Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-npwhs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-02T22:42:40.773Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of a low-protein food supplement on the yield and composition of milk from grazing dairy cows and on the composition of their diet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. L. Corbett  and
A. W. Boyne
J. L. Corbett
Affiliation:
The Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeenshire
A. W. Boyne
Affiliation:
The Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeenshire
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Dried molassed sugar-beet pulp was fed to dairy cows grazing abundant intensively managed pastures in two trials (spring and autumn), each of 8 weeks' duration. A change-over design (four 14-day periods) with twenty-four cows was employed in each trial. Apart from six changes for the autumn trial, the same cows were used throughout.

2. In the spring trial (May–July) 8 lb. beet pulp were fed daily. The herbage dry matter consumed contained, on average, 16·8% crude protein, and the general mean milk yield was 38 lb./cow/day. The milk yield of the supplemented cows was 1·3 lb. (3·7%) greater than that of the control animals (P < 0·05).

3. In the autumn trial (August–October) 10 lb. beet pulp were fed daily. The herbage dry matter consumed contained 23·8% crude protein and the general mean milk yield was 27 lb./cow/day. The milk yield of the supplemented cows was 2·9 lb. (11·3%) greater than that of the control animals (P < 0·001).

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 51 , Issue 1 , August 1958 , pp. 95 - 107
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1958

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Alder, F. E., Head, M. J. & Berting, J. F. R. (1956). Proc. Brit. Soc. Anim. Prod. no. 79.Google Scholar
A.O.A.C. (1950). Official Methods of Analysis, 7th ed.Google Scholar
Arni, P. C. (1953). Personal communication.Google Scholar
British Standards Institution (1936). Specification no. 696, part 2.Google Scholar
Brody, S. (1945). Bioenergetics and Growth. NewYork: Reinhold Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
Chalmers, M. I. & Synge, R. L. M. (1954). Advanc. Protein Chem. 9, 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, M. M. (1952). Agric. Progr. 27, 31.Google Scholar
Cooper, M. M. (1955). Dairy Sci. Abstr. 17, 267.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, N. D. (1954). Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 2, 273.Google Scholar
Doak, B. W. (1939–1940). N.Z. J. Sci. Tech. B, 21, 90.Google Scholar
Frens, A. M. & Bosch, S. (1950). Ned. melk- en Zuiveltijdschr. 4, 288.Google Scholar
Godden, W. (1937). Tech. Commun. Bur. Anim. Nutr., Aberd., no. 9.Google Scholar
Hancock, J. (1950). Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 18, 249.Google Scholar
Hancock, J. (1953). N.Z. J. Sci. Tech. A, 35, 67.Google Scholar
Head, M. J. & Rook, J. A. F. (1955). Nature, Lond., 176, 262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoflund, S. & Hedstrom, H. (1948). Cornell Vet. 38, 405.Google Scholar
Holmes, W., Waite, R., MacLusky, D. S. & Watson, J. N. (1956). J. Dairy Res. 23, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ling, E. R. (1948). Textbook of Dairy Chemistry. London: Chapman and Hall Ltd.Google Scholar
McDowell, A. K. R. (1941). J. Dairy Res. 12, 131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacLusky, D. S. (1955). Proc. Brit. Soc. Anim. Prod. no. 45.Google Scholar
Milk Marketing Board (1954). Rep. Prod. Div. 5, 94.Google Scholar
Munro, H. N. (1951). Physiol. Rev. 31, 449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
New Zealand Department of Agriculture (1956). Ann. Rep. Director General for year ended 31 March, 1956.Google Scholar
Nordfeldt, S. & Hansson, L. (1957). K. Lantbrukshögsk. Stat. Lanthruksförs. Medd. 63.Google Scholar
Overman, O. R. & Gaines, W. L. (1933). J. Agric. Res. 46, 1109.Google Scholar
Paterson, R. (1954). Fmrs' Wkly, 40 (9), 78.Google Scholar
Richards, M. B. & Godden, W. (1924). Analyst, 49, 565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riddet, W., Campbell, I. L., McDowall, F. H. & Cox, G. A. (1941). N.Z. J. Sci. Tech. A, 23, 80.Google Scholar
Riddet, W. & Campbell, I. L. (1943). Proc. N.Z. Soc. Anim. Prod. 3, 86.Google Scholar
Rowland, S. J. (1946). Dairy Industr. 11, 656.Google Scholar
Sjollema, B. (1950). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 5, 179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Somogyi, M. (1945). J. Biol. Chem. 160, 61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, J. F. (1957). Diss. Abstr. 17, 936.Google Scholar
't Hart, M. L. (1956). Proc. 1th Int. Grassl. Congr. (N.Z.).Google Scholar
Tribe, D. E. (1950). Nature, Lond., 166, 74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waite, R. & Boyd, J. (1953). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 4, 197, 257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witt, M. (1952). Seen in Dairy Sci. Abstr. 16, 187.Google Scholar
Woodman, H. E. (1954). Bull. Minist. Agric, Lond., no. 48. London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar