Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:41:54.279Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of liveweight at calving on milk production in Friesian heifers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

B. Ridler ,
W. H. Broster  and
D. R. Westgarth
B. Ridler
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading
W. H. Broster
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading
D. R. Westgarth
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Records of 81 heifers, daughters of 6 bulls, were examined to determine the regressions of milk yield, corrected for lactation length, on initial liveweight and age at calving.

Age was found to have no significant effect and was discarded in the final analysis.

The regression equations were similar for the different groups of half-sibs, except for one group whose members had not been fed according to milk yield. After removal of this group, a highly significant positive relationship between lactation yield and liveweight at calving was found ‘within bull groups’. The mean values of groups of halfsibs did not show this relationship, and significant differences in milk yield still persisted between groups after adjustment for liveweight differences.

It was concluded that herd improvement by choosing heifers solely on the basis of liveweight shortly after calving appears unlikely to be effective unless the sire's potential is known and the feeding during lactation takes into account the greater maintenance requirements of heavier animals.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , June 1965 , pp. 135 - 141
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1965

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

Bailey, G. L. (1952). J. Dairy Res. 19, 89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, G. L. & Broster, W. H. (1954). J. Dairy Res. 21, 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, G. L., Broster, W. H., Brown, B. B. & Foot, A. S. (1954). J. Dairy Res. 21, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brody, S. (1942). Science, 95, 485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broster, W. H. (1962). Rep. natn. Inst. Res. Dairy, p. 45.Google Scholar
Broster, W. H., Ridler, B. & Foot, A. S. (1958). J. Dairy Res. 25, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broster, W. H., Tuck, V. J. & Balch, C. C. (1964). J. agric. Sci., Camb., 63, 51.Google Scholar
Clark, R. D. (1960). Diss. Abstr. 21, 1310.Google Scholar
Clark, R. D. & Touchberry, R. W. (1962). J. Dairy Sci. 45, 1500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erb, R. E. (1962). J. Dairy Sci. 45, 699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaines, W. L. (1928). Bull. Ill. agric. Exp. Stn, no. 308.Google Scholar
Johannson, I. (1954). Z. Tierzücht. ZüchtBiol. 63, 105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleiber, M. (1947). Physiol. Rev. 27, 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, I. L., Robertson, A. & Gjelstad, B. (1957). J. Dairy Res. 24, 135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milk Marketing Board (1960). Milk Prodr. 7, 12.Google Scholar
Reid, J. T., Loosli, J. K., Trimberger, G. W., Turk, K. L., Asdell, S. A. & Smith, S. E. (1964). Bull. Cornell Univ. agric. Exp. Stn, no. 987.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. (1956). Statistical Methods. Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Woodman, H. E. (1957). Bull. Minist. Agric. Fish Fd., Lond. no. 48.Google Scholar