Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T07:41:57.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

661. The genetic connexion between body size, milk production and efficiency in dairy cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

I. L. Mason ,
Alan Robertson  and
B. Gjelstad
I. L. Mason
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Genetics, Edinburgh
Alan Robertson
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Genetics, Edinburgh
B. Gjelstad
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Genetics, Edinburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. An analysis has been made of production records and body measurements of dairy cattle from farms and special progeny testing stations in Denmark.

2. Heritability estimates of various measurements of body size and also of gross efficiency of food conversion were all in the neighbourhood of 0·50. Body weight was more closely correlated with girth than with height.

3. Milk yield had a very high correlation, both phenotypic and genetic, with gross efficiency. This was shown on theoretical grounds to be a necessary result of any standard system of feeding.

4. Correlations between production characteristics and body measurements were slight. There was some suggestion that selection for yield would increase skeletal size but decrease fleshing.

5. The best index on which to select for efficiency of food conversion under these conditions would be the yield divided by the height.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , June 1957 , pp. 135 - 143
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1957

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)Afkomsprøver Med Tyre, I·X (1947–1956). Beretning fra Forsøgslaboratoriet, København, nos. 226, 229, 236, 245, 254, 257, 263, 270, 276, 286.Google Scholar
(2)Blaxter, K. L. (1956). Proc. Brit. Soc. Anim. Prod. 1956, p. 3.Google Scholar
(3)Brody, S. (1945). Bioenergetics and Growth. New York: Rheingold Publishing Co.Google Scholar
(4)Davis, H. P., Morgan, R. F. & Gaines, W. L. (1943). J. Dairy Sci. 26, 625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(5)Gowen, J. W. (1933). Genetics, 18, 415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(6)Hansson, A. (1956). Proc. Brit. Soc. Anim. Prod. 1956, p. 51.Google Scholar
(7)Johansson, I. (1954). Z. Tierz. ZüchtBiol. 63, 105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(8)Mason, I. L. (1953). Proc. Brit. Soc. Anim. Prod. 1952, p. 106.Google Scholar
(9)Mason, I. L. & Robertson, Alan (1956). J. agric. Sci. 47, 367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(10)Midtlid, S. & Berge, S. (1950). Meld. Norg. LandbrHøgsk. 1950, p. 115.Google Scholar
(11)Robertson, Alan & Mason, I. L. (1956). J. agric. Sci. 47, 376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(12)Touchberry, R. W. (1951). J. Dairy Sci. 34, 242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(13)Venge, O. (1956). Z. Tierz. ZüchtBiol. 67, 147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(14)Wallace, L. R. (1956). N.Z. Dairy Exptr, 32, (2), 12.Google Scholar