Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T03:16:48.334Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of postruminal glucose or protein supplementation on milk yield and composition in Friesian cows in early lactation and negative energy balance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

E. R. Ørskov ,
D. A. Grubb  and
R. N. B. Kay
E. R. Ørskov
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
D. A. Grubb
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
R. N. B. Kay
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
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. Two experiments were carried out with lactating Friesian cows with a potential for high milk production. Within 3 d after calving they were fitted with a catheter to allow infusions to be given into the abomasum. During each experiment the milk yields and intake of the cows were such that they were calculated to be in negative energy balance.

2. In the first experiment three cows were infused daily with 10 l, the infusate being water, a suspension providing 300 g casein, or a solution providing 300 g glucose. The cows were offered a diet of barley straw, rolled barley and urea ad lib. during the first 60 d, after which they were fed to a calculated yield of 7 kg fat-corrected milk (FCM) less than their previous yield to ensure a negative energy balance. Infusion of casein increased yield by up to 3 kg FCM in comparison with glucose or water infusion. It also increased the concentration of crude protein in milk by approximately 13%. There was no consistent effect on milk fat concentration.

3. In the second experiment four cows were used in a trial of Latin-Square design. The basal ration was sufficient for a yield of 10 kg FCM/d. Four levels of casein and glucose infused into the abomasum daily were (g) 0, 750; 250, 500; 500, 250; 750, 0. The yields of FCM (kg/d) were 18.9, 22.7, 25.2 and 26.1, the concentration of protein (g/kg) was 25.2, 28.4, 29.6 and 31.5 and the concentration of milk fat (g/kg) was 48.2, 49.8, 51.0 and 54.8 for the four treatments respectively. In each instance the increases in values obtained with increasing level of casein infusion were significant. Infusion of casein was calculated to increase the extent of net energy deficit from 20.5 to 41.0 MJ/d. The possible protein limitations for cows in negative energy balance were discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 38 , Issue 3 , November 1977 , pp. 397 - 405
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1977

References

REFERENCES

Annison, E. F. (1960). Aust. J. agric. Res. 11, 58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (1965). Official Methods of Analysis, 10th ed, p. 222. Washington, DC: Association of Official Agricultural Chemists.Google Scholar
Broderick, G. A., Kowalczyk, K. T. & Satler, L. D. (1970). J. Dairy Sci. 53, 1714.Google Scholar
Broster, W. H. (1972). Dairy Sci. Abstr. 34, 265.Google Scholar
Clark, J. H. (1975). J. Dairy Sci. 58, 1178.Google Scholar
Coppock, C. E., Tyrrell, H. F., Merrill, W. G. & Reid, J. T. (1968). Proc. Cornell Nutr. Conf. p. 86.Google Scholar
Davidson, J., Mathieson, J. & Boyne, A. W. (1970). Analyst, Lond. 13, 461.Google Scholar
Derrig, R. G., Clark, J. H. & Davis, C. L. (1974). J. Nutr. 104, 151.Google Scholar
Duncombe, W. G. (1964). Clinica chim. Acta 9, 122.Google Scholar
Fell, B. F., Kay, M., Whitelaw, F. G. & Boyne, R. (1968). Res. vet. Sci. 9, 458.Google Scholar
Flatt, W. P., Moe, P. W., Munson, A. W. & Cooper, J. (1969). In Energy Metabolism of Farm Animals [Baxter, K. L., Thorbek, G. and Kielanowski, J., editors]. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Oriel Press.Google Scholar
Gaines, W. L. & Overman, O. R. (1938). J. Dairy Sci. 21, 261.Google Scholar
Marsh, W. H., Fingerhut, B. & Miller, H. (1965). Clin. Chem. 11, 624.Google Scholar
Moe, P. W., Tyrrell, H. F. & Flatt, W. P. (1970). In Energy Metabolism of Farm Animals, p. 65 [Schurch, A. and Wenk, C., editors]. Zurich: Juris Verlag.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. (1975). Wld Rev. Nutr. Diet. 22, 152.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. (1977). Wld Rev. Nutr. Diet. 26. (In the Press.)Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. & Grubb, D. A. (1977). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 36, 58A.Google Scholar
Ranawana, S. S. E. & Kellaway, R. C. (1976). Proc. Aust. Soc. Anim. Prod. 11, 489.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. J., Fraser, C., Gill, J. C. & McHattie, I. (1974). Anim. Prod. 19, 331.Google Scholar
Rook, J. A. F. (1976). In Principles of Cattle Production [Swan, H. and Broster, W. H., editors]. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Schiemann, R., Henseler, G., Jentsch, W. & Wittenberg, H. (1974). Archs. Tierernähr. 24, 105.Google Scholar
Sparrow, R. C., Hemken, R. W., Jacobsen, D. R., Button, F. S. & Enlow, C. M. (1973). J. Dairy Sci. 56, 664.Google Scholar
Spechter, H. H. (1972). Post ruminal casein infusion of urea fed lactating cows. PhD Thesis, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
Spires, H. R., Clark, J. H. & Derrig, R. G. (1973). J. Dairy Sci. 56, 664.Google Scholar
Tyrrell, H. F., Bolt, D. J., Moe, P. W. & Swan, H. (1972). J. Anim. Sci. 35, 277.Google Scholar
Vik-Mo, L., Huber, J. T., Bergen, W. G., Lichtenwalner, R. E. & Emery, R. S. (1974). J. Dairy Sci. 57, 1024.Google Scholar