Skip to main content
. 2022 Jan 24;8(2):808–821. doi: 10.1002/vms3.722

TABLE 3.

Lactation performance, body measurements and energy partitioning of primiparous and multiparous cows fed high‐starch (29.2% ± 0.70; means ± SD) vs. low‐starch (22.3% ± 0.52; means ± SD) diets

Primiparous Multiparous p Value 1
Item High starch Low starch High starch Low starch SEM Parity Starch Parity × starch
Yield, kg/day
Milk 40.4 41.5 53.2 48.7 1.76 <0.01 0.31 0.11
3.5% FCM 2 36.6 38.4 48.6 46.0 1.58 <0.01 0.82 0.18
Fat 1.15 1.24 1.51 1.48 0.05 <0.01 0.62 0.35
Protein 1.22 1.18 1.58 1.41 0.05 <0.01 0.04 0.19
Lactose 1.98 1.91 2.54 2.28 0.07 <0.01 0.04 0.18
Composition, %
Fat 2.84 3.03 2.94 3.10 0.12 0.48 0.15 0.91
Protein 2.96 2.90 2.93 2.92 0.02 0.97 0.08 0.23
Lactose 4.80 4.68 4.74 4.73 0.04 0.88 0.17 0.24
SNF 3 7.44 7.32 7.38 7.40 0.04 0.93 0.13 0.18
Fat: protein 0.95 1.04 0.99 1.06 0.03 0.61 0.05 0.91
Milk urea nitrogen, mg/dl 11.7 12.4 11.7 13.0 0.44 0.56 0.02 0.49
β‐hydroxybutyrate, mmol/L 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.07 <0.01 0.29 <0.01 0.90
MY/DMI 1.75 1.89 1.87 1.82 0.05 0.61 0.40 0.08
3.5% FCM/DMI 1.56a 1.75b 1.68 1.71 0.04 0.37 <0.01 0.04
Body measurements
BW, kg4 549 544 658 638 16.4 <0.01 0.44 0.63
BCS 5 2.86 2.79 2.85 2.79 0.48 0.19 0.62 0.16
BFT, mm 26.8 25.9 25.5 25.9 0.06 0.66 0.54 0.14
BW change, kg/day 0.11 .0.01 0.20 0.05 0.11 0.60 0.28 0.86
BCS change 0 –0.07 –0.06 0.03 0.06 0.75 0.87 0.21
BFT change, mm6 0.90 a –0.90 b –1.20 b –0.70 a 0.59 0.12 0.28 0.05
Energy partitioning, % of intake
Maintenance 25.9 26.5 23.1 25.1 0.84 0.01 0.13 0.42
Milk 71.9 73.4 73.7 74.5 1.62 0.38 0.48 0.82
Body tissue gain 2.21 0.06 3.11 0.40 2.08 0.76 0.25 0.89
a,

bWithin parity, means of starch levels with different superscripts differ (p ≤ 0.05).

1

Contrasts for parity (Par), starch level (St) and interaction (Par × St).

2

FCM yield = 0.432 × milk yield + 16.23 × fat yield (Council, 2001).

3

SNF = solid non‐fat.

4

BW = over a 7‐week period from week 1 of adaptation to week 6 of sampling.

5

BCS = body condition score was determined using a five‐scale method where 1 = emaciated and 5 = obese (Ferguson et al., 1994).

6

BFT = backfat thickness was measured using the ultrasonographic method (Schröder & Staufenbiel, 2006).