Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T20:43:30.832Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Predicting bovine milk urea concentration for future test-day records in a management perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 November 2017

C Bastin*
Affiliation:
Gembloux Agricultural University, Gembloux, Belgium
L Laloux
Affiliation:
Walloon Breeding Association, Ciney, Belgium
C Bertozzi
Affiliation:
Walloon Breeding Association, Ciney, Belgium
N Gengler
Affiliation:
Gembloux Agricultural University, Gembloux, Belgium
Get access

Extract

Urea is the major contributor to nonprotein nitrogen fraction of milk which represents 5 to 6% of the total nitrogen in milk. Milk urea (MU) nitrogen is closely related to blood urea nitrogen which is derived from at least two sources: the liver detoxification of ammonia diffused from the rumen and the amino acid catabolism in the liver (Depeters and Ferguson, 1992). Thereby, MU concentration could reflect the protein metabolism in the cow and be related to the diet. Several studies showed significant links between MU concentration and nutritional variables (mostly dietary crude protein and energy:protein ratio) or environmental factors (e.g. season or stage of lactation) (Broderick and Clayton, 1997; Schepers and Meijer, 1998; Godden et al., 2000). MU has proved to be an interesting management tool for breeders (Jonker et al., 2001). The aim of our research is to provide feed management tools to Walloon dairy farmers based on the detection of ‘abnormal’ values. To develop such a tool, MU concentrations need to be predicted for future test days. Given the nature of MU, this presents a special challenge and this study will show first results obtained when testing two different models.

Type
Theatre Presentations
Copyright
Copyright © The British Society of Animal Science 2008

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

Broderick, G.A. and Clayton, M.K. 1997. J. Dairy Sci. 80:2964–2971.Google Scholar
DePeters, E.J. and Fergusson, J.D. 1992. J. Dairy Sci. 75:3192–3209.Google Scholar
Godden, S.M., Lissemore, K.D., Kelton, D.F., Leslie, K.E., Walton, J.S. and Lumsden, J.H. 2001. J. Dairy Sci. 84:107–114.Google Scholar
Jonker, J.S., Kohn, R.A. and High, J. 2002. J. Dairy Sci. 85:939–946.Google Scholar
Misztal, I. 2007. BLUPF90 family programs. University of Georgia. http://nce.ads.uga.edu/~ignacy/numpub/blupf90/.Google Scholar
Schepers, A.J. and Meijer, R.G.M. 1998. J. Dairy Sci. 81:579–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wade, K.M. and Quaas, R.L. 1993. J. Dairy Sci. 76:3026–3032.Google Scholar