Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:27:05.120Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The development of calves reared on varying amounts of whole milk

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

Janet P. Tibbits
Janet P. Tibbits
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, Beading University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The response of calves to varying amounts of whole milk, as revealed by two experiments at the University of Reading farm at Sonning, is considered as a study of growth and development.

In the first experiment, which had been carried out between 1944 and 1951, seventy-five Shorthorn calves were divided into three groups (A, B and C) reared on 90, 65 and 40 gal. respectively. The treatments produced significant and prolonged differences in live weight.

A second experiment, carried out between 1952 and 1954, consisted of twenty-eight Shorthorn and twenty-eight Friesian calves in four groups (I–IV) reared on 100, 79, 57 and 35 gal. respectively. Very much less response to the treatments was found in live weight, and the effects on thirteen body measurements were even smaller, though still statistically significant. A marked difference in the response of the two breeds was apparent, the Shorthorns showing greater treatment effects in live weight and most of the body measurements.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 49 , Issue 3 , October 1957 , pp. 329 - 346
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 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

Alexander, G. I. (1953). Aust. Vet. J. 30, 68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartlett, S. & Jameson, J. L. (1932). J. Dairy Res. 3, 310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bender, C. B. & Bartlett, J. W. (1929). J. Dairy Sci. 12, 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. & Wood, W. A. (1952). Brit. J. Nutr. 6, 56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonnier, G. & Hansson, A. (1946). Acta Agric. Suec. 1(2), 172.Google Scholar
Bonnier, G., Hansson, A. & Skjervold, H. (1948). Acta Agric. Suec. 3, (1), 3.Google Scholar
Braude, R. & Walker, D. M. (1949). J. Agric. Sci. 39, 156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brody, S. (1927). Res. Bull. Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 97.Google Scholar
Crighton, J. A. & Aitken, J. N. (1954). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 13(1), 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Espe, D. L., Cannon, C. Y. & Hansen, E. N. (1932). Res. Bull. la Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 154.Google Scholar
Filmer, J. R. (1949–1953). Ann. Reps. N. Z. Dep. Agric.Google Scholar
Flipse, R. J., Huffman, C. F., Webster, H. D. & Duncan, C. W. (1950). J. Dairy Sci. 33, 548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guilbert, H. R. & Gregory, C. W. (1952). J. Anim. Sci. 11, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, J. (1940). Farm Animals. Their Breeding, Growth and Inheritance.Google Scholar
Hansson, H. & Bonnier, G. (1950). Acta Agric. Scand. 1 (1), 97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, A., Brannang, E. & Claesson, O. (1953). Acta Agric. Scand. 3(1), 61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herman, H. A. (1936). Bes. Bull. Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 245.Google Scholar
Jarvis, C. N., Waugh, R. K. & Murley, W. R. (1952). J. Anim. Sci. 11, 766.Google Scholar
Joubert, D. M. (1954). J. Agric. Sci. 44, 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kastetic, J., Bentley, G. O. & Philipps, Paul H. (1950). J. Dairy Sci. 33, 725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, J. W. B. (1953). Proc. Brit. Soc. Anim. Prod. p. 76.Google Scholar
Lofgreen, G. P. & Kleiber, M. (1953). J. Nulr. 49, 183.Google Scholar
Lush, J. L. & Touchberry, R. W. (1950). J. Dairy Sci. 33, 72.Google Scholar
Mackintosh, J. (1931). J. Brit. Dairy Fmrs Assoc. 43, 9.Google Scholar
Mead, S. W., Regan, M. J. & Bartlett, J. W. (1924). J. Dairy Sci. 7, 440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neville, W. E., McCullough, M. E., Sell, O. E. & Baird, D. M. (1952). J. Anim. Sci. 11, 772.Google Scholar
Palsson, H. & Verges, J. B. (1952). J. Agric. Sci. 42, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parrish, D. B., Bartley, E. E., Burns, D. U. & MoIntyre, R. T. (1953). J. Dairy Sci. 36, 489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Percival, J. C. (1951). Proc. N.Z. Soc. Anim. Prod. 11, 107.Google Scholar
Phillips, R. (1946). Nature, Lond., 158, 202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, O. E., Fitch, J. B. & Cave, H. W. (1924). Res. Bull. Kansas Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 233.Google Scholar
Reid, J. T., Trimberger, G. W., Asdell, S. A. & Turk, K. L. (1951). J. Dairy Sci. 34, P 87, 510.Google Scholar
Rollins, W. C. & Guilbert, H. R. (1954). J. Anim. Sci. 13, 517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheehy, E. J. (1948). J. Minist. Agric. 55, 189.Google Scholar
Steensburg, V. (1947). Brit. J. Nutr. 1, 139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swett, W. W. (1943). U.S.A. Yearbook of Agric.Google Scholar
Thom, V. (1951). Unpublished Thesis, Reading University.Google Scholar
Wallace, H. D., Loosli, J. K. & Turk, K. L. (1951). J. Dairy Sci. 34, 256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar