Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-pfhbr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T19:53:58.155Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bulk feeds for milk Production: I. The influence of level of concentrate feeding in addition to silage and hay on milk yield and milk composition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

W. Holmes
Affiliation:
Wye College, (University of London), Ashford, Kent
G. W. Arnold
Affiliation:
Wye College, (University of London), Ashford, Kent
A. L. Provan
Affiliation:
Milk Marketing Board, Thames Ditton, Surrey

Summary

Two experiments were carried out, Expt. 1 with twelve cows in a 4×4 Latin square and Expt. 2 with twenty-six cows in two groups which spent 11 weeks on the experimental rations. In both experiments hay and silage were fed ad lib. In Expt. 1 four levels of concentrate feeding were offered, 1¼, 2½, 3¾ and 5 lb/gal, and in Expt. 2 two levels, 1¼and 5 lb/gal. The levels of feeding as a percentage of Woodman's standards for starch equivalent (S.E.) ranged from 82 to 125% in Expt. 1 and from 83 to 116% in Expt. 2; for digestible crude protein (D.C.P.) the corresponding figures were 70–100% and 105–107%. When concentrate consumption increased by 1 lb dry matter the consumption of bulk feeds was reduced by 0·18–0·22 lb dry matter but the total fibre intake remained constant. Milk yield showed small but significant responses to level of feeding. Average responses per 1 lb S.E. were 0·77 lb milk in Expt. 1 and 0·61 lb milk in Expt. 2. Total lactation yields of the cows in Expt. 2 were unaffected by the experimental treatments. The production S.E. fed per gallon of milk ranged from 1·71 to 3·72 lb in Expt. 1 and from 1·92 to 3·27 lb in Expt 2. Production D.C.P. ranged from 0·37 to 0·63 lb and from 0·67 to 0·70 lb, respectively.

High levels of feeding increased the S.N.F. and protein contents of the milk but did not affect other constituents. The responses in S.N.F. were lower than in some other experiments and some cows showed no response. The results are discussed with reference to the experimental methods and also with reference to the yield responses compared with published data, and to the practical importance of the high production obtained with low usage of concentrate feeds.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1960

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

Axellson, J. (1949). Proc. 5th Int. Grassl. Cong. Netherland, p. 266.Google Scholar
British Standards Institution (1951). B.S. 1741. Methods for the chemical analysis of liquid milk.Google Scholar
British Standards Institution (1955). B.S. 696. Gerber method for the determination of fat in milk and milk products.Google Scholar
Burt, A. W. A. (1957). Dairy Sci. Abstr. 19, 434.Google Scholar
Cochran, W. G., Autrey, K. M. & Cannon, C. Y. (1941). J. Dairy Sci. 24, 937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, W. L. (1932). Analyst, 57, 79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, N. D. (1954). Netherlands J. agric. Sci. 2, 273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fertilizer and Feeding-stuff Regulations (1955). Pamphlet no. 1673. London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
Hinton, C. L. & Macara, T. (1927). Analyst, 52, 668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, W., Waite, R., MacLusky, D. S. & Watson, J. N. (1956). J. Dairy Res. 23, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, W., Reid, D., MacLusky, D. S., Waite, R. & Watson, J. N. (1957). J. Dairy Res. 24, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, H. L. (1943). J. Dairy Sci. 26, 1011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordfeldt, S., Iwanaga, I., Morita, K., Henke, L. A. & Tom, K. S. (1950). J. Dairy Sci. 33, 473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, F. J. N. (1953). J. clin. Path. 6, 286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ragsdale, A. C., Thompson, H. J., Worstell, D. M. & Brody, S. (1950). Bull. 460 Mo. agric. Exp. Sta.Google Scholar
Reid, D. & Holmes, W. (1956). J. Dairy Res. 23, 159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rockstein, M. & Herron, P. W. (1951). Anal. Chem. 23, 1500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowland, S. J. (1938). J. Dairy Res. 9, 42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowland, S. J. (1946). Dairy Ind. 11, 656.Google Scholar
Waite, R., White, J. C. D. & Robertson, A. (1956). J. Dairy Res. 23, 65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, S. J. (1939). The Science and Practice of Conservation—Grass and Forage Crops, II. London: Fertilizer and Feedingstuffs Journal.Google Scholar
Woodman, H. E. (1954). Bull. Minist. Agric., Lond., no. 48.Google Scholar
Yates, F., Boyd, D. A. & Pettitt, G. H. N. (1942). J. agric. Sci. 32, 428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar