2002
DOI: 10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(02)74257-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Relationship Between Content of Crude Protein in Rations for Dairy Cows and Milk Yield, Concentration of Urea in Milk and Ammonia Emissions

Abstract: During recent decades, efforts have been made in several countries to diminish the negative environmental influence of dairy production. The main focus has been on nitrogen and phosphorus. Modern dairy production in Western Europe is often based on imported feed-stuffs, mostly protein-rich feeds. In Sweden at least, it is wished that the use of imported feedstuffs in animal production will decrease due to the risk of contamination with Salmonella and the ban of using GMO crops in Swedish dairy production. An e… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

10
65
0
2

Year Published

2006
2006
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 90 publications
(77 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
10
65
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The lack of responses in milk production and milk composition was consistent with others' observations that these did not change when dietary protein varied from 16.7 to 18.4% (Davidson et al, 2003), from 16.4 to 20.4% (Mulligan et al, 2004), from 16.4 to 18.0% (Wattiaux and Karg, 2004), and from 14.6 to 18.3% (Castillo et al, 2001). While some researchers observed significant differences in milk yield or composition with dietary protein from 13.1 to 17.0% (Frank and Swesson, 2002), it has been reported that milk production benefits from > 15% protein, but increasing the protein above 17% has no further effect (Groff and Wu, 2005), and dietary protein has only a low effect on milk fat and protein concentration (Sutton, 1989). The effect of dietary protein level on MUN content is shown in Figure 1.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 89%
“…The lack of responses in milk production and milk composition was consistent with others' observations that these did not change when dietary protein varied from 16.7 to 18.4% (Davidson et al, 2003), from 16.4 to 20.4% (Mulligan et al, 2004), from 16.4 to 18.0% (Wattiaux and Karg, 2004), and from 14.6 to 18.3% (Castillo et al, 2001). While some researchers observed significant differences in milk yield or composition with dietary protein from 13.1 to 17.0% (Frank and Swesson, 2002), it has been reported that milk production benefits from > 15% protein, but increasing the protein above 17% has no further effect (Groff and Wu, 2005), and dietary protein has only a low effect on milk fat and protein concentration (Sutton, 1989). The effect of dietary protein level on MUN content is shown in Figure 1.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 89%
“…Moreover, as both milk protein concentration and yield were not significantly affected by the diet (P > 0.05, Table 3), it seemed that the animals were able to achieve a better use of nutrients with a lower amount of feed ingested, as illustrated by the food conversion ratio that tended to be higher for the LowN diet (1.24 v. 1.22, P = 0.05, Table 3). This could represent a certain economy for farmers and act as compensation for the slight loss in milk production (Frank and Swensson, 2002). For example, changing the diet from 16% to 14% CP by replacing soya bean meal and urea by grains was estimated to bring a benefit of 12 €/cow per year, provided balanced supplies of PDIN and PDIE were maintained (taking into account milk yield and milk protein concentration reductions in winter; Pellerin et al, 2013).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Concentrations of MUN were expected to increase because CP concentrations of the diets increased. The direct relationship between MUN and dietary CP concentrations is well documented (Frank and Swensson, 2002;Nousiainen et al, 2004).…”
Section: Milk Componentsmentioning
confidence: 99%