Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T17:04:55.611Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of the responses of dairy cows with high and low milk yield potential to the application of sodium fertilizer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2017

C.J.C. Phillips  and
P.C. Chiy
C.J.C. Phillips
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 0ES, U.K.
P.C. Chiy
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 0ES, U.K.
Get access

Extract

Tabulated sodium requirements of dairy cows, such as those of the Agricultural Research Council (ARC, 1980), are all based on milk yield. The principle for this is the apparent homeostatic control of sodium concentration in the milk of cattle, with sodium loss in milk being approximately proportional to milk yield. However, there is evidence that low yielding cows respond more than high-yielding cows to a sodium supplement when grazing lucerne with a low sodium content (Joyce and Brunswick, 1975), and the present study therefore investigated the effect of dairy cow milk yield potential on the response to the application of a fertilizer containing sodium.

Type
Poster Presentations
Information
Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science , Volume 2000 , 2000 , pp. 86
Copyright
Copyright © The British Society of Animal Science 2000

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

Agricultural Research Council (ARC) (1980). Nutrient Requirements of Ruminant Livestock. Farnham Royal, Bucks: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
Joyce, J.P. and Brunswick, L.C.F. (1975). Sodium supplementation of sheep and cattle fed lucerne. New Zealand Journal of Experimental Agriculture 3: 299–304.Google Scholar