Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T22:37:01.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of root feeding on the intake and production of dairy cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

M. E. Castle ,
A. D. Drysdale  and
R. Waite
M. E. Castle
Affiliation:
The Hannah Dairy Research Institute, Kirkhill, Ayr
A. D. Drysdale
Affiliation:
The Hannah Dairy Research Institute, Kirkhill, Ayr
R. Waite
Affiliation:
The Hannah Dairy Research Institute, Kirkhill, Ayr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Since grassland conservation crops are normally bulky fibrous feeds and often limit the appetite and nutrient intake of dairy cows, a feeding trial was made in which a basal ration of hay and grass silage was compared with similar rations containing roots. Three rations were compared in a 12–week winter feeding trial using twelve Ayrshire cows. Ration A consisted of 8 lb of hay and 65 lb of grass silage daily, whilst rations B and C contained 30 and 60 lb of fodder-beet, respectively, in addition. With all three rations concentrates were given at 3½ lb per 10 lb of milk. The total weights of dry matter consumed per day were 29·1, 32·5 and 35·4 lb, respectively, for rations A, B and C and were significantly different. For every 1 lb of additional fodder-beet dry matter eaten the decline in the amount of basal feeds consumed was 0·45 lb. The largest effect was on the silage which fell from 10·8 lb of silage dry matter per day for ration A to 8·8 lb for ration B and 6·8 lb for ration C.

The weight of starch equivalent (S.E.) given per day increased significantly from 18·1 lb for treatment A to 22·2 lb for treatment C, whilst at the same time the total weight of crude fibre and lignin eaten decreased significantly in the rations containing fodder-beet.

The mean daily milk yields for rations A, B and C were 37·4, 39·2 and 38·5 lb, respectively, with a response of 0·9 lb milk per 1 lb of extra S.E. given between rations A and B but no further response between rations B and C. The fat percentages of the milk were not significantly different for the three rations whereas the solidsnot-fat (S.N.F.) varied significantly from 8·58% for ration A to 8·77% for ration C— a response of 0·05% S.N.F. for each additional 1 lb of S.E. The change in the S.N.F. was mainly in the protein fraction of the milk. The cows were significantly heavier when on ration C than when on ration A.

The effect of feeding roots on the appetite of the cow and on the resulting milk quality, and the problems of growing roots on intensively managed grassland farms are briefly discussed.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , February 1961 , pp. 67 - 74
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1961

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

Blackburn, P. S., Laing, Constance & Malcolm, J. F. (1955). J. Dairy Res. 22, 37.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. (1944). J. agric. Sci. 34, 22.Google Scholar
Caine, S. (1958). Rep. of the Committee on Grassland Utilization. Cmnd. 547, p. 10. London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
Castle, M. E., Foot, A. S. & Rowland, S. J. (1952 a). Emp. J. exp. Agric. 20, 1.Google Scholar
Castle, M. E., Foot, A. S. & Rowland, S. J. (1952 b). Emp. J. exp. Agric. 20, 316.Google Scholar
Castle, M. E., MacLusky, D. S., Waite, R. & Watson, J. N. (1958). J. Dairy Res. 25, 365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, R. A. (1957). Proc. Conf. Agriculture in the British Economy, p. 159. London: Imperial Chemical Industries.Google Scholar
Hendrie, D. S. (1958). Rep. and Proc., 12th Oxford Farming Conf. p. 19.Google Scholar
Holmes, W., Waite, R., MacLusky, D. S. & Watson, J. N. (1956). J. Dairy Res. 23, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, W., Reid, D., MacLusky, D. S., Waite, R. & Watson, J. N. (1957). J. Dairy Res. 24, 1.Google Scholar
Lucas, H. L. (1943). J. Dairy Sci. 26, 1011.Google Scholar
McDonald, P. & Purves, D. (1956). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 7, 189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moon, F. E. (1954). J. agric. Sci. 44, 140.Google Scholar
Pearson, R. M. & Smith, J. A. B. (1943). Biochem. J. 37, 153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, D. & Holmes, W. (1956). J. Dairy Res. 23, 159.Google Scholar
Waite, R. (1961). J. Dairy Res. 28, 75.Google Scholar
Waite, R., White, J. C. D. & Robertson, A. (1956). J. Dairy Res. 23, 65.Google Scholar
Woodman, H. E. (1954). Bull. Minist. Agric., Lond., no. 48.Google Scholar