Effects of restricting the water intake of dairy cows upon their milk yield, body weight and blood composition

Little, W.; Sansom, B. F.; Manston, R.; Allen, W. M.

doi:10.1017/s0003356100035601

Cited by 37 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 12 publications

(9 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, it is not surprising that there were no differences in milk yield or milk composition between the treatment groups. These results agree with the findings reported by Little et al (1976), where water intake was restricted for a period of 6 d, and a second report (Little et al, 1978) of water restriction during a 3-wk period. In both experiments, milk yield was lowered by limiting water supply but was unaffected during the first 24-h period of water restriction.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Automatic Milking and Grazing—Effects of Location of Drinking Water on Water Intake, Milk Yield, and Cow Behavior

Spörndly

Wredle

2005

Journal of Dairy Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In an automatic milking system with cows grazing on a mixed grass sward, experiments were performed in 2001 and 2003, lasting 10 and 7 wk, respectively. Two location strategies for offering drinking water were compared: available in the barn and in the field (group B+F) or only in the barn (group B). During 2001, cows grazed alternately at 2 pastures at different distances from the barn, 50 m (near pasture) or 330 m (distant pasture), whereas the distant pasture was mainly used in 2003. No significant differences in milk yield, milking frequency, or milk composition were found between the 2 treatments. Average milk yield in the 2 experiments was 26.8 and 27.6 kg of milk in 2001 and 2003, respectively, and average milking frequency was 2.4 milkings/ d. Significant differences in animal behavior were observed only during the period when animals grazed on the distant pasture in 2001, with animals in group B+F spending 40% of their time on pasture and 21% of their time grazing, whereas corresponding values for group B were 34 and 17%, respectively. In 2003, average drinking water intakes per cow were 53 L/d on treatment B and 51 L/d on treatment B+F, and were not significantly different. Total daily water intake including water in the pasture was approximately 90 L/cow. In conclusion, no significant differences in milk yield, milking frequency, or water intake were found between cows offered drinking water both in the barn and in the field compared with drinking water only in the barn at pasture distances up to 330 m.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Automatic Milking and Grazing—Effects of Location of Drinking Water on Water Intake, Milk Yield, and Cow Behavior

Spörndly

Wredle

2005

Journal of Dairy Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cattle that normally eat 7.6 kg/day of feed ate 4.2, 2.2, 0.9 and 0.5 kg on four successive days when water was removed totally (Weeth et al, 1967). Little et al (1976) reported that a reduction of 40% in the amount of water allowed to dairy cows over a period of 6 days resulted in 16% reduction in feed intake. These show some similarities in the physiological adaptation of goats and cattle.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Restricción de agua en cabras en el trópico húmedo durante la estación seca y cálida: ingestión de alimento y ganancia de peso.

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Twelve non-pregnant female goats (West African Dwarf, WAD and Red Sokoto, RS) were used to investigate the effect of volumetric (0%, 33% and 67%) water restriction on feed intake and weight gain over a period of eight weeks. The goats are of 2 age groups: younger and older than 1 year. The experiment was arranged in a modified cross-over design with three treatment periods of 1 week each. In-between each treatment period was a 2-week wash-out period, when the effect of the previous was expected to have worn off. The average water intake (WI) was determined for the first 7 days of the experiment when all the animals were given water ad libitum. The 3 treatments were: (i) ad libitum supply of water every day; (ii) 33% reduction from average WI; and (iii) 67% reduction. Water drunk had positive and significant (p<0.001) correlation with feed intake in young and old WAD (r= 0.490 and 0.620 respectively) and RS (>1 year old; r= 0.615). All the four classes of goats showed positive highly significant (p<0.001) correlation between water drunk and daily weight gain (r= 0.408, 0.484, 0.555 and 0.422 respectively for WAD (<1 and >1 year old) and RS (<1 and >1 year old goats). RESUMEN Doce cabras no preñadas (West AfricanDwarf, WAD y Red Sokoto, RS) fueron empleadas para investigar el efecto de la restricción volumétrica (0%, 33% and 67%) del suministro de agua sobre la ingestión de alimento y ganancia de peso durante ocho semanas. Los animales se agruparon por edad en menores y mayores de un año. El experimento se dispuso según un diseño cruzado, modificado con tres periodos de tratamiento de una semana cada uno. Entre cada periodo se intercaló uno de lavado de dos semanas durante el que se eliminaba el efecto del experimento precedente. La ingestión media de agua (WI) fue determinada para los siete primeros dias del experimento durante los cuales a todos los animales se suministraba agua ad libitum. Los tratamientos fueron: (i) suministro de agua ad libitum, (ii) reducción del 33% sobre la ingestión media y (iii) 67% de reducción. El agua bebida mostró correlación positiva (p<0,001) con la ingestión de alimento en las cabras WAD jóvenes (r= 0,490) y mayores (r= 0,620) y para las RS de más de un año (r= 0,615). Todas las cabras mostraron correlación positiva (p<0,001) entre agua bebida y ganancia de peso (WAD:<1, r= 0,408 y >1, 0,484 y RS: <1, 0,555 y>1, 0,422).

show abstract

“…When multiple models had similar likelihood values, the model associated with the least Bayesian information criteria was chosen as the best prediction model. All the meta-analyses were Castle and Watson, 1973;Castle and Thomas, 1975;Little et al, 1976;Holter et al, 1982;Murphy et al, 1983;Stockdale and King, 1983;Andersson et al, 1984;Woodford et al, 1984;Andersson, 1985;Janicki et al, 1985;Nocek and Braund, 1985;Richards, 1985;Anderson, 1987;Gorewit et al, 1989;Holter et al, 1990Shalit et al, 1991;Bahman et al, 1993;Dado and Allen, 1993, 1995, 1996Silanikove et al, 1997;Dahlborn et al, 1998;Dewhurst et al, 1998;Muller et al, 1994;Mooney and Allen, 1997;Burgos et al, 2001;Osborne et al, 2002aOsborne et al, , 2009Voelker and Allen, 2003;Cottee et al, 2004;Meyer et al, 2004;Taylor and Allen, 2005;Harvatine and Allen, 2006;Chaiyabutr et al, 2007Chaiyabutr et al, , 2008Thomas et al, 2007;Cardot et al, 2008;Kume et al, 2008Kume et al, , 2010Longuski et al, 2009;Kramer et al, 2009;…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Prediction of drinking water intake by dairy cows

Appuhamy

Judy

Kebreab

et al. 2016

Journal of Dairy Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mathematical models that predict water intake by drinking, also known as free water intake (FWI), are useful in understanding water supply needed by animals on dairy farms. The majority of extant mathematical models for predicting FWI of dairy cows have been developed with data sets representing similar experimental conditions, not evaluated with modern cows, and often require dry matter intake (DMI) data, which may not be routinely available. The objectives of the study were to (1) develop a set of new empirical models for predicting FWI of lactating and dry cows with and without DMI using literature data, and (2) evaluate the new and the extant models using an independent set of FWI measurements made on modern cows. Random effect meta-regression analyses were conducted using 72 and 188 FWI treatment means with and without dietary electrolyte and daily mean ambient temperature (TMP) records, respectively, for lactating cows, and 19 FWI treatment means for dry cows. Milk yield, DMI, body weight, days in milk, dietary macro-nutrient contents, an aggregate milliequivalent concentration of dietary sodium and potassium (NaK), and TMP were used as potential covariates to the models. A model having positive relationships of DMI, dietary dry matter (DM%), and CP (CP%) contents, NaK, and TMP explained 76% of variability in FWI treatment means of lactating cows. When challenged on an independent data set (n = 261), the model more accurately predicted FWI [root mean square prediction error as a percentage of average observed value (RMSPE%) = 14.4%] compared with a model developed without NaK and TMP (RMSPE% = 17.3%), and all extant models (RMSPE% ≥ 15.7%). A model without DMI included positive relationships of milk yield, DM%, NaK, TMP, and days in milk, and explained 63% of variability in the FWI treatment means and performed well (RMSPE% = 17.9%), when challenged on the independent data. New models for dry cows included positive relationships of DM% and TMP along with DMI or body weight. The new models with and without DMI explained 75 and 54% of the variability in FWI treatment means of dry cows and had RMSPE% of 12.8 and 15.2%, respectively, when evaluated with the literature data. The study offers a set of empirical models that can assist in determining drinking water needs of dairy farms.

show abstract

Effects of restricting the water intake of dairy cows upon their milk yield, body weight and blood composition

Cited by 37 publications

References 12 publications

Automatic Milking and Grazing—Effects of Location of Drinking Water on Water Intake, Milk Yield, and Cow Behavior

Automatic Milking and Grazing—Effects of Location of Drinking Water on Water Intake, Milk Yield, and Cow Behavior

Restricción de agua en cabras en el trópico húmedo durante la estación seca y cálida: ingestión de alimento y ganancia de peso.

Prediction of drinking water intake by dairy cows

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About