摘要
The objective of this study was to compare the performances of calves fed acidified milk replacer (AMR) or sweet (regular) milk replacer (SMR) at 8% of birth weight. Twenty-one calves (10 males, 11 females) were offered replacers reconstituted to 12% of dry matter over 5 weeks. In the group fed AMR, daily body weight gains of calves at the different stages of growth were comparable to those for calves fed SMR. In the preweaning period, calves offered AMR had similar dry matter intakes from starter, milk replacer and dry hay as well as total intake as those fed SMR. In the postweaning phase, total dry matter intakes of calves offered AMR and SMR were not statistically different. The overall feed efficiency ratios of AMR-fed calves were better (P < 0.05) than those of SMR-fed calves. Calf faecal consistency score (P < 0.05) and percent days with scours (P < 0.01) of calves offered AMR were significantly lower than those fed SMR for days 4 to 17. AMR-fed calves needed a longer time (P < 0.01) to consume the daily amount of replacer than SMR-fed calves. The calves fed AMR also took a significantly (P < 0.05) greater number of days to learn to drink milk replacer from an open pail without help than calves consuming SMR. In conclusion, it is suggested that the growth performance and feed efficiency characteristics of calves reared under the new feeding system with AMR were not adversely affected, but the incidence of scours of the young calves was dramatically reduced.
摘要译文
这项研究的目的是比较小牛犊在出生时体重8％喂食酸化代乳粉（AMR）或甜（常规）代乳品（SMR）的表演。第二十一条牛犊（男10例，11名女性）是重组，以干物质12％，5周提供的替代品。在该组供给的AMR，小牛在生长的不同阶段每天的体重增长是可比那些犊牛饲喂SMR。在断奶前阶段，小牛提供AMR已经从起动，代乳品和干草类似的干物质摄入量和摄入总量那些美联储SMR。在断奶阶段，提供AMR和SMR小牛的总干物质摄入量无统计学差异。 AMR喂养牛犊的整体饲料效率比比较好（P小牛粪便的一致性得分（PAMR-馈送牛犊需要一个较长的时间（P05）更大的天数要学会从一个打开的桶喝牛奶替代品没有帮助小牛比消耗SMR。结论，有人建议，小牛在新进料系统，AMR饲养的生长性能和饲料转化效率特性产生不利影响，但年轻的小牛腹泻的发病率显着降低。
Mete YANAR[1]; Olcay GüLER[1]; Bahri BAYRAM[2]; Jale METİN[1]. Effects of Feeding Acidified Milk Replacer on the Growth, Health and Behavioural Characteristics of Holstein Friesian Calves[J]. Turkish Journal of Veterinary & Animal Sciences, 2006,30(2 April p. 151-282): 235-241