Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-2pp2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T01:01:23.377Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of concentrates on the voluntary intake of roughages by cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

R. C. Campling  and
J. C. Murdoch
R. C. Campling
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading
J. C. Murdoch
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Seven changeover experiments were conducted to examine the effect of giving restricted amounts of concentrates on the voluntary intake of different roughages by non-lactating dairy cows. The addition of up to 6 kg concentrates daily to the diet of cows receiving roughage ad lib. caused little change in the intake of hay and a small increase in the intake of barley straw. Larger amounts of concentrates of 6 and 8 kg daily reduced hay intake by between 0·2 and 0·4 kg dry matter/kg concentrate dry matter given. When concentrates were given to the cows the rate of decline in intake of hay tended to be greatest with the hays of highest digestibility. The daily addition of up to 8 kg concentrates to the diet of cows offered silage ad lib. caused only small depressions in the intake of silage. The results are discussed in relation to recent work on this subject with cattle and sheep.

Information

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , February 1966 , pp. 1 - 11
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1966

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Blaxter, K. L. & Wilson, R. S. (1963). Anim. Prod. 5, 27.Google Scholar
Brown, S. M. (1960). Res. exp. Rec. Minist. Agric. Nth Ire. 10, 9.Google Scholar
Campling, R. C. (1966). J. Dairy Res. 33, 13.Google Scholar
Campling, R. C, Freer, M. & Balch, C. C. (1962). Br. J. Nutr. 16, 115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, J. L. (1961). Jl R. agric. Soc. 122, 175.Google Scholar
Danasoury, M. S. El- (1954). Thesis, University of London.Google Scholar
Egan, A. R. (1965). Aust. J. agric. Res. 16, 451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freer, M. & Campling, R. C. (1963). Br. J. Nutr. 17, 79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsley, J. A. & Moir, R. J. (1963). Aust. J. agric. Res. 14, 509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, W., Arnold, G. W. & Provan, A. L. (1960). J. Dairy Res. 27, 191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, J. G. (1958). Qd J. agric. Sci. 15, 161.Google Scholar
Minson, D. J. & Lancaster, R. J. (1963). N.Z. Jl agric. Res. 6, 140.Google Scholar
Murdoch, J. C. (1962). J. Br. Grassld Soc. 17, 133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murdoch, J. C. (1964 a). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 23, 99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murdoch, J. C. (1964 b). J. Br. Grassld Soc. 19, 316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, J. T. (1956). Mem. Cornell Univ. agric. Exp. Stn no. 344.Google Scholar
Stone, J. B., Spadling, R. W., Merrill, W. G. & Reid, J. T. (1964). Proc. Cornell Nutr. Conf. Feed Manufacturers, P. 82.Google Scholar