Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-02T00:10:00.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The herbage intake and milk production of strip- and zero-grazed dairy cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. F. D. Greenhalgh  and
K. V. Runcie
J. F. D. Greenhalgh
Affiliation:
Edinburgh School of Agriculture, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, 9
K. V. Runcie
Affiliation:
Edinburgh School of Agriculture, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, 9
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. A group of four Ayrshire and four Friesian cows was strip grazed on a cocksfoot-dominant sward while a second, similar group was zero grazed on herbage cut from the same field. The experiment consisted of five 10-day periods, two in the spring and three in the summer.

2. The intakes of all cows were calculated from values for faeces output, estimated by using chromic oxide, and for herbage digestibility, estimated from faeces nitrogen. The regressions used for predicting digestibility were determined with the zero-grazed cows, digestibility coefficients being calculated from measured intake and estimated faeces output values.

3. Over the whole experiment there was no difference between treatments in milk yield, herbage digestibility or intake. The solids-not-fat content of the milk of strip-grazed cows was significantly higher than for zero-grazed cows.

4. In both spring and summer the increasing maturity of the herbage caused declines from one period to the next in herbage digestibility and intake, and there were declines also in milk yield and solids-not-fat content. The declines were greater for the zero-grazed cows, apparently because they, unlike the strip-grazed animals, were unable to select the more digestible and palatable components of mature herbage. The effects of selective grazing on digestibility, however, were evidently small, for the difference in between the treatment groups was never greater than one unit.

5. The estimated energy intakes of both treatment groups corresponded quite well with their theoretical requirements of energy for maintenance, milk production and live-weight gain, and there was no evidence of the energy cost of free grazing being appreciably greater than that of zero grazing.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 59 , Issue 1 , August 1962 , pp. 95 - 103
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1962

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

Arnon, I. (1960). Int. Grassld Congr. VIII, Reading, U.K., p. 648.Google Scholar
Baker, T. A., Richards, C. R., Haenlein, G. F. W. & Weaver, H. G. (1960). J. Dairy Sci. 43, 958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. (1959). In Scientific Principles of Feeding Farm Live Stock. London: Farmer and Stock Breeder Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L., Wainman, F. W. & Wilson, R. S. (1961). Anim. Prod. 3, 51.Google Scholar
Burt, A. W. A. (1957). J. Dairy Res. 24, 283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christian, K. R. & Coup, M. R. (1954). N. Z. J. Sci. Tech. A, 36, 328.Google Scholar
Corbett, J. L., Greenhalgh, J. F. D., McDonald, I. & Florence, E. (1960). Brit. J. Nutr. 14, 289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, J. L., Langlands, J. P. & Boyne, A. W. (1961). Int. Congr. Anim. Prod. VIII, Hamburg, p. 193.Google Scholar
Evans, R. E. (1960). Bull. Minist. Agric., Lond., no. 48. London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
Flux, D. S. & Patchell, M. R. (1954). J. Agric. Sci. 45, 246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, C. H., Hunt, O. J., Mowry, G. R. & Harvey, W. R. (1959). J. Dairy Sci. 42, 1686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenhalgh, J. F. D. & Corbett, J. L. (1960). J. Agric. Sci. 55, 371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenhalgh, J. F. D., Corbett, J. L. & McDonald, I. (1960). J. Agric. Sci. 55, 377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardison, W. A., Reid, J. T., Martin, C. M. & Woolfolk, P. G. (1954). J. Dairy Sci. 37, 89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huffman, C. F. (1959). J. Dairy Sci. 42, 1495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, J. L., Meyer, J. H., Lofgreen, G. P. & Strother, A. (1957). J. Anim. Sci. 16, 757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, W. K., Reid, J. T., Anderson, M., Wilcox, J. C. & Davenport, D. G. (1960). Int. Grassld Congr. VIII, Reading, U.K., p. 640.Google Scholar
Kromann, R. P., Meyer, J. H. & Hull, J. L. (1961). J. Anim. Sci. 20, 450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lofgreen, G. P., Meyer, J. H. & Peterson, M. L. (1956). J. Anim. Sci. 15, 1158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, J. H., Lofgreen, G. P. & Hull, J. L. (1957). J. Anim. Sci. 16, 766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, J. T., Smith, A. M. & Anderson, M. J. (1958). Proc. Cornell Nutr. Conf. Feed Manuf. p. 88.Google Scholar
Rorholm, N. & Montville, F. E. (1958). Bull. Rhode Island Agric. Expt. Sta. no. 341.Google Scholar
Runcie, K. V. (1960). Int. Grassld Congr. VIII, Reading, U.K., p. 644.Google Scholar
Smith, E. P. & Keyes, E. A. (1959). J. Dairy Sci. 42, 137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, E. J. (1959). J. Dairy Sci. 42, 885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, L. R. (1956). Int. Grassld Congr. VII, Palmerston North, N.Z., p. 134.Google Scholar
Wallace, L. R. (1959). Int. Dairy Congr. XV, London, p. 196.Google Scholar
Watson, S. J. & Runcie, K. V. (1960). Outlook Agric. 2, 264.Google Scholar