Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T03:35:21.505Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

689. The effect of variations in nutrient intake upon the yield and composition of milk: III. A note on experimental methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

A. W. A. Burt
A. W. A. Burt
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, University of Reading
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Data from seven winter feeding experiments with dairy cows, using 3×3 latinsquare designs and from two randomized block experiments on the supplementation of summer grazing, were used in a study of some aspects of experimental technique.

2. In the 3×3 trials the use of observations from 2 weeks instead of the last week of each period reduced minimum significant differences by 0·1 lb. milk/cow/day, and 0·06 and 0·02 mean percentage unit of fat and solids-not-fat, respectively.

3. In three out of four experiments no advantage was obtained from recording live weights on more than 1 day at the end of each period.

4. It was shown that the analysis of variance of milk yields expressed as individual differences between yield in the experimental period, and the mean of pre- and post- experimental control periods was considerably more efficient than that of yields in the experimental period, or covariance with yield in the initial control period.

5. The results were discussed in relation to the sources of error involved, and the relative efficiency of various types of experimental design.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , February 1958 , pp. 1 - 8
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1958

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

(1)Brandt, A. E. (1938). Bull. Ia agric. Exp. Sta. no. 234.Google Scholar
(2)Cochran, W. G., Autrey, K. M. & Cannon, C. Y. (1941). J. Dairy Sci. 34, 937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(3)Williams, E. J. (1947). Aust. J. Sci. Res. A, 2, 149.Google Scholar
(4)Williams, E. J. (1950). Aust. J. Sci. Res. A, 3, 351.Google Scholar
(5)Patterson, H. D. (1950). J. agric. Sci. 40, 375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(6)Patterson, H. D. (1951). J. R. statist. Soc. B, 13, 256.Google Scholar
(7)Lucas, H. L. (1951). J. agric. Sci. 41, 146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(8)Lucas, H. L. (1956). J. Dairy Sci. 39, 146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(9)Taylor, W. B. & Armstrong, P. J. (1953). J. agric. Sci. 43, 407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(10)Burt, A. W. A., Bartlett, S. & Rowland, S. J. (1954). J. Dairy Res. 21, 299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(11)Burt, A. W. A. (1957). J. Dairy Res. 24, 283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(12)Rowland, S. J. (1946). Dairy Ind. 11, 656.Google Scholar
(13)Woodman, H. E. (1952). Bull. Minist. Agric., Lond., no. 48.Google Scholar
(14)Blaxter, K. L. & Ruben, H. (1953). A.R.C. Report, no. 239/53.Google Scholar
(15)MacLusky, D. S. (1956). Personal communication.Google Scholar
(16)Bartlett, S. (1926). J. agric. Sci. 16, 383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(17)Lush, J. L., Christensen, F. W., Wilson, C. V. & Black, W. H. (1928). J. agric. Res. 36, 551.Google Scholar
(18)Baker, A. L., Phillips, R. W. & Black, W. H. (1947). J. Anim. Sci. 6, 56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(19)Bean, H. W. (1946). J. Anim. Sci. 5, 30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(20)Bean, H. W. (1948). J. Anim. Sci. 7, 50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(21)Patterson, R. E. (1947). J. Anim. Sci. 6, 237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(22)Frederiksen, L. (1931). Beretn. Forsøgslab. Kbh. no. 136.Google Scholar