Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T17:02:32.033Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of rationing grass on the growth rate of dairy heifers and on output per acre, with a note on its significance in experimental design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

W. H. Broster ,
Valerie J. Tuck  and
C. C. Balch
W. H. Broster
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading
Valerie J. Tuck
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading
C. C. Balch
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. A series of three experiments were performed to examine grass as a food for dairy heifers.

2. Indoor feeding resulted in lower intakes of herbage and slower growth but gave greater outputs per acre of animal days and live-weight gain than grazing.

3. The maximum consumption and growth rate, obtained on young grass, were 2·84 lb. herbage dry matter per 100 lb. live weight per day and 2·2 lb. live-weight gain per day for grazing stock. The corresponding figures for indoor feeding were 2·49 lb. herbage dry matter per 100 lb. per day and 1·34 lb. live weight gain per day.

4. Live-weight gain per day was linearly related to herbage dry matter intake from 1·48 to 2·48 lb./ 100 lb. live weight/day.

5. Intake of herbage and growth rate only fell after the herbage came into full flower.

6. Increased stocking rate had small effects on growth rate because the animals grazed the paddocks more heavily.

7. 2·6–3·0 lb. grass dry matter offered per 100 lb. live weight per day was judged an adequate ration for yearling heifers. This gave growth rates of 1·60 lb./day on herbage up to the flowering stage and a consumption of 88% of the available herbage.

8. As an experimental technique zero grazing was found inadequate to replace grazing since it fails to reproduce similar intakes and rates of production. It permitted the reduction of intake to sufficiently low levels that live-weight gain per animal and per acre were reduced.

9. The greatest output per acre was found to occur between limits of intake per day of 1·8–2·4 lb. herbage dry matter per 100 lb. live weight. Above the point of maximum output per acre level of feeding had little effect on production per animal and rate of stocking controlled output per acre. Below this point level of feeding controlled production per animal. The case is advanced that these latter levels of feeding are necessary in grassland experiments.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 60 , Issue 3 , May 1963 , pp. 371 - 380
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1963

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

Baker, H. K. (1961). N.A.A.S. Quart. Rev. 13, 25.Google Scholar
Campling, R. C. & Holmes, W. (1958). J. Dairy Res. 25, 147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, J. L. (1957). N.A.A.S. Quart. Rev. 9, 93.Google Scholar
Corbett, J. L. (1960). Proc. 8th Int. Grassl. Congr. p. 438.Google Scholar
Corbett, J. L. (1961). Proc. 8th Int. Congr. Anim. Prod. 3, 245.Google Scholar
Coop, I. E. (1961). Proc. N.Z. Soc. Anim. Prod. 21, 79.Google Scholar
Cox, C. P., Foot, A. S., Hosking, Z. D., Line, C. & Rowland, S. J. (1956). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 11, 107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eyles, D. E., Williams, T. E. & Green, J. O. (1956). Proc. Brit. Soc. Anim. Prod. p. 91.Google Scholar
Finney, D. J. (1952). Statistical Method in Biological Assay. London: Charles Griffin and Co.Google Scholar
Foot, A. S. & Line, C. (1960). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 15, 155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freer, M. (1960). J. agric. Sci. 54, 243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardison, W. A., Reid, J. T., Martin, C. M. & Woolfolk, P. G. (1954). J. Dairy Sci. 37, 89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, W. (1962). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 17, 30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivins, J. D., Dilnot, J. & Davison, J. (1958). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 13, 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, W. K., Keid, J. T. & Andekson, M. J. (1959). J. Dairy Sci. 42, 679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambourne, L. J. (1961). Proc. N.Z. Soc. Anim. Prod. 21, 92.Google Scholar
McMeekan, C. P. (1956). Proc. 7th Int. Grassl. Congr. p. 146.Google Scholar
McMeekan, C. P. (1960). Proc. 8th Int. Grassl. Congr. p. 21.Google Scholar
Mott, G. O. (1960). Proc. 8th Int. Grassl. Congr. p. 606.Google Scholar
Riewe, M. E. (1961). Agron. J. 53, 309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylek, J. C. (1961). Unpublished.Google Scholar
Wallace, L. R. (1961). Proc. N.Z. Soc. Anim. Prod. 21, 64.Google Scholar
Watson, S. J. & Runcie, K. V. (1960). Outlook on Agriculture, 2, 264.Google Scholar