WIXLIB

AcknowledgementsWe are grateful to the following for permission to reproduce copyright material:FiguresFigure 1.1 after Response in the Yield of Milk Constituents to the Intake of Nutrientsby Dairy Cows. AFRC Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients, ReportNo. 11, CABI Publishing International,Wallingford (1998); Figure 5.1 adapted fromRoche Vitec Animal Nutrition and Vitamin News, Vol. 1, A1-10/2 (1984); Figure 5.4after Effects of vitamin E and selenium on the performance and immune status ofewes and lambs, Journal of Agricultural Science, 142:3, pp. 253–262 (Rooke J A,Robinson J J and Arthur J R 2004), The Nutrition Society, published byCambridge University Press, reproduced by permission of the publisher and the author;Figure 6.1 from Quantitative Aspects of Ruminant Digestion and Metabolism, 2nded., CAB International,Wallingford (eds Forbes J M and France J 1993) p. 481; Figure7.7 after mechanisms related to enzyme catalysis, Advances in Enzymology andRelated Areas of Molecular Biology, 24, p. 464 (Westheimer, F H 1962); Figures 8.1,8.2 after The Comparative Nutrition of Fowl and Swine: The Gastrointestinal Systems, Office for Educational Practice, University of Guelph (Moran E T Jr 1982); Figure 8.3 after Comparative physiology of the digestive system, Dukes’ Physiology ofDomestic Animals, 9th ed., pp. 216–232. ((ed.) Swenson, Melvin J. 1977), Copyright1933 by H H Dukes; Copyright 1977 by Cornell University. Used by permissionof the publisher, Cornell University Press; Figure 8.4 after Feeding and Care of theHorse, Lea & Febiger (Lewis, Lon 1982), reproduced with permission of John Wiley& Sons Inc.; Figure 8.5 after Metabolism in the Rumen, Methuen & Co. (Annison E Fand Lewis D 1959) p. 14; Figure 10.1 adapted from Comparison of two in vitroprocedures using rumen liquor-pepsin or pepsin-cellulase for prediction of foragedigestibility, Grass and Forage Science: Journal of the British Grassland Society,33 (1), pp. 13–18 (Terry R A, Mundell D C and Osbourn D F 1978); Figure 10.2adapted from A study of artificial fibre bag technique for determining the digestibility of feeds in the rumen, Journal of Agricultural Science, 88, pp. 645–650 (MehrezA Z and Ørskov E R 1977), Cambridge University Press, reproduced with permission of the publisher and the author; Figure 12.1 from Feed into Milk: A New AppliedFeeding System for Dairy Cows, Nottingham University Press (Ed.Thomas C 2004);Figure 12.2 adapted from Comparison of energy evaluation systems for dairy cowfeeds, Livestock Production Science, 51, pp. 255–266 (Kaustell K, Tuori M andHuhtanen P 1997), with permission from Elsevier; Figure 12.3 from Comparison ofenergy evaluation systems and a mechanistic model for milk production by dairy cattleoffered fresh grass-based diets, Animal Feed Science and Technology, 143, pp. 203–219(Dijksra J et al. 2008), with permission from Elsevier; Figure 13.4 from Chalupa Wand Sniffen C J, Carbohydrate, protein and amino acid nutrition of lactating dairyxii

Acknowledgementscattle, Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition, pp. 265–74 (eds. Garnsworthy P C,Cole D J A 1994); Figure 16.4 after The Energy Metabolism of Ruminants, Hutchinson(Blaxter K L 1967) p. 259 reproduced by permission of the publisher and the author;Figure 16.7 adapted from A review of the potential of nutrition to modify milk fatand protein, Livestock Production Science 23 (3–4), pp. 219–237 (Sutton J D andMorant S V 1989), with permission from Elsevier; Figure 16.8 adapted from Updateon theories of diet-induced milk fat depression and potential applications, RecentAdvances in Animal Nutrition, pp. 115–55 (Griinari J M and Bauman D E 2003);Figure 16.10 from The growth of lambs before and after birth in relation to the levelof nutrition, Journal of Agricultural Science, 38 (2), pp. 93–153 (Wallace R L 1948), Cambridge University Press, reproduced with permission of the publisher andthe author; Figure 16.11 adapted from The yield and composition of the milk ofFinnish Landrace Blackface ewes: I. Ewes and lambs maintained indoors, Journal ofAgricultural Science, 79 (2), pp. 303–313 (Peart J N, Edwards R A and Donaldson E1972), Cambridge University Press, reproduced with permission of the publisherand the author; Figure 16.13 after Variations in the chemical composition of milkwith particular reference to the solids-not-fat: I.The effect of stage of lactation, season ofyear and age of cow, Journal of Dairy Research, 23 (1), pp. 65–81 (Waite R,White J C Dand Robertson A 1956), Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research, published byCambridge University Press, reproduced with permission of the publisher and theJournal of Dairy Research; Figure 17.2 after The effect of lactation on intake in thedairy cow, Proceedings, New Zealand Society for Animal Production, 23, pp. 39–52(Hutton J B 1963); Figure 24.1 adapted from The Living Gut, Context (Ewing W N andCole D J A 1994) p. 105, Context, 52 Mill Street, Packington, LE65 1WN. Tel. 01530415 338, Fax: 01530 412673, Email: context@totalize.co.uk; Figure 24.2 adaptedfrom Yeast culture: its role in maximising fibre digestion in the rumen, Feed Compounder, January, pp. 16–19 (Offer N W 1991); Figure 24.3 from The Living Gut,Context (Ewing W N and Cole D J A 1994) p. 142, Context, 52 Mill Street, Packington, LE65 1WN. Tel. 01530 415 338, Fax: 01530 412673, Email: context@totalize.co.ukTablesTables 2.11 and 2.12 adapted from Nutrient Requirements of Horses, 5th rev. ed.,National Academies Press (1989) Table 5.1 and 5.3, Reprinted with permission fromthe National Academies Press, Copyright 1989, National Academy of Sciences;Table 1.3 adapted from Principles of Pig Science, Nottingham University Press ((eds)Cole D J A, Wiseman J and Varley M A 1994) pp. 169–95, App. 1; Table 3.6 fromTextbook of Biochemistry with Clinical Correlations, 4th ed., John Wiley & SonsInc. (Devlin,Thomas M 1997) p. 56,This material is used by permission of John Wiley& Sons Inc.; Table 6.2 adapted from Supplemental organically-bound mineralcompounds in livestock nutrition, Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition, pp. 67–91(Ammerman C B, Henry P R and Miles R D 1988); Table 10.1 after The effect in sheepof physical form and stage of growth on the sites of digestion of a dried grass, BritishJournal of Nutrition, 28 (3), pp. 347–356 (Beever D E, Coelho de Silva J P, PrescottJ H D and Armstrong D G 1972), The Nutrition Society, published by CambridgeUniversity Press, reproduced with permission of the publisher and the author;Table 10.2 adapted from Quantitative digestion of fresh herbage by sheep: II.The sitesxiii

Acknowledgementsof digestion of some nitrogenous constituents, Journal of Agricultural Science, 82 (2),pp. 309–319 (MacRae J C and Ulyatt M J 1974), Cambridge University Press,reproduced with permission of the publisher and the author; Table 11.2 after Apparatusfor the determination of the energy exchange of calves and of sheep, Journal ofAgricultural Science, 45 (1), pp. 10–18 (Blaxter K L, Graham N McC, and Rook J A F1954), Cambridge University Press, reproduced with permission of the publisherand the author; Table 11.3 after Plane of nutrition and starch equivalents, Journal ofAgricultural Science, 46 (3), pp. 292–306 (Blaxter K L and Graham N McC 1955), Cambridge University Press, reproduced with permission of the publisher and theauthor; Table 11.4 after Comparison of heat production of chickens measured byenergy balance and by gaseous exchange, Journal of Nutrition, 113 (7), pp. 1403–1408(Fuller H L, Dale M N and Smith C F 1983), American Society for Nutrition; Table13.2 adapted from Modern Methods in Protein Nutrition and Metabolism,AcademicPress (Sauer W C and de Lange K 1992) pp. 87–120; Table 13.4 adapted from Amethod of determining the biological value of protein (Table XII), Journal of Biological Chemistry, 58 (3), p. 891 (Mitchell, H H 1924), Copyright 1924 The AmericanSociety for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology; Table 13.5 adapted from Proteinnutrition and the utilization of dietary protein at different levels of intake by growing swine, Journal of Animal Science, 14, p. 53 (Armstrong D G and Mitchell H H 1955);Table 13.6 adapted from Towards an improved utilization of dietary amino acids bythe growing pig, Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition, pp. 45–64 (Moughan P J 1991);Tables 13.7 and 14.9 adapted from Nutrient Requirement Standards for Pigs, BritishSociety of Animal Science (Whittemore C T, Hazzledine M J and Close W H 2003);Table 13.8 adapted from Carbohydrate, protein and amino acid nutrition of lactatingdairy cattle, Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition, pp. 265–75 (Chalupa W and SniffenC J 1994), Copyright 1994 W. Chalupa; Table 13.11 adapted from Microbial proteinsynthesis and flows of nitrogen fractions to the duodenum of dairy cows (Table 2),Journal of Dairy Science, 75 (8), p. 2306 (Clark J H, Klusmeyer T H and CameronM R 1992), with permission from Elsevier; Table 13.12 after Amino acid content ofnoncell and cell wall fractions in feedstuffs, Journal of Dairy Science, 66 (10),pp. 2198–2207 (Muscato T V, Sniffen C J, Krishnamoorthy U and Van Soest P J 1983),with permission from Elsevier; Tables 14.6 and 15.4 adapted from The NutrientRequirements of Ruminant Livestock, Common Agricultural Bureaux (AgriculturalResearch Council 1980); Table 14.7 adapted from Comparative Nutrition of Manand Domestic Animals Vol. 1,Academic Press (Mitchell H H 1962); Table 14.11 afterGrowth and development in the pig, with special reference to carcass quality characters: III. Effect of the plane of nutrition on the form and composition of the baconpig, Journal of Agricultural Science, 30 (4), pp. 511–569 (McMeekan C P 1940), Cambridge University Press, reproduced with permission; Table 15.1 from Effectof dietary energy and protein density on body composition, attainment of puberty,and ovarian follicular dynamics in dairy heifers, Theriogenology, 60 (4), pp. 707–725(Chelikani P K,Ambrose J D and Kennelly J J 2003), with permission from Elsevier;Table 15.2 after Fertility in Scottish Blackface ewes as influenced by nutrition andbody condition at mating, Journal of Agricultural Science, 73 (2), pp. 289–94(Gunn R G, Doney J M and Russel A J F 1969), Cambridge University Press,reproduced with permission of the publisher and the author; Table 15.5 adapted fromThe Nutrient Requirements of Pigs, Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux (Agricultural Research Council 1981); Table 15.6 adapted from Effects of maternal nutritionxiv

Acknowledgementson udder development during late pregnancy and on colostrum production in ScottishBlackface ewes with twin lambs, Research in Veterinary Science, 39, pp. 230–234(Mellor D J and Murray L 1985); Table 16.2 from Uptake and metabolism of fatin the lactating mammary gland, Lactation (Proceedings of the 17th University ofNottingham Easter School in Agricultural Science) (Bickerstaffe R 1970); Table 16.3adapted from Effect of replacing calcium salts of palm oil distillate with rapeseed oil,milled or whole rapeseeds on milk fatty-acid composition in cows fed maize silagebased diets, Animal, 3 (7), pp. 1067–1074 (Givens D I, Kliem K E, Humphries D J,Shingfield K J and Morgan R 2009), The Animal Consortium, published by Cambridge University Press, reproduced with permission of the publisher and the author;Tables 16.4 and 16.5 adapted from National Milk Records Production Annual Report, NMR (2008); Table 16.6 adapted from Variation in the chemical composition ofcow milk, Dairy Science Abstracts, 23, pp. 251–58 (Rook J A F 1961); Table 16.7adapted from Variation in the chemical composition of cow milk, Dairy ScienceAbstracts, 23, pp. 251–258 (Rook J A F 1961); Table 16.8 after Variations in thechemical composition of milk with particular reference to the solids-not-fat: I. Theeffect of stage of lactation, season of year and age of cow, Journal of Dairy Research,23 (1), pp. 65–81 (Waite R,White J C D and Robertson Alan 1956), Proprietors ofJournal of Dairy Research, published by Cambridge University Press, reproducedwith permission of the publisher and the Journal of Dairy Research; Table 16.11 afterMilk fat depression in dairy cows: role of silage particle size, Journal of Dairy Science,73 (7), pp. 1834–42 (Grant R J, Colenbrander V F and Mertens D R 1990), with permission from the American Dairy Science Association.; Tables 16.12, 16.13 adaptedfrom The Nutrition of Goats, Technical Committee on Responses to NutrientsReport No. 10, CAB International (AFRC 1994); Table 16.15 after The quality of sheepmilk: a review, Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 37(4) pp. 485–504(Bencini R and Pulina G 1997), Copyright CSIRO 1997. Published by CSIROPublishing, Victoria, Australia – able 16.20 adapted from Equine Nutrition and Feeding, 2nd ed., Blackwell Science(Frape D 1988), copyright 1998. Reproduced with permission of Blackwell Publishing Ltd; Table 16.21 after Nutrient Requirements of Horses, 5 rev. ed., NationalAcademy Press (National Research Council 1989), Reprinted with permission fromthe National Academies Press, Copyright 1989, National Academy of Sciences; Table17.1 after Studies of the energy requirements of chickens, Poultry Science, 33, pp.112–119 (Hill F W and Dansky L M 1954); Tables 17.2 and 17.3 adapted from Theeffects of pelleting diets on intake and digestibility in sheep and cattle, Animal Production, 16, pp. 223–233 (Greenhalgh J F D and Reid G W 1973); Table 18.3 afterThe voluntary intake and in vivo digestibility of herbage harvested from indigenoushill plant communities, Grass and Forage Science, 41 (1), pp. 53–60 (Armstrong R H,Common T G and Smith H K 1986); Table 18.4 after Proceedings of the Eighth International Grassland Congress, p. 485 (Armstrong D G 1960); Table 18.6 adaptedfrom Tropical Feeds: Feed Information Summaries and Nutritive Values (FAO Animal Production and Health Series; No. 12), FAO (Gohl B 1981) p. 70, reproducedwith the permission of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations;Table 18.7 adapted from Energy allowances and feeding systems for ruminants, Technical Bulletin, 33 (MAFF 1975), Crown Copyright material is reproduced with permission under the terms of the Click-Use Licence; Table 18.8 adapted from Ensilageof whole-crop barley, Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 19, pp. 656–60,xv

Acknowledgementspp. 661–6 (Edwards R A, Donaldson E and MacGregor A W ; MacGregor A W andEdwards R A 1968), Copyright by the Society of Chemistry. Reproduced by permissionof John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of the SCI; Table 19.3 after Efficient silagesystems, Forage Conservation in the 80s. British Grassland Society OccasionalSymposium No, 11, pp. 186–197 (Zimmer E 1979); Table 19.5 adapted from Feedingvalue of silage: silages made from freshly cut grass, wilted grass and formic acid treatedwilted grass, Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 27 (6), pp. 536–544(Donaldson E and Edwards R A 1976); Table 19.5 adapted from The development ofplant components and their effects on the composition of fresh and ensiled foragemaize: 2. The effect of genotype, plant density and date of harvest on the composition of maize silage, Journal of Agricultural Science, 92 (2), pp. 485–491 (Wilkinson J Mand Phipps R H 1979), Cambridge University Press, reproduced with permissionof the publisher and the author; Table 19.7 adapted from The effect of formic acidand bacterial inoculants on the fermentation and nutritive value of perennialryegrass silages, Proceedings of the Eurobac Conference, Uppsala, August 1986,pp. 93–98 (Henderson A R, Seale D R,Anderson D H and Heron S J E 1990) reproducedby permission of the author; Table 19.8 adapted from The effect of silage additivescontaining formaldehyde on the fermentation of ryegrass ensiled at different drymatter levels and on the nutritive value of direct-cut silage, Animal Feed Scienceand Technology 7 (3), pp. 303–14 (Henderson R A, McDonald P and Anderson D H1982), with permission from Elsevier; Table 19.10 after Prediction of the organicmatter digestibility of grass silage, Animal Feed Science and Technology 28 (1–2),pp. 115–28 (Barber G D et al. 1990), Reprinted with permission from Excerpta MedicaInc.; Table 19.12 after Prediction of the voluntary intake potential of grass silage bysheep and dairy cows from laboratory silage measurements, Animal Science, 66 (3),pp. 357–367 (Offer N W, et al. 1998); Table 20.1 from The effect of some pre-treatmentson proteolysis during the ensiling of herbage, Grass and Forage Science, 34 (4),pp. 311–315 (Carpintero M C, Henderson A R and McDonald P 1979); Table 20.3after The Conservation of Grass and Forage Crops, Oliver and Boyd (Watson S Jand Nash M 1960) p. 156; Table 20.4 adapted from ADAS Science Arm Report,HMSO (MAFF 1972), Crown Copyright material is reproduced with permissionunder the terms of the Click-Use Licence; Table 20.5 adapted from ExperimentalWork,The Edinburgh School of Agriculture (Mackenzie E J and Purves D 1967) p. 23,reproduced by permission of the Scottish Agricultural College; Table 20.7 adaptedfrom Urea supplementation compared with pre-treatment. 1. Effects on intake, digestionand live-weight change by sheep fed a rice straw, Animal Feed Science and Technology,27, pp. 17–30 (Djajanegara A and Doyle P 1989), with permission from Elsevier;Table 22.1 after Characterisation of induced high protein and high lysine mutants inbarley, Journal of the Science of Food and Agricult

15.1 Nutrition and the initiation of reproductive ability 385 15.2 Plane of nutrition, fertility and fecundity 387 15.3 Egg production in poultry 391 15.4 Nutrition and the growth of the foetus 395 Summary 402 Questions 403 Further reading 403 16 Lactation 405 16.1 Sources of milk constit