Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-7x8lp Total loading time: 0.514 Render date: 2021-03-06T04:56:46.542Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Comparison of lactational responses of dairy cows in Georgia and Israel to heat load and photoperiod

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

Y. Aharoni
Affiliation:
Department of Beef Cattle, Agricultural Research Organization, Newe Yaar Research Center, PO Box 1021, Ramat Yishay 30095, Israel
O. Ravagnolo
Affiliation:
Animal and Dairy Science Department, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30605, USA
I. Misztal
Affiliation:
Animal and Dairy Science Department, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30605, USA
Corresponding
E-mail address:
Get access

Abstract

The seasonal effects of heat load and photoperiod on yield and composition of milk from primiparous cows in the course of lactation were studied using test day records from 8968 primiparous cows on 76 farms in Georgia, collected from 1990 through 1997. The effect of prepartum photoperiod on milk production in the subsequent lactation of these cows was also evaluated. These estimated seasonal effects were compared with those estimated for 4728 primiparous cows on 13 farms, and for 1538 multiparous cows on three farms during consecutive lactations in Israel from 1994 through 1996. During lactation, the day length had a positive effect on milk yield and negative effects on fat and protein concentrations in the milk, but the daily change in day length had positive effects on milk yield and fat concentration, and a smaller positive effect on protein concentration. The day length during the prepartum period had negative effects on milk yield and fat and protein concentrations. The heat load during lactation had negative effects on milk yield and fat and protein concentrations. Most of the effects were highly (P < 0·001) significant. There was a very good match between the results obtained for primiparous cows in Georgia and Israel, for the combined effects of heat load and photoperiod during lactation on milk yield and protein and fat concentrations. The match between primiparous and multiparous cows in Israel was better for milk yield and protein concentration than for fat concentration. The estimated effects of pre-partum photoperiod were higher for multiparous cows in Israel than for primiparous cows in either country.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Aharoni, Y., Brosh, A. and Ezra, E. 1999. Effects of heat load and photoperiod on milk yield and composition in three dairy herds in Israel. Animal Science 69: 3747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aharoni, Y., Brosh, A. and Ezra, E. 2000. Short communication: prepartum photoperiod effect on milk yield and composition in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 83: 27792781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aharoni, Y., Brosh, A. and Holzer, Z. 1997. Photoperiodic effect on live-weight gain of bull calves. Animal Science 65: 165171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barash, H., Silanikove, N. and Weller, J. I. 1996. Effect of season of birth on milk, fat, and protein production of Israeli Holsteins. Journal of Dairy Science 79: 10161020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bilodeau, P. P., Petitclerc, D., St-Pierre, N., Pelletier, G. and St-Laurent, G. J. 1989. Effects of photoperiod and pairfeeding on lactation of cows fed corn or barley grain in total mixed rations. Journal of Dairy Science 72: 29993005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, G. E., Buchanan, B. A. and Tucker, H. A. 2000. Photoperiodic effects on dairy cattle: a review. Journal of Dairy Science 83: 885893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, G. E., Elsasser, T. H., Capuco, A. V., Erdman, R. E. and Peters, R. R. 1997. Effects of a long daily photoperiod on milk yield and circulating concentrations of insulin-like growth factor-I. Journal of Dairy Science 80: 27842789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, M. and Bergström, P. L. 1989. [The effect of increased day length in winter on the growth of beef bulls.] Report no. B-337: 34. Instituut-voor-Veeteeltkundig -Onderzoek-Schoonoord. Google Scholar
Guertin, G., Lachance, B., Pelletier, G., St-Laurent, G.J, Roy, D. L. and Petitclerc, D. 1995. Effects of photoperiod and feeding whole maize, whole barley, or rolled barley on growth performance and diet digestibility in veal calves. Livestock Production Science 44: 2736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Her, E., Wolfenson, D., Flemenbaum, I., Folman, Y., Kaim, M. and Berman, A. 1988. Thermal, productive, and reproductive responses of high yielding cows exposed to short-term cooling in summer. Journal of Dairy Science 71: 10851092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kashiwamura, F., Furumura, K., Iketaki, T., Shinde, Y., Aotani, H., Suda, T. and Sato, F. 1991. Relationship between photoperiod and seasonality of milk production in dairy cattle. Animal Feed Science and Technology 62: 11561158.Google Scholar
Lawes Agricultural Trust. 1995. Genstat 5 release 3·2. Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden.Google Scholar
Miller, A. R. E., Erdman, R. A., Douglass, L. E. and Dahl, G. E. 2000. Effects of photoperiod manipulation during the dry period on dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 83: 962967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moody, E.G., Van Soest, P. J., McDowell, R. E. and Ford, G. L. 1968. Effects of high temperature and dietary fat on performance of lactating cows. Journal of Dairy Science 50: 19091916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mossberg, I. and Jönsson, H. 1996. The influence of day length and temperature on food intake and growth rate of bulls given concentrate or grass silage ad libitum in two housing systems. Animal Science 62: 233240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, R. R., Chapin, L. T., Emery, R. S. and Tucker, H. A. 1981. Milk yield, feed intake, prolactin, growth hormone and glucocorticoid response of cows to supplemented light. Journal of Dairy Science 64: 16711678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petitclerc, D., Vinet, C. M., Roy, G. and Lacasse, P. 1998. Prepartum photoperiod and melatonin feeding on milk production and prolactin concentrations of dairy heifers and cows. Journal of Dairy Science 81: (suppl. 1) 251. (abstr. ).Google Scholar
Phillips, C. J. C. and Schofield, S. A. 1989. The effect of supplementary light on the production and behaviour of dairy cows. Animal Production 48: 293303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piva, G., Navarotto, P., Repetti, S. and Fusconi, G. 1992. Effect of photoperiod on the performance of dairy cows. Atti della Societa Italiana di Buiatria 24: 114119.Google Scholar
Ravagnolo, O. and Misztal, I. 2000. Genetic component of heat stress in dairy cattle, parameter estimation. Journal of Dairy Science 83: 21262130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ravagnolo, O., Misztal, I. and Hoogenboom, G. 2000. Genetic component of heat stress in dairy cattle, development of heat index function. Journal of Dairy Science 83: 21202125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, D. P., Boland, M. P., Kopel, E., Armstrong, D., Munyakazi, L., Godke, R. A. and Ingraham, R. H. 1992. Evaluating two different evaporative cooling management systems for dairy cows in a hot, dry climate. Journal of Dairy Science 75: 10521059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schillo, K. K., Hall, J. B. and Hileman, S. M. 1992. Effects of nutrition and season on the onset of puberty in the beef heifer. Journal of Animal Science 70: 39944005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanisiewski, E. P., Mellenberger, R. W., Anderson, C. R. and Tucker, H. A. 1985. Effect of photoperiod on milk yield and milk fat in commercial dairy herds. Journal of Animal Science 68: 11341140.Google Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 3 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 6th March 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Comparison of lactational responses of dairy cows in Georgia and Israel to heat load and photoperiod
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Comparison of lactational responses of dairy cows in Georgia and Israel to heat load and photoperiod
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Comparison of lactational responses of dairy cows in Georgia and Israel to heat load and photoperiod
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *