Hostname: page-component-6d856f89d9-sp8b6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T06:27:10.470Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

475. Studies on variations in the solids-not-fat content of milk: V. Variations due to winter feeding practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

G. L. Bailey
G. L. Bailey
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, University of Reading
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

During the twelve years from 1935 to 1946 the type of foods given to sixty-one Dairy Shorthorn first calvers during the months of February and March changed so that the dry-matter intake of the cows rose and the dietary fat fell, but there was little change in the Protein and Starch equivalent they received.

Milk yield varied directly with the amount of fat and starch equivalent in the diet and inversely with the dry matter.

The solids-not-fat percentage of milk varied directly with the amount of starch equivalent, and inversely with the dry matter content, of the diet.

The milk-fat percentage was not influenced by the foods given.

It was shown that the fall in the level of solids-not-fat in the milk was largely due to the increase in the dry matter intake of the cows.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , June 1952 , pp. 169 - 178
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1952

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

(1)Bailey, G. L. (1952). J. Dairy Res. 19, 115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2)Woodman, H. E. (1948). Rations for Livestock. Bull. no. 48, London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
(3)Bailey, G. L. (1952). J. Dairy Res. 19, 109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(4)Dwyer, P. S. (1942). J. Amer. statist. Ass. 37, 441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(5)Maynard, L. A. & McCoy, C. M. (1929). J. Nutrit. 2, 67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(6)Bailey, G. L. (1952). J. Dairy Res. 19, 89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(7)Jensen, E., Klein, J. W., Rauchenstein, E., Woodward, T. E. & Smith, R. H. (1942). Tech. Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric. no. 815.Google Scholar
(8)Headley, F. B. (1945). J. Anim. Sci. 4, 367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(9)Balch, C. C. (1949). Thesis, University of Reading.Google Scholar
(10)Balch, C. C., Balch, D., Johnson, V. W. & Turner, I. A. Private communication.Google Scholar
(11)Loosli, J. K., Maynard, L. A. & Lucas, H. L. (1944). Mem. Cornell Univ. agric. Exp. Sta. no. 265Google Scholar
(12)Garner, F. H. & Sanders, H. G. (1938). J. agric. Sci. 28, 541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(13)Ezekiel, M., McNall, P. E. & Morrison, F. B. (1927). Res. Bull. Wisconsin agric. Exp. sta. no. 79.Google Scholar
(14)Riddet, W., Campbell, I. L., McDowall, F. H. & Cox, G. A. (1941). N. Z. J. Sci. Tech. 23.Google Scholar
(15)Rowland, S. J. (1946). Dairy Industr. 11, 656.Google Scholar
(16)Steensberg, V. (1937). Kvalitet og Fodring, 2. Oplag, København: Frederiksberg Bogtrykkeri.Google Scholar