Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-8mwbx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-07T23:54:47.905Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Feeding frequency for lactating cows: effects on digestion, milk production and energy utilization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 March 2008

J. D. Sutton ,
W. H. Broster ,
D. J. Napper  and
J. W. Siviter
J. D. Sutton
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. The results are reported of four feeding experiments in which lactating cows were given fixed rations of hay and high-cereal concentrates at different meal frequencies. In Expt 1 the total ration was given in two and twenty-four meals daily and in Expts 2–4, the concentrates were given in two and five or six meals and the hay was given twice daily. The diets contained 600–900 g concentrate /kg.

2. In all the experiments, more frequent feeding of these low-roughage diets reduced milk fat depression and increased milk fat yield. In each experiment the increase was greater with the diet containing the lower proportion of hay. There was no significant effect on milk yield, the protein or lactose contents of the milk or live-weight gain. Digestibility of dry matter, organic matter and energy was increased in one of the experiments but not in two others in which it was measured.

3. More frequent feeding was calculated to increase the net energy secreted in milk and there was a tendency for it to increase the net energy in live-weight gain with diets containing 600 or 700 g concentrate/kg but to decrease it with diets containing 800 or 900 g concentrate/kg. These results are discussed in relation to theories of energy partition in lactating cows.

4. It is concluded that at fixed feed intakes, the main response to increased meal frequency is likely to be a reduction in milk fat depression and that this will be confined to diets containing not more than about 200 g modified acid-detergent fibre/kg dry matter.

Information

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 53 , Issue 1 , January 1985 , pp. 117 - 130
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1985

References

REFERENCES

Agricultural Research Council (1980). The Nutrient Requirements of Ruminant Livestock. Slough: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
Balch, C. C. & Cowie, A. T. (1962). Cornell Veterinarian 52, 206–214.Google Scholar
Broster, W. H., Sutton, J. D. & Bines, J. A. (1979). In Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition –1978, pp. 99–126 [Haresign, W and Lewis, D, editors]. London: Butterworths.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burt, A. W. A. & Dunton, C. R. (1967). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 26, 181–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clancy, M. J. & Wilson, R. K. (1966). Proceedings of the 10th Grassland ConferenceHelsinki pp. 445–453.Google Scholar
Flatt, W. P., Moe, P. W., Hooven, N. W., Lehmann, R. P., ørskov, E. R. & Hemken, R. W. (1969). In Energy Metabolism of Farm Animals, pp. 221–234 [Blaxter, K. L., Kielanowski, J. and Thorbek, G, editors]. Newcastle upon Tyne: Oriel Press.Google Scholar
Gill, M. S. & Castle, M. E. (1983). Animal Production 36, 79–85.Google Scholar
Graham, N. McC. (1967). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 18, 467–483.Google Scholar
Johnson, C. L. (1979). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 92, 743–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufmann, W., Rohr, K., Daenicke, R. & Hagemeister, H. (1975). Sonderheft der Berichte über Landwirtschaft 191, 269–295.Google Scholar
Kirchgessner, M., Müller, H. L. & Sax, J. (1980). Zeitschrift für Tierphysiologie, Tierernährung und Futtermittelkunde 44, 279–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirchgessner, M., Müller, H. L. & Schwarz, F. J. (1982). In Energy Metabolism in Farm Animals, pp. 30–33 [Ekern, A. and Sundstød, F., editors]. Aas: Agricultural University of Norway.Google Scholar
Müller, H. L., Sax, J. & Kirchgessner, M. (1980). Zeitschrift für Tierphysiologie, Tierernährung und Futtermittelkunde 44, 181–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oldham, J. D., Broster, W. H., Napper, D. J. & Siviter, J. M. (1979). British Journal of Nutrition 42, 149–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, F. X. & Kirchgessner, M. (1976). Zeitschrift für Tierphysiologie, Tierernährung und Futtermittelkunde 37, 322–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. & Cochran, W. G. (1967). Statistical Methods, 6th ed.Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Sutton, J. D. (1981). In Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition – 1981, pp. 35–48 [Haresign, W, editor]. London: Butterworths.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutton, J. D., Hart, I. C. & Broster, W. H. (1982). In Energy Metabolism in Farm Animals, pp. 26–29 [Ekern, A. and Sundstøl, F., editors]. Aas: Agricultural University of Norway.Google Scholar
Sutton, J. D., Oldham, J. D. & Hart, I. C. (1980). In Energy Metabolism, pp. 303–306 [Mount, L. E., editor]. London: Butterworths.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutton, J. D. & Schuller, E. (1974). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 33, 100A.Google Scholar
Thomas, P. C. & Kelly, M. E. (1976). Journal of Dairy Research 43, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyrrell, H. F. & Reid, J. T. (1965). Journal of Dairy Science 48, 1215–1223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Honing, Y., Bangma, G. A., Homan, G. W., Terluin, R., Thielen, B. & Vogt, J. E. (1976). In Energy Metabolism in Farm Animals, pp. 77–80 [Vermorel, M., editor]. Clermont-Ferrand: G. de Bussac.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. (1963). Journal of the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists 46, 829–835.Google Scholar
Whitehouse, K., Zarow, A. & Shay, H. (1945). Journal of the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists 28, 147–152.Google Scholar