Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-mwx4w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-19T13:39:28.641Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of milking throughout the whole of pregnancy on the composition of cow's milk

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

J. V. Wheelock ,
J. A. F. Rook  and
F. H. Dodd
J. V. Wheelock
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading
J. A. F. Rook
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading
F. H. Dodd
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The changes in yield and composition of milk when 4 cows were milked throughout the whole of pregnancy have been studied. The yield decreased to a minimum 1–20 days before parturition and then gradually increased. The changes in composition before parturition were similar to those observed in late lactation but more pronounced. The content of proteose-peptone plus globulin increased in late pregnancy with a sharp peak, of about 5 times the value observed in mid-lactation, within the last 10 days before parturition, and then decreased rapidly. After parturition milk yield increased rapidly and the changes in composition were less marked than in animals with the usual ‘dry period’. The results are discussed in relation to current knowledge of colostrum formation.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 32 , Issue 3 , October 1965 , pp. 249 - 254
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1965

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

Aschaffenburg, R. & Drewry, J. (1959). 15th Int. Dairy Congr. 3, 1631.Google Scholar
Barry, J. M. & Rowland, S. J. (1953). Biochem. J. 54, 575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benson, G. K. & Folley, S. J. (1957). J. Endocrin. 16, 189.Google Scholar
Crossman, J. V., Dodd, F. H., Lee, J. M. & Neave, F. K. (1950). J. Dairy Res. 17, 128.Google Scholar
Eckles, C. H. & Palmer, L. S. (1916). J. biol. Chem. 27, 313.Google Scholar
Rook, J. A. F. & Campling, R. C. (1965). J. Dairy Res. 32, 45.Google Scholar
Rowland, S. J., Roy, J. H. B., Sears, H. J. & Thompson, S. Y. (1953). J. Dairy Res. 20, 16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selye, H. (1934). Am. J. Physiol. 107, 535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, C. W. (1946). Bovine Mastitis: A Symposium, 1sted., p. 94 (eds. Little, R. B. & Plastridge, W. M.). New York & London: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Walsh, J. P. & Rook, J. A. F. (1964). Nature, Lond., 204, 353Google Scholar
Wheelock, J. V., Rook, J. A. F. & Dodd, F. H. (1965 a). J. Dairy Res. 32, 79.Google Scholar
Wheelock, J. V., Rook, J. A. F. & Dodd, F. H. (1965 a). J. Dairy Res. 32, 237.Google Scholar
Ussing, H. H. (1960). In Handbuch der experimentellen Pharmakologie, p. 60 (eds. Eichler, O. & Farah, A.). Berlin, Göttingen, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar