Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T03:41:50.231Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of a low-protein ration on milk yield and plasma metabolites in Friesian heifers during early lactation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

J. D. Oldham ,
W. H. Broster ,
D. J. Napper  and
J. W. Siviter
J. D. Oldham
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading, RG2 9AT
W. H. Broster
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading, RG2 9AT
D. J. Napper
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading, RG2 9AT
J. W. Siviter
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading, RG2 9AT
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. Sixteen first-calf Friesian heifers were used in a continuous treatment design experiment. For 2 weeks after calving they were given a 750 g concentrate, 250 g hay/kg ration with 169 g crude protein (nitrogen × 6.25; CP)/kg dry matter (DM). They were then divided into two groups of eight and given a high-protein (223 g CP/kg DM) or low-protein (107 g CP/kg DM) ration at the rate of 10.8 kg concentrates+3.6 kg hay for 8 weeks.

2. Milk yield and composition, live weight and blood composition were monitored throughout. A digestibility trial was carried out with six animals on each treatment.

3. The low protein ration reduced DM, organic matter, energy and fibre digestibility significantly (P < 0.001) so that intakes of digestible energy were not equal and the low-protein group lost more weight than the high-protein group.

4. Milk yield and the fat content of milk were lower in heifers given the low-protein ration (P < 0.01). The lactose content of the milk was not affected and protein content only slightly reduced (P < 0.1) by low-protein feeding. When the heifers were all changed onto an adequate protein (190 g CP/kg DM) ration in mid-lactation, those which had previously been under-fed protein appeared to recover in milk yield to the point they might have been expected to reach if given an adequate-protein ration throughout.

5. Concentrations of urea (P < 0.001) and albumin (P < 0.05) were reduced by underfeeding protein, but albumin concentration was affected less by diet than by stage of lactation. Blood concentrations of total protein, glucose, sodium, potassium, calcium, inorganic phosphate, iron, copper, haemoglobin and packed cell volume were unaffected by treatment. Blood magnesium concentration was slightly lower (P < 0.1) with low-protein feeding.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , July 1979 , pp. 149 - 162
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1979

References

Agricultural Research Council (1965). The Nutrient Requirements of Farm Livestock, No. 2, Ruminants. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Balch, C. C. & Campling, R. C. (1962). Nutr. Abstr. Rev. 32, 669.Google Scholar
Broster, W. H., Broster, V. J. & Smith, T. (1969). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 72, 229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broster, W. H. & Oldham, J. D. (1977). In Nutrition and the Climatic Environment, pp. 123–53 [Haresign, W., Swan, H. and Lewis, D., editors]. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Broster, W. H., Sutton, J. D., Bines, J. A., Smith, T., Siviter, J. W. & Broster, V. J. (1977). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 36, 145A.Google Scholar
Broster, W. H., Tuck, V. J., Smith, T. & Johnson, V. W. (1969). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 72, 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruckental, I., Oldham, J. D. & Sutton, J. D. (1978). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 37, 107A.Google Scholar
Chandler, P. T., Brown, C. A., Johnston, R. P., MacLeod, G. K., McCarthy, R. D., Moss, B. R., Rakes, A. H. & Satter, L. D. (1976). J. Dairy Sci. 59, 1897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, J. H. (1975). J. Dairy Sci. 58, 1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drori, D. & Folman, Y. (1970). Proc. 18th int. Dairy Congr. p. 84.Google Scholar
Drori, D. & Folman, Y. (1973). Israeli-Swedish Seminar in Dairy Husbandry, Agricultural College, Sweden. Rep. no. 26.Google Scholar
Elsley, F. W. H. (1972). In Handbuch der Tierernährung, vol. 2, pp. 330–340. Hamburg: Paul Parey.Google Scholar
Glascock, R. F. & Welch, V. A. (1974). J. Dairy Sci. 57, 1364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, F. J. (1977). Anim. Prod. 25, 181.Google Scholar
Greenhalgh, J. F. D., Elsley, F. W. H., Grubb, D. A., Lightfoot, A. L., Saul, D. W., Smith, P., Walker, N., Williams, D. & Yeo, M. L. (1977). Anim. Prod. 24, 307.Google Scholar
Hassan, A. & Roussel, J. D. (1975). J. agric Sci., Camb. 85, 409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Little, W. (1974). Res. vet. Sci. 17, 193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oldham, J. D. (1978). In Ruminant Digestion and Feed Evaluation, chapter 13, pp. 1–14. [Osbourn, D. F., Beever, D. E. and Thomson, D. J., editors]. London: Agricultural Research Council.Google Scholar
Oldham, J. D., Broster, W. H. & Siviter, J. W. (1978). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 37, 44A.Google Scholar
Oldham, J. D., Hart, I. C. & Bines, J. A. (1978). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 37, 9A.Google Scholar
Oldham, J. D. & Sutton, J. D. (1979). In Feeding Strategy for the High Yielding Dairy Cow [Broster, W. H. and Swan, H., editors]. St Albans: Granada.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Fraser, C. & MacDonald, I. (1971). Br. J. Nutr. 25, 225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Grubb, D. A. & Kay, R. N. B. (1977). Br. J. Nutr. 38, 397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polan, C. W., Miller, C. N. & McGilliard, M. L. (1976). J. Dairy Sci. 59, 1910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rook, J. A. F. & Line, C. (1961). Br. J. Nutr. 15, 109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowlands, G. J., Little, W., Manston, R. & Dew, S. M. (1974). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 83, 27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, J. H. B., Balch, C. C., Miller, E. L., Ørskov, E. R., & Smith, R. H. (1977). In Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Protein metabolism and Nutrition, pp. 126–130. Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation, Wageningen.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. & Cochran, W. G. (1967). In Statistical Methods, 6th ed. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Sparrow, R. C., Heinken, R. W., Jacobson, D. R., Button, F. E. & Enlow, C. M. (1973). J. Dairy Sci. 56,664.Google Scholar
Stead, D. & Oldham, J. D. (1978). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 37 45A.Google Scholar
Sutton, J. D. (1976). In Principles of Cattle Production, pp. 121–143 [Swan, H. and Broster, W. H., editors]. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. W. (1971). J. Dairy Sci. 54, 1629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treacher, R. J., Little, W., Collis, K. A. & Stark, A. J. (1976). J. Dairy Res. 43, 357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Horn, H. H., Olaloku, E. A., Flores, J. R., Marshall, S. P. & Bachman, K. C. (1976). J. Dairy Sci. 59, 902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. & Wine, R. H. (1967). J. Ass. off. analyt. Chem. 50, 50.Google Scholar
Wood, P. D. P. (1977). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 88, 333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, J. A., Rook, J. A. F. & Wood, P. D. P. (1974). J. Dairy Res. 41, 155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar