Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-swr86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T14:25:17.558Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Experiments on the use of home-grown foods for milk production. V. The protein requirements of growing dairy heifers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

K. L. Blaxter  and
H. A. Price
K. L. Blaxter
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, University of Reading
H. A. Price
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, University of Reading
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The changes which have occurred in the nutrition of young dairy stock are discussed. It is emphasized that any food shortage of a farm affects young cattle before the rations of the cows are reduced.

2. An estimate of minimum protein level is developed using Mitchell's (1926) method.

3. An experiment designed to show the optimal level of protein in the ration for growing stock showed a difference between this minimum estimate and the optimal. Some considerable economy in protein can, however, be effected in Wood & Woodman's (1936) standard is the one normally used to calculate rations.

4. The growth of young cattle on protein supplemented wartime dietaries of straw is shown to be below that of heifers fed the rations more normal in peace time.

5. Stunted cattle undergrown by 7–8 months when 18 months to 2 years old have been found. This has been attributed to the effects of wartime rations.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 36 , Issue 4 , October 1946 , pp. 301 - 309
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1946

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

Armsby, S. P. (1917). The Nutrition of Farm Animals. New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartlett, S. & Cotton, A. G. (1938). J. Dairy Res. 9, 263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartlett, S. & Jameson, J. L. (1932). J. Dairy Res. 3, 310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. (1944). J. Agric. Sci. 34, 213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brody, S. (1926). J. Gen. Physiol. 8, 233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brody, S., Sparrow, C. D. & Kibler, H. H. (1926). J. Gen. Physiol. 9, 285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, J. C. B. (1937). Feeding of Farm Livestock. London: Crosby, Lockwood and Son, Ltd.Google Scholar
Harris, L. E. & Mitchell, H. H. (1941). J. Nutrit. 22, 167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, H. H. (1926). Bull. Nat. Res. Coun., Wash., no. 55.Google Scholar
Mitchell, H. H. (1929). Bull. Nat. Res. Coun., Wash., no. 67.Google Scholar
Morrison, F. B. (1937). Feeds and Feeding. Madison, Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Moulton, C. R., Trowbridge, P. F. & Haigh, L. D. (1923). Res. Bull. Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 55.Google Scholar
Murray, C. A., Romyn, A. E., Haylett, D. G. & Erichsen, F. (1936). Bull. Minist. Agric. S. Rhodesia, no. 989.Google Scholar
Swanson, E. W. & Herman, H. A. (1943). Res. Bull. Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 372.Google Scholar
Wood, T. B. & Woodman, H. E. (1936). Bull. Minist. Agric. no. 48.Google Scholar
Woodman, H. E. (1942). Personal communication.Google Scholar