561.Google Scholar
MacLusky, D. S. (1956). Ph.D. Thesis, University Glasgow.Google Scholar
McMeekan, C. P. (1957). Proc. 7th Int. Grassl. Congr. New Zealand, 146–56.Google Scholar
Procter, J. & Hood, A. E. M. (1953). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 8, 239–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, W. F., & Minson, D. J. (1955). J.Brit.Grassl. Soc. 10, 282–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, D. (1958). Ph.D. Thesis. University of Glasgow.Google Scholar
Waite, R., Holmes, W., Campbell, J. I. & Fergusson, D. L. (1950). J. Agric. Sci. 40, 393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waite, R., Holmes, W., Fergusson, D. L. & MacLusky, D. S. (1952). J. Agric. Sci. 42.Google Scholar
Waite, R., Robertson, A. & White, J. C. D. (1956). J. Dairy Res. 23, 82–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar