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 ...
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
- Page 37 and 38: them tested for OPP using the cElis
- Page 39 and 40: separate facilities and tested at 4
- Page 41 and 42: • Neoplastic tumors Treatment •
- Page 43 and 44: STRATEGIC CONTROL OF GASTRO-INTESTI
- Page 45 and 46: C. Intestinal cestode parasites (ta
- Page 47 and 48: Strategic Timing of Treatment Phase
- Page 49 and 50: 1.2. IMI is the main factor influen
- Page 51 and 52: 1.3. Use of SCC in order to detect
- Page 53 and 54: within-day fluctuation (SCC level a
- Page 55 and 56: expensive. But it is necessary to b
- Page 57 and 58: The influence of high SCC on cheese
- Page 59 and 60: Figure 9. Contribution to bulk tank
- Page 61 and 62: Regarding the dynamics of the infec
- Page 63 and 64: Figure 11. Evolution of the average
- Page 65 and 66: Lafi S.Q. 2005. Use of somatic cell
- Page 67 and 68: (Penning et al., 1988). Another stu
- Page 69 and 70: Pre-grazing herbage mass (kg DM/ha)
- Page 71 and 72: Table 2: Average test day milk prod
- Page 73 and 74: Figure 4: Average test day milk fat
- Page 75 and 76: lactation ewes (1.66 vs. 1.50 kg/d,
- Page 77 and 78: Figure 6: Average change in body we
- Page 79 and 80: esults, so an average pasture CP va
- Page 81 and 82: Pulina, G. 2002. Dairy Sheep Feedin
- Page 83 and 84: light treatments, when all ewes wer
- Page 85 and 86: percentage protein (AgSource Milk L
- Page 87: the difference was significant on o
- Page 91 and 92: Auchtung, T. L., A. G. Rius, P. E.
- Page 93 and 94: site of a small settlement for seve
- Page 95 and 96: Gonyou, HW and Stookey, JM. 1983. U
- Page 97 and 98: SHEPHERD’S DAIRY Kim Curtis Ansel
- Page 99 and 100: Breeds As I stated above, we starte
- Page 101 and 102: Summary ARTISAN SHEEP MILK CHEESE J
- Page 103 and 104: ACCURACY OF THE PORTASCC® MILK TES
- Page 105 and 106: Correlation between laboratory resu
- Page 107 and 108: CLOVER DALE SHEEP DAIRY John Henry
- Page 109 and 110: CARR VALLEY CHEESE - WISCONSIN’S
- Page 111 and 112: 101
- Page 113 and 114: We We We Welcome Welcome You You Yo
- Page 115 and 116: Hudson Valley Camemberts Pure Sheep
- Page 117 and 118: 107
- Page 119 and 120: N681 Rollwood Road Antigo, WI 54409
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