Biotechnology in Animal Husbandry - Institut za Stočarstvo

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Milk yield (g/day) 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 The effect of spring shearing ... Total Morning Afternoon -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Observation period (days) Figure 1. Mean daily milk yield (total), and yield obtained with the morning and afternoon milking. Each point represents the mean for 6 ewes. Vertical bars represent SEM. Day 0 = shearing day Fat concentration was greater in the milk obtained in the afternoon whilst protein and lactose concentrations were similar in the morning and in the afternoon milk throughout the observation period (Table 1). Of all milk components milk fat exhibited the greatest post-shearing elevation. Before shearing, milk fat concentration averaged 5.74 % in the morning milk, and 6.77 % in the afternoon milk. On day 1, day 7 and day 14 after shearing it increased up to 7.05, 6.81 and 6.91 % (P < 0.05) in the morning and up to 8.60 ( P < 0.05), 7.81 and 7.64 % in the afternoon milk. On the three sampling post-shearing days concentrations of protein and total solids in the morning and in the afternoon milk also surpassed the mean values in unshorn ewes. Daily output of milk constituents followed closely the changes in their concentrations (Table 1). On the three sampling post-shearing days daily output of different constituents exceeded the corresponding pre-shearing values by 16.2, 11.6 and 9.1 % in milk fat, by 1.6, 3.5 and 6.2 % in milk protein, and by 4.1, 7.2 and 2.2 % in total solids, respectively. The increase in daily output of milk constituents occurred despite the decline in daily milk yield. Lactose daily output, on the contrary, dropped by 6.9, 7.7 and 9.3 % compared to the pre- shearing value. 243
244 Y. Aleksiev Table 1. Mean daily milk yield, milk composition, and daily output of different constituents in the morning and in the afternoon milk and total for the sampling days before and after shearing (mean ± SEM) Parameters Before After shearing shearing 1 st day 7 th day 14 th day Morning milk Milk yield (g/day) 353 ± 12 335 ± 17 333 ± 17 321 ± 16 Fat (%) 5.74 ± 0,38 7.05 ± 0.41 6.81 ± 0.31 6,91 ± 0.25 * Protein (%) 5.37 ± 0,17 5.92 ± 0.27 5.84 ± 0.26 6.08 ± 0.28 Lactose (%) 5.38 ± 0.05 5.34 ± 0.09 5,20 ± 0.04 5.20 ± 0.06 Total solids (%) 17.08 ± 0.48 18.90 ± 0.59 18.48 ± 0.50 18.78 ± 0.45 Fat output (g/day) 20.26 ± 1.75 23.62 ± 1.87 22.68 ± 1.58 22.18 ± 1.43 Protein output (g/day) 18.96 ± 0.99 19.83 ± 0.51 19.45 ± 1.15 19.52 ± 1.07 Lactose output (g/day) 19.00 ± 0.59 17.89 ± 0.78 17.32 ± 0.79 16.69 ± 0.77 Total solids output (g/day) 60.29 ± 3.01 63.32 ± 3.89 61.54 ± 3.13 60.28 ± 3.05 Afternoon milk Milk yield (g/day) 247 ± 7 225 ± 15 238 ± 9 238 ± 14 Fat (%) 6.77 ± 0.35 8.60 ± 0.35 * 7.81 ± 0.40 7.64 ± 0.41 Protein (%) 5.31 ± 0.16 5.67 ± 0.28 5,78 ± 0.25 6.11 ± 0.28 Lactose (%) 5.23 ± 0.05 5.32 ± 0.06 5.10 ± 0.05 5.15 ± 0.06 Total solids (%) 17.89 ± 0.48 20.16 ± 0.52 19.4 ± 0.61 19.51 ± 0.62 Fat output (g/day) 16.72 ± 0.99 19.35 ± 1.65 18,59 ± 1.45 18.18 ± 1.37 Protein output (g/day) 13.12 ± 0.43 12.76 ± 0.92 13,76 ± 0.96 14.54 ± 0.92 Lactose output (g/day) 12.92 ± 0.35 11.97 ±0.79 12,14 ± 0.60 12.26 ± 0.59 Total solids output (g/day) 44.15 ± 1.71 45.38 ± 3.24 50.46 ± 2.86 46.49 ± 2.72 Total for the sampling day Milk yield (g/day) 600 ± 22 560 ± 27 572 ± 24 559 ± 27 Fat output (g/day) 36.98 ± 2.59 42.97 ± 3.09 41,27 ± 2.89 40,36 ± 2.61 Protein output (g/day) 32.08 ± 1.34 32.60 ± 2.29 33,21 ± 2.04 34.06 ± 2.01 Lactose output (g/day) 31.92 ± 0.67 29.86 ± 1.37 29.46 ± 1.08 28.95 ± 1.23 Total solids output (g/day) 104.44 ± 4.26 108.70 ± 6.40 112.00 ± 5.72 106,77 ± 5.43 * P < 0.05 The initial post-shearing drop in daily MY may be attributed to the cumulative effect of cold stress and emotional disturbance. Fluctuations in daily MY, especially in the afternoon one, provided evidence for the short-term effect of
Page 1 and 2:
UDC 636 ISSN 1450-9156 VOL 27, 2 Fo
Page 3 and 4:
Biotechnology in Animal Husbandry 2
Page 5 and 6:
128 V. Pantelić et al. effects of
Page 7 and 8:
130 V. Pantelić et al. The evaluat
Page 9 and 10:
132 V. Pantelić et al. Similar to
Page 11 and 12:
134 V. Pantelić et al. se nalazile
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Table 1. Feeding regime durring the
Page 18 and 19:
The effect of crossing of domestic
Page 20 and 21:
4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Round
Page 22:
The effect of crossing of domestic
Page 25 and 26:
148 J. Pleadin et al. are synthesiz
Page 27 and 28:
150 J. Pleadin et al. v/v) were add
Page 29 and 30:
152 Concentration of progesterone (
Page 31 and 32:
154 J. Pleadin et al. Decision 2002
Page 33 and 34:
156 J. Pleadin et al. Koncentacije
Page 35 and 36:
158 J. Pleadin et al. CACCIATORE G.
Page 37 and 38:
160 Efficiency of bovine IGF -I gen
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
The effect of genotype on productio
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58:
Page 61 and 62:
184 D. Vitorović et al. (Vićentij
Page 63 and 64:
186 D. Vitorović et al. Broilers i
Page 65 and 66:
188 D. Vitorović et al. deposition
Page 67 and 68:
190 D. M. Ogah Blasco et al. (1984)
Page 69 and 70: 192 D. M. Ogah Tabe 1. Descriptive
Page 71 and 72: 194 D. M. Ogah chicken genotypes fo
Page 73 and 74: 196 D. M. Ogah HU Y.H. (1999) .Vari
Page 75 and 76: 198 Introduction V. Gerzilov et al.
Page 77 and 78: 200 Results and Discussion V. Gerzi
Page 79 and 80: 202 V. Gerzilov et al. The histolog
Page 81 and 82: 204 V. Gerzilov et al. Table 2. Mic
Page 83 and 84: 206 V. Gerzilov et al. The structur
Page 86 and 87: Biotechnology in Animal Husbandry 2
Page 88 and 89: Results and Discussion Analysis of
Page 90 and 91: Analysis of applied biosecurity mea
Page 92 and 93: Analysis of applied biosecurity mea
Page 96 and 97: The correlation between body measur
Page 102: The correlation between body measur
Page 105 and 106: 228 N. Memiši et al.. Somatic cell
Page 107 and 108: 230 N. Memiši et al.. Table 2. Ave
Page 109 and 110: 232 N. Memiši et al.. Tabele 5. Th
Page 111 and 112: 234 N. Memiši et al.. BERNACKA H (
Page 113 and 114: 236 N. Thomas et al. nodosus is ess
Page 115 and 116: 238 N. Thomas et al. The proportion
Page 117 and 118: 240 N. Thomas et al. kod malabri (1
Page 119: 242 Y. Aleksiev ultimately, influen
Page 123 and 124: 246 Y. Aleksiev post-shearing, roug
Page 125 and 126: 248 Y. Aleksiev 18:00 h. U proseku,
Page 130 and 131: Determination of lead, cadmium and
Page 132 and 133: Determination of lead, cadmium and
Page 134: Determination of lead, cadmium and
Page 137 and 138: 260 A. Kuzelov et al carcass clean.
Page 139 and 140: 262 A. Kuzelov et al Flak et al. (1
Page 144 and 145: Materials and Methods Study of bioc
Page 146 and 147: Study of biochemical polymorphism .
Page 148 and 149: Study of biochemical polymorphism .
Page 152 and 153: The correlation between hygienic pa
Page 164 and 165: Physiological aspects of behaviour
Page 170 and 171:
Instruction for authors Papers for
Page 172 and 173:
PETROVIĆ D.M., GUTIĆ M., BOGOSAVL
Page 174 and 175:
Registration fee Registration fee i
Page 176 and 177:
Институт за сточар
Page 178:
Место одржавања kон
show all

Biotechnology in Animal Husbandry - Institut za Stočarstvo

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?