Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-7nlkj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-29T22:49:12.927Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A preliminary study of the effect of pregnancy and of lactation on the voluntary intake of food by cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

R. C. Campling
R. C. Campling
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading
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. Monozygotic twin cattle were used in a preliminary study of the effect of pregnancy and of lactation on the voluntary intake of food and water, and on eating and ruminating behaviour. Also, results are reported of an experiment with five pairs of monozygotic twin heifers to examine the variation within pairs of twins in voluntary intake of food and water and eating and ruminating behaviour.

2. Voluntary food and water intakes were measured during the last few weeks of pregnancy and during early lactation. Within each twin pair one twin was pregnant or lactating and the other non-lactating and not pregnant, and the food and water intakes of a pair of twins were measured simultaneously.

3. On average the variation in voluntary intake of hay within pairs of non-pregnant, monozygotic twin heifers was 0.2 kg or 3 % of the mean daily hay intake.

4. The effect of pregnancy was observed in six pairs of twins and in five of the pairs the pregnant animal ate iess hay than its non-pregnant twinmate; in four of these five pairs the effect was small (13 % ). Changes in eating and ruminating behaviour associated with pregnancy were small; the pregnant animals ate concentrates and hay more slowly and ruminated longer than the non-pregnant animals.

5. Lactation was associated with a mean increase of 29 % in hay intake in eight out of the nine pairs studied. In four pairs of twins given a diet of concentrates alone the lactating animal ate on average 8 % more than the non-lactating animal. The lactating cows tended to eat concentrates and hay more quickly than the non-lactating cows; because of differences in the ratio of hay to concentrates it was not possible to interpret the changes in rumination that occurred with lactation.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , February 1966 , pp. 25 - 39
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1966

References

Aitken, J. N. &Preston, T. R. (1964). Anim. Prod. 6, 260.Google Scholar
Balch, C. C., Kelly, A. &Heim, G. (1951). Br. J. Nutr. 5, 207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broster, W. H., Tuck, V. J. &Balch, C. C. (1964). J. agric. Sci., Camb., 63, 51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, C. W., Mattox, J. E. &Harris, L. E. (1961). J. Anim. Sci. 20, 866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, C. P., Foot, A. S., Hosking, Z., Line, C. &Rowland, S. J. (1956). J. Br. Grassld Soc. 11, 107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, H. L. (1962). Proc. Aust. Soc. Anim. Prod. 4, 167.Google Scholar
Elliott, R. C., Fokkema, K. &French, C. H. (1961). Rhodesia agric. J. 58, 124.Google Scholar
Ferguson, K. A. (1956). Proc. Aust. Soc. Anim. Prod. 1, 58.Google Scholar
Foot, A. S., Dodd, F. H. &Soffe, D. W. (1960). Publs Eur. Ass. Anim. Prod. no. 9, p. 119.Google Scholar
Freer, M. &Campling, R. C. (1965). Br. J Nutr. 19, 195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freer, M., Campling, R. C. &Balch, C. C. (1962). Br. J. Nutr. 16, 279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, J. G. &Tribe, D. E. (1951). J. agric. Sci., Camb., 41, 187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graves, R. R., Dawson, J. R., Kopland, D. V., Watt, A. L. &Van Horn, A. G. (1938). Tech. Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric. no. 610.Google Scholar
Hadjipieris, D., Jones, J. G. W. &Holmes, W. (1964). Anim. Prod. 6, 262.Google Scholar
Hancock, J. (1950). N. Z. Jl Sci. Technol. A, 32, 22.Google Scholar
Hancock, J. (1952). N.Z. Jl Sci. Technol. A, 34, 131.Google Scholar
Hancock, J. (1954). J. agric. Sci., Camb., 44, 421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Head, M. J. (1953). J. agric. Sci., Camb., 43, 214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hesselbarth, K. (1954). Arch. Tierernähr. 4, 145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutton, J. B. (1963). Proc. N. Z. Soc. Anim. Prod. 23, 39.Google Scholar
Kick, C. H., Gerlaugh, P., Schalk, A. F. &Silver, E. A. (1937). J. agric. Res. 55, 587.Google Scholar
Legates, J. E., Murley, W. R. &Waugh, R. G. (1956). J. Dairy Sci. 39, 937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mäkelä, A. (1956). Suom. MaatalSeur. Keskusl. Edust. Kok. Asiak. no. 85.Google Scholar
Owen, J. B. &Ingleton, J. W. (1963). J. agric. Sci., Camb., 61, 329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, C. S. W. (1957). N. Z. Jl Sci. Technol. A, 38, 825.Google Scholar
Reid, R. L. &Hinks, N. T. (1962). Aust. J. agric. Res. 13, 1092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trimberger, G. W., Gray, H. G., Johnson, W. L., Wright, M. J., Vanvleck, L. D. &Henderson, C. R. (1963). Proc. Cornell Conf. Feed Manufacturers, p. 33.Google Scholar
Winchester, C. F. &Morris, M. J. (1956). J. Anim. Sci. 15, 722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar