Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T06:38:58.418Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

724. Levels of feeding of concentrates for dairy heifers before and after calving

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

W. H. Broster ,
B. Ridler  and
A. S. Foot
W. H. Broster
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, University of Reading
B. Ridler
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, University of Reading
A. S. Foot
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, University of Reading
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Two levels of steaming-up and two levels of concentrates feeding during the first 84 days of lactation have been compared in a 2 x 2 factorial experiment over three winter seasons, using fifty-two Shorthorn and thirty-six Friesian heifers. The levels of steaming up were 2 cwt. and ½ cwt. of concentrates fed over the last 21 and 14 days of pregnancy, respectively. The levels of concentrates during lactation were 5 and 3 lb. per 10 lb. milk per day. Roughages were fed for maintenance. After the 84th day of lactation all animals were given the same treatment for the remainder of the lactation. Milk yield, milk composition and live weight were measured throughout the lactation.

2. The treatments were annotated as HH, HL, LH and LL, the first letter indicating level of steaming-up and the second the level of concentrates feeding in the first 12 weeks of lactation.

3. Mean milk yields were as follows:

4. The LH treatment reqiuird 3 cwt. more concentrates than HL to produce the same amount of milk.

5. The response to additioal concentrates on the LH treatment after calving was l lb. additional milk per l lb. additional starch equivalent.

6. Butterfat percentages were higher (3·69%) in both groups on low-lactation feeding than in the two groups on high-lactation feeding (3·43%). The HL group (i.e. the group that received high steaming-up and low-lactation feeding) combined high milk yield with a higher butterfat percentage, and at current milk and feedingstuff prices and under the conditions of the trials, this group showed a greater cash return than the groups on the other three treatments.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 25 , Issue 3 , October 1958 , pp. 373 - 382
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 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

(1)Holmes, W., Waite, R., MacLusky, D. S. & Watson, J. N. (1956). J. Dairy Res. 23, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2)Reid, D. & Holmes, W. (1956). J. Dairy Res. 23, 159.Google Scholar
(3)Burt, A. W. A. (1957). J. Dairy Res. 24, 283.Google Scholar
(4)Burt, A. W. A. (1956). Dairy Sci. Abstr. 19, cols. 435–54.Google Scholar
(5)Blaxter, K. L. (1956). Proc. Brit. Soc. Anim. Prod. p. 3.Google Scholar
(6)Flux, D. S. & Patchell, M. R. (1954). J. agric. Sci. 45, 246.Google Scholar
(7)Wallace, L. R. (1957). Proc. Ruakura Frmrs' Conf., Hamilton, N.Z., 1957, p. 166.Google Scholar
(8)Boutflour, R. (1943). Agriculture, Lond., 50, 306.Google Scholar
(9)Woodward, T. E., Shepherd, J. B. & Graves, R. R. (1932). Misc. Publ. U.S. Dep. Agric. no. 130.Google Scholar
(10)Gardner, K. E. & Greenhalgh, J. F. D. (1955). J. Dairy Sci. 38, 618.Google Scholar
(11)Holmes, W. (1953). Adu. Leafl. Dep. Agric. Scot. no. 25.Google Scholar
(12)Eckles, C. H. & Palmer, L. S. (1916). Res. Bull. Mo. agric. Exp. Sta. no. 24.Google Scholar
(13)Eckles, C. H. & Palmer, L. S. (1916). Res. Bull. Mo. agric. Exp. Sta. no. 25.Google Scholar
(14)Eckles, C. H. (1912). Bull. Mo. agric. Exp. Sta. no. 100.Google Scholar
(15)Jarl, F. (1940). K. Landtbr Akad. Handl., Stockh., 79, 315.Google Scholar
(16)Campbell, I. L., Flux, D. S. & Patchell, M. R. (1955). Proc. Annu. Conf. N.Z. Soc. Anim. Prod. p. 132.Google Scholar
(17)Hancock, J. (1953). N.Z. Jour. Sci. Tech. A, 35, 97.Google Scholar
(18)Campbell, I. L. & Flux, D. S. (1948). Proc. Annu. Conf. N.Z. Soc. Anim. Prod. p. 61.Google Scholar
(19)Rook, J. A. F. (1953). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 12, vii.Google Scholar
(20)Burt, A. W. A. (1957). J. Dairy Res. 24, 296.Google Scholar