Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T10:55:20.815Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

647. Winter feeding of dairy cows: IV. The influence of four levels of concentrate feeding in addition to a basal ration of grass products on the production obtained from milking cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

W. Holmes ,
D. Reid ,
D. S. MacLusky ,
R. Waite  and
J. N. Watson
W. Holmes
Affiliation:
The Hannah Dairy Research Institute, Kirkhill, Ayr
D. Reid
Affiliation:
The Hannah Dairy Research Institute, Kirkhill, Ayr
D. S. MacLusky
Affiliation:
The Hannah Dairy Research Institute, Kirkhill, Ayr
R. Waite
Affiliation:
The Hannah Dairy Research Institute, Kirkhill, Ayr
J. N. Watson
Affiliation:
The Hannah Dairy Research Institute, Kirkhill, Ayr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. An experiment is described which assessed the effects on the production obtained from milking cows, of feeding a concentrate with a starch equivalent of 64 at four levels (0, 2, 4 and 6 lb./gal. of milk produced), in addition to a basal ration with limited amounts of hay and dried grass and with silage fed ad lib.

2. The total daily dry-matter intake of the cows increased from 2·2 to 2·7% of the live weight as the rate of concentrate feeding was increased from 0 to 6 lb./gal., despite a reduction in the amount of roughages consumed.

3. For each increase of 1 unit in silage dry-matter percentage, there were increases of from 1·18 to 0·42 lb. of silage bry-matter intake per cow per day as the level of concentrate feeding increased. For each increase of 1 lb. in silage dry-matter intake there was an increase of l lb. in total dry-matter intake per cow per day.

4. The average daily milk yield per cow increased from 22·2 lb. when no concentrates were fed to 27·6 lb. when 6 lb. concentrates were fed per gallon of milk produced. This is an increase of 0·9 lb. milk/lb. increase in starch equivalent intake. A significant difference in response was found between higher yielding and lower yielding groups of cows. The higher yielding group gave an increase of 1·1 lb. and the lower yielding group only 0·6 lb. milk/lb. increase in starch-equivalent intake.

5. At the general level of feeding and of milk yields obtianed in this experiment, no evidence of diminishing returns in milk production was detected when the rate of concentrate feeding was increased.

6. The content of solids-not-fat in the milk rapidly increased from 8·3% when no concentrates were fed to 8·6% when 4 or 6 lb. of the concentrates were fed per gallon of milk produced.

7. When concentrates were fed at the rate of 0 and 2 lb./gal. declines in live weight as well as in the yield and solids-not-fat content of the milk were noted, while at 6 lb./gal. there was an unnecessary gain in live weight. It is concluded, therefore, that with the particular animals and roughages used in this experiment, the optimal level of concentrate feeding was 4 lb./gal.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , February 1957 , pp. 1 - 10
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1957

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)Reid, D. & Holmes, W. (1956). J. Dairy Res. 23, 159.Google Scholar
(2)Williams, E. J. (1949). Aust. J. sci. Res. 2 (A), 149.Google Scholar
(3)Lucas, H. L. (1943). J. Dairy Sci. 26, 1011.Google Scholar
(4)Waite, R., White, J. C. D. & Robertson, A. (1956). J. Dairy Res. 23, 65.Google Scholar
(5)Woodman, H. E. (1954). Bull. Minist. Agric., Lond., no. 48.Google Scholar
(6)Watson, S. J. (1939). The Science and Practice of Conservation: Grass and Forage Crops. London: Published by Fertilizer and Feedingstuffs Journal.Google Scholar
(7)Dodsworth, T. L. & Campbell, W. H. McK. (1953). J. agric. Sci. 43, 166.Google Scholar
(8)Rowland, S. J. (1946). Dairy Ind. 11, 656.Google Scholar
(9)Jensen, E., Klein, J. W., Rauchenstein, E., Woodward, T. E. & Smith, R. H. (1942). Tech. Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric. no. 815.Google Scholar
(10)Yates, F., Boyd, D. A. & Pettitt, G. H. N. (1942). J. agric. Sci. 32, 428.Google Scholar
(11)Cooper, M. M. (1955). Dairy Sci. Abstr. 17, 4.Google Scholar
(12)Brody, S. (1945). Bioenergetics and Growth, p. 93. New York: Reinhold Publishing Corp.Google Scholar
(13)Larsen, L. H. & Eskedal, H. W. (1952). Report of the National Research Institute on Animal Husbandry, no. 260. Copenhagen.Google Scholar
(14)Holmes, W., Waite, R., MacLusky, D. S. & Watson, J. N. (1956). J. Dairy Res. 23, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(15)National Agricultural Advisory service (1954). Report of Exp. Husbandry Farms, p. 86.Google Scholar
(16)MacLusky, D. S. (1955). Proc. Brit. Soc. Anim. Prod. p. 45.Google Scholar
(17)Jarl, F. (1952). Proc. 6th Int. Grassland Congress, Pennsylvania, p. 1179.Google Scholar
(18)Holmes, W. (1953). Scot. Agric. 43, pp. 83 and 211.Google Scholar