Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T05:24:34.962Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of undernutrition before calving on the quantity and composition of milk produced by two-year-old heifers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

D. S. Flux
D. S. Flux
Affiliation:
The Dairy Research Institute(N.Z.), Palmerston North, New Zealand
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Six pairs of 2-year-old monozygous twin heifers were used to determine the effect of underfeeding for 10 weeks prior to calving. Those which had been well fed before calving produced more milk than their sisters which had been poorly fed.

There was no effect on milk or butterfat composition, probably because none of the animals lost much weight after calving.

The effect of the treatment differed markedly between twin pairs, the maximum difference in milk yield being 2866 lb., the minimum 135 lb., and the mean 1057 lb. for 270 days' lactation.

The ratios of between-twin-pair to within-twin-pair variance for butterfat, total protein and lactose percentages of the milk were as follows:

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 40 , Issue 1-2 , January 1950 , pp. 177 - 184
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1950

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

Altman, A. D. (1945). Vestn Zhivotnov. no. 1, p. 85. (D. Sci. Abs. v, 9, No. 4, p. 287, 1948.)Google Scholar
Astwood, E. B., Geschickter, C. F. & Rausch, E. O. (1937). Amer. J. Anat. 61, 373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnicoat, C. R., Logan, A. G. & Grant, A. I. (1949). J. Agric. Sci. 39, 44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. (1944). J. Agric. Sci. 34, 27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonnier, G. (1946a). On the interactions of heredity and environment in growth and yield as elucidated with monozygous cattle twins. K. Lantbr Akad. Handl., Stockh., 85, No. 3.Google Scholar
Bonnier, G. ( 1946b). The efficiency of the twin method. K. Lantbr Akad. Handl. Stockh., 85, No. 3, 460.Google Scholar
Bonnier, G., Hansson, A. & Skjervold, H. (1948). Studies on monozygous cattle twins. The interplay of heredity and environment on growth and yield. Acta Agric. Suecana, 8, No. 1.Google Scholar
Campbell, I. L. & Flux, D. S. (1948). Proc. 8th Ann. Conf. N.Z. Soc. Anim. Prod. no. 61.Google Scholar
Eckles, C. H. & Palmer, L. S. (1916). Bull. Mo. Agric. Res. no. 25.Google Scholar
Jarl, F. (1940). K. Landtbr Akad. Handl., Stockh., no. 4, 315.Google Scholar
Jeffers, K. R. (1935). Amer. J. Anat. 56, 257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonard, S. L. (1945). Anat. Rec. 91, 65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lees, F. T., McMeekan, C. P. & Wallace, L. R. (1948). Proc. 8th Ann. Conf. N.Z. Soc. Anim. Prod., 60.Google Scholar
Newton, W. H. & Lits, F. J. (1938). Anat. Rec. 72, 333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDowell, A. K. R. (1941). J. Dairy Res. 12, 131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, F. L. (1921). Pap. Mayo Fdn. Med. Educ. 1, 228. (Cited by Foley, S. J. and Malpress, F. H., 1948, in The Hormones, G. Pincus and K. V. Thiman, Academic Press, p. 700.)Google Scholar
Trentin, J. J. & Turner, C. W. (1941). Endocrinology, 29, 984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Underwood, E. J., Sheer, F. L. & Cariss, H. G. (1943). J. Dep. Agric. W. Aust. 20, 288.Google Scholar
Weichert, C. K. & Boyd, R. W. (1941). Anat. Rec. 58, 55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weatherhead, H. L. (1929). Amer. J. Anat. 44, 199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, L. R. (1948). J. Agric. Sci. 38, 367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, T. E., Shepherd, J. B. & Graves, R. R. (1933). Misc. Publ. U.S. Dep. Agric, no. 179, p. 20.Google Scholar