Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vsgnj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T00:44:51.827Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of the inclusion of a live yeast culture into mixed forage diets on milk yield, locomotion score, lameness and sole bruising in first lactation Holstein Friesian dairy cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 November 2017

L. A. Lethbridge  and
J. K. Margerison
L. A. Lethbridge
Affiliation:
Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand
J. K. Margerison*
Affiliation:
Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand
*
Email:j.margerison@massey.ac.nz
Get access

Extract

Yeast has been used as a means of manipulating rumen fermentation to improve production performance because of the effect on stimulating cellulolytic mico-organisms in the rumen that increase fibre digestion, alter acetate to propionate ratios and increase microbial protein flow to the duodenum (Wallace and Newbold, 1992). Williams et al. (1991) found that animals offered high energy diets had decreased rumen lactic acid concentrations, which is associated with higher rumen pH and characteristic of more stable rumen fermentation. Low rumen pH has been associated with poorer hoof quality (Westwood et al., 2003). This research aimed to assess the effect of the inclusion of live yeast in total mixed rations on milk yield, lameness, sole bruising and hoof characteristics.

Type
Theatre Presentations
Information
Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science , Volume 2008 , 2008 , pp. 117
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

Boelling, D., and Pollott, G.E. 1998. Livestock Production Science 54: 193–203.Google Scholar
Clark, A.K., and Rakes, A.H. 1982. Journal of Dairy Science 65: 1493–1502.Google Scholar
Leach, K.A., Logue, D.N., Randall, J.M., and Kempson, S.A. 1998. The Veterinary Journal 155: 91–102.Google Scholar
Tranter, W.P. and Morris, R.S. (1991). New Zealand Veterinary Journal, 39: (2): 53–57.Google Scholar
WalIace, R.J., and Newbold, C.J. 1992. Probiotics. (ed. Fuller, R.). London, Chapman and Hall, 3 17–353.Google Scholar
Westwood, C. T., Bramley, E., and Lean, I. J.. 2003. N.Z. Vet. J. 51:208–218.Google Scholar
Williams, P.E.V., Tait, C.A.G., Innes, G.M., and Newbold, C.J. 1991. Journal Animal Science. 69: 3016.Google Scholar