Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-mx8w7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-01T17:17:17.510Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rationale of feeding systems for lactating dairy cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

C. Lewis Johnson  and
C. Lang Tran
C. Lewis Johnson
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Physiology and Nutrition, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK
C. Lang Tran
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Physiology and Nutrition, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Manipulations of the lactation cycle are achieved through nutritional regimens and generally result in a restriction of the physiological lactation cycle. Most models of lactation used in management programmes only describe the average time course of lactation for groups of cows on a given feeding regimen. This is inadequate for the variety of feeding systems in use on British farms. In the present paper several existing models of lactation have been critically evaluated. An integral equation approach has been developed to rationalize experimental observations and currently accepted biological concepts.

Information

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 57 , Issue 2 , May 1990 , pp. 151 - 164
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1990

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

Bines, J. A., Suzuki, S. & Balch, C. C. 1969 The quantitative significance of long-term regulation of food intake in the cow. British Journal of Nutrition 23 695–704CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blaxter, K. L. 1956 Starch equivalents, ration standards and milk production. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Production pp. 3–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. & Ruben, H. 1954 Second Interim Report of the Efficiency Project (Dairy Coins). London: Agricultural Research Council (Report no. 628/54)Google Scholar
Broster, W. H. & Broster, V. J. 1984 Reviews of the progress of dairy science. Long term effects of plane of nutrition on the performance of the dairy cow. Journal of Dairy Research 51, 149–196CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cobby, J. M. & Le Du, Y. L. P. 1978 On fitting curves to lactation data. Animal Production 26, 127–133Google Scholar
Gaines, W. L. 1927 Persistency of lactation in dairy cows. A preliminary study of certain Guernsey and Holstein records. Illinois Agricultural Experimental Station Bulletin no. 288Google Scholar
Garnsworthy, P. C. & Topps, J. H. 1982 The effect of body condition of dairy cows at calving on their food intake and performance when given complete diets. Animal Production 35 113–119Google Scholar
Gooch, M. 1935 An analysis of the time change in milk production in individual lactations. Journal of Agricultural Science 25 71–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leigh, J. R. 1983 Modelling and Simulation. London: Institute of Electrical Engineers (Topics in Control, series 1. pp. 95)Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 1984 Energy allowances and feeding systems for ruminants. London: HMSO (MAFF Reference Book no. 433)Google Scholar
Monteiro, L. S. 1972 The control of appetite in lactating cows. Animal Production 14 263–281Google Scholar
Parks, J. R. 1982 A Theory of Feeding and Growth of Animals. Berlin: Springer-VerlagCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaeffer, L. R., Minder, C. E., McMillan, I. & Burnside, E. B. 1977 Nonlinear techniques for predicting 305-day lactation production of Holsteins and Jerseys. Journal of Dairy Science 60 1636–1644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, P. D. P. 1967 Algebraic model of the lactation curve in cattle. Nature 216 164–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, P. D. P. 1979 A simple model of lactation curves for milk yield, food requirement and body weight. Animal Production 28 55–63Google Scholar