Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T05:03:51.169Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

678. The effect of variations in nutrient intake upon the yield and composition of milk II. Factors affecting rate of eating roughage and responses to an increase in the amount of concentrates fed

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

A. W. A. Burt
A. W. A. Burt
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, University of Reading
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Rates of eating hay, kale and concentrates and responses to a 3 lb. increase in the daily concentrate allowances when roughage was rationed on a ‘group’ basis, were measured in fourteen Ayrshire cows and fifteen heifers.

2. There were significant differences between animals, between days, and significant cow × period interactions, in rates of eating in both groups. The cows were a more variable group and generally ate faster than the heifers. Although the rate of eating fresh kale tended to decrease with increasing dry-matter percentage, the rate of eating kale dry matter was positively and significantly related to the dry-matter percentage.

3. There were positive associations between the rates of eating of the three different foods, and of these with live weight, but no effects of milk yield or stage of lactation, and no marked effects of climatic conditions could be detected.

4. The errors in the determination of mean rates of eating were such that observations made on 4–5 days gave satisfactory comparisons of individual rates of eating.

5. Reponses in milk yield to additional concentrates were positively correlated with milk yield, and no independent effects of stage of lactation could be detected. Responses by the heifers were less then those of cows giving similar yields.

6. Responses in solids-not-fat percentage were greatest in those cows with inherently low percentages.

7. There was no relationship between rates of eating roughage and responses of milk yield to additional concentrates, but live-weight responses and, to a lesser extent, solids-not-fat responses were negatively correlated with rates of eating in the cows. It was concluded that the level of feeding, system of management and the roughage:concentrate ratio used were such as to eliminate the effects of rates of eating roughage upon milk yields, if indeed such effects exist.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 24 , Issue 3 , October 1957 , pp. 296 - 315
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)Blaxter, K. L. & French, T. H. (1944). J. agric. Sci. 34, 217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2)Hesselbarth, K. (1954). Arch. Tierernahr. 4, 145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(3)Krüger, L. & Müller, W. (1955). Z. Tierz. Zuchtbiol. 64, 313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(4)Schein, M. W. & Forhman, M. H. (1955). Brit. J. Anim. Behav. 3, 45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(5)Snedecor, G. W. (1946). Statistical methods, 4th ed. Iowa State College Press: Ames, Iowa.Google ScholarPubMed
(6)Burt, A. W. A. (1957). Thesis. University of Reading.Google Scholar
(7)Krüger, L., Müller, W.Ginkel, E. & Schulze, G. (1955). Zuchtungskunde, 27, 143.Google Scholar
(8)Graves, R. R., Dawson, J. R., Kopland, D. V., Watt, A. C. & Van Horn, A. G. (1938). Tech. Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric. no. 610.Google Scholar
(9)MacLusky, D. S. (1955). Proc. Brit. Soc. Anim. Prod., p. 45.Google Scholar
(10)Cox, C. P., Foot, A. S., Hosking, Z. D., Line, C. & Rowland, S. J. (1956). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 11, 107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(11)Hancock, J. (1950). Emp. J. exp. Agric. 18, 249.Google Scholar
(12)Hancock, J. (1952). Proc. 6th int. Grassl. Congr. 1399.Google Scholar
(13)Hancock, J. (1953). Anim. Br. Abstr. 21, 1.Google Scholar
(14)Waite, R., MacDonald, W. B. & Holmes, W. (1951). J. agric. Sci. 41, 163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(15)Jensen, E., Klein, J. W., Rauchenstein, E., Woodward, T. E. & Smith, R. H. (1942). Tech. Bull. U.S. Dep. agric. no. 815.Google Scholar
(16)Dodsworth, T. H. & Campbell, W. H. M. (1952). Nature, lond., 170, 1128.Google Scholar
(17)MacLusky, D. S. (1956). Personal communication.Google Scholar
(18)Ragsdale, A. C., Worstell, D. M., Thompson, H. J. & Brody, S. (1950). Res. Bull. Mo. agric. Exp. Sta. no. 460.Google Scholar
(19)Woodward, T. E., Shepherd, J. B. & Graves, R. R. (1932). Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric. Misc. Publ. no. 130.Google Scholar
(20)Johnstone-Wallace, D. B. & Kennedy, K. (1944). J. agric. Sci. 34, 190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(21)Fuller, J. M. (1928). Tech. Bull. N. H. agric. Exp. Sta., no. 35.Google Scholar
(22)Castle, M. E., Foot, A. S. & Halley, R. J. (1950). J. Dairy Res. 17, 215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(23)Burt, A. W. A. (1957). J. Dairy Res. 24, 283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(24)Cooper, M. M. (1955). Dairy Sci. Abstr. 17, Cols. 267–84.Google Scholar
(25)Yates, F., Boyd, D. A. & Pettit, G. H. N. (1942). J. agric. Sci. 32, 428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar