Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T05:51:38.846Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

557. Studies of the secretion of milk of low fat content by cows on diets low in hay and high in concentrates: IV. The effect of variations in the intake of digestible nutrients

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

C. C. Balch ,
D. A. Balch ,
S. Bartlett ,
V. W. Johnson ,
S. J. Rowland  and
Jill Turner
C. C. Balch
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, University of Reading
D. A. Balch
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, University of Reading
S. Bartlett
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, University of Reading
V. W. Johnson
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, University of Reading
S. J. Rowland
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, University of Reading
Jill Turner
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, University of Reading
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Digestibility trials were conducted, and the rate of passage of hay was measured, with five Shorthorn cows during a period of normal diet and during two experimental periods in which diets low in hay and high in concentrates were given. In the first experimental period the concentrates were cubes of the wartime type sold as National Cattle Food No. 1, and containing a variety of constituents; in the second they were a mixture offlakedmaize (50%), weatings (35%) and decorticated ground-nut cake (15%). For convenience these are referred to as concentrate ‘cubes’ and ‘mixture’ respectively.

2. During the initial and final control periods the cows consumed daily 17–21 lb. hay, and about 4·5 lb. concentrates per 10 lb. of milk produced. In the initial control period the concentrates were the concentrate cubes, and in the final they were the concentrate mixture. The hay was reduced to 4 lb. daily during the two experimental periods and the remainder of the standard requirements of the animals were met by concentrates. The concentrates were the cubes in the first experimental period and the mixture in the second experimental period.

3. Seducing the hay to 4 lb. did not affect the fat content of the milk when the other food in the diet was the concentrate cubes, but there was a striking mean fall of 1·04% fat when the cubes were replaced by the concentrate mixture. This represented a loss of over 30% in the yield of fat.

4. Digestibility trials, conducted in the initial control and first and second experimental periods, indicated that the fall in milk fat content was not the result of changes in the amounts of dry matter, crude protein, ether extract, crude fibre, cellulose, cellulosans or pentosans not in cellulose digested. The essential difference between the diet of low hay with the concentrate mixture and the other diets given in this experiment was that it provided a high intake of starch yet had little of the physical property of roughage. It is concluded that depression of milk fat content results from a combination of these two factors and probably originates from changes in the physical and biochemical processes of the reticulo-rumen.

5. The intake of starch equivalent, as calculated from the intake of digestible nutrients, was close to standard requirements in all periods of the experiments, but there was a surplus of digestible crude protein.

6. The mean solids-not-fat content of the milk rose 0·48% at the time of the fall in milk fat, and this was entirely due to an increase in milk protein. After the return to normal diets the recovery of solids-not-fat was slower, but no less complete, than the recovery in milk fat.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , October 1954 , pp. 305 - 317
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1954

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)Balch, C. C., Balch, D. A., Bartlett, S., Cox, C. P. & Rowland, S. J. (1952). J. Dairy Res. 19, 39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2)Balch, C. C., Balch, D. A., Bartlett, S., Cox, C. P., Rowland, S. J. & Turner, Jill, (1954). J. Dairy Res. 21, 165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(3)Balch, C. C., Balch, D. A., Bartlett, S., Hosking, Zena, D., Johnson, V. W., Rowland, S. J. & Turner, Jill, (1954). J. Dairy Res. 21, 172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(4)Balch, C. C., Bartlett, S. & Johnson, V. W. (1951). J. agric. Sci. 41, 98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(5)Balch, C. C. (1950). Brit. J. Nutrit. 4, 361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(6)Norman, A. G. & Jenkins, S. H. (1933). Biochem. J. 27, 818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(7)Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (1940). Official and Tentative Methods of Analysis, 5th ed. p. 361. Washington, D.C.: Association of Official Agricultural Chemists.Google Scholar
(8)Hughes, E. E. & Acree, S. F. (1934). Industr. Engng Chem. (Anal.), 6, 123.Google Scholar
(9)Pucher, G. W., Leavenworth, C. S. & Vickery, H. B. (1948). Analyt. Chem. 20, 850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(10)British Standards Institution (1936). Specification no. 696, Part 2, p. 9.Google Scholar
(11)British Standards Institution (1951). Specification no. 1741, p. 7.Google Scholar
(12)Woodman, H. E. (1952). Bull. Minist. Agric., Lond., no. 48.Google Scholar
(13)Powell, E. B. (1939). J. Dairy Sci. 22, 453.Google Scholar
(14)Powell, E. B. (1938). Proc. Amer. Soc. Anim. Prod. 31st Ann. Meeting, p. 40.Google Scholar
(15)Head, M. J. (1953). J. Dairy Sci. 43, 281.Google Scholar
(16)Masson, M. (1950). Brit. J. Nutr. 4, viii.Google Scholar
(17)Walker, A. R. P. (1949). Nature, Lond., 164, 825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(18)Stoddard, G. E., Allen, N. N. & Peterson, W. H. (1949). J. Anim. Sci. 8, 630.Google Scholar
(19)Loosli, J. K., Lucas, H. L. & Maynard, L. A. (1945). J. Dairy Sci. 28, 147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar