The effects of incomplete milking and increased milking frequency on milk production rate and milk composition1.
incomplete milking
increased milking frequency
milk composition
milk production rate
Journal
Journal of animal science
ISSN: 1525-3163
Titre abrégé: J Anim Sci
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8003002
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 May 2019
30 May 2019
Historique:
received:
22
01
2019
accepted:
26
03
2019
pubmed:
16
4
2019
medline:
17
8
2019
entrez:
16
4
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Increased milking frequency and incomplete milking have differential effects on milk yield and mammary gland physiology that are important for optimization of milking practices in dairy herds. The objectives of this experiment were to determine the effects of increased milking frequency and incomplete milking on milk production rate (MPR) and milk composition and to determine if milking 3 times daily (3×) could rescue the negative production effects of incomplete milking. Twenty-two multiparous cows were enrolled onto this experiment beginning at 5 days in milk (DIM) and continuing through 47 DIM. A split-plot design was used to randomize the 2 treatments, which were milking frequency and incomplete milking. Eleven cows were randomly assigned to be milked 2 times (2×) daily and 11 cows were randomly assigned to be milked 3×. Within each cow, a contralateral half-udder was randomly assigned to be incompletely milked (30% milk remaining in the gland; IM), and the other half-udder was randomly assigned to be milked completely (CM). Quarter-level milk yields were recorded at each milking session. Milk samples from all quarters were collected twice weekly at the beginning of the morning milking for analysis. Cows milked 2× tended to have reduced MPR compared with 3× milked cows (1.81 ± 0.06 vs. 1.97 ± 0.06 kg milk/h; P = 0.06). Half-udders that were CM and IM produced 1.09 ± 0.03 and 0.80 ± 0.03 kg milk/h, respectively. There was an interaction between incomplete milking treatment and week of lactation (P = 0.04). No interaction was detected between milking frequency and incomplete milking for MPR or milk components. Cows milked 3× had increased milk fat percent (1.93 ± 0.09% vs. 1.65 ± 0.09%, P = 0.047), decreased milk lactose percent (4.80 ± 0.04% vs. 4.93 ± 0.04%, P = 0.04), and exhibited no differences in milk protein percent or milk somatic cell count (SCC) compared with cows milked 2×. Half-udders that were IM had increased milk fat percent (2.15 ± 0.07% vs. 1.43 ± 0.07%, P < 0.0001), decreased lactose percent (4.75 ± 0.03% vs. 4.99 ± 0.03%, P < 0.0001), increased milk log10SCC (4.22 ± 0.05 vs. 4.41 ± 0.05, P = 0.0004), and no differences in milk protein percent compared with CM half-udders. These results indicate that a 3× milking frequency in IM half-udders was not able to improve milk production compared with IM half-udders milked 2×. Our results indicate that 30% milk remaining in the gland had an irreversible impact on milk yield as increased milking frequency was not able to reverse the milk yield lost.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30982896
pii: 5459596
doi: 10.1093/jas/skz113
pmc: PMC6541812
doi:
Substances chimiques
Milk Proteins
0
Types de publication
Clinical Trial, Veterinary
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
2424-2432Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Références
J Dairy Sci. 2003 Jun;86(6):2005-11
pubmed: 12836936
J Dairy Sci. 2003 Jun;86(6):2061-71
pubmed: 12836942
Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract. 2004 Nov;20(3):547-68
pubmed: 15471624
J Dairy Sci. 2005 Jan;88(1):148-53
pubmed: 15591377
J Dairy Sci. 2006 May;89(5):1854-62
pubmed: 16606757
J Dairy Sci. 2007 Feb;90(2):716-20
pubmed: 17235148
Reprod Domest Anim. 2009 Apr;44(2):241-7
pubmed: 18694425
J Dairy Sci. 2011 Sep;94(9):4398-405
pubmed: 21854913
J Anim Sci. 2012 May;90(5):1695-707
pubmed: 22205668
J Dairy Sci. 2012 Nov;95(11):6503-12
pubmed: 22981581
J Dairy Sci. 2013 Mar;96(3):1886-93
pubmed: 23332836
J Dairy Sci. 2013 Jun;96(6):3401-13
pubmed: 23548302
J Dairy Sci. 2013 Jun;96(6):3766-73
pubmed: 23567056
J Dairy Res. 1990 Aug;57(3):285-94
pubmed: 2401757
J Dairy Sci. 2015 Jan;98(1):305-11
pubmed: 25465535
J Dairy Sci. 2016 Jan;99(1):842-53
pubmed: 26299162
Animal. 2017 Jan;11(1):91-100
pubmed: 27349483
J Dairy Sci. 2016 Nov;99(11):8871-8879
pubmed: 27614832
J Dairy Sci. 2017 Feb;100(2):1535-1540
pubmed: 27939533
J Dairy Sci. 2017 Jun;100(6):4868-4883
pubmed: 28365113
J Dairy Sci. 1980 Feb;63(2):328-36
pubmed: 6766957
J Dairy Sci. 1995 May;78(5):1199-203
pubmed: 7622729
J Dairy Sci. 1994 Jul;77(7):2103-12
pubmed: 7929968
J Dairy Res. 1994 May;61(2):167-77
pubmed: 8063963
J Dairy Res. 1993 Aug;60(3):287-97
pubmed: 8376630
J Dairy Sci. 1995 Dec;78(12):2726-36
pubmed: 8675755
J Dairy Res. 1997 Nov;64(4):487-94
pubmed: 9403764