Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T20:17:27.102Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of growth rate in twin cattle of eight breeds and crosses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

D. Gibson  and
J. H. Watson
D. Gibson
Affiliation:
A.R.C. Animal Breeding Research Organisation, Edinburgh 9
J. H. Watson
Affiliation:
A.R.C. Animal Breeding Research Organisation, Edinburgh 9
Get access

Summary

1. Rates of live-weight gain from 2 to 96 weeks of age are compared in twin cattle of 8 breeds and crosses. The 258 animals in the trial consisted of 77 pairs of one-egg (MZ) and 52 pairs of two-egg (DZ) twins. All were females.

2. Between collection during the first week after birth, and 36 weeks of age, treatment of animals was uniform. After this some animals were grazed and others remained housed, depending on their date of birth. Members of each twin pair were, however, always treated alike. Between 36 and 96 weeks of age grazed stock gained 62 lb. more weight than housed stock. This difference was allowed for in making breed comparisons.

3. The trial period was divided into six stages. The most rapid gains were made between 24 and 36 weeks of age (1·43 lb. per day) and between 36 and 52 weeks (1·48 lb. per day). Earlier and later growth rates were about 30% less than these.

4. Rates of gain varied from 1·10 lb. per day in Ayrshires to 1·38 lb. per day in Friesian × Shorthorn crosses. The Friesian and its crosses with Shorthorn generally made fastest gains throughout the trial. The Ayrshire was slower than the rest. The Shorthorn and its crosses with Hereford and Ayrshire were intermediate in performance.

5. Ratios of within-pair variance in MZ and DZ twins indicate that differences in performance are most strongly dependent on genetic differences-at 12 to 24 and 52 to 72 weeks of age.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , June 1963 , pp. 175 - 181
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1963

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Brookes, A. J. & Hodges, J., 1959. Studies in beef production. I. The effects of level of feeding and of breed on the growth and fattening of spring born calves. J. agric. Sci., 53: 78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickinson, A. G., 1960. Some genetic implications of maternal effects—an hypothesis of mammalian growth. J. agric. Sci., 54: 378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donald, H. P., 1953. A study of variation in twin cattle. I. General description. J. Dairy Res., 20: 355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donald, H. P., 1958. Evidence from twins on variation in growth and production of cattle. Proc. Xth int. Cong. Genet. (Montreal), 1: 225.Google Scholar
Donald, H. P. & Watson, J. H., 1961. Variance of yield and composition of milk within pairs of twin and single-born cattle. Z. Tierz. ZiichtBiol, 75: 238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, J., 1960. Farm Animals. Their Breeding, Growth and Inheritance. 3rd edition. Edward Arnold and Co., London, p. 78.Google Scholar
Hart, G. H. & Cole, H. H., 1939. Studies on the cause of increased growth during pregnancy. Proc. Soc. exp. Biol., 41: 310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, I., 1958. The genetics of milk yield. Proc. Xth int. Congr. Genet. (Montreal), 1: 236.Google Scholar
Jones, E. L. & Rennie, G. K., 1956. A comparison of different breeds and crosses for beef production. Exp. Husb., 1: 48.Google Scholar
King, J. W. B. & Donald, H. P., 1955. A study of variation in twin cattle. III. Growth. J. Dairy Res., 22: 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, J. H., 1960. Milk yield and butterfat percentage of twin and single-born cattle under experimental and field conditions. Anim. Prod., 2: 67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yates, F., 1933. The principles of orthogonality and confounding in replicated experiments. J. agric. Sci., 23: 108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar