Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T05:28:40.005Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effect of Light Supplementation on the Production and Behaviour of Dairy Cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 November 2017

C.J.C. Phillips  and
S.A. Schofield
C.J.C. Phillips
Affiliation:
School of Agricultural and Forest Sciences, University College of North Wales, Bangor, Gwynedd LL57 2UW
S.A. Schofield
Affiliation:
School of Agricultural and Forest Sciences, University College of North Wales, Bangor, Gwynedd LL57 2UW
Get access

Extract

Research on the effect of supplementary light on the production of dairy cows (Tucker, 1985) has shown that it increases the milk production and feed intake of cows receiving less than 12 hours natural daylength, but it is not clear whether this arises from a behavioural stimulation to longer feeding times or a physiological response to light. In addition, although the reproduction of dairy cows has been reported to be seasonal with no effect of photoperiod on LH or FSH production (Rzepkowskl et al 1982), no studies have been made of the effects of supplementary light on oestrous activity and behaviour.

Type
Manipulation of Milk Production in Dairy Cows
Information
Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Production (1972) , Volume 1988 , March 1988 , pp. 4
Copyright
Copyright © The British Society of Animal Production 1988

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

Rzepkowski, R.A., Ireland, J.J., Fogwell, R.L., Chapin, L.T. and Tucker, H.A. (1982). Journal of Animal Science, 55, 1125–1131.Google Scholar
Schofield, S.A. (1988). Ph.D Thesis. Submitted to Faculty of Science, University College of North Wales, Bangor.Google Scholar
Tucker, H.A. (1985). In Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition. Ed. Haresign, and Cole, , pp. 211–221.Google Scholar