Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:33:55.443Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Variation in growth and efficiency in twin cattle with live weight and food intake controlled

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

ST C. S. Taylor  and
G. B. Young
ST C. S. Taylor
Affiliation:
A.R.C. Animal Breeding Research Organization, Edinburgh, 9
G. B. Young
Affiliation:
A.R.C. Animal Breeding Research Organization, Edinburgh, 9
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In an experiment to investigate the interrelationships of genetics and nutrition in the growth of cattle up to 2 years of age, five monozygotic and six dizygotic Ayrshire twin heifers were reared under close nutritional control on an all cubed diet.

Two control systems were used. Some animals were fed similar amounts of food, and differences in growth rate and efficiency examined while others were made to grow alike and differences in food consumption and efficiency examined. Overall, similarly fed animals had similar growth rates and efficiencies and similarly grown animals similar food intakes and efficiencies. Variation in growth, food consumption and efficiency was much less than in an ad lib. feeding system.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 66 , Issue 1 , February 1966 , pp. 67 - 85
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1966

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

Bonnier, G. & Hansson, A. (1948). Heredity, 2, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonnier, G., Hansson, A. & Skjervold, H. (1948). Acta agric. suec. 3, 3.Google Scholar
Brody, S. (1945). Bioenergetics and Growth. New York: Reinhold Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
Donald, H. P. (1953). J. Dairy Res. 20, 355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falconer, D. S. (1952). Amer. Nat. 86, 293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falconer, D. S. (1960). Genet. Res. 1, 91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, R. M., Swiger, L. A., Chambers, D. & Gregory, K. E. (1963). J. Anim. Sci. 22, 486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, F. W. (1963). Genet. Res. 4, 74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sang, J. H. (1962). Genet. Res. 3, 90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, St C. S. & Young, G. B. (1962). J. Agric. Sci. 59, 295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, St C. S. & Young, G. B. (1964). J. Agric. Sci. 62, 225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winchester, C. F. (1953). Tech. Bull no. 1071, U.S. Dept. Agric, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Winchester, C. F. & Howe, P. E. (1955). Tech. Bull. no. 1108, U.S. Dept. Agric, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar