Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T01:52:01.337Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

196. The influence of various fodder supplements on the production and the nutritive value of winter milk

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

S. Bartlett ,
A. G. Cotton ,
K. M. Henry  and
S. K. Kon
S. Bartlett
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, University of Reading
A. G. Cotton
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, University of Reading
K. M. Henry
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, University of Reading
S. K. Kon
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, University of Reading
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. An experiment is described in which comparisons were made between the effect of (a) mangels (control feeding), (b) artificially dried grass, (c) sprouted maize, and (d) kale used as dietary supplements on the production and nutritive properties of the milk of dairy cows.

2. No significant differences were found between any of the foods in their effect on yield of milk, or its content of fat or solids-not-fat.

3. The feeding of kale and of artificially dried grass markedly increased the colour and vitamin A content of the milk, but sprouted maize had no more effect in this respect than mangels.

4. As compared with the feeding of mangels, sprouted maize and artificially dried grass had no measurable effect on the vitamin B complex level of the milk.

5. The vitamin B2 (complex) level was more variable and was lowest in the milk from the sprouted maize cows. It is not known, however, whether the difference was due to the feeding or to differences in the cows themselves.

6.The same statement applies to figures for the vitamin C level which was highest in the sprouted maize milk.

7. The growth-promoting properties of the milks produced on mangels, artificially dried grass and sprouted maize were compared. The milks were fed, supplemented either with minerals alone, or with minerals plus sugar as a source of energy. In one series of experiments the milks were given adlibitum, in another the intake was “equalized.” No differences were found and it is concluded that under English conditions, this technique does not disclose the presence in milk of a new essential factor.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , September 1938 , pp. 273 - 309
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1938

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

(1) Kon, (1934). J. Dairy Res. 5, 250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2) Kon, (1936). J. Dairy Res. 7, 192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(3) Kon, (1938). J. Dairy Res. 9, 242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(4) Gunderson, & Steenbock, (1932). J. Nutrit. 5, 199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(5) White, (1937). Milk and Nutrition, Part I, p. 64. Reading: Nat. Inst. Res. Dairying.Google Scholar
(6) White, (1937). J. Dairy Res. 8, 307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(7) Gillam, Henry & Kon, (1937). Milk and Nutrition, Part I, p. 45. Reading: Nat. Inst. Res. Dairying.Google Scholar
(8) Loy, Hilton, Wilbur, & Haujge, (1937). J. Dairy Sci. 20, 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(9) Ferguson, & Bishop, (1936). Analyst, 61, 515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(10) Gillam, & El Ridi, (1938). Biochem. J. 32, 820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(11) Kinnersley, & Peters, (1927). Biochem. J. 21, 777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(12) Chick, Copping & Edgar, (1935). Biochem. J. 29, 722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(13) Kon, (1937). Milk and Nutrition, Part I, p. 49. Reading: Nat. Inst. Res. Dairying.Google Scholar
(14) Kon, & Watson, (1936). Biochem. J. 30, 2273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(15) Kon, & Watson, (1937). Biochem. J. 31, 223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(16) Henry, Ikin & Kon, (1937). J. Dairy Res. 8, 282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(17) Hart, (1936). Private communication.Google Scholar
(18) Kohler, Elvehjem & Hart, (1937). J. Nutrit. 14, 131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(19) Henry, & Kon, (1937). Milk and Nutrition, Part I, p. 57. Reading: Nat. Inst. Res.Dairying.Google Scholar
(20) Henry, Ikin & Kon, (1938). J. Dairy Res. 9, 188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(21) Donaldson, (1924). The Rat, 2nd ed. p. 202. Philadelphia: Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology.Google Scholar
(22) Henry, & Kon, (1936). J. Soc. chem. Ind. 55, 839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(23) Overman, & Sanmann, (1926). Bull. IU. agric. Exp. Sta. No. 282.Google Scholar