great lakes dairy sheep symposium - the Department of Animal ...

great lakes dairy sheep symposium - the Department of Animal ... great lakes dairy sheep symposium - the Department of Animal ...

ansci.wisc.edu
from ansci.wisc.edu More from this publisher
07.03.2013 Views

Figure 4: Mean test day 6.5% fat corrected milk production of SDPP and LDPP treatments during the trial period. FCM (kg/d) 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.7 6 13 20 27 34 41 48 55 Average days in milk 78 SDPP LDPP Figure 5: Mean test day 6.5% fat and 5.8 % protein corrected milk production of SDPP and LDPP treatments during the trial period. FPCM (kg/d) 2.5 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.7 * * Least squares means within a test day are different (P < 0.1). 6 13 20 27 34 41 48 55 Average days in milk Average test day and total milk production and composition from each treatment, which includes data from both the trial period on campus and post-trial period at the Spooner Agricultural Research Station, are presented in Table 3. During this time, SDPP produced an average of 0.2 kg/d more milk (P < 0.01) than LDPP ewes (1.68 vs. 1.48 kg/d, respectively). While there was no significant difference in average test day milk fat or protein percentages, SDPP ewes produced more FCM (+ 0.18 kg/d; P < 0.01), and FPCM (+ 0.17 kg/d; P < 0.01) than LDPP ewes. After approximately 121 DIM, SDPP ewes produced more total milk (+ 26.5 SDPP LDPP

kg), fat (+ 3.0 kg), protein (+ 0.9), FCM (+ 29.5), and FPCM (+ 28.4) than LDPP ewes (Table 3). However, these differences between treatments were not statistically significant (P > 0.20). This lack of significance may result from reduced statistical power in analyses of the data; total production traits had only one measurement per ewe while test day traits had multiple observations per ewe. Table 3: Average test day and total milk production and milk composition of prepartum light treatments during the trial and post-trial periods (n=11 in each treatment; total DIM ranged from 104 to 130 and averaged 121). SDPP mean ± se 79 LDPP mean ± se Average Milk, kg/d 1.68 ± 0.046 1.48 ± 0.046 0.0027 Fat, % 6.36 ± 0.114 6.51 ± 0.115 0.3527 Protein, % 5.16 ± 0.065 5.17 ± 0.065 0.9120 FCM, kg/d 1.65 ± 0.047 1.47 ± 0.047 0.0094 FPCM, kg/d 1.62 ± 0.046 1.45 ± 0.047 0.0098 Total, kg Milk 287.24 ± 16.1 260.72 ± 16.1 0.2580 Fat 18.83 ± 1.08 15.81 ± 1.08 0.2019 Protein 12.86 ± 0.88 11.95 ± 0.88 0.4748 FCM 279.65 ± 16.0 250.11 ± 16.0 0.2067 FPCM 272.75 ± 15.7 244.38 ± 15.7 0.2067 The results of this study support previous work in which cows exposed to SDPP for 42 (Velasco et al., 2006) or 60 d (Auchtung et al., 2005) prepartum produced more milk during the first 16 wk of lactation than animals exposed to LDPP. In our study, however, milk fat and protein percentages also were different between treatment groups; this has not been observed in previous prepartum photoperiod trials with dairy cattle. Circulating prolactin levels were lower (P < 0.05) for SDPP ewes than for LDPP ewes from 1wk before to 0.5 wk after lambing (Figure 6). These results support findings in dairy cattle, in which cows in SDPP treatments for 60 d prepartum had lower levels of circulating prolactin than those in LDPP at both 33 and 5 d before calving (Auchtung et al., 2005). In both studies, prolactin levels reached similar levels shortly after parturition. Work by Akers et al. (1981a) demonstrated “ that the secretion of prolactin at parturition stimulates subsequent milk production in dairy cows and that prolactin plays a critical role in mammary differentiation for key biochemical steps involved in the synthesis of milk, especially those associated with lactose “. Therefore, a possible cascade of events to describe the effect of prepartum photoperiod on milk production may be: 1) short photoperiod in prepartum ruminants results in decreased circulating prolactin levels, 2) decreased prolactin levels stimulate the increased expression of mRNA for prolactin receptors, resulting in a greater number of prolactin receptors on mammary secretory epithelial cells, 3) the natural increase in circulating prolactin at parturition stimulates complete differentiation and commitment of mammary secretory epithelial cells to produce lactose, increasing milk production. P

Figure 4: Mean test day 6.5% fat corrected milk production <strong>of</strong> SDPP and LDPP treatments<br />

during <strong>the</strong> trial period.<br />

FCM (kg/d)<br />

2.7<br />

2.5<br />

2.3<br />

2.1<br />

1.9<br />

1.7<br />

6 13 20 27 34 41 48 55<br />

Average days in milk<br />

78<br />

SDPP<br />

LDPP<br />

Figure 5: Mean test day 6.5% fat and 5.8 % protein corrected milk production <strong>of</strong> SDPP and<br />

LDPP treatments during <strong>the</strong> trial period.<br />

FPCM (kg/d)<br />

2.5<br />

2.3<br />

2.1<br />

1.9<br />

1.7<br />

*<br />

* Least squares means within a test day are different (P < 0.1).<br />

6 13 20 27 34 41 48 55<br />

Average days in milk<br />

Average test day and total milk production and composition from each treatment, which<br />

includes data from both <strong>the</strong> trial period on campus and post-trial period at <strong>the</strong> Spooner<br />

Agricultural Research Station, are presented in Table 3. During this time, SDPP produced an<br />

average <strong>of</strong> 0.2 kg/d more milk (P < 0.01) than LDPP ewes (1.68 vs. 1.48 kg/d, respectively).<br />

While <strong>the</strong>re was no significant difference in average test day milk fat or protein percentages,<br />

SDPP ewes produced more FCM (+ 0.18 kg/d; P < 0.01), and FPCM (+ 0.17 kg/d; P < 0.01)<br />

than LDPP ewes. After approximately 121 DIM, SDPP ewes produced more total milk (+ 26.5<br />

SDPP<br />

LDPP

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!