Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:04:31.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

β-Globulin polymorphism and economic factors in dairy cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

G. C. Ashton
G. C. Ashton
Affiliation:
The Animal Health Trust, Farm Livestock Research Station, Stock, Essex
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The serum β-globulin phenotype of 141 bulls located at Cattle Breeding Centres in England and Wales was determined by starch-gel electrophoresis.

2. The distribution of the contemporary comparison values of these bulls with respect to β-globulin type was investigated. The great majority of the bulls were βAA, βAD, or βDD with very few βAE and βDE and no βEE types.

3. The contemporary comparison values for 130 bulls of the three types βAA, βAD and βDD each fell into a normal distribution. The mean and its standard error and the standard deviation of the mean and its standard error were calculated for each of the three curves. The mean contemporary comparison value for the βAA bulls was + 12·2 ± 5·4 gal., for the βAD bulls + 26·8 ± 5·4 gal., and for the βDD bulls + 38·2 ± 5·5 gal. The βAA and βDD means were significantly different (P < 0·01).

4. The pooled contemporary comparison values of the βAA, βAD and βDD bulls did not give a normal distribution curve, neither did the contemporary comparison values for a sample of 1028 bulls quoted by the Milk Marketing Board. However, when the contemporary comparison values of the βAA, βAD and βDD groups were superimposed around the same mean, the ensuing distribution was normal.

5. It is concluded that the β-globulin locus is concerned in the genetic control of milk yield. The estimated mean genetic value of βD over βA is approximately + 50 gal. This is about one-sixth of the total genetic variation in milk yield in the major milk breeds.

6. The distribution of butterfat percentages with respect to β-globulin phenotype in four Ayrshire and one Friesian herds was investigated. No difference between the mean first lactation butterfat percentage of the βAA, βAD, and βDD cows in each herd was found. There was an indication (not significant) that the mean butterfat percentage of the βAE and βDE cows in three of the four Ayrshire herds studied was higher than the mean of the other groups.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 54 , Issue 3 , June 1960 , pp. 321 - 328
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1960

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

Aschaffenburg, R. & Drewry, J. (1955). Nature, Lond., 176, 218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aschaffenburg, R. & Drewry, J. (1957). Nature, Lond., 180, 376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashton, G. C. (1957). Nature, Lond., 180, 917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashton, G. C. (1958 a). Nature, Lond., 182, 370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashton, G. C. (1958 b). Nature, Lond., 182, 65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashton, G. C. (1958 c). Nature, Lond., 182, 193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashton, G. C. (1959). Nature, Lond., 183, 404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bangham, A. D. (1957). Nature, Lond., 179, 467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blumberg, B. S. & Tombs, M. P. (1958). Nature, Lond., 181, 683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1928). Statistical Methods for Research Workers, 2nd ed.Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. & Yates, F. (1953). Statistical Tables for Biological, Agricultural and Medical Research, 4th ed.Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Johanson, & Robertson, A., I. (1952). Brit. Soc. Anim. Prod. Proc. p. 79.Google Scholar
Milk Marketing Board (1954). Production Division Report, No. 4, 16.Google Scholar
Milk Marketing Board (1956). The Development and Use of the Contemporary Heifer Comparison in Interpreting Progeny Lactation Records. Internal Report, no. X, 166.Google Scholar
Rendel, J. (1958). Ada Agric. Scand. 8, 40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rendel, J. M., Robertson, A., Asker, A. A., Khiskin, S. S. & Ragab, M. T. (1957). J. Agric. Sci. 48, 426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, A. & Rendel, J. M. (1954). J. Agric. Sci. 44, 184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smithies, O. (1955). Biochem. J. 61, 629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smithies, O. & Hickman, C. G. (1958). Genetics, 43, 374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. (1946). Statistical Methods, 4th ed.Ames, Iowa: Iowa State College Press.Google ScholarPubMed