Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-02T19:46:41.059Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of dried molassed and unmolassed sugar beet feed and barley at two protein levels for milk production in early lactation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 November 2017

J.D. Sutton ,
S.R. Daley ,
M.J. Haines  and
D.J. Thomson
J.D. Sutton
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute for Grassland and Animal Production, Hurley Research Station, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berks SL6 5LR
S.R. Daley
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute for Grassland and Animal Production, Hurley Research Station, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berks SL6 5LR
M.J. Haines
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute for Grassland and Animal Production, Hurley Research Station, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berks SL6 5LR
D.J. Thomson
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute for Grassland and Animal Production, Hurley Research Station, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berks SL6 5LR
Get access

Extract

Previous experiments have shown important differences in milk production when mixed starch sources were replaced by mixed high quality by-products in high concentrate diets with hay as the forage (Sutton et al. 1987). The purpose of the present experiment was to compare rolled barley with sugar beet feed (SBF) in both molassed and unmolassed forms when given alone with grass silage in a high-concentrate diet. Additionally the effect of altering protein concentration of the concentrates was examined.

Type
Energy and Protein Utilisation by Dairy cows
Information
Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Production (1972) , Volume 1988 , March 1988 , pp. 24
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

Sutton, J.D., Bines, J.A., Morant, S.V., Napper, D.J. and Givens, D.I. 1987. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge, 109, 375–386.Google Scholar