Do We Need Two Close Up Dry Cow

Groups?

Gabriella A. Varga

Department of Dairy and Animal Science, 324 Henning Bldg., Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, PA 16802 USA
Email: [email protected]

 Take home messages

 Nutrition and management during the transition period are essential in
determining the profitability of the cow for the rest of her lactation
 Dry cows need to be fed high quality consistent sources of feed
 Feeding a one group TMR reduces labor input, allows easier management
of feed delivery
 The cost associated with feeding one ration throughout the entire dry period
is easily offset when considering the costs associated with the treatment
and lost production for one case of ketosis.
 Cow comfort and exercise are critical in assuring an excellent transition
program for the high producing dairy cow

 Introduction
The transition period for dairy cows is generally defined as the time period from
three weeks prior to parturition through three weeks after parturition. It is now
recognized that defining and meeting the nutritional requirements of the
transition dairy cow can greatly impact animal health, production in the ensuing
lactation, overall longevity, and animal well-being (NRC, 2001). Nutrition and
management during the transition period are essential in determining the
profitability of the cow for the rest of her lactation. An inadequate transition
program may result in cows having inconsistent feed intakes after calving, and
metabolic diseases during the transition from dry period to early lactation.
Inadequate nutrients provided to the transition cow can result in increased
costs for veterinary treatment and loss of production potential. Problems during
the transition period often result in the loss of 4.5 to 9 kgs of peak milk, which
translates into economic losses up to $600 for that lactation. To maximize
productivity and ensure successful reproduction, rations fed during this time

Advances in Dairy Technology (2003) Volume 15, page 331

332 Varga

need to be nutrient dense and allow for proper transitioning of the diet to the
lactating cow ration. Maximizing prepartum and postpartum dry matter intake is
an important key to successful transition cow management. There are many
excellent reviews detailing the physiological changes associated with the
transition period (Block and Sanchez, 2001; Bell et al, 2000; Drackley et al,
2000; Ingvartsen and Anderson, 2000; Goff, 1997). This paper will examine
various feeding management strategies that can impact the nutrient needs,
overall management and health of the transition cow. It will focus on the
practical aspects of nutritional management strategies for the cow during this
very critical period of the lactation cycle.

 Economic Impact
Feed related costs typically construe 50-70% of the costs of production on a
dairy farm, while the costs associated with a single health problem often are
never fully recovered. Because the transition period (three weeks prepartum to
three weeks postpartum) has the most impact on health, production and
reproduction, the greatest marginal return for an investment that improves dairy
cow profitability will occur for changes made during this time. The transition to
lactation underscores the importance of gluconeogenesis in ruminants as
hypoglycemia, ketosis, and related metabolic disorders are often observed
when gluconeogenic capacity fails to adapt to the increased demands for
glucose to support lactose synthesis and mammary metabolism. Ketosis is
accompanied by fatty liver and cows that develop fatty liver and ketosis have
reduced feed intake, lower gluconeogenic capacity (Grummer, 1995), lower
milk production, and an increased risk for developing other metabolic and
infectious diseases (Curtis et al., 1985). It has been estimated that an incident
of ketosis costs the dairy producer $140/cow in treatment costs. Given a
ketosis incidence rate of 17% in US cattle (Gillund et al, 2001), a producer
milking 120 cows would lose $2,520 annually to clinical ketosis. Subclinical
ketosis costs approximately $78/case (Geishauser et al, 2000). Additional
losses are realized through lost milk production potential. Reducing subclinical
ketosis and fatty liver such that cows produce a minimum of 0.5 kg more milk at
peak lactation would result in an additional $2,880 of income. In addition,
ketosis increases the risks of developing other metabolic diseases such as
displaced abomasum ($334/case; Shaver et al, 1997), retained placenta
($319/case; Enevoldsen et al, 1995), and mastitis ($200/case; Nickerson, 1991)
and other metabolic problems. Clearly, feeding management strategies that
reduce clinical and subclinical ketosis will directly benefit dairy farm profitability,
enhance animal well being and improve cow longevity.
Do We Need Two Close Up Dry Cow Groups? 333

 Factors Impacting Nutrient Needs of the Transition

Cow
Does Ruminal Capacity Affect Prepartum Intake Depression?
The fermentative capacity of the rumen has not adequately been characterized
through the dry period to lactation. Understanding the dynamics of rumen
digestion is critical to developing a mechanistic approach to predicting the
nutritive value of feeds for transition dairy cows. During late gestation it has
been thought that cows reduce dry matter intake as a consequence of
constraints in rumen fill and digestion. This reduction in intake results in the
mobilization of body fat and energy stores to meet tissue energy demands.
The combination of these factors often leads to fatty liver and other problems.
Increasing the supply of glucogenic precursors, such as propionate, act to
minimize the negative impact of reduced feed intake during this period (Dann et
al, 1999). Likewise increasing the energy density of diets for late-gestation
dairy cows reduces fatty liver and improved lactation performance (Minor et al.,
1998). However, diet modifications that increase energy density through
inclusion of rapidly fermentable carbohydrates, such as starch, may increase
the incidence of displaced abomasums, acidosis and result in over conditioned
cows.

Hartnell and Satter (1979) demonstrated that there were no differences in

ruminal fill, digesta capacity or ruminal retention time in prepartum vs.
postpartum dairy cows. Park et al (2001) most recently demonstrated by
measuring ruminal water holding capacity at various times prepartum and
postpartum that physical capacity of the rumen during this time period does not
contribute to prepartum intake depression. It becomes very clear as more
information of this nature becomes available that to some extent the role of
physical constraints has been overemphasized in ruminants and those
metabolic and endocrine changes in late pregnancy and early lactation play an
important role in prepartum intake reduction (Ingvartsen et al, 1999). Actually
this intake reduction prepartum is not unique to ruminant animals. This also
occurs in rats offered a nutritious diet, even though food consumption was
substantially less than what would be expected because of their physical
capacity (Peterson and Baumguardt, 1976). Some researchers have actually
demonstrated that hypophagia may play an important role in early host defense
mechanisms (Murray and Murray, 1979). It is known that during infections
cytokines are released that may severely reduce intake. Additionally, feedback
signals from the oxidation of nonesterified fatty acids (NEFA) are speculated to
down regulate intake in late pregnancy and early lactation when mobilization is
high (Ingvartsen and Andersen, 2000). We have shown that cows have higher
NEFA in blood at the same time as feed intake is reduced and the effect is
similar whether this occurs prepartum or postpartum (Figure 1; Vallimont et al,
334 Varga

2001). Before trying to improve feed management, it might be important to get

a better understanding of intake regulation in the periparturient animal.

weeks -4 to -1 prepartum and weeks

1 to 4 postpartum

700
600
NEFA, ue/L

y = -17.267x + 1120.8
500 y = -17.919x + 663.27 R2 = 0.8626
400 R 2 = 0.8591
300
200
100
0
20 30 40 50 60
D r y mat t er i nt ake, l b s

Figure 1. Effect of NEFA concentrations on DMI prepartum and postpartum.

(Vallimont et al, 2001).

Ruminal Fermentability of Carbohydrates

Feed intake for cows in early lactation is limited by physical fill and feeding fiber
sources that are digested and passed through the rumen more rapidly may
enhance energy intake. For every unit increase in fiber digestibility Allen and
Oba (1996) demonstrated that there was a 0.23 kg increase in dry matter intake
(DMI) and a 0.24 kg increase in milk yield. Poorly digested, high fiber
feedstuffs typically depress DMI as a consequence of indigestible material
occupying space in a rumen of limited capacity (Mertens, 1993). Some fibrous
feeds, such as cottonseed hulls (CSH), do not depress intake in the same
fashion as other high fiber, relatively indigestible feeds (Harris, et al., 1983, Van
Horn et al., 1984, Adams et al., 1995, Gu et al., 1996, Gu and Moss, 1996).
Providing a highly fermentable nonforage fiber source (NFFS), such as CSH,
may increase the rate of passage through the rumen of the transition cow and
thereby permit her to consume more feed. On relatively low (40% of dry
matter) roughage diets, intake increased curvilinearly when CSH were
substituted for sorghum silage in diets of 10 lactating Holstein cows (Akinyode
and Hall, 1999). It is interesting that although intake of the non-CSH portion of
the diet seemed to decline after the 8% level of CSH, concentrate intake
increased with increasing CSH inclusion.
Do We Need Two Close Up Dry Cow Groups? 335

There is quite a range in ruminal fiber digestibility of forage and grain sources
(13.5 to 78%). Although fiber digestibility of forages is not constant for all
animals and feeding conditions, much of this variation is due to composition
and structural differences of the forages, harvest date and height at harvest.
The indigestible fraction of neutral detergent fiber (NDF) is a major factor
affecting the utilization of fiber carbohydrate sources as it varies greatly and
may exceed more than one half of the total NDF in the rumen. In a study by
Huhtanen and Khalili (1991) a negative relationship between the in vivo
digestibility of cell wall carbohydrates and the corresponding pool size was
demonstrated. These researchers found that as fiber digestibility in the rumen
increased total grams of NDF and digestible NDF decreased at a similar rate
while the indigestible NDF fraction declined at a slower rate.

Alternatively, dietary factors that promote decreased cell wall digestion in the
rumen by affecting the rumen environment increase the ruminal pool size of cell
wall components, especially of the digestible fraction. This can reduce fiber DMI
when ruminal fill limits intake, such as in early lactation. For example, at higher
levels of fiber in the diet (55% NDF), there is almost one half the amount of
indigestible fiber residue for grass hay versus alfalfa hay (Batajoo and Shaver,
1994; Shaver et al, 1988). Although information on the size of the indigestible
fiber fraction of some forage sources is available, information is still needed on
other NFFS as well as on the portion of the potentially digestible fraction that is
actually digested.

How Much Do Dry Cows Eat?

When provided a diet containing 65 to 70% forage on a dry matter basis, dry
cows will consume on average 13.6 kg of total dry matter during the 4 weeks
prior to calving (Figure 2). A cow weighing 614 kg would consume 2.2 percent
of her body weight. Several studies conducted at Penn State University have
examined animal performance of cows fed restricted intake diets at 1.5% of
body weight (DMI of 9.1 kg) 4 weeks prior to calving versus free-choice feeding
where DMI was as high as 2.7% of body weight (DMI of 16 kg). The take-home
message from these experiments was as long as the rations were properly
balanced and managed, DMI postpartum and animal health was not
compromised.
336 Varga

Dry Matter Intake

60
50
DMI (lb/d)

40
30
20
10
0
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Day relative to parturition

Figure 2. Dry matter intake prepartum and postpartum of Holstein dairy cows

Dry matter intake of dairy cows can be limited by physical fill in early lactation.
Providing a highly fermentable NFFS may increase rate of passage through the
rumen and thereby provide the cow the opportunity to consume more feed.
Recent studies (Ordway, 2001), demonstrate that feeding a diet containing
NFFS resulted in prepartum DMI that were 20% greater than previous studies
conducted (Table 1) and was 2 to 5 kg/d greater than many reports in the
literature (Dann et al; Greenfield et al., 2000). Additional work indicates that
byproduct feeds, particularly soyhulls and CSH, can be substituted for forage
fiber without negative consequences on rumination activity. Because
prepartum intake is correlated with postpartum intake (Putnam and Varga,
1998) and milk production is directly related to feed intake it is critical to devise
feeding strategies for transition dairy cows that help to avoid, or minimize, the
natural tendency for feed intake depression just prior to calving. Doing so
assures that the cow will begin lactation with minimal risk of developing health
disorders and will maximize milk production. A strategy to reduce fiber in the
diet of late gestation dry cows derived from poor quality silages and long
stemmed hay in favor of highly fermentable byproduct feeds appears logical.
These rations are likely to be more uniform in chemical composition, more
predictable in their fermentation characteristics, more readily consumed by
transition dairy cattle, and more universally applicable.
Do We Need Two Close Up Dry Cow Groups? 337

Table 1. Average dry matter intake 4 weeks prepartum

Reference n DMI kg/d NEL, Mcal/kg

Dann et al, 1999 65 14.1 1.60
Greenfield et al, 2000 38 11.7 1.50
Hartnell and Satter, 1979 4 10.8
Hartwell et al, 2000 44 12.4 1.63
Huyler et al, 1999 31 10.7 1.34
Minor et al 1998 50 11.6 1.50
Wu et al, 1997 24 14.9 1.52
Vallimont et al, 2001 63 12.6 1.54
VandeHaar et al, 1999 40 11.7 1.42

Ordway et al, 2001 34 16.3 1.53

Pickett and Varga, in 100 15.8 1.55
progress

How Long Does It Take For Animals To Adapt To Dietary

Changes?
Approximately 5 weeks are required to change the physiological set point of
ruminant animals in response to alterations in nutritional status (Koong et al,
1982). Rumen, intestines and liver size differ significantly less 3 weeks
prepartum compared with 3 weeks postpartum (Reynolds et al., 2000) and
blood flow through the portal drained viscera is positively correlated with energy
intake (Huntington, 1990). Koong and Ferrell (1990) demonstrated that fasting
heat production could differ up to 40% for animals of the same age and weight,
but with different nutritional backgrounds. Huntington et al (1988) demonstrated
the oxygen consumption by the portal drained viscera, as a percentage of
whole animal oxygen consumption was 4% greater for orchardgrass silage
compared to alfalfa silage. Finnegan et al (2001) most recently demonstrated a
role for the gastrointestinal tract contributing to higher thermogenesis observed
in ruminants fed forage as opposed to concentrate diets. Taken together these
data suggest a minimum of 5 weeks of feeding may be required to establish a
new metabolic plateau for liver and intestinal tissues in response to diet.
Therefore, the duration of feeding a nutrient dense diet may dictate the
adaptive response in gut and liver and their capacity to meet the demands for
milk production in the ensuing lactation.
338 Varga

There are many physiological challenges prepartum where we clearly lack

adequate information to help guide us in nutritional strategies during the
transition period. These include the importance of acclimation of microbial
populations to the lactating cow diet, maintaining microbial protein synthesis,
assuring maximal absorptive capacity of the ruminal epithelium, liver and gut
function set points, quantity of adequate glucogenic precursors, and the
additional nutrients needed to meet the demands for protein and energy for
growth of the mammary gland.

 Feeding Strategies and Management of Dry Cows

Evaluation of Diets and Level of Feeding
Mashek and Beede (2001) reported no effect of duration of close up dry cow
diet feeding on milk production. In a trial feeding a 60:40 (DM basis) of grass
silage with barley straw ad libitum, grass silage ad libitum, or 0.5 kg/d of prairie
meal with grass silage ad libitum for six weeks prior to parturition no effect of
diet on milk yield was observed (Dewhurst et al., 2000). Holcomb et al. (2001)
fed diets high (70%) or low (28%) in forage either restricted or ad libitum for
four weeks prior to parturition and reported no significant effects of forage
percentage during the prepartum period on milk yield. VandeHaar et al. (1999)
fed diets varying in both protein and energy for 25 days prior to parturition and
again reported no effect of diet composition on milk or component yield during
lactation. Keady et al. (2001) supplemented grass silage based diets with 0 or
5 kg/d of concentrates for four weeks prior to calving and found no effect of
treatment on milk and milk protein yield, while milk fat increased significantly
with concentrate feeding. Holcomb et al. (2001) reported no advantage of high
DMI prepartum vs. restricted diets on milk production. These studies provide
little evidence that close up dry cow diets will promote increased production
after calving. In addition, many of these dietary changes were made 3 to 4
weeks prepartum likely inadequate time for the animal to adjust to a new
physiological set point. However, the importance of the amount of DMI
consumed prepartum is more critical to the prevention of metabolic diseases
such as ketosis postpartum than increased milk production.

Effect of Body Condition

The outcome of prepartum diet is more likely its effects on metabolic disease
which is much more difficult to measure unless hundreds of animals are
evaluated. Heavier cows experience a greater decrease in DMI prior to calving
than do cows of thin body condition. In situations in which cows are fat at dry
off, restricting intakes during the prepartum period would be beneficial to avoid
accumulating more body condition. However there may be increased risk for
metabolic disorders after calving such as ketosis, displaced abomasums and
Do We Need Two Close Up Dry Cow Groups? 339

fatty liver. It is clear that over conditioned cows (>4.0 on a 5.0 scale) have
reduced intakes after calving and are more prone to fatty liver disease and
ketosis (Fronk et al, 1980). In a well managed high producing herd, Waltner et
al (1993) found that FCM in the first 90 days of lactation was maximized when
body condition score was 3.5 at calving. Putnam et al (1997) demonstrated that
cows with BCS > 3.25 prepartum had higher NEFA, and BHBA concentrations
and produced 2.5 kg/d less milk the first 30 days of lactation than cows with
BCS < 3.25. This is consistent with on farm studies conducted recently by
researchers at Cornell University. In a study conducted by Michelone et al
(1999) prepartum NEFA concentrations averaged 151.8 18.3 µEq/L and BCS
averaged 3.28 0.08 in comparison to the study conducted by Putnam et al
(1999) where NEFA concentrations averaged 388.5 71 µEq/L and BCS
averaged 3.68 0.11. Incidence of subclinical and clinical ketosis was 20% in
the study of Putnam et al (1999) and 2% in the study conducted by Michelone
et al (1999). Both of these studies were conducted at restricted intake to 1.5%
of BW and fed similar diets indicating that body condition was critical in
predisposing the fatter cows to metabolic disease.

The bottom line is that heavier cows lose more body condition after calving and
have more difficulty getting bred back. It is recommended to begin feeding
management decisions for fat cows approximately 60 to 45 days prior to dryoff.
If more than 10% of late lactation cows are over-conditioned (BCS > 3.5) a
change is warranted. Some options include feeding a low group TMR, restrict
intake of a one group TMR to the tail-enders, include NFFS in place of high
energy dense feeds or feed a low quality forage.

Challenges to Current Dry Cow Feeding and Management Concepts

Practical decisions made regarding feeding cows during the dry period are
simple. 1) The cow is not lactating therefore she does not need a nutrient
dense ration as when she is lactating. However, during the last 6-8 weeks prior
to calving the fetus is growing at its most rapid rate and has a tremendous
demand for glucogenic precursors. It is also the time period that the cow is
manufacturing immunoglobulins necessary for the calf at birth. It has been
demonstrated that poor nutrition impacts the composition and quantity of
immunoglobulins synthesized. The mammary gland as discussed previously
also requires nutrients in preparation for lactogenesis. 2) Since the cow has
reduced nutrient demands she can be fed cheaper feed sources and/or poor
quality forage. It has not been demonstrated that all physiological aspects of
the cow's nutrient demands are reduced during this time period. The cow is
most immunocompromised at this time and exposure to mycotoxins and
inconsistent nutrients as found in poor quality forages is least desired during
this time period. 3) The dry cow can be brought to another facility, needs less
oversight and therefore less labor. This is the time period when observation is
critical especially regarding the body condition of the animal and her appetite.
Physical facilities and cow comfort during this time period is also critical.
340 Varga

Buelow (1998) demonstrated that dry cows are more sensitive to overcrowding
with an 11% decrease in DMI when numbers went from 88 to 93% of capacity
in a headlock pen. 4) Use of a steam up ration 2-3 weeks prior to calving.
Many times the lactating cow ration is used without attention to differences in
mineral requirements between pre and postpartum animals. In addition, as
discussed previously 2 to 3 weeks is not adequate time for liver and intestinal
enzymes to adjust to the prepartum and postpartum rations.

Is an Early and Close Up Ration Necessary for Dry Cows? Can a

One Group Total Mixed Ration (TMR) Be Fed During the Dry
Period?
Many producers are successfully feeding a one group TMR during the entire
dry period. In a recently completed study (Ordway et al, 2002) we
demonstrated that cows provided corn silage based rations with a portion of the
fiber coming from NFFS had higher DMI prepartum in comparison to
conventionally fed dry cows. These diets were based on corn silage as the
primary forage source (50% of ration DM), approximately 20% of the ration DM
coming from NFFS such as CSH, soyhulls, and corn cobs, with the remainder
from soybean meal, molasses, corn, distillers, vitamins and minerals. Cows
consumed on average 3 kg more DMI compared to the last six prepartum
studies we have conducted feeding conventional dry cow rations (~70% of DM
from forage) during the last 4 weeks prepartum. Cows were provided the ration
the entire dry period and did not gain any additional body condition compared
to cows fed a conventional high forage ration. In addition, cows averaged 18 kg
of DMI the first two weeks of lactation with minimal health problems and peaked
with an average of 46 kg of milk at 5 weeks postpartum. We have recently
finished a pen feeding study with 36 animals half of which were heifers
evaluating a conventional dry cow ration with one formulated to contain ~ 35%
NFFS fed the entire dry period. All cows averaged 48 kg of milk the first 7
weeks of lactation; however mature cows produced 3 kg more milk when
provided the NFFS based ration prepartum and had a lower incidence of
metabolic problems. It is important to understand that the NFFS replace the
forage portion of the ration and not the energy and protein sources. The cost
associated with feeding one ration throughout the entire dry period is easily
offset when considering the costs associated with the treatment and lost
production for one case of ketosis.

Advantages of a one group TMR for dry cows:

 Reduced labor, ease of feeding, less rations to mix

 Consistency of diet provided to cows
 Less dramatic change when switched to lactating cow ration
Do We Need Two Close Up Dry Cow Groups? 341

 More nutrient dense to meet needs of fetus, mammary gland and

reduced intake few days prior to calving
 Can contain many of the same ingredients as in the lactating cow ration
 If more than one lactating feeding groups this ration can be similar to
ration for tail enders
 Cows are more prepared to meet demands of lactation and potentially
have greater body reserves and therefore loose less body condition
 Cows do not have to be moved form various facilities/pens other than
to a maternity pen
 Cows have to be monitored more regularly for aggressiveness at the
feed bunk
 Cows that calve early are on a nutrient dense diet for a longer period of
time and therefore are assured an adequate adaptation a lactation type
ration
Advantages of an early and close dry cow feeding program:

 Cheaper sources of feed can be fed to the far off group

 Far off cows can be housed in a different facility
 Far off cows do not have to be fed everyday, just leave a big round
bale out in the dry lot and they will be happy
 Feed intake of far off group does not have to be as closely monitored
 Forage quality and availability may necessitate a two group feeding
program
In any dry cow feeding program what is critical is that ration changes are not
drastic. The fresh cow ration should be intermediate between the close up
ration and the fresh group ration. A shift should not be greater than a 10%
increase in any nutrient when transitioning cows prepartum to the lactating cow
ration (Chandler, 1995). For example, if the prepartum ration is 1.55 NE l
Mcal/kg then the immediate fresh ration should be no greater than 1.71 NE l
Mcal /kg DM. It is recommended that the dry cow ration have an energy density
in the range of 1.5 to 1.6 Mcal NEl/kg DM, CP in the range of 13-14%, NFC
between 33 to 38% and NDF >32%.

Nutrition and management during the transition period are essential in

determining the profitability of the cow for the rest of her lactation. Stimulation
and maintenance of DMI around calving is essential to ensure a high level of
productivity and healthy cows. Proper formulation of rations for protein, energy
density, fiber and nonfiber carbohydrates will help to increase intake around
calving along with management of body condition, cow comfort, and consistent
342 Varga

and high quality forages will assure an excellent transition program for the high
producing dairy cow.

 References
Adams, A. L., B. Harris, Jr., H. H. Van Horn, and C. J. Wilcox. 1995. Effects of
varying forage types on milk production responses to whole cottonseed,
tallow, and yeast. J. Dairy Sci. 78:573-581.
Akinyode, A., M. B. Hall, C. R. Staples, and W. E. Kunkle. 1999. Effect of
cottonseed hulls on feed intake and fecal flow in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci.
82 (Suppl. 1):41.
Allen, M. and M. Oba. 1996. Increasing fiber digestibility may increase energy
density, dry matter intake. Feedstuffs, Nov. 18. pg. 14-16.
Bertics, S. J., R. R. Grummer, C. Cadorniga-Valino, and E. E. Stoddard. 1992.
Effect of prepartum dry matter intake on liver triglyceride concentration
and early lactation. J. Dairy Sci. 75:1914.
Block, E. and W. Sanchez. 2000. Special nutritional needs of the transition cow.
Mid. South Nutrition Conference, Dallas, TX.
Buelow, K. 1998. Integrating dairy nutrition, production and financial records.
Bovine Pract. 34:46-50.
Capuco, A. V., R. M. Akers, and J. J. Smith. 1997. Mammary growth in Holstein
cows during the dry period: quantification of nucleic acids and histology
J. Dairy. Sci. 80:477-487.
Chandler, P. 1995.Transition period of cows presents unique challenges to
nutritionists. Feedstuffs p 11.
Curtis, C. R., H. N. Erb, C. J. Sniffen, R. D. Smith, and D. S. Kronfeld. 1985.
Path analysis of dry period nutrition, postpartum metabolic and
reproductive disorders, and mastitis in Holstein cows. J. Dairy Sci.
68:2347.
Dann, H. M., G. A. Varga, and D. E. Putnam. 1999. Improving energy supply to
late gestation and early postpartum dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 82:1765-
1778.
Dewhurst, R. J,. J. M. Moorby, M. S. Dhanoa, R. T. Evans, and W. J. Fisher.
2000. Effects of altering energy and protein supply to dairy cows during
the dry period. 1. Intake, body condition, and milk production. J. Dairy
Sci. 83:1782-1794.
Drackley, J. K. 1997. Minimizing ketosis in high producing dairy herds. Page 63
in Proc. Tri-State Dairy Nutr. Conf., Ft. Wayne, IN.
Drackley, J. K., T. R. Overton, and G. N. Douglas. 2001. Adaptation of glucose
and long chain faty acid metabolism in liver of dairy cows during the
periparturient period. J. Dairy Sci. 84(E. Suppl.):E100-E112.
Enevoldsen, C. Sorensen, J. T. Thysen, I. Guard, C. Grohn, Y. T A diagnostic
and prognostic tool for epidemiologic and economic analyses of dairy
herd health management. J. Dairy Sci. 1995. 78: 4, 947-961.
Do We Need Two Close Up Dry Cow Groups? 343

Finegan E.J., J. G. Buchanan-Smith, and B. W. McBride. 2001. The role of gut

tissue in the energy metabolism of growing lambs fed forage or
concentrate diets. Br. J. Nutr. 86:257-64.
Fronk, T. J., L. H. Schultz, and A. R. Hardie. 1980. Effect of dry period
overconditioning on subsequent metabolic disorders and performance of
dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 63:1080.
Geishauser, T. K., K. Leslie, J. Tenhag, and A. Bashiri. 2000. Evaluation of
eight cow-side ketone tests in milk for detection of subclinical ketosis in
dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 83:296-299.
Gillund, P., O. Reksen, Y. T. Gröhn, and K. Karlberg. 2001. Body condition
related to ketosis and reproductive performance in norwegian dairy
cows. J. Dairy Sci. 84:1390-1396.
Goff, J. P., and R. L. Horst. 1997. Physiological changes at parturition and their
relationships to metabolic disorders. J. Dairy Sci. 80:1260.
Greenfield, R. B., M. J. Cecava, T. R. Johnson, and S. S. Donkin. 2000. Impact
of dietary protein amount and rumen undegradability on intake,
peripartum liver triglyceride, plasma metabolites, and milk production in
transition dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 83:703-710.
Grummer, R. R. 1993. Etiology of lipid-related metabolic disorders in
periparturient dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 76:3882.
Grummer, R. R. 1995. Impact of changes in organic nutrient metabolism on
feeding the transition dairy cow. J. Anim. Sci. 73:2820.
Grummer, R. R. 1998.Transition cow energy, protein nutrition examined.
Feedstuffs. Sept 14, p14.
Gu, S. C., B. R. Moss, W. McElhenney, and J. C. Lin. 1996. Effects of forage
sources in high and low rumen undegradable protein diets on lactating
cow performance. J. Dairy Sci. 79 (Suppl. 1): 151 (Abstr.).
Gu, S. C. and B. R. Moss. 1996. Lactation performance of cows fed low and
high rumen undegradable protein diets with varying levels of cottonseed
hulls and protein. J. Dairy Sci. 79 (Suppl. 1): 152 (Abstr.).
Harris, B. Jr., H. H. Van Horn, K. E. Manookian, S. P. Marshall, M. J. Taylor,
and C. J. Wilcox. 1983. Sugarcane silage, sodium hydroxide- and steam
pressure-treated sugarcane bagasse, corn silage, cottonseed hulls,
sodium bicarbonate, and Aspergillis oryzae product in complete rations
for lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 66:1474-1485.
Hartnell, G. F. and L. D. Satter. 1979. Determination of rumen fill, retention
time, and ruminal turnover rates of ingesta at different stages of lactation
in dairy cows. J. Anim. Sci. 48:381-392.
Holcomb, C. S., H. H Van Horn, H. H. Head, M. B. Hall, and C. J. Wilcox.
2001.Effects of prepartum dry matter intake and forage percentage on
postpartum performance of lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 84:2051-
2058.
Huntington, G. B. 1990. Energy metabolism in the digestive tract and liver of
cattle: influence of physiological state and nutrition. Reprod. Nutr. Dev.
30:35-47.
344 Varga

Huntington, G. B., G. A. Varga, B. P. Glenn, D. R. Waldo. 1988. Net absorption

and oxygen consumption by Holstein steers fed alfalfa or orchardgrass
silage at two equalized intakes. J. Anim. Sci. 66:1292-302.
Huthanen, P. and H. Khalili.1991. Sucrose supplements in cattle given grass
silage based diet. 3. Rumen pool size and digestion kinetics. Anim.
Feed Sci. Tech. 33:275.
Ingvartsen, K. L. and J. B. Andersen. 2000. Integration of metabolism and
intake regulation: a review focusing on periparturient animals. J. Dairy
Sci. 83:1573-1597.
Ingvartsen, K. L., N. C. Friggens, and F. Faverdin. 1999. Feed intake regulation
in late pregnancy and early lactation. Br. Soc. Anim. Sci.Occ. Publ.
24:37-54.
Keady, T. W. J., C. S. Mayne, D. A. Fitzpatrick, and M. A. McCoy. 2001. Effect
of concentrate feed level in late gestation on subsequent milk yield, milk
composition, and fertility of dairy cows J. Dairy Sci. 84:1468-1479.
Koong, L. J., Nienaber, J. A., J. C. Pekas, and J. T. Yen. 1982. Effects of plane
of nutrition on organ size and fasting heat production in pigs. J. Nutr.
112:1638-1642.
Koong, L. J., and C. L. Ferrell. 1990. Effects of short term nutritional
manipulation on organ size and fasting heat production. Eur. J. Clin.
Nutr. 44 Suppl 1:73-7.
Mashek, D. J. and D. K. Beede. 2001. Peripartum Responses of Dairy Cows
Fed Energy-Dense Diets for 3 or 6 Weeks Prepartum J. Dairy Sci.
84:115-125.
Mertens, D. R. 1993. Kinetics of cell wall digestion and passage in ruminants.
In Forage Cell Wall Structure and Digestibility, Eds. Jung, H. G., D.R.
Buxton, R. D. Hatfield, and J. Ralph. ASA-CSSA-SSSA, Madison, WI.
Michelone, S., G. A. Varga, J. Vallimont, T. W. Cassidy and B. Urpack. 1999.
Production and metabolic responses of exogenous somatotropin (bST) in
Holstein dairy cows during the periparturient period. J. Dairy Sci
(abstract)
Minor, D. J., S. L. Trower, B. D. Strang, R. D. Shaver, and R. R. Grummer.
1998. Effects of nonfiber carbohydrate and niacin on periparturient
metabolic status and lactation of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 81:189-200.
Moe, P. W. 1965. Effects of level of intake on the utilization of diets by dairy
cows. Ph.D. Dissertation, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY.
Murray, M. J. and A. B. Murray. 1979. Anorexia of infection as a mechanism of
host defense. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 32:593-596.
National Research Council. 2001. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle. 7th
rev. ed. Natl. Acad. Sci., Washington, DC.
Nickerson, S. C. 1991. Mastitis control in heifers and dry cows. Dairy Food &
Environ. Sanit.11: 438-443.
Ordway, R. S., V. A. Ishler, and G. A. Varga. 2001. Effects of fermentable
carbohydrate sources on dry matter intake, milk production, and blood
metabolites of transition dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 84:82.
Do We Need Two Close Up Dry Cow Groups? 345

Park, A. F., J. E. Shirley, E. C. Titgemeyer, E. E. Ferdinand, R. C. Cochran, D.

G. Schmidt, S. E. Ives, and T. G. Nagaraja. 2001. Changes in rumen
capacity during the periparturient period in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 84
(Suppl.1).
Peterson, A. D., and B. R. Baumgardt. 1976. Influence of level of energy
demand on the ability of rats to compensate for feed dilution. J. Nutr.
101:1069-1074.
Putnam, D. E., K. J. Soder, L. H. Holden, H. M. Dann, and G. A. Varga. 1997.
Periparturient traits correlate with postpartum intake and milk production.
J. Dairy Sci. 80 (Suppl. 1) 142.
Putnam, D. E. and G. A. Varga. 1998. Protein density influences metabolite
concentration and nitrogen retention in late gestation Holstein cows. J.
Dairy Sci. 81:1608.
Putnam, D. E., G. A. Varga, and H. M. Dann. 1999. Metabolic and production
responses to dietary protein and exogenous somatotropin in late
gestation dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 82:982.
Reynolds, C. K., B. Durst, D. J. Humphries, B. Lupoli, A. K. Jones, R. H.
Phipps, and D. E. Beever. 2000. Visceral tissue mass in transition dairy
cows. J. Anim. Sci. 78 (Suppl. 1):257.
Shaver, R. D. 1997. Nutritional risk factors in the etiology of left displaced
abomasum in dairy cows: A review. J. Dairy Sci. 80:2449-2453.
Shaver, R. D., A. J. Nytes, L. D. Satter, and N. A. Jorgensen. 1988. Influence of
feed intake, forage physical form, and forage fiber content on particle
size of masticated forage, ruminal digesta, and feces of dairy cows. J.
Dairy Sci. 71:1566.
Vallimont, J. E., G. A. Varga, A. Arieli, T. W. Cassidy, and K. A. Cummins.
2001. Effects of prepartum somatotropin and monensin on metabolism
and production of periparturient Holstein dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci.
84:2607-2621.
VandeHaar, M. J., B. K. Sharma, G. Yousif, T. H. Herdt, R. S. Emery, M. S.
Allen, and J. S. Liesman. 1995. Prepartum diets more nutrient-dense
than recommended by NRC improve nutritional status of peripartum
cows. J. Dairy Sci. 78(Suppl. 1):264. (Abstr.).
Van Horn, H. H., B. Harris, Jr., M. J. Taylor, K. C. Bachman, and C. J. Wilcox.
1984. By-product feeds for lactating dairy cows: effects of cottonseed
hulls, sunflower hulls, corrugated paper, peanut hulls, sugarcane
bagasse, and whole cottonseed with additives of fat, sodium bicarbonate
and Aspergillis oryzae product on milk production. J. Dairy Sci. 67:2922-
2938.
Waltner, S. S., J. P. McNamara, and J. K. Hillers. 1993. Relationships of body
condition score to production variables in high producing Holstein dairy
cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 76:3410.